REG NASA-TP-2917-1990 Evaluation of two transport aircraft and several ground test vehicle friction measurements obtained for various runway surface types and conditions A summary icti.pdf

1、NASATechnicalPaper2917February 1990lEvaluation of Two TransportAircraft and Several GroundTest Vehicle FrictionMeasurements Obtained forVarious Runway SurfaceTypes and ConditionsA Summary of Test ResultsFrom Joint FAA/NASA RunwayFriction ProgramThomas J. Yager,William A. Vogler,and Paul BaldasarePro

2、vided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-NASATechnicalPaper29171990National Aeronautics andSpace AdministrationOffice of ManagementScientific and Te

3、chnicalInformation DivisionEvaluation of Two TransportAircraft and Several GroundTest Vehicle FrictionMeasurements Obtained forVarious Runway SurfaceTypes and ConditionsA Summary of Test ResultsFrom Joint FAA/NASA RunwayFriction ProgramThomas J. YagerLangley Research CenterHampton, VirginiaWilliam A

4、. VoglerPRC Kentron, Inc.Aerospace Technologies DivisionHampton, VirginiaPaul BaldasareLangley Research CenterHampton, VirginiaProvided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in thisreport is for accura

5、te reporting and does not constitute anofficial endorsement, either expressed or implied, of suchproducts or manufacturers by the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration.Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-ContentsSummary 1Introducti

6、on. 1Symbols . 2Test SitesGeneralWallops Flight Facility 3FAA Technical CenterBrunswick Naval Air Station.Langley Air Force Base.Pease Air Force Base Portland International Jetport 4Test Apparatus 4Test AircraftNASA Boeing 737 aircraft . 4FAA Boeing 727 aircraftGround Test VehiclesGeneral.Diagonal-b

7、raked vehicle 6Mu-MeterSurface friction tester. 6BV- 11 skiddometerRunway friction tester.Runway condition reading vehicle7Supplemental Instrumentation and Data Measurements . 8Portable three-axis accelerometerSurface temperature gauge 8.Portable wind anemometerWater-depth gauge . 8Texture-depth kit

8、 .Snow density dataRain gauge 9Support Equipment . 9Runway markers .Snow removal equipment 9Runway water tankersPhotographic coverage . 9.Miscellaneous 10Test Procedures 10General . 10Dry Runways . 10Wet Runways 10Snow- and Slush-Covered Runways 11Ice-Covered Runways 11Io,IIIProvided by IHSNot for R

9、esaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Compilation of Test Data 1212General .Aircraft Braking Friction Data . 12Ground-Vehicle Friction Data . 12Data Reduction and Analysis . 1212Aircraft Data .Ground-Vehicle Data . 14Correlation Methodology 14Statistical Analysis

10、15Results and Discussion . 1616General .Boeing 737 Aircraft and Ground-Vehicle Data Evaluation . 16Dry runways 1617Wet runways Snow- and ice-covered runways 17Boeing 737 Aircraft Snow-Impingement Drag . 17Boeing 737 Aircraft Engine Thrust-Reverser Performance . 17Comparison of Boeing 737 Aircraft Br

11、aking Techniques 18Boeing 727 Aircraft and Ground-Vehicle Data Evaluation . 1818Dry runways 18Wet runways 19Snow- and ice-covered runways Boeing 727 Aircraft Snow-Impingement Drag . 19Boeing 727 Aircraft Engine Thrust-Reverser Performance . 19Comparison of Boeing 727 Aircraft Braking Techniques 1919

12、Supplemental Data Analysis Concluding Remarks . 21Major Test Findings 2222Conclusions .Recommendat ions . 2223References .Tables . 25Appendix A-Compilation of Boeing 737 Aircraft and44Ground-Vehicle Test Data .45Tables .Appendix B-Compilation of Boeing 727 Aircraft andGround-Vehicle Test Data . 9596

13、Tables .156Figures ivProvided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SummaryA substantial number of tests with specially in-strumented Boeing 737 and 727 aircraft togetherwith several different ground friction measuring de-vices have been conducted f

14、or a variety of runwaysurface types and conditions. These tests are part ofa Joint FAA/NASA Aircraft/Ground-Vehicle Run-way Friction Program aimed at obtaining a betterunderstanding of aircraft handling performance un-der adverse weather conditions and defining relation-ships between aircraft and gr

15、ound-vehicle tire frictionmeasurements. Aircraft braking performance for dry,wet, and snow- and ice-covered runway conditions isevaluated as well as ground-vehicle friction data ob-tained under similar runway conditions. A limitednumber of tests were conducted to evaluate aircraftengine reverser per

16、formance, snow-impingement dragon the aircraft, and the influence of runway chemicaltreatments on control of snow and ice contaminants.All the friction measurements taken during this pro-gram from aircraft and ground-vehicle test runs havebeen tabulated by major discriminators such as testsite, runw

17、ay condition, and vehicle type. Appendixescontain the aircraft/ground-vehicle friction data col-lected during tests with the two aircraft.Results from this test program have made it pos-sible to identify the relationship between ground-vehicle and aircraft friction data for a given contam-inated run

18、way condition. A better definition of bothaircraft ground handling performance and ground-vehicle operational limits under adverse weatherconditions has been obtained. The influence of ma-jor test parameters on tire-runway friction measure-ments such as speed, type and amount of surfacecontaminant,

19、tire characteristics, and ambient tem-perature has been evaluated, and a substantial fric-tion data base for further analysis and developmenthas been established. Several recommendations aregiven, including the need for additional tests underwinter runway conditions to further define the influ-ence

20、of several factors on aircraft and ground-vehiclefriction measurements.IntroductionThere is an imperative operational need for in-formation on runways which may become slipperybecause of various forms and types of contaminants.Since the beginning of “all weather“ aircraft oper-ations, there have bee

21、n landing and aborted-takeoffincidents and/or accidents each year in which aircrafthave either run off the end or veered off the shoulderof low-friction runways. These incidents/accidentshave provided the motivation for various governmentagencies and aviation industries to conduct extensiveresearch

22、to examine the factors involved in the prob-lem of less-than-acceptable runway friction.Research conducted by the National Aeronau-tics and Space Administration (NASA), the Fed-eral Aviation Administration (FAA), the U.S. AirForce (USAF), the Army Cold Regions Laboratory(CREL), the United Kingdom Mi

23、nistry of Trans-portation, the Canadian Ministry of Transport, andothers has established that tire braking friction doesdiminish on contaminated runway surfaces. The de-gree of friction reduction is related to many fac-tors, including depth of contaminant (water, snow,mixture) on the surface, paveme

24、nt surface tex-ture, tire inflation pressure, and brake applicationspeed. Much of this research effort has been di-rected towards obtaining a better understanding ofthe runway slipperiness problem exemplified in thecommercial-transport-aircraft, landing-overrun acci-dents at Erie, Pennsylvania, in F

25、ebruary 1986 and atCharlotte, North Carolina, in October 1986.In early 1983, shortly after the Air Florida acci-dent at Washington National Airport and the WorldAirways accident at Boston Logan International Air-port, congressional recommendations on aviationsafety by the Glickman/Gore subcommittee

26、led toan appropriations bill for FAA research and develop-ment programs in the area of runway friction mea-surements. This bill recommended a funding levelof $400000 and directed that “the FAA, in con-junction with NASA, study the correlation betweenaircraft stopping performance and runway frictionm

27、easurements on wet and contaminated surfaces.This research will be aimed at determining if it ispossible to predict aircraft stopping performancebased on runway friction measurements using newtechnology friction measuring devices.“ The rec-ommendation was supported by the Air Line PilotsAssociation

28、(ALPA). Should the correlation betweenground-vehicle and aircraft friction measurements bevalidated, the Glickman/Gore subcommittee furtherrecommended that runway friction measurement de-vices be made available to airport operators throughthe Airport and Airway Trust Fund.The FAA and NASA, working t

29、ogether in re-sponse to the congressional directive, have conductedextensive runway friction evaluation tests with twoinstrumented aircraft and several ground friction-measuring vehicles for a wide variety of runway sur-face types and conditions. Six different test siteswere used during this 5-yr pr

30、ogram, and 12 groovedand ungrooved concrete and asphalt runway surfaceswere evaluated under dry, truck-wet and rain-wet,and snow-, slush-, and ice-covered conditions. Over200 test runs were conducted with two specially in-strumented aircraft, a NASA Boeing 737 and an FAAProvided by IHSNot for Resale

31、No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Boeing727,andover1100testrunswereconductedwith sixdifferentgroundtestvehicles.Thegroundfriction-measuringdevicesusedin thisprogramwerethe Mu-Meterand BV-11skiddometertrailers,thesurfacefriction tester,the diagonal-brakedvehicle,the

32、 runwayfriction tester,and the runwaycondi-tion readingvehicle. The primary goalsof thisJointFAA/NASAAircraft/Ground-VehicleRunwayFrictionProgramwereto obtain a better under-standingofaircraftgroundhandlingperformanceun-deradverseweatherconditionsandto definerelation-shipsbetweenaircraftandground-ve

33、hicletirefrictionmeasurements.The followingsecondaryobjectiveswerealsoidentified:obtainaircraftgroundhandlingdatawhichwill enhancesimulationsoftwaremod-eling; evaluateaircraftenginethrust reverserper-formance;investigateinfluenceof runwaychemicaltreatmentsoncontrolof snowandicerunwaycon-taminants;ob

34、tainaircraft and ground-vehicletirefriction measurementsto further developand val-idatecomputationalmethodologyusedto estimatetire frictionperformancefor differentsurfacecondi-tions;andidentifythebesttoolsandtestproceduresto provideairportoperatorsanduserswith anaccu-rateassessmentof runwayfrictionc

35、apabilityunderall weatherconditions.SymbolsBoBI9PW#eft(7intercept value of dependent variableslope of linear regression equationacceleration due to gravity, 9 units(lg = 32.2 ft/sec 2)tire inflation pressure, psiground speed, knotsaircraft gross weight, lbtire-pavement friction coefficientaircraft e

36、ffective braking frictioncoefficientstandard deviationAbbreviations:A/CAFBALPAARINCASTMBNASaircraftAir Force BaseAir Line Pilots AssociationAeronautical Radio, Inc.American Society for Testing andMaterialsBrunswick Naval Air StationBOWBV-11CALc.g.CPTCRELDBVDECOMEPRFAAFAATCfitGGMTINSIRIGM.A.C.Mu-MN/A

37、NASA 36NGNTSBPCCPCMPFCP.R.RC filterRCRRFTR/WSFTSSASta.TAPUCARBowmonk brakemeterBV-11 skiddometercalibrationcenter of gravitycontrolled position transducerArmy Cold Regions Laboratorydiagonal-braked vehicledecommutating equipmentengine pressure ratioFederal Aviation AdministrationFederal Aviation Adm

38、inistrationTechnical CenterflightgroovedGreenwich mean timeinertial navigation systemInter-Range Instrumentation Groupmean aerodynamic chordMu-Meternot applicabletime-code system developed by NASAnongroovedNational Transportation Safety BoardPortland cement concretepulse-code modulationporous-fricti

39、on-course overlayply ratingresistor capacitor filterrunway condition readingrunway friction tester (Model 6800van)runwaysurface friction testerslurry-seal asphaltstationTapley meterliquid chemical used as a pavementdeicing and anti-icing agentProvided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networkin

40、g permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Test SitesGeneralSelection of the different test sites used in thisstudy was based on their proximity to Langley Re-search Center in Hampton, Virginia, and the FAATechnical Center near Atlantic City, New Jersey; thevariety of runway surface treatments availab

41、le forboth aircraft and ground-vehicle friction tests; neces-sary support equipment and personnel; and weatherconditions. The primary test sites were NASA Wal-lops Flight Facility, the FAA Technical Center, andBrunswick Naval Air Station (BNAS). The Wal-lops Flight Facility, located on the eastern s

42、horeof Virginia approximately midway between Lang-ley and the FAA Technical Center, has 15 differenttest surfaces, and substantial aircraft and ground-vehicle friction data have been collected on thesesurfaces during previous investigations. (See refs. 1to 10.) The FAA Technical Center airport runwa

43、ywas used because the asphalt runway has grooveconfigurations which differ in spacing from those atWallops. The winter runway test conditions wereevaluated at BNAS, located approximately 40 milesnortheast of Portland, Maine. Some limited air-craft and ground-vehicle test runs were conducted atthree

44、other test sites-Langley AFB, Virginia, Port-land International Jetport, Maine, and Pease AFB,New Hampshire. The runway at Langley AFB has aPortland cement concrete (PCC) surface. Tests un-der rain-wet conditions were conducted with only the727 aircraft on the porous-friction-course (PFC) run-way su

45、rface treatments installed at Portland Interna-tional Jetport and Pease AFB. Table I gives the test-runway designation at each of these test sites and adescription of the test-surface treatment and averagemacrotexture depth values. Additional informationon the runway test surfaces evaluated at the d

46、ifferenttest sites is contained in the following sections.Wallops Flight FacilityThe three-runway layout at Wallops Flight Fa-cility is shown in figure 1. Runway 17/35 was notused in this study. Runway 10/28 is 200 ft wide and8000 ft long with a uniform, medium-macrotexture,slurry-seal asphalt surfa

47、ce that is 6000 ft long in themiddle with 1000-ft-long PCC sections at each end.The average runway crown or cross slope is 1 percent.Dry, truck-wet, and rain-wet test conditions wereevaluated on the slurry-seal asphalt surface shownin figure 2. Runway 4/22, also referred to as thelanding research ru

48、nway, is 150 ft wide and 8750 ftlong. The specially constructed level (no crown) testsection, 50 ft by 4140 ft, consists of four grooved andfour nongrooved sections, each 350 ft long, one non-grooved transition section that is 650 ft long, andtwo new asphalt sections that are each 345 ft long.The gr

49、oove configuration, transversely cut into thepavement, is 1/4 in. wide and 1/4 in. deep and isspaced 1 in. apart. Figure 3 shows schematically thetest-surface arrangement on runway 4/22. Close-upviews of test surface A, which has the lowest macro-texture depth (0.006 in.), and test surface B, whichis grooved and has a higher macrotexture, are givenin figure 4. T