本文選題：混凝土 + 抗壓強(qiáng)度��； 參考：《建筑技術(shù)》2015年S2期

【摘要】：通過對(duì)工程上常用的回彈法(無(wú)損)、后錨固法(微破損)和鉆芯法(局部破損)3種混凝土抗壓強(qiáng)度現(xiàn)場(chǎng)檢測(cè)方法,對(duì)C20,C40,C50,C60,C70共5個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)強(qiáng)度等級(jí)的混凝土試塊和試件,分別在齡期:28d,90d,180d,365d,730d'1100d時(shí)同步進(jìn)行混凝土抗壓強(qiáng)度檢測(cè)及試驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上,分析對(duì)比3種檢測(cè)方法在同條件下整體檢測(cè)精度和分區(qū)段檢測(cè)精度,研究3種檢測(cè)方法在不同實(shí)際工程現(xiàn)場(chǎng)檢測(cè)條件下的適用性,為提高混凝土抗壓強(qiáng)度現(xiàn)場(chǎng)檢測(cè)精度及不同檢測(cè)目的和條件下選擇適當(dāng)?shù)臋z測(cè)方法提供技術(shù)支持。
[Abstract]:In this paper, the concrete specimens and specimens with five design strength grades, C20C40C50C50C60C70, which are commonly used in engineering, are tested by three kinds of rebound methods (non-destructive method, post-anchoring method (micro-damage) and drilling core method (local breakage)), which are used to detect the compressive strength of concrete on the spot. On the basis of measuring and testing the compressive strength of concrete synchronously at the age of 28 days, 90 days, 180 days, 365 days or 730 days or 1100d, this paper analyzes and compares the overall detection accuracy and the section detection accuracy of the three testing methods under the same conditions. This paper studies the applicability of the three detection methods under different actual engineering site conditions, and provides technical support for improving the accuracy of field detection of concrete compressive strength and selecting appropriate detection methods under different testing objectives and conditions.
【作者單位】： 遼寧省建設(shè)科學(xué)研究院;
【分類號(hào)】：TU755.7
，

本文編號(hào)：1775274