检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:李连祥[1] 孙文怀[2] 连文致 任卫涛 Li Lianxiang;Sun Wenhuai;Lian Wenzhi
机构地区:[1]山东大学 [2]华北水利水电大学 [3]中化岩土集团股份有限公司 [4]宇通重型装备有限公司
出 处:《工程机械》2023年第10期70-73,I0016,共5页Construction Machinery and Equipment
摘 要:为比较单抽夯实法与脱钩强夯法两种工法对地面夯击动能的差异性,通过现场试验,采用高速摄像机拍摄同一台强夯机不同工法的各3种夯击动能的施工视频,测试两种工法不同夯击能的夯锤触底的动力加速度和夯击动能,得到了在同样夯锤和同样提升高度的情况下,单抽夯实法不脱钩夯实施工比脱钩强夯法强夯施工的夯击动能小27.4%~31.7%。试验方法和结论为相应工程提供参考。In order to compare the differences of the kinetic tamping energy on the ground between the single rope compaction method and the leaving hook dynamic compaction method,on-site tests are carried out,and a high-speed camera is used to film the construction videos of three kinds of kinetic tamping energy of the same dynamic compaction machine with different methods to test the dynamic acceleration and kinetic tamping energy of the hammer touching the ground with different tamping energy in these two methods.It is concluded that,with the same hammer and the same lifting height,the kinetic tamping energy of the single rope compaction method without leaving hook is 27.4%to 31.7%less than that of the leaving hook dynamic compaction method.The test method and conclusion provide reference for the corresponding engineering.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:18.219.195.35