不同测试方式下混凝土抗压强度对比试验研究

引用文献:

郑士举 刘辉 蒋利学. 不同测试方式下混凝土抗压强度对比试验研究[J]. 建筑结构,2022,48(08):105-111.

ZHENG Shiju LIU Hui JIANG Lixue. Comparative experimental research on concrete compression strength under different testing methods[J]. Building Structure,2022,48(08):105-111.

作者:郑士举 刘辉 蒋利学
单位:上海市建筑科学研究院有限公司 上海市工程结构安全重点实验室
摘要:现场检测混凝土强度的推定值同时受到样本强度平均值和标准差的影响,而不同测试方式下样本强度标准差的差异很大。对立方体、圆柱体两种同条件养护试块和回弹法、钻芯法两种方法检测混凝土强度的平均值和标准差进行对比试验,同时研究了芯样直径、高径比、粗骨料表面积占比等因素对芯样强度平均值和标准差的影响。试验结果表明,与同条件养护立方体试块相比,芯样强度的平均值偏大,标准差略偏大;回弹强度的平均值偏小,标准差明显偏小;ϕ150、ϕ105、ϕ75三种芯样中,相对于ϕ105芯样,ϕ150芯样的强度平均值偏小,而ϕ75芯样的强度标准差偏大;小高径比芯样与标准芯样的强度平均值之间有较明确的换算关系,而前者的强度标准差略小于后者,故小高径比芯样仍有较大的利用价值;芯样强度标准差表现出随外露粗骨料尤其是大粒径粗骨料表面积占比增大而增大的趋势,这可以解释芯样强度标准差相对于立方体试块强度标准差偏大的原因。
关键词:混凝土抗压强度,回弹法,钻芯法,芯样直径,高径比,粗骨料表面积占比
作者简介:郑士举,硕士,高级工程师,一级注册结构工程师,主要从事既有建筑鉴定与加固研究,Email:zsj85408048@163.com。*蒋利学,硕士,教授级高级工程师,一级注册结构工程师,主要从事既有建筑鉴定与加固研究,Email:jianglx1971@163.com。
基金:国家重点研发计划项目(2017YFC0806100);上海市科学技术委员会项目(19DZ1202400)。
尊敬的用户,本篇文章需要2元,点击支付交费后阅读
参考文献[1] 田砾,孙雪飞,范宏,等.小直径芯样检测混凝土强度尺寸效应探讨[J].施工技术,2005,34(8):64-66,73.
[2] 陈海彬,李凯,卢建勇.不同直径混凝土芯样抗压强度的研究[J].混凝土,2013(12):145-147.
[3] 陈海彬,卢建勇,李凯.钻芯法检测混凝土强度芯样尺寸效应的研究[J].混凝土,2014(3):141-143.
[4] 刘梦溪,周国庆,刘辉,等.ϕ75mm混凝土芯样抗压强度应用性研究[J].混凝土,2009(6):112-115,126.
[5] 李建兵.结构实体混凝土强度检验与评定的试验研究[D].哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学,2014.
[6] 崔士起,孔旭文,林世乐,等.小高径比芯样混凝土抗压强度试验研究[J].建筑科学,2015,31(1):55-58.
[7] 刘梦溪.混凝土芯样高径比与强度换算系数关系研究[J].混凝土,2012(8):51-54.
[8] 秦成超.混凝土强度增长规律及不同方法的检测强度关系研究[D].北京:中国铁道科学研究院,2016.
[9] 回弹法检测混凝土抗压强度技术规程:JGJ/T 23—2011 [S].北京:中国建筑工业出版社,2011.
[10] 钻芯法检测混凝土强度技术规程:JGJ/T 384—2016 [S].北京:中国建筑工业出版社,2016.
[11] 混凝土结构设计规范:GB 50010—2010 [S].北京:中国建筑工业出版社,2011.
[12] 混凝土结构现场检测技术标准:GB/T 50784—2013 [S].北京:中国建筑工业出版社,2013.
Comparative experimental research on concrete compression strength under different testing methods
ZHENG Shiju LIU Hui JIANG Lixue
(Shanghai Research Institute of Building Sciences Co., Ltd. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Engineering Structure Safety)
Abstract: The presumed value of concrete strength tested on site is affected by both the mean value and standard deviation of the sample strength, and the standard deviation of the sample strength varies greatly under different testing methods. The mean value and standard deviation of the concrete strength of the cube and cylinder test blocks under the same conditions of curing as well as the rebound method and the core drilling method were compared. The influence of core sample diameter, height-diameter ratio and surface area ratio of coarse aggregate on the mean value and standard deviation of the sample strength of testing samples was also studied. The test results show that, compared with cube test block under the same conditions of curing, the mean value of core sample strength is larger and the standard deviation is slightly larger. The mean value of the rebound strength is smaller and the standard deviation is obviously smaller. Among ϕ150、ϕ105 and ϕ75 core samples, when compared with the ϕ105 core sample, the mean strength of the ϕ150 core sample is smaller and the strength standard deviation of the ϕ75 core sample is larger. There is a clear conversion relationship between the mean strengths of the core samples with small height-diameter ratio and standard core samples, and the strength standard deviation of the former is slightly smaller than that of the latter, so the core sample with small height-diameter ratio still has a considerable application value. The standard deviation of core sample strength shows a growth trend with the increase of the surface area ratio of exposed coarse aggregate, especially large particle size coarse aggregate, which can explain the reason why the standard deviation of the core sample strength is larger than that of the cube test block.
Keywords: concrete compression strength; rebound method; core drilling method; core sample diameter; height-diameter ratio; surface area ratio of coarse aggregate
468 0 0
文字:     A-     A+     默认 取消