沥青混合料流变次数计算方法研究
DOI:
作者:
作者单位:

哈尔滨工业大学

作者简介:

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

U416

基金项目:

战略性国际科技创新合作重点专项(2016YFE0202400 )


Study on the calculation method of flow number of asphalt mixture
Author:
Affiliation:

Harbin Institute of Technology

Fund Project:

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
  • |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    为准确计算沥青混合料在流变数实验(Flow Number Test)下的流变次数,研究了现有流变次数计算方法的不足,提出了局部应变率法,并验证了其准确性。首先基于Francken模型和FNest模型研究了应变法和应变率法的差异;然后研究了Francken应变率模型和Hoerl应变率模型的流变次数随着局部区间变化的规律,并确定了最优局部区间;最后研究了局部应变率法相比于整体应变法和整体应变率法的优越性。结果表明:应变模型的高拟合优度不能保证相应的拟合曲线的导数具有高拟合优度,采用应变率法得到的应变率拟合曲线的拟合优度比应变法更高;随着区间系数K减小,Francken应变率模型的流变次数(FN)逐渐减小,而Hoerl应变率模型的FN逐渐增大,两模型FN的相对误差逐渐减小,本实验最优局部区间的区间系数K为1.5;局部应变率法(K=1.5)相比,Francken整体应变法高估了14.4%,整体应变率法高估了10.8%;Hoerl整体应变率法低估了11.0%;FNest整体应变法高估了27.8%,而整体应变率法高估了49.2%。当采用局部应变率法(K=1.5)时,Francken和Hoerl模型的相对误差(1.73%)明显低于整体应变率法(23.5%)。

    Abstract:

    In order to accurately calculate the flow number(FN) of asphalt mixture under repeated load permanent deformation test, shortcomings of the existing calculation methods are analyzed, and a local strain rate method is proposed. Firstly, based on Francken model and FNest model, the differences between strain method and strain rate method are studied; Secondly, the change trends of the flow number with K values of Francken strain rate model and Hoerl strain rate model are studied, and the optimal K value of this experiment is determined; Finally, the superiority of local strain rate method is studied. The results show that, high goodness of fit of strain model can not guarantee that the derivative of the corresponding strain fitting curve has a high goodness of fit, and goodness of fit of strain rate curve obtained by strain rate method is higher than strain method; With the decrease of K, the FN of Francken strain rate model decreases gradually, while the FN of Hoerl strain rate model increases gradually, and relative error of FN between the two models decreases gradually. The optimal K value of this experiment is 1.5; Compared with local strain rate method (K=1.5), Francken global strain rate method overestimates 14.4%, Francken global strain rate method overestimates 10.8%, Hoerl global strain rate method underestimates 11.0%, FNest global strain rate method overestimates 27.8%, FNest global strain rate method overestimates 49.2%; Relative error between the two models of local strain rate method (K=1.5) is significantly lower than that of global strain rate method.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • HTML阅读次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:2020-02-19
  • 最后修改日期:2020-04-16
  • 录用日期:2020-05-09
  • 在线发布日期:
  • 出版日期: