發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-06-14 20:11

【摘要】：HWD(Heavy Weight Deflectometer)彎沉測(cè)試是機(jī)場(chǎng)道面結(jié)構(gòu)性能測(cè)試與分析的最重要技術(shù)手段。由于HWD測(cè)試技術(shù)引入我國(guó)尤其是民航機(jī)場(chǎng)領(lǐng)域的歷史很短,所以對(duì)其測(cè)試的理論與方法、測(cè)試結(jié)果的可靠性等問(wèn)題缺乏系統(tǒng)研究,這些問(wèn)題也一直是工程及學(xué)術(shù)界研究的熱點(diǎn)�；谏鲜霰尘�,本論文開(kāi)展了如下工作:(1)對(duì)彎沉盆面積指數(shù)法進(jìn)行了理論分析、試驗(yàn)驗(yàn)證并對(duì)該方法進(jìn)行了修正。采用美國(guó)NAPTF(National Airport Pavement Test Facility)模型道面彎沉測(cè)試數(shù)據(jù),將目前我國(guó)民航機(jī)場(chǎng)道面采用的彎沉盆面積指數(shù)法與國(guó)際上主要的4種類似方法進(jìn)行了對(duì)比分析,結(jié)果表明我國(guó)目前采用的彎沉盆面積指數(shù)法分析的基頂模量值最大高出實(shí)際值35%。針對(duì)彎沉盆面積指數(shù)wA與相對(duì)剛度半徑l、相對(duì)剛度半徑l與荷載中心處彎沉系數(shù)lw)(的理論關(guān)系存在矛盾、公式形式不合理等問(wèn)題,基于彈性地基板理論對(duì)彎沉盆面積指數(shù)wA與相對(duì)剛度半徑l、相對(duì)剛度半徑l與荷載中心處彎沉系數(shù)lw)(之間的理論關(guān)系進(jìn)行了數(shù)值計(jì)算和分析,修正了目前的我國(guó)經(jīng)驗(yàn)公式。結(jié)果表明,修正后的彎沉盆面積指數(shù)法分析的基頂模量值最大誤差為16.7%。(2)對(duì)HWD測(cè)試方法的可靠性進(jìn)行了試驗(yàn)驗(yàn)證與分析。采用美國(guó)機(jī)場(chǎng)試驗(yàn)中心NAPTF公布的模型道面彎沉測(cè)試數(shù)據(jù),對(duì)不同彎沉測(cè)試設(shè)備測(cè)試成果之間的差異范圍進(jìn)行了分析。主要包括沖擊勁度模量ISM、接縫傳荷能力、基層頂面反應(yīng)模量三個(gè)方面,其波動(dòng)范圍分別為-13.7%~24.5%、-28.5%~10.9%、-44.5%~62%。然后結(jié)合實(shí)際機(jī)場(chǎng)道面彎沉測(cè)試數(shù)據(jù),對(duì)導(dǎo)致彎沉測(cè)試的誤差進(jìn)行了系統(tǒng)分析,得到誤差對(duì)沖擊勁度模量ISM、接縫傳荷能力、基層頂面反應(yīng)模量三個(gè)方面的波動(dòng)范圍影響分別為-8.5%~33.9%、-21.8%~20.1%、-54.2%~51.2%。根據(jù)這兩大因素對(duì)測(cè)試結(jié)果的影響,制定了均勻性定量評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)。(3)為解決板邊彎矩影響圖法無(wú)法適用B777及A380系列等大型寬體客機(jī)的缺點(diǎn),同時(shí)保持適合反復(fù)試算、原理簡(jiǎn)單、便于工程人員接受等優(yōu)點(diǎn),采用有限元方法分析了飛機(jī)總重量G、相對(duì)剛度半徑l與板邊彎矩的相關(guān)關(guān)系,在此基礎(chǔ)上繪制了常見(jiàn)民航飛機(jī)的板邊彎矩計(jì)算曲線。
[Abstract]:HWD (Heavy Weight Deflectometer) deflection test is the most important technical means to test and analyze the structural performance of airport pavement. Due to the short history of the introduction of HWD testing technology into China, especially in the field of civil aviation airports, there is a lack of systematic research on the theory and method of HWD testing and the reliability of test results, which have always been the focus of engineering and academic research. Based on the above background, the following work has been carried out in this paper: (1) the area index method of curved basin is analyzed theoretically, verified by experiments and modified. Based on the deflection test data of NAPTF (National Airport Pavement Test Facility) model in the United States, the bending basin area index method used at present in civil aviation airports in China is compared with four similar methods in the world. The results show that the base top modulus value analyzed by the bending basin area index method currently used in China is 35% higher than the actual value. In view of the contradiction between the bending basin area index wA and the relative stiffness radius l, the relative stiffness radius l and the bending settlement coefficient lw) (at the center of the load, and the unreasonable formula, the theoretical relationship between the bending basin area index wA and the relative stiffness radius l, the relative stiffness radius l and the deflection coefficient lw) (at the center of the load is calculated and analyzed based on the elastic foundation plate theory. The current empirical formula of our country has been revised. The results show that the maximum error of the base top modulus value of the modified deflection basin area index method is 16.7%. (2) the reliability of the HWD test method is verified and analyzed by experiments. Based on the deflection test data of model pavement published by NAPTF, the difference range of test results of different deflection test equipment is analyzed. The fluctuation ranges of impact stiffness modulus ISM, joint load transfer capacity and base top response modulus are-13.7% 24.5%, 28.5% 10.9% and 44.5% 62%, respectively. Then, combined with the actual airport pavement deflection test data, the error leading to the deflection test is systematically analyzed, and the influence of the error on the impact stiffness modulus ISM, joint load transfer capacity is obtained. The influence of the error on the impact stiffness modulus ISM, joint load transfer capacity is-8.5% 33.9%, 鈮，

本文編號(hào)：2499654