集装箱码头引桥不同结构造价比较  

Comparison of cost for different structures of container terminal approach bridges

作　　者：赵丽云[1] 刘国宝[1] ZHAO Liyun;LIU Guobao(CCCC Water Transportation Consultants Co.,Ltd.,Beijing 100007,China)

机构地区：[1]中交水运规划设计院有限公司,北京100007

出　　处：《水运工程》2024年第1期31-35,共5页Port & Waterway Engineering

摘　　要：针对集装箱码头引桥结构形式较多,使用时对造价无明确对比的问题,进行长江口地区集装箱码头引桥结构及投资研究,采用符合现行规范的设计方法,在当地施工条件下,提出不同跨度的小箱梁结构、空心板结构、空心板梁结构等不同桥面方案,计算其受力并确定合理结构断面,采用现行水工概预算软件计算对比不同方案的引桥概算投资。结果表明:排架间距小于等于20 m的引桥,空心板方案投资较低;大于20 m的引桥,小箱梁结构投资较低。综合比较,又以20 m跨空心板结构投资最低;在20~30 m区间内,小箱梁投资变化不明显。To the issue of multiple structural forms of container terminal approach bridges and no clear comparison of cost when used,a study is conducted on the structure and investment of container terminal approach bridges in the Yangtze River estuary region.Design methods that comply with current standards are adopted,and different bridge deck schemes such as small box beam structures,hollow slab structures,and hollow slab beam structures with different spans are proposed under local construction conditions.The stress is calculated and a reasonable structural cross-section is determined.Using the current hydraulic engineering budget software to calculate and compare the estimated investment of approach bridges for different schemes.The results show that for approach bridges with a spacing of less than or equal to 20 m,the investment in the hollow slab scheme is lower.For approach bridges with a spacing of more than 20 m,the investment in the small box girder structure is lower.Overall,the investment in the 20 m span hollow slab structure is the lowest.Within the range of 20-30 m,there is no significant change in investment in small box girders.

关 键 词：引桥 高桩 投资 

分 类 号：U658[交通运输工程—港口、海岸及近海工程]