本文選題：承載能力 + 評(píng)定��； 參考：《長(zhǎng)沙理工大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：目前世界上最常用的評(píng)定方法為基于結(jié)構(gòu)分析的橋梁承載力評(píng)定法,且其評(píng)定結(jié)果較為準(zhǔn)確且評(píng)定成本相對(duì)較低。同時(shí),由于車(chē)輛超載及長(zhǎng)期服役引起的老化等原因,不少橋梁結(jié)構(gòu)出現(xiàn)病害,破損,甚至發(fā)生較嚴(yán)重的質(zhì)量事故,公路橋梁的承載能力鑒定及安全問(wèn)題不容忽視。根據(jù)1988年中國(guó)交通運(yùn)輸部門(mén)頒布的《公路舊橋承載能力評(píng)定方法》(試行)闡述了關(guān)于舊橋承載力評(píng)定推薦方法,該法被稱(chēng)為試行法并曾作為我國(guó)橋梁承載力評(píng)定規(guī)范,指導(dǎo)我國(guó)的橋梁承載力評(píng)估工作。而后,隨著橋梁檢測(cè)技術(shù)的不斷發(fā)展,交通部又頒布了《公路橋梁承載能力檢測(cè)評(píng)定規(guī)程》作為新的公路舊橋評(píng)估規(guī)范法。1994年,美國(guó)AASHTO《橋梁狀況評(píng)估手冊(cè)》提出了基于荷載因子設(shè)計(jì)法的評(píng)定方法,而后又與2011年出版了《橋梁評(píng)估手冊(cè)》中,提出了荷載抗力系數(shù)評(píng)估法用于美國(guó)各州的橋梁評(píng)定。本文根據(jù)研究中國(guó)和美國(guó)兩國(guó)的橋梁承載能力評(píng)定理論,通過(guò)比較其評(píng)定方法在評(píng)定程序步驟、評(píng)定公式表達(dá)、評(píng)定參數(shù)的取值及橋梁評(píng)定分級(jí)等方面的異同,并對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)三座實(shí)橋進(jìn)行檢測(cè)、數(shù)據(jù)采集及理論分析,并指出中美橋梁承載能力評(píng)定結(jié)果的異同。將中國(guó)規(guī)范中的試行法與JJTG法對(duì)比研究表明：后者的橋梁承載能力評(píng)定數(shù)值總體上要小于前者,說(shuō)明新的規(guī)程將有利于橋梁安全保證,但亦將增加維修養(yǎng)護(hù)成本。將美國(guó)的LRFR和LFR方法對(duì)比研究表明,LRFR評(píng)定法比LFR法橋梁評(píng)價(jià)結(jié)果數(shù)值,下降幅度在17%-44%之間。美國(guó)橋梁承載力評(píng)價(jià)趨勢(shì)與中國(guó)一致,亦將更加追求橋梁的安全性。采用中國(guó)JTG法和美國(guó)LRFR規(guī)范方法計(jì)算的橋梁承載能力評(píng)定結(jié)果較為吻合,但比較而言,中國(guó)方法估算的橋梁承載能力值較美國(guó)法偏高,美國(guó)法橋梁評(píng)定有著更為嚴(yán)格的評(píng)估過(guò)程。最后,本文對(duì)中美橋梁評(píng)估理論方法和應(yīng)用研究方面存在的問(wèn)題和有待進(jìn)一步深入研究方向進(jìn)行幾點(diǎn)分析。
[Abstract]:At present, the most commonly used assessment method in the world is the bridge bearing capacity assessment method based on structural analysis, and its evaluation results are relatively accurate and the evaluation cost is relatively low. At the same time, due to the aging caused by vehicle overload and long-term service, many bridge structures appear diseases, breakage, and even serious quality accidents, so the identification of the bearing capacity and safety problems of highway bridges should not be ignored. According to the "method for evaluating the bearing capacity of Old Highway Bridges" promulgated by China's Communications and Transportation Department in 1988 (for trial implementation), this paper expounds the recommended method for evaluating the bearing capacity of old bridges. This method is called the trial method and was used as the criterion for the assessment of the bearing capacity of bridges in China. To guide the assessment of bridge bearing capacity in China. Then, with the continuous development of bridge detection technology, the Ministry of Communications issued the "Highway Bridge bearing capacity Test and Evaluation procedures" as a new highway old bridge evaluation code. 1994, The evaluation method based on load factor design method was proposed by AASHTO in USA, and the load resistance coefficient evaluation method was put forward in the "Bridge Evaluation Manual" published in 2011. Based on the study of the theory of bridge bearing capacity assessment in China and the United States, this paper compares the differences and similarities of the evaluation methods in the evaluation procedure, the expression of the evaluation formula, the value of the evaluation parameters and the bridge evaluation classification. Three real bridges in China are tested, data collected and analyzed theoretically, and the similarities and differences of the evaluation results of bridge bearing capacity between China and America are pointed out. The comparison between the trial method in Chinese code and the JJTG method shows that the evaluation value of bridge bearing capacity of the latter is generally smaller than that of the former, indicating that the new regulation will be beneficial to the bridge safety assurance, but will also increase the maintenance and maintenance cost. A comparative study of LRFR and LFR methods in the United States shows that the value of LFR bridge evaluation method decreases by between 17% and 44%. The evaluation trend of bridge bearing capacity in the United States is consistent with that in China, and the safety of bridges will be pursued more. The evaluation results of the bridge bearing capacity calculated by the Chinese JTG method and the American LRFR code method are in good agreement, but compared with the American method, the bridge bearing capacity estimated by the Chinese method is higher than that of the American method. There is a more rigorous assessment process for bridge evaluation in the United States. Finally, this paper analyzes the problems in the theoretical methods and applied research of bridge evaluation in China and America, and the further research direction.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：長(zhǎng)沙理工大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：U446

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 周敉,張s，

本文編號(hào)：1819980