梁式桥的铺装及护栏对静载试验校验系数的影响分析

发布时间：2018-02-06 06:29

本文关键词： 空心板 T梁桥校验系数桥面铺装防撞护栏　出处：《重庆交通大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：本文以跨径20m的预应力空心板桥和跨径35m的预应力T梁桥为依托,运用Midas有限元软件建立梁格模型进行结构计算,通过与荷载试验结果的对比分析,研究桥面铺装和防撞护栏对上述两类梁桥静载试验校验系数的影响。分别建立了以下四个模型:模型一考虑10cm的混凝土现浇层参与结构受力,模型二把铺装层作为外加荷载施加,模型三考虑防撞护栏参与结构受力,模型四把防撞护栏作为外加荷载施加模拟。通过实测数据和计算结果的对比分析,得出了以下主要结论:(1)对跨径20m桥宽8m的6块预应力空心板桥,模型一的应变校验系数范围为0.72~0.78,挠度校验系数范围为0.91~0.96,计算值较模型二和模型四更接近实测值,更能反应桥梁的实际受力状况,而模型三的部分梁板的校验系数大于1.0,因此,模型一的建模方式更合理。(2)对跨径35m桥宽8m的4片预应力T梁桥,模型一的应变校验系数范围为0.74~0.91,挠度校验系数范围为0.82~0.94,计算值较模型二和模型四更接近实测值,更能反应桥梁的实际受力状况,而模型三的部分梁板的校验系数大于1.0,因此,模型一的建模方式更合理。(3)通过与7块板桥宽9.25m及8块板桥宽10.5m的空心板桥的对比分析发现,这两个桥宽的校验系数的变化趋势与6块板桥宽8m基本一致。(4)通过与5片梁桥宽10.06m及6片梁桥宽12.12m的T梁桥的对比分析发现,这两个桥宽的校验系数的变化趋势与4片梁桥宽8m基本一致。(5)考虑防撞护栏全部参与受力的模型三,其挠度和应变的校验系数多数大于1.0,不能采用这种建模方式。
[Abstract]:Based on the prestressed hollow slab bridge with span of 20m and the prestressed T-beam bridge with span of 35m, the structure calculation is carried out by using Midas finite element software. The results are compared with the load test results. This paper studies the influence of deck pavement and collision barrier on the check coefficient of static load test of these two kinds of beam bridges. The following four models are established respectively: model 1. The concrete cast-in-situ layer of 10cm is considered to participate in the structural stress. The second model takes the pavement as the applied load, the third considers the anti-collision barrier to participate in the structural force, and the model four takes the anti-collision barrier as the external load to be simulated. The comparison and analysis of the measured data and the calculated results are carried out. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) for 6 prestressed hollow slab bridges with span 20m bridge width of 8m, the strain check coefficient of model one is 0.72m0.78. The range of deflection check coefficient is 0.91g 0.96. The calculated value is closer to the measured value than the model two and model four, and can reflect the actual force condition of the bridge more effectively. However, the check coefficient of some beams and slabs in model 3 is greater than 1.0, therefore, the modeling method of model one is more reasonable. 2) for 4 prestressed T-beam bridges with a span of 35 m and a width of 8 m. The range of strain check coefficient and deflection check coefficient of model one is 0.74 / 0.91 and the range of deflection check coefficient is 0.82n0.94, which is closer to the measured value than that of model two and model four. It is more able to reflect the actual stress of the bridge, and the check coefficient of some beams and plates of model 3 is greater than 1.0, so. Model 1 is more reasonable. (3) by comparing with 7 slab bridges with 9.25m width and 8 hollow slab bridges with 10.5m width. The change trend of the check coefficient of the two bridges is basically the same as that of the six slab bridges with a width of 8m. 4) through the comparison and analysis of the T-beam bridges with the width of 5 beam bridges 10.06 m and 6 beams bridge width 12.12 m. The change trend of the check coefficient of the two bridges is basically the same as that of the four beam bridges with a width of 8m. (5) the model 3 which takes all the anti-collision guardrail into account, the check coefficients of deflection and strain are mostly greater than 1.0. This method of modeling cannot be used.
【学位授予单位】：重庆交通大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：U446.1

【参考文献】