本文關(guān)鍵詞：瀝青路面結(jié)構(gòu)的模量取值研究　出處：《武漢工程大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 實(shí)測輪載接地壓力 三維有限元 豎向應(yīng)力脈沖波形 荷載作用時(shí)間 動(dòng)態(tài)模量 動(dòng)態(tài)回彈模量 休息時(shí)間

【摘要】：現(xiàn)行的路面結(jié)構(gòu)設(shè)計(jì)方法中，瀝青路面結(jié)構(gòu)分析計(jì)算過程中的重要參數(shù)是瀝青混合料的勁度，勁度可以采用靜態(tài)蠕變模量或動(dòng)態(tài)模量表示。然而，采用靜態(tài)蠕變模量或動(dòng)態(tài)模量表示瀝青路面行車狀態(tài)下的勁度模量并不全面。已有的研究成果表明，，使用動(dòng)態(tài)回彈模量表征瀝青路面結(jié)構(gòu)的勁度模量顯得更為合理。動(dòng)態(tài)模量和動(dòng)態(tài)回彈模量均可以通過實(shí)驗(yàn)的方法獲得，但室內(nèi)試驗(yàn)準(zhǔn)確的獲取動(dòng)態(tài)模量需要施加準(zhǔn)確的波形力，如何獲取準(zhǔn)確的實(shí)驗(yàn)室加載波形便是首要解決的問題。 動(dòng)態(tài)模量與動(dòng)態(tài)回彈模量的室內(nèi)實(shí)驗(yàn)獲取方法的主要差別在于：動(dòng)態(tài)模量施加連續(xù)周期荷載，周期間不考慮休息時(shí)間；而動(dòng)態(tài)回彈模量施加的荷載周期之間存在休息時(shí)間。不管是動(dòng)態(tài)模量試驗(yàn)還是動(dòng)態(tài)回彈模量試驗(yàn)，加載波形都是車輛荷載作用下瀝青路面結(jié)構(gòu)中瀝青層內(nèi)的應(yīng)力脈沖波形的擬合。目前，AASHTO試驗(yàn)方法中動(dòng)態(tài)模量試驗(yàn)是通過采用半正弦波加載方式獲取，這與實(shí)際情況有一定的偏差。行車荷載下不同深度處的豎向應(yīng)力脈沖波形并不相同，波長也不相同。其準(zhǔn)確性依賴于合理的輪胎接地壓力和計(jì)算模型。 本文首先分別利用ANSYS和BISAR建立的計(jì)算模型，對(duì)比路面結(jié)構(gòu)內(nèi)瀝青層的豎向應(yīng)力，驗(yàn)證ANSYS所建立的三維有限元計(jì)算模型的可靠性；其次，利用三維有限元計(jì)算工具，結(jié)合實(shí)測的豎向輪胎-路面接地壓力并考慮水平作用力，考慮瀝青路面結(jié)構(gòu)層不同的模量和厚度組合，計(jì)算瀝青路面結(jié)構(gòu)層不同深度處的豎向應(yīng)力，得到不同位置的豎向應(yīng)力脈沖波形，推導(dǎo)相應(yīng)的波長和荷載作用時(shí)間的計(jì)算公式。依據(jù)上述分析得到的瀝青路面結(jié)構(gòu)層不同深度處的豎向應(yīng)力脈沖波形，利用不同的函數(shù)形式，對(duì)這些應(yīng)力脈沖波形進(jìn)行擬合。最后，結(jié)合已有的加載周期休息時(shí)間，進(jìn)行室內(nèi)試驗(yàn)，比較動(dòng)態(tài)模量和動(dòng)態(tài)回彈模量的差異。
[Abstract]:In the current design method of pavement structure, the stiffness of asphalt mixture can be expressed as static creep modulus or dynamic modulus, which is an important parameter in the analysis and calculation of asphalt pavement structure. Using static creep modulus or dynamic modulus to express the stiffness modulus of asphalt pavement is not comprehensive. It is more reasonable to use dynamic elastic modulus to characterize the stiffness modulus of asphalt pavement structure. Both dynamic modulus and dynamic modulus of resilience can be obtained by experimental method. However, it is necessary to apply accurate waveform force to obtain dynamic modulus accurately in laboratory test, and how to obtain accurate loading waveform in laboratory is the first problem to be solved. The main difference between the dynamic modulus and the dynamic elastic modulus is that the dynamic modulus exerts continuous periodic load, and the rest time is not considered during the week; However, there is a rest time between the load periods under dynamic modulus of springback, whether it is dynamic modulus test or dynamic springback modulus test. The loading waveform is the fitting of the stress pulse waveform in the asphalt pavement structure under the vehicle load. The dynamic modulus test in AASHTO test method is obtained by semi-sine wave loading, which is different from the actual situation. The vertical stress pulse waveform at different depth is not the same. The accuracy depends on reasonable tire grounding pressure and calculation model. In this paper, the calculation models established by ANSYS and BISAR are used to compare the vertical stress of asphalt layer in pavement structure, and the reliability of the three-dimensional finite element model established by ANSYS is verified. Secondly, using three-dimensional finite element calculation tool, combined with the measured vertical tire-road ground pressure and considering the horizontal force, considering the asphalt pavement structure layer of different modulus and thickness combination. The vertical stress at different depth of asphalt pavement structure layer is calculated and the pulse waveform of vertical stress is obtained at different positions. According to the above analysis, the vertical stress pulse waveforms at different depths of asphalt pavement layer are obtained, and different function forms are used. These stress pulse waveforms are fitted. Finally, the difference between dynamic modulus and dynamic modulus of springback is compared by indoor test combined with the rest time of the existing loading cycle.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：武漢工程大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：U416.217

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 趙延慶;潘友強(qiáng);黃榮華;;基于動(dòng)態(tài)模量的瀝青路面力學(xué)響應(yīng)分析[J];重慶交通大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(自然科學(xué)版);2008年01期

2 羊明;胡章立;;瀝青混合料動(dòng)態(tài)模量影響因素探討[J];城市道橋與防洪;2009年04期

3 楊屹東;瀝青路面結(jié)構(gòu)動(dòng)態(tài)模量試驗(yàn)研究[J];公路;2002年02期

4 趙延慶;吳劍;文健;;瀝青混合料動(dòng)態(tài)模量及其主曲線的確定與分析[J];公路;2006年08期

5 胡小弟,孫立軍;不同車型非均布輪載作用力對(duì)瀝青路面結(jié)構(gòu)應(yīng)力影響的三維有限元分析[J];公路交通科技;2003年01期

6 胡小弟,孫立軍;輕型貨車輪胎接地壓力分布實(shí)測[J];公路交通科技;2005年08期

7 胡霞光;李德超;田莉;;瀝青混合料動(dòng)態(tài)模量研究進(jìn)展[J];中外公路;2007年01期

8 吳金榮;;瀝青混合料動(dòng)靜回彈模量的試驗(yàn)研究[J];路基工程;2009年02期

本文編號(hào)：1405466