首页|国内三大沥青路面设计平台对比分析

国内三大沥青路面设计平台对比分析

扫码查看
为了对比分析国内3 个沥青路面设计平台道可道网、好路网及HPDS的特点及计算结果的准确性及合理性,选用我国JTG D50-2017《公路沥青路面设计规范》中推荐的结构类型,变换结构厚度尺寸,依托沾临高速工程交通荷载参数及京沪高速1 年实测轴载谱,对比了道可道网、好路网及HPDS 3 个计算平台计算结果的差异性,研究表明:对于应力响应,道可道网与好路网2 个在线平台差别较小,响应差异率控制在0.5%以内,HPDS则呈现出一定的波动性;对于结构永久变形设计结果,2 个在线平台设计基本一致,HPDS计算得出永久变形量明显偏小;3 个平台在路表验收弯沉、防冻厚度等指标计算结果基本一致.
Comparative analysis of the three major domestic asphalt pavement design platforms
In order to analyze the characteristics of the three major domestic asphalt pavement design platforms,including DAOKEDAO,GoodPave and HPDS,and compare the accuracy and rationality of its calculation results,this paper selected the structure type recommended in China JTG D50-2017 Design Code for Highway Asphalt Pavement,and transformed the structure thickness dimensions,by relying on the load parameters of Zhanhua-Linyi expressway project as well as axial load spectrum meas-ured within one year of Beijing-Shanghai expressway.The study showed that the difference in stress response between DAOKED-AO and GoodPave was small with a difference rate of no more than 0.5%,while the difference in stress response of HPDS showed volatility.The difference between DAOKEDAO and GoodPave in structural permanent deformation design results remained basi-cally the same,but the re sults by HPDS was obviously small.The calculation results of the three platforms in road meter accept-ance and anti-freezing thickness remained basically the same.

road engineeringdesign platformpavement designcalculation resultcomparative analysis

徐希忠、韦金城、张晓萌、吴文娟、胡家波、闫翔鹏

展开 >

山东省交通科学研究院,山东 济南 250102

高速公路养护技术交通行业重点实验室(济南),山东 济南 250102

道路工程 设计平台 路面设计 计算结果 对比分析

国家自然科学基金项目山东省自然科学基金山东省自然科学基金泰山学者工程山东省交通科技计划项目

42107213ZR2020QE271ZR2020KE024tstp202312402023B18

2024

技术与市场
四川省科技信息研究所

技术与市场

影响因子:0.566
ISSN:1006-8554
年,卷(期):2024.31(10)