| 108 | 0 | 510 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
针对飞机设计中土道面承载力评估指标(由Udarnik U-1测试所得)与道面设计中相应指标(加州承载比，California bearing ratio,CBR)不一致的问题，该文在梳理总结了两种方法的理论基础、测试仪器、测试与评估方法，从测试范围、实施难度、使用范围和指标使用等方面进行了对比分析，并通过土槽试验对两种评估指标的换算关系进行了定量研究，结果表明：相比基于Udarnik测试的方法，基于CBR测试的方法可评价的道面承载力范围更广，结果计算的准确性和可靠度更高，使用的国家和行业更多，不仅可评估不同构型的不同机型在道面上的运行次数，还可确定承载力不足时增强道面的具体要求，另外，针对试验所用的粉质黏土，两种方法评价指标的换算关系可用对数函数拟合，决定系数R2>0.93。
Abstract：[Objective] Unpaved soil pavements at airstrips play a critical role in the operation of military transport aircraft, UAVs, and civil aircraft in remote and austere regions. Their bearing capacity determines their ability to support aircraft traffic, making their rapid testing and evaluation crucial for operational management. In-situ California bearing ratio(CBR) testing(typically using a dynamic cone penetrometer [DCP]) and the Udarnik methods are currently used for bearing capacity assessments. The latter method is used in aircraft design methodologies, and the former is used in pavement design practices in China. Thus, the soil pavement evaluation metrics for aircraft design, as well as pavement construction and maintenance, are inconsistent. [Methods] Therefore, the theoretical foundations, testing equipment, and assessment procedures of both these methods were examined herein. Then, a comparative analysis was performed to evaluate their testing scope, implementation complexity, applicability, and utility of their evaluation metrics. Controlled laboratory experiments were conducted to establish a conversion relationship between the derived metrics. [Results] The key findings are as follows.(1) Both these methods were established in the 1940s–50s, primarily for light/medium aircraft. The Udarnik method could not efficiently determine the bearing capacity of heavy aircraft with complex landing gear. In contrast, the CBR method evolved from its original design curve approach to the CBR-α method and CBR-β method, adapting to the demands of modern heavy transport aircraft.(2) The Udarnik method only measured the overall average bearing capacity of the pavement structure within the top 30 cm depth and could not characterize values exceeding 16 kgf/cm2. This limitation was incompatible with the high loads and frequent operation requirements of contemporary transport aircraft. The DCP measured CBR values up to 100 at a depth of 1 m and comprehensively characterized the pavement structural properties, as well as evaluated a wider range of bearing capacities. The Udarnik equipment was lighter and simpler to operate than the DCP; however, the DCP yielded highly accurate and more reliable results. The Udarnik method has limited applicability and is primarily used in Russia and Poland. In contrast, the DCP is widely used globally(including the US and China) within the military, civil aviation, highway, and railway sectors. The Udarnik method could only determine aircraft operational feasibility on a pavement but could not assess the permissible number of operations or provide specific pavement reinforcement requirements during infeasible operations. The CBR value obtained by the DCP enabled the assessment of the number of operations performed by an aircraft configuration(given tire pressure and load) on the existing pavement without maintenance. It also guided pavement reinforcement strategies when requirements were unmet, specifying necessary layer thickness and bearing capacity(CBR value).(3) For the silty clay used herein, the disparity between CBR and Udarnik values decreased as the soil bearing capacity increased. A logarithmic function effectively modeled the conversion relationship between these metrics, achieving a coefficient of determination(R2) greater than 0.93. [Conclusions] This finding suggested that the logarithmic function is a suitable model for CBR–Udarnik conversion; however, further research is required to determine if this relationship holds for other soil types. This study contributes to enhancing the operational support capabilities of military aircraft on unpaved surfaces. The findings offer valuable insights into the maintenance management evaluation of civil unpaved/turf airstrips, sightseeing airports, and unpaved areas within transport airports.
[1] ZHANG J, XU W, GAO P W, et al. Compressive strength characteristics of hybrid fiber-reinforced cemented soil[J].International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2023, 24(2):2104843.
[2] ZHANG J, XU W, GAO P W, et al. Full-scale test on emergency repair pavement under airplane loading[J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Transport, 2024, 177(2):101–113.
[3] ZHANG J, XU W, WENG X Z, et al. Application and research status of concrete canvas and its application prospect in emergency engineering[J]. Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics, 2020, 15:1–11.
[4]张俊,许巍,全泽群,等.飞机荷载模拟加载车设计与应用[J].实验技术与管理, 2023, 40(8):141–148.ZHANG J, XU W, QUAN Z Q, et al. Design and application of aircraft load simulation loading vehicle[J]. Experimental Technology and Management, 2023, 40(8):141–148.(in Chinese)
[5]交通运输部公路科学研究院.公路土工试验规程：JTG 3430—2020[S].北京:人民交通出版社, 2020.Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China. Test methods of soils for highway engineering:JTG 3430—2020[S].Beijing:China Communications Press, 2020.(in Chinese)
[6] Boeing 737 Technical Site. Unpaved strip kit[EB/OL].(2023-08-05)[2024-10-26]. http://www.b737.org.uk/unpavedstripkit.htm#google_vignette.
[7] Simple Flying. Gravel kits:How Boeing 737s could land on dirt runways[EB/OL].(2023-10-27)[2024-10-26]. https://simpleflying.com/gravel-kits-737/.
[8] GARCIA L, HOWARD I L. Full-scale instrumented testing of multiple airfield matting systems on soft soil to characterize permanent deformation[J]. Transportation Geotechnics, 2016, 9:80–95.
[9]周少辉,蔡良才,许巍,等.拼装式铝道面板下土基变形预测模型[J].西南交通大学学报, 2016, 51(4):684–689.ZHOU S H, CAI L C, XU W, et al. Predictive model of subgrade deformation beneath aluminum sandwich panel[J].Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2016, 51(4):684–689.(in Chinese)
[10] DVIDS(Defense Visual Information Distrubution Service).357th FS, 22nd STS team up for austere landings[Image 2 of14][EB/OL].(2015-09-22)[2024-05-04]. https://www.dvidshub.net/image/2207083/357th-fs-22nd-sts-team-up-austere-landings.
[11] General Atomics Aeronautical. GA-ASI mojave STOL UAS completes first dirt operation[EB/OL].(2023-08-03)[2024-05-04]. https://www.ga-asi.com/ga-asi-mojave-stol-uas-completesfirst-dirt-operation.
[12] DVIDS(Defense Visual Information Distrubution Service).MQ-9 completes first-ever mission using dirt landing zone[EB/OL].(2023-06-15)[2024-05-04]. https://www.dvidshub.net/image/7870518/mq-9-completes-first-ever-mission-using-dirt-la nding-zone.
[13] GARY L A, EMEST S B, JOHN K N, et al. Joint rapid airfield construction(JRAC)program 2004 demonstration project-Fort Bragg, North Carolina:ERDC/GSL TR-21-8[R]. Vicksburg,MS:Engineer Research and Develop Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, 2021.
[14] STRAND T E, ENNIS J. V-22 osprey unprepared surface short takeoff and landing evaluation[C]//2010 IEEE Aerospace Conference. New York:IEEE, 2010:1–9.
[15] Department of Defense. O&M manual:Standard practice for airfield pavement evaluation:UFC 3-260-03[S]. Washington DC, USA:Department of Defense, 2023.
[16] Department of Defense. Soil stabilization and modification for pavements:UFC 3-250-11[S]. Washington DC, USA:Department of Defense, 2020.
[17] Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency. Criteria and guidance for C-17 contingency and training operations on semi-prepared airfields:ETL 97-9[S]. San Antonio, TX:Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, 1997.
[18] Tri-Service Pavements Working Group(TSPWG). Pavement management plan:TSPWG 3-270-08.14-03[S]. Washington DC,USA:Department of Defense, 2024.
[19] Tri-Service Pavements Working Group(TSPWG). Airfield pavement evaluation standards and procedures:TSPWG3-260-03.02-19[S]. Washington DC, USA:Department of Defense, 2020.
[20] Department of Defense. Pavement design for airfields:UFC3-260-02[S]. Washington DC, USA:Department of Defense,2001.
[21]翁兴中,蔡良才.机场道面设计[M]. 3版.北京:人民交通出版社, 2017.WENG X Z, CAI L C. Desing of airport pavement[M]. 3rd ed.Beijing:China Communications Press, 2017.(in Chinese)
[22] Tri-Service Pavements Working Group(TSPWG). Constructing pavement design and evaluation charts:TSPWG M 3-260-03.22-01[S]. Washington DC, USA:Department of Defense, 2022.
[23] DREW A D. Evaluating the confinement effect to improve gravel runway performance[D]. Waterloo, Ontario:University of Waterloo, 2019.
[24]黄祖永.地面车辆原理[M]. 4版.北京:机械工业出版社,2018.HUA Z Y. Principles of gound vehicles[M]. 4th ed. Beijing:Machinery Industry Press, 2018.(in Chinese)
[25]俄罗斯联邦交通部航空运输部(МиниcтерcтвоТранcпортаРоccийcкойФедерацииДепартаментВоздушногоТранcпорта).俄罗斯联邦民用机场操作手册(РуководcтвопоэкcплуатациигражданcкихаэродромовРоccийcкойфедерации)[EB/OL].(2011-06-17)[2024-06-25]. https://meganorm.ru/Data1/46/46717/index.htm.Department of Air Transport, Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation. Operations manual for civil airports of the Russian Federation[EB/OL].(2011-06-17)[2024-06-25]. https://meganorm.ru/Data1/46/46717/index.htm.
[26]林绣贤.柔性路面结构设计方法[M].北京:人民交通出版社, 1988.LIN X X. Structure design method for flexible pavement[M].Beijing:China Communications Press, 1988.(in Chinese)
[27] YU T C. Design criteria for aggregate-surfaced roads and airfields:GL-89-5[R]. Vicksburg, MS:Geotechnical Laboratory,Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, 1989.
[28] CARLOS R G. Development and validation of a stress-based procedure for the design of military flexible pavements[D].Urbana, Illinois:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,2015.
[29] ERIC J M. Revised beta criteria for the CBR airfield pavement design method[D]. University Park, PA:The Pennsylvania State University, 2012.
[30] THOMAS M S. Investigation on the use of equivalency factors for the design and evaluation of flexible airfield pavements[D].Wright-Patterson Air Base, OH:Air Force Institute of Technology, 2014.
[31] ALESSANDRA B, CARLOS R G. CBR-Beta design procedure for aggregate-surfaced airfield pavements:ERDC/GSL TR-14-6[R]. Vicksburg, MS:Engineer Research and Develop Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, 2014.
[32] ALESSANDRA B, CARLOS R G. Reformulation of the design procedure for aggregate-surfaced airfield pavements[J]. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2014, 141(3):04014086.
[33] ALESSANDRA B. Fr?hlich theory-based approach for analysis of stress distribution in a layered system[J]. Transportation Research Record:Journal of the Transportation Research Board,2014, 2462:61–67.
[34] STACHE J M, GONZALEZ C R. Use of heavy vehicle simulator-aircraft in the development of the CBR-Beta procedure[J]. Accelerated Pavement Testing to Transport Infrastructure Innovation, 2020:458–466.
[35] ASTM International. Standard test method for CBR(California bearing ratio)of soils in place:ASTM D4429-09a[S]. West Conshohocken, PA, USA:ASTM International, 2009.
[36] ASTM International. Standard test method for use of the dynamic cone penetrometer in shallow pavement applications:ASTM D6951/D6951M-18[S]. West Conshohocken, PA, USA:ASTM International, 2018.
[37]姜景山.动力锥贯入仪在路基检测中的应用综述[J].路基工程, 2011(6):136–140.JIANG J S. Application summary of dynamic cone penetrometer in subgrade detection[J]. Subgrade Engineering, 2011(6):136–140.(in Chinese)
[38] MARIUSZ W, PAWEL P, KRZYSZTOF B, et al. Evaluation of the load-bearing capacity of natural airfield pavements by military standard No-17-A503:2017[J]. Aviation Advances&Maintenance, 2018, 41(1):5–16.
基本信息:
DOI：10.16791/j.cnki.sjg.2025.09.006
中图分类号:V351.11
引用信息:
[1]张俊,许巍,李磊,等.无铺装土道面承载力评估方法对比分析[J].实验技术与管理,2025,42(09):34-43.DOI:10.16791/j.cnki.sjg.2025.09.006.
基金信息:
国家自然科学基金(52308470); 陕西省自然科学基础研究计划(2023-JC-YB-375)