本文選題：實(shí)體混凝土強(qiáng)度 + 摻合料��； 參考：《哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：為進(jìn)一步加強(qiáng)對(duì)建筑工程質(zhì)量的監(jiān)督和管理，基于“驗(yàn)評(píng)分離、強(qiáng)化驗(yàn)收、完善手段、過(guò)程控制”的指導(dǎo)原則，諸多機(jī)構(gòu)開(kāi)展專題研究、工程試點(diǎn)應(yīng)用以及廣泛的實(shí)踐調(diào)查，本試驗(yàn)在哈爾濱、海南、浙江、北京等地以相同標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對(duì)此展開(kāi)探索和研究。 由于“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)養(yǎng)護(hù)試件”和實(shí)際結(jié)構(gòu)構(gòu)件的成型方式、尺寸大小、養(yǎng)護(hù)條件（溫、濕度）等明顯不同，“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)養(yǎng)護(hù)試件強(qiáng)度”實(shí)為一種“材料強(qiáng)度”，而不是“結(jié)構(gòu)強(qiáng)度”，不能確切地代表結(jié)構(gòu)實(shí)體混凝土的實(shí)際質(zhì)量情況。因此，結(jié)構(gòu)實(shí)體混凝土強(qiáng)度越來(lái)越受到人們重視，它是工程施工質(zhì)量驗(yàn)收、鑒定加固、事故評(píng)估分析等方面重要參考指標(biāo)之一。然而，工程現(xiàn)場(chǎng)對(duì)混凝土強(qiáng)度的檢測(cè)多數(shù)僅采用單一的強(qiáng)度測(cè)定方法，并且采用不同方法所得出的結(jié)論不盡相同，，不能很好地適應(yīng)工程質(zhì)量驗(yàn)收標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的要求。特別是礦物摻合料混凝土強(qiáng)度的檢測(cè)與評(píng)定研究較少，科學(xué)、可靠地評(píng)定結(jié)構(gòu)實(shí)體混凝土強(qiáng)度對(duì)完善工程質(zhì)量驗(yàn)收理論具有重要意義。為此，本試驗(yàn)對(duì)C30、C40、C50、C60四種強(qiáng)度等級(jí)的礦物摻合料混凝土（包括單摻粉煤灰混凝土、復(fù)摻粉煤灰和礦渣混凝土）進(jìn)行研究，分析不同齡期下“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)養(yǎng)護(hù)試件強(qiáng)度”、“同條件養(yǎng)護(hù)試件強(qiáng)度”以及用“回彈法”與“鉆芯法”分別獲得的結(jié)構(gòu)混凝土“推定強(qiáng)度”之間的相互關(guān)系；同時(shí)，分析了混凝土各類強(qiáng)度隨等效齡期的增長(zhǎng)規(guī)律。 試驗(yàn)表明，單摻粉煤灰混凝土、復(fù)摻粉煤灰和礦渣混凝土的強(qiáng)度發(fā)展規(guī)律相近；在等效齡期為28d（成熟度為600oC d）時(shí)，摻合料混凝土的“同條件養(yǎng)護(hù)試件強(qiáng)度”、“結(jié)構(gòu)混凝土回彈強(qiáng)度”和“結(jié)構(gòu)混凝土取芯強(qiáng)度”均達(dá)不到28d的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)養(yǎng)護(hù)試件強(qiáng)度；對(duì)于摻合料混凝土，“同條件養(yǎng)護(hù)試件強(qiáng)度”可以代表“結(jié)構(gòu)混凝取芯強(qiáng)度”來(lái)進(jìn)行結(jié)構(gòu)實(shí)體混凝土強(qiáng)度檢驗(yàn)；還顯示，直徑為50mm、75mm、100mm的混凝土芯樣強(qiáng)度基本相同。 同時(shí)，摻合料混凝土的各類檢測(cè)強(qiáng)度隨齡期的變化呈對(duì)數(shù)增長(zhǎng)趨勢(shì)，并指出，為了達(dá)到規(guī)范對(duì)普通混凝土強(qiáng)度檢驗(yàn)要求的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，結(jié)構(gòu)實(shí)體摻合料混凝土強(qiáng)度的檢測(cè)齡期應(yīng)適當(dāng)延長(zhǎng)；或者，在保證與普通混凝土強(qiáng)度檢驗(yàn)齡期相同時(shí)，降低摻合料混凝土強(qiáng)度檢測(cè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。通過(guò)把因地域差異而產(chǎn)生的不同試驗(yàn)結(jié)果綜合分析，為新修訂的國(guó)家標(biāo)準(zhǔn)《混凝土結(jié)構(gòu)工程施工質(zhì)量驗(yàn)收規(guī)范》(GB50204-2002)提供依據(jù)。
[Abstract]:In order to further strengthen the supervision and management of construction engineering quality, based on the guiding principles of "score separation, strengthen acceptance, perfect means, process control", many institutions carry out special research, project pilot application and extensive practical investigation. This test was carried out in Harbin, Hainan, Zhejiang, Beijing and other places with the same standards. Due to the obvious differences in the molding methods, dimensions, curing conditions (temperature, humidity) between the "standard curing specimens" and the actual structural members, "strength of standard curing specimen" is actually a kind of "material strength" rather than "structural strength", which can not represent the actual quality of concrete. Therefore, more and more attention has been paid to the strength of structural concrete, which is one of the important reference indexes in engineering construction quality acceptance, appraisal and reinforcement, accident assessment and analysis, etc. However, most of the concrete strength tests in the engineering field only use a single strength measurement method, and the conclusions obtained by different methods are different, which can not meet the requirements of engineering quality acceptance standards. Especially, the research on the testing and evaluation of concrete strength with mineral admixtures is less. It is of great significance to evaluate the strength of concrete with solid structure scientifically and reliably in order to improve the acceptance theory of engineering quality. In this paper, four kinds of mineral admixture concrete (single fly ash concrete, mixed fly ash concrete and slag concrete) with four strength grades, C30, C40, C50 and C60, are studied, and the "strength of standard curing specimen" at different ages is analyzed. The relationship between the strength of the specimen under the same condition and the constructive strength of the structural concrete obtained by the springback method and the drill core method respectively; at the same time, The increasing law of concrete strength with equivalent age is analyzed. The test results show that the strength development law of concrete with fly ash is similar to that of slag concrete, and when the equivalent age is 28 days (maturity is 600oC d), The strength of "curing specimen under the same condition", "rebound strength of structural concrete" and "coring strength of structural concrete" of admixture concrete are not up to the standard curing strength of 28 days. "strength of the specimen under the same condition" can be used to test the strength of solid concrete on behalf of "core strength of structure coagulation", and it is also shown that the strength of concrete core sample with diameter of 50mm to 75mm or 100mm is basically the same. At the same time, The testing strength of admixture concrete has a logarithmic increasing trend with age. It is pointed out that in order to meet the standard of normal concrete strength test, the testing age of structural concrete admixture strength should be extended properly. Or, at the same time as the normal concrete strength test age, reduce the admixture concrete strength detection standard. Through the comprehensive analysis of the different test results due to the regional differences, this paper provides the basis for the newly revised national standard < Code for acceptance of Construction quality of concrete structure Engineering > GB50204-2002).
【學(xué)位授予單位】：哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：TU528

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 包向鐘;;鉆芯修正回彈法檢測(cè)混凝土強(qiáng)度實(shí)踐[J];福建建設(shè)科技;2011年01期

2 白生翔,程志軍;同條件養(yǎng)護(hù)混凝土試件抗壓強(qiáng)度的價(jià)值[J];工程質(zhì)量;2003年01期

3 劉輝;;小直徑混凝土芯樣抗壓強(qiáng)度應(yīng)用性研究[J];工程質(zhì)量;2011年10期

4 楊飛渡;;混凝土同條件養(yǎng)護(hù)試件留置方案之探討[J];福建建材;2006年03期

5 傅敏紅;賀慧良;柴成林;;關(guān)于用同條件養(yǎng)護(hù)試件檢驗(yàn)結(jié)構(gòu)實(shí)體強(qiáng)度可行性的探討[J];工程質(zhì)量;2006年11期

6 劉剛;徐有鄰;佟勝寶;莊麗輝;陳景仁;;寒冷地區(qū)冬期施工混凝土實(shí)體強(qiáng)度的驗(yàn)收[J];混凝土;2007年10期

7 徐有鄰;鞏耀娜;;汶川震害中的結(jié)構(gòu)混凝土問(wèn)題[J];混凝土;2009年10期

8 陳海彬;李凱;盧建勇;;不同直徑混凝土芯樣抗壓強(qiáng)度的研究[J];混凝土;2013年12期

9 梁娟;王澤民;韓永峰;;淺談?dòng)糜诨炷两Y(jié)構(gòu)實(shí)體強(qiáng)度檢驗(yàn)的同條件養(yǎng)護(hù)試件[J];河南水利;2006年08期

10 龔景齊;;應(yīng)用小芯樣強(qiáng)度評(píng)估混凝土強(qiáng)度[J];山西建筑;1993年02期

本文編號(hào)：1999342