本文選題：橋梁 + 伸縮裝置��； 參考：《華南理工大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：伸縮裝置作為橋梁結(jié)構(gòu)的重要構(gòu)件之一，主要承受車(chē)輪荷載的沖擊作用，且長(zhǎng)時(shí)間裸露于大氣中，使用環(huán)境極其惡劣，容易發(fā)生破壞且維修更換困難。因此，分析研究伸縮裝置在車(chē)輛疲勞荷載作用下的損傷，對(duì)延長(zhǎng)伸縮裝置的使用壽命及為維修更換提供建議具有一定的實(shí)踐意義。 本文在總結(jié)模數(shù)式伸縮裝置的主要病害為錨固系統(tǒng)和承重體系的疲勞破壞的基礎(chǔ)上，得出車(chē)輛疲勞荷載是導(dǎo)致伸縮裝置損壞的主要原因；以廣東某大橋SD-160模數(shù)式伸縮裝置破壞為例，通過(guò)對(duì)該大橋車(chē)流量調(diào)查，建立了5種不同類型的簡(jiǎn)化車(chē)輛荷載頻值譜；采用ANSYS有限元軟件對(duì)伸縮裝置的中梁鋼進(jìn)行載荷分析，，并估算了錨固區(qū)混凝土、錨固鋼筋與預(yù)埋鋼筋焊接點(diǎn)和中梁鋼三個(gè)部位危險(xiǎn)點(diǎn)的疲勞使用壽命，結(jié)果表明錨固區(qū)混凝土使用壽命為7.7年，最先達(dá)到破壞；中梁鋼在只考慮車(chē)輛載荷作用下的疲勞使用壽命為29.3年，預(yù)埋鋼筋焊接點(diǎn)疲勞使用壽命為10.7年。然后分析了影響伸縮裝置疲勞使用壽命的三個(gè)主要因素，結(jié)果表明，當(dāng)支撐橫梁間距增大時(shí)，中梁鋼的使用壽命減小；錨固區(qū)混凝土強(qiáng)度越大，混凝土本身使用壽命和預(yù)埋鋼筋焊接點(diǎn)使用壽命都隨之增大；當(dāng)用彈性樹(shù)脂混凝土進(jìn)行錨固時(shí)使用壽命約為C50混凝土使用壽命的兩倍，C40鋼纖維混凝土與C50混凝土錨固時(shí)的使用壽命相當(dāng)。對(duì)該大橋SD-160伸縮裝置更換施工方案疲勞損傷分析，估算其使用壽命為6.2年，論文作者提出的建議方案Ⅰ比原施工方案可以延長(zhǎng)中梁鋼焊接點(diǎn)使用壽命1.5年，建議方案Ⅱ使用壽命可達(dá)20.8年，同支撐橫梁間距為1.8m時(shí)中梁鋼危險(xiǎn)點(diǎn)疲勞使用壽命相當(dāng)，研究成果可為類似伸縮裝置更換工程參考借鑒。
[Abstract]:As one of the important components of bridge structure, the telescopic device is mainly subjected to the impact of wheel load, and exposed to the atmosphere for a long time, the environment is extremely bad, easy to damage and difficult to repair and replace. Therefore, it is of practical significance to analyze and study the damage of the telescopic device under the action of vehicle fatigue load to prolong the service life of the telescopic device and to provide advice for the maintenance and replacement of the telescopic device. Based on the conclusion that the main diseases of modular telescopic device are the fatigue failure of anchoring system and load-bearing system, it is concluded that the fatigue load of vehicle is the main cause of the damage of the expansion and expansion device. Taking the failure of SD-160 modulus telescopic device of a Guangdong bridge as an example, five different types of simplified vehicle load frequency spectrum are established by investigating the traffic flow of the bridge, and the load analysis of the middle girder steel of the telescopic device is carried out by using ANSYS finite element software. The fatigue service life of concrete in Anchorage zone, welding point of anchoring steel bar and steel in the middle beam is estimated. The results show that the service life of concrete in Anchorage zone is 7.7 years, and the failure is the first. The fatigue service life of middle beam steel is 29.3 years under the action of vehicle load only, and the fatigue life of welding joint of embedded steel bar is 10.7 years. Then, three main factors affecting fatigue life of the extension device are analyzed. The results show that the service life of the steel decreases with the increase of the spacing of the bracing beam, and the strength of the concrete in the Anchorage zone increases. Both the service life of concrete itself and the service life of welding joint of embedded steel bar increase with it. When anchoring with elastic resin concrete, the service life of C40 steel fiber reinforced concrete is about twice as long as that of C50 concrete, and the service life of C40 steel fiber reinforced concrete is the same as that of C50 concrete. According to the fatigue damage analysis of the replacement construction scheme of SD-160 expansion device of the bridge, the service life of the bridge is estimated to be 6.2 years. The author's proposal I can prolong the service life of the steel welding joint of the middle beam by 1.5 years compared with the original construction plan. It is suggested that the service life of scheme II can be up to 20.8 years, and the fatigue life of the steel dangerous point of the middle beam is equivalent when the distance between the supporting beam and the beam is 1.8 m. The research results can be used for reference in the replacement of similar telescopic devices.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華南理工大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：U443.31

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 鄧揚(yáng);李愛(ài)群;丁幼亮;孫鵬;;基于長(zhǎng)期監(jiān)測(cè)數(shù)據(jù)的大跨橋梁結(jié)構(gòu)伸縮縫損傷識(shí)別[J];東南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(自然科學(xué)版);2011年02期

2 李瑞奇;橋梁伸縮縫加固方法之研究[J];湖南交通科技;2003年02期

3 岳峰;任曉崧;趙金城;溫學(xué)鈞;郝志剛;;公路鋼橋疲勞車(chē)輛荷載研究進(jìn)展[J];建筑鋼結(jié)構(gòu)進(jìn)展;2009年02期

4 楊建宏;萬(wàn)學(xué)儉;裘麗丹;;公路橋梁伸縮裝置病害的成因與防治[J];路基工程;2011年03期

5 張曉東;;RB單元多向變位梳形板橋梁伸縮縫在鶴大公路大洋河橋中的應(yīng)用[J];北方交通;2010年05期

6 趙進(jìn)河,張志聰,李晉文;高速公路橋梁伸縮縫裝置的選型[J];山西交通科技;2003年04期

7 李永強(qiáng),車(chē)惠民;在等幅重復(fù)應(yīng)力作用下混凝土彎曲疲勞性能研究[J];鐵道學(xué)報(bào);1999年02期

8 趙延慶;王國(guó)忠;王志超;;瀝青路面輪跡橫向分布系數(shù)的實(shí)測(cè)與分析[J];同濟(jì)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(自然科學(xué)版);2012年04期

9 吳佩剛,趙光儀,白利明;高強(qiáng)混凝土抗壓疲勞性能研究[J];土木工程學(xué)報(bào);1994年03期

10 童樂(lè)為,沈祖炎,陳忠延;城市道路橋梁的疲勞荷載譜[J];土木工程學(xué)報(bào);1997年05期

本文編號(hào)：1781499