首页> 外文OA文献 >Comparison of methods for evaluating airport pavement roughness
【2h】

Comparison of methods for evaluating airport pavement roughness

机译:评估机场路面粗糙度的方法比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The correct and timely assessment of the airport pavements surface quality is fundamental to verify the presence of any irregularities that could be detrimental to aircraft operations. Furthermore, a rough runway can increase the maintenance costs of both pavements and aircrafts landing gears, due to the increment of dynamic loads and fatigue phenomena on airplanes structural elements, reducing their service life. Nowadays, the maintenance budget available by airport agencies is very restricted, thus, it is necessary to define properly the type and the extension of interventions able to restore runway evenness. In this paper, the roughness assessment of real runway profiles is carried out using first of all BBI and IRI but also ProFAA simulation model, with particular attention to Cockpit Vertical Accelerations, underling the different impact on airport pavement management of the results provided by them. In particular, very low correlations for the whole sample of examined profiles were found between IRI and BBI (R2 = 0.11) and between IRI and cockpit vertical acceleration (R2 = 0.03), while a better correlation was obtained between BBI and cockpit vertical acceleration (R2 = 0.59). Neglecting runway profiles characterised by long wavelengths roughness, a very high correlation between IRI and BBI (R2 = 0.91) was found, that underlines their different sensitivity to long wavelengths. In particular, it was found that for roughness characterised by low wavelengths, the IRI method seems to be more conservative than BBI. In addition, two different IRI acceptance thresholds were taken into account, one used in South Africa (2 m/km) and one adopted in Canada (2.7 m/km). For the whole profiles sample, little differences were found in their runway sections evaluation (about 4%) compared to BBI method; while, considering the reduced sample where profiles characterised by long wavelengths roughness were excluded, the use of IRI limit of 2 m/km would seem to be too conservative.
机译:正确和及时评估机场路面表面质量是验证任何可能对飞机运营有害的任何违规行为的基础。此外,由于飞机结构元素的动态载荷和疲劳现象的增量,粗糙的跑道可以提高路面和飞机着陆齿轮的维护成本,降低了他们的使用寿命。如今,机场机构提供的维护预算非常受限,因此,有必要定义能够恢复跑道均匀度的干预措施的类型和延伸。在本文中,使用BBI和IRI中的首先进行了实际跑道概况的粗糙度评估,而且还采用了Profaa仿真模型,特别注意了驾驶舱垂直加速度,在其提供的结果的机场路面管理下面的不同影响。特别地,在IRI和BBI(R2 = 0.11)和IRI和驾驶舱垂直加速度之间发现了对检查型材的整个样本的非常低的相关性(R2 = 0.03),而BBI和驾驶舱垂直加速度之间获得更好的相关性( R2 = 0.59)。忽略具有长波长粗糙度的跑道配置文件,发现IRI和BBI(R2 = 0.91)之间的非常高的相关性,其强调了它们对长波长的不同敏感性。特别地,发现对于具有低波长的粗糙度,IRI方法似乎比BBI更保守。此外,考虑到两种不同的IRI接受阈值,其中一个用于南非(2米/公里),加拿大采用的IRI(2.7米/公里)。对于整个型材样本,与BBI方法相比,它们的跑道部分评价(约4%)发现了几乎没有的差异;虽然,考虑到减少的样品,其中排除了长度波长粗糙度的曲线,因此使用2米/公里的IRI限制似乎过于保守。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号