实测不平整激励下跑道平整度评价方法对比
|
摘要
新版道面评价规范中将机场跑道平整度评价指标修订为国际平整度指数(IRI)和波音平整度指数(BBI),但均未具体给出两者的适用范围,且目前对这两种方法的实际使用效果研究较少。提出基于Matlab的跑道平整度评价方法对比与分析流程,并以华东某机场跑道实测3D不平整数据为例,多维度探究IRI和BBI指标与飞机滑跑动力响应特性的关系。结果表明:BBI和IRI的相关性较差,整体相关系数仅为0.1左右;对于飞机加速度均方根分布趋势,BBI的预测能力是IRI的3.6倍。建议新版规范将BBI作为主要评价指标,IRI作为辅助指标,在平整度较差的区域,可综合考虑两者做出更科学合理的养护维修决策。
In the latest version of runway evaluation, the evaluation index of runway roughness is revised as IRI and BBI without their adaptability. Currently, few studies focus on the actual application effect of these two methods. The comparison and analysis process of runway roughness evaluation methods based on Matlab is proposed, taking measured 3 D roughness data of a certain airport runway in East China as instance, the relation between IRI and BBI indices and the dynamic responding characteristics of aircraft taxiing is explored in a multi-dimensional way. Results show that the correlation between BBI and IRI is poor, and the overall correlation coefficient is only about 0.1. From the prediction of aircraft acceleration RMS distribution trend, BBI is more capable than IRI by3.6 times. It is suggested that in the latest version of the specification considers BBI as main evaluation index and IRI as auxiliary index. In the region with poor roughness, a more scientific and reasonable maintenance decision should be made by taking both of them into comprehensive consideration.
In the latest version of runway evaluation, the evaluation index of runway roughness is revised as IRI and BBI without their adaptability. Currently, few studies focus on the actual application effect of these two methods. The comparison and analysis process of runway roughness evaluation methods based on Matlab is proposed, taking measured 3 D roughness data of a certain airport runway in East China as instance, the relation between IRI and BBI indices and the dynamic responding characteristics of aircraft taxiing is explored in a multi-dimensional way. Results show that the correlation between BBI and IRI is poor, and the overall correlation coefficient is only about 0.1. From the prediction of aircraft acceleration RMS distribution trend, BBI is more capable than IRI by3.6 times. It is suggested that in the latest version of the specification considers BBI as main evaluation index and IRI as auxiliary index. In the region with poor roughness, a more scientific and reasonable maintenance decision should be made by taking both of them into comprehensive consideration.
引文
[1]凌建明,张光辉,刁永海,等.民用机场道面评价技术管理规范:MH/T 5024-2009[S].北京:中国民用航空局, 2009.
[2]凌建明,刘诗福,袁捷,等.不平整激励下机场道面和公路路面平整度评价综合分析[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 45(4):519-526.
[3]王维,邓松武.机场跑道跑道平整度评价及其影响分析[J].中国民航学院学报, 2006(2):10-15.
[4]蔡宛彤,种小雷,王海服,等.基于ADAMS的机场跑道平整度评价方法[J].空军工程大学学报(自然科学版), 2014, 15(1):15-19.
[5]凌建明,刘诗福,袁捷,等.采用IRI评价机场跑道平整度的适用性[J].交通运输工程学报, 2017, 17(1):20-27.
[6]程国勇,郭稳厚,雷亚伟.机场跑道平整度评价技术进展及发展方向[J].中国民航大学学报, 2016, 34(2):36-41.
[7] Boeing commercial airplane group airport technology organization(BB120). Runway roughness measurement, quantification, and applicationthe Boeing method:D6-81746[R]. Washington DC:ASCE,1991.
[8]凌建明,刘诗福,李萌,等.波音平整度评价方法的局限性分析[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 46(8):1035-1041.
[9] SAYERS M W, GILLESPIE T D, QUEIROZ A V. The international road roughness experiment:establishing correlation and calibration standard for measurements[R]. Washington DC:World Bank Technical Paper,1986.
[10] US DOT, FAA. Guidelines and procedures for measuring airfield pavement roughness:150/5380-9[R]. US DOT, FAA, 2009.
[2]凌建明,刘诗福,袁捷,等.不平整激励下机场道面和公路路面平整度评价综合分析[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 45(4):519-526.
[3]王维,邓松武.机场跑道跑道平整度评价及其影响分析[J].中国民航学院学报, 2006(2):10-15.
[4]蔡宛彤,种小雷,王海服,等.基于ADAMS的机场跑道平整度评价方法[J].空军工程大学学报(自然科学版), 2014, 15(1):15-19.
[5]凌建明,刘诗福,袁捷,等.采用IRI评价机场跑道平整度的适用性[J].交通运输工程学报, 2017, 17(1):20-27.
[6]程国勇,郭稳厚,雷亚伟.机场跑道平整度评价技术进展及发展方向[J].中国民航大学学报, 2016, 34(2):36-41.
[7] Boeing commercial airplane group airport technology organization(BB120). Runway roughness measurement, quantification, and applicationthe Boeing method:D6-81746[R]. Washington DC:ASCE,1991.
[8]凌建明,刘诗福,李萌,等.波音平整度评价方法的局限性分析[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 46(8):1035-1041.
[9] SAYERS M W, GILLESPIE T D, QUEIROZ A V. The international road roughness experiment:establishing correlation and calibration standard for measurements[R]. Washington DC:World Bank Technical Paper,1986.
[10] US DOT, FAA. Guidelines and procedures for measuring airfield pavement roughness:150/5380-9[R]. US DOT, FAA, 2009.