特重车通过大跨石拱桥计算模型对比分析及试验验证

在对一重达376.7 t的特重车能否安全通过一主跨40 m的既有石拱桥进行安全评定时,针对石拱桥建立了两种实体分析模型:一为不考虑拱上填料、侧墙影响仅考虑拱上建筑与主拱联合作用的实体模型一;另一为考虑拱上填料、侧墙与主拱联合作用的较符合实桥实际情况的实体模型二.通过两种实体模型下的特重车过桥安全验算发现,采用计算模型二所有断面抗力均满足要求,而模型一的拱脚断面抗力不满足要求.在对比模型一、二在特重车下作用的挠度、应力结果后发现拱上填料、侧墙对结构的纵向空间整体工作性能影响较大.不考虑填料与侧墙的实体模型一相对于模型二的纵向刚度联系较弱,在荷载作用下的局部效应明显,从而揭示了实体模型一拱脚截面抗力效应不能满足规范要求的原因.通过荷载试验验证了采用实体模型二与实桥实际情况较为接近,而采用实体模型一的验算结果偏于保守.     

哈贝马斯基于交往的话语理论及其规范问题

哈贝马斯在批判乔姆斯基的语言资质理论与日常语言哲学牛津学派的奥斯丁、塞尔的言语行为理论的基础上发展出了以交往资质为内核的话语理论.哈贝马斯认为话语交往的目的是为了导向理解与认同,最后形成共识.但这些理解、认同与共识是在遵循一定的规范条件下获得的.在哈贝马斯的话语理论中,这些规范呈现为两个层面:其一是基于普遍语用学层面的先验规范,即从可理解的视角,根据交往内容的差异分别提出的可领会性、真实性、正确性和真诚性的规范要求;其二是根据商谈原则所制定的经验规范,这是每一个话语交往主体进行自由辩论,实现无强制共识的逻辑前提和制度保障.     

SD振子的非线性动力学特征研究

介绍了SD振子的非线性动力学行为。该振子是一个具有强非线性特征的振动系统,其动力学行为决定于一个光滑参数α的连续变化,当参数α〉0时,系统为光滑的,而当参数α=0时,系统为不连续的。SD振子提供了一个从光滑动力学行为向不连续动力学行为光滑转迁的范例。当系统为光滑时,表现出与Duffing系统类似的标准双阱动力学行为;当系统表现为不连续时,除表现为非标准的双阱动力学行为外,同时具有如类鞍点和类同宿轨道等非标准动力学行为。还给出一个刚性耦合的SD振子,该振子具有单阱、双阱、三阱动力学特征及随参数变化由光滑动力学行为向不连续动力学行为的转迁特性。     

重装备岸海转运保障技术与发展

介绍了重装备岸海转运装卸载保障装备的类型和特征,进行了纵向与横向装卸载方式、码头装卸与岸滩无码头装卸的技术比较,提出重装备装卸载保障装备研究的发展方向:提高重装备装卸载平台的抗风浪能力,加大利用被损码头重装备装卸载装置的研究,加强重装备装卸载保障装备的标准化研究,开展重装备装卸载保障装备的集成化研究。     

基于CFD的泵轮叶栅关键参数对液力变矩器的性能影响预测

基于计算流体力学理论,利用Pro/E建立某型液力变矩器叶栅系统全流道模型。借助多重参考系技术,采用FLUENT软件对液力变矩器内流场进行数值模拟,并与原结构的试验结果对比,验证了该模型的合理性。在此基础上,研究了泵轮叶片进口角和出口角等关键参数对液力变矩器性能的影响。结果表明,增大叶片进口角或减小叶片出口角,可降低失速变矩比、K因子和改善高速比下液力变矩器的传动效率。     

路面不平度对液压悬架多轴车辆的影响分析

根据油液的不可压缩性,可用以相位角为自变量的三角级数来表达路面不平度引起液压悬架多轴车辆车架的垂向速度和加速度,而该级数和可用一个解析式来表达,并近似为车速的线性函数.分析表明增加多轴车辆的轴数可有效地抑制车架和悬架的动载荷,但是随着车速的增加,抑制效果不断降低,直至相当于单轴车辆.     

基于混合系统理论的混合动力城市客车控制策略研究

在分析了串联式混合动力城市客车(SHEB)动力系统的结构和运行模式的基础上,应用混合系统理论描述了SHEB动力系统,并设计了一种基本规则型多能源动力系统控制策略.采用基于Simulink Stateflow的混合建模方法,建立了SHEB基本规则型多能源控制策略仿真模型,并嵌入到Advisor模型中进行仿真.最后对一辆实际SHEB进行了性能试验,验证了该控制策略的可行性和有效性.     

沙漠地区公路建设中稳定沙基层结合料的选择

对水泥稳定沙、工业废渣稳定沙、固化剂稳定沙的温缩性能、干缩性能进行了试验对比,得出水泥稳定沙干缩性能在无机结合料中最优,固化剂（CL）加固沙的干缩性能较无机结合料和奥特赛特（AUGHT-SET）加固沙更优的结果,并提出了沙漠地区公路基层稳定沙结合料的选择建议。     

Application of slim A-pillar to improve driver’s field of vision

The importance of vehicle safety cannot be exaggerated in today’s mobile societies. Many manufacturers, associates related to vehicles and universities make an effort to improve vehicle safety by developing new technologies, applying high strength steel to the body structure etc. However, the majority of these efforts are focused on decreasing injury. It is absolutely important to minimize injury, but a more important aspect is coping with vehicle accidents. That is, As undeniably important as it is to minimize potential injuries, it is critical that experts focus on developing ways to keep drivers out of situations likely to lead to crashes in the first place. The purpose of this paper is to determine what the most critical factor is when coping with an unfamiliar driving situation. The answer is to provide a wide-open field of vision, especially for the driver. The driver’s field of vision is obstructed by the vehicle’s A-pillar. To solve this, the A-pillar obstruction angle, which is the angle between the driver’s eyes and the A-pillar should be decreased. This paper purposes three-methods for decreasing this angle structurally and applying a slim A-pillar which is as the best solution to decrease the A-pillar obstruction angle and ensure the drivers field of vision at the same time     

Development of electrostatic diesel particulate matter filtration systems combined with a metallic Flow-Through Filter and electrostatic methods

A 3000 cc diesel engine attached to an engine dynamo was used to test three newly developed electrostatic Diesel Particulate matter filtration Systems (DPS 1, 2, and 3) under four steady-state engine operating conditions: idle, 2000 rpm with no load, and 2000 rpm under 25% and 50% loads. Of the two developed alternatives, DPS 1 and DPS 2, DPS 2 comprises an ionization section, electrostatic field additional section and Flow-Through Filter (FTF), which achieved almost 90% removal of particulate matter (PM) under the engine’s operating conditions, and the efficiency of the FTF was maintained between 20% and 50%. Comparing the long-term performance of DPS 2 and DPS 3 (effectively a serial combination of two DPS 2s) with a commercially-available Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF), the DPS 2 and DPS 3 achieved almost the same efficiency for removing PM as the DPF but had significantly improved (75%∼90% lower) differential pressure drops.