Analysis on effect of interface treatment technology on interlayer shear performance of airport thin overlays
Article Text (Baidu Translation)
-
摘要: 为定量分析5种典型界面处治技术（凿毛、刻槽、SBR界面剂、SBR界面剂+凿毛、SBR界面剂+刻槽）对机场水泥混凝土薄层罩面层间剪切性能的影响，基于室内剪切试验标定不同处治技术的层间本构参数，构建了考虑层间黏结-滑移-摩擦行为的飞机-道面三维动力有限元模型；基于该模型，提出了以层间滑移作为损伤界限的黏结强度储备系数和容许滑移系数，用于定量分析单次飞机动载作用下的层间剪切力学行为。结果表明：层间剪切临界荷位主要由主起落架轮迹控制，在各参数组合下稳定集中于轮迹入板/出板的板边区域；在高罩面层模量与强动载效应等不利工况下，无处治与仅采用单独处治（刻槽、凿毛、SBR界面剂）的罩面层间会在单次飞机动载作用下进入软化损伤阶段，而采用复合处治的罩面层间仍处于内聚力黏结阶段，表明复合处治技术通过增强层间黏结强度与有效控制层间滑移，提升了罩面层间的抗剪损伤能力。建议机场薄层罩面优先采用SBR界面剂与凿毛/刻槽相结合的复合处治技术，并将板边轮迹区作为日常巡检与风险管控的重点部位。Abstract: To quantitatively analyze effect of five typical interface treatment technologies (chipping, grooving, SBR interface agent, SBR interface agent + chipping, and SBR interface agent + grooving) on interlayer shear performance of airport thin cement concrete overlays, interlayer constitutive parameters of different treatment technologies were calibrated based on laboratory shear tests, and a three-dimensional dynamic finite element model of aircraft-pavement considering interlayer bond-slip-friction behavior was constructed. Based on this model, a bond strength reserve coefficient and allowable slip coefficient taking interlayer slip as damage limit were proposed to quantitatively analyze interlayer shear mechanical behavior under single aircraft dynamic load. Results indicate that critical loading position of interlayer shear is mainly controlled by main landing gear wheel path and stably concentrates in slab edge region of wheel path entering/exiting slab under various parameter combinations; under adverse conditions such as high overlay modulus and strong dynamic load effect, interlayer of overlays without treatment and with only single treatment (grooving, chipping, and SBR interface agent) enters softening damage stage under single aircraft dynamic load, while interlayer of overlays with composite treatment still stays in cohesive bonding stage, indicating that composite treatment technology improves shear damage resistance capacity of interlayer of overlays by enhancing interlayer bond strength and effectively controlling interlayer slip. It is suggested that composite treatment technology combining SBR interface agent with chipping/grooving is preferentially adopted for airport thin cement concrete overlays, and wheel path region at slab edge is taken as key part for daily inspection and risk control.
-
表 1 界面处治技术的参数
Table 1. Interface treatment parameters
SBR改性水泥石英砂浆界面剂 水胶比为0.25，砂灰比为1.3，SBR掺量（质量分数，下文同）为9% 刻槽 槽中线间距为25 mm，宽度为7 mm，深度为4 mm 凿毛 铺砂深度2.6 mm 无处治 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 层间本构模型参数
Table 2. Constitutive model parameters for interlayer
工况 层间处治技术 Ks/（N·mm-3） δs/mm μ τs/MPa A1 无处理 2.98 0.30 0.41 1.62 A2 刻槽 4.57 0.42 0.65 2.74 A3 凿毛 4.39 0.44 0.70 3.34 A4 SBR界面剂 5.12 0.53 0.54 2.56 A5 SBR界面剂+刻槽 5.70 0.56 0.68 4.04 A6 SBR界面剂+凿毛 6.05 0.61 0.74 4.12
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 道面结构参数
Table 3. Pavement structure parameters
结构层 厚度/cm 弹性模量/GPa 泊松比 密度/（kg·m-3） 水泥混凝土罩面层 5 44.0 0.15 2 500 42.0 0.15 2 450 40.0 0.15 2 400 旧混凝土道面 29 38.0 0.15 2 500 水泥稳定碎石基层 20 1.5 0.25 2 000 水泥稳定碎石基层 18 1.5 0.25 2 000 地基 0.40 1 800 注：地基反应模量取为40 MN·m-3。
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 波音737-800模型参数
Table 4. Boeing 737-800 model parameters
机型 B737-800 最大起飞质量/kg 79 000 最大着陆质量/kg 66 380 主起落架载荷分布系数 0.95 主起落架间距/m 5.72 主起落架数量 2 主起落架轴距/m 0.86 主起落架构型 单轴双轮 主起落架胎压/MPa 1.47
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 飞机运动参数
Table 5. Aircraft motion parameters
运动状态 水平初始速度/（km·h-1） 水平加速度/（m·s-2） 下沉速度/（m·s-1） 俯角/（°） 滑跑 70 0.0 0.00 0 2.5 0.00 0 3.0 0.00 0 着陆 242 0.0 1.32 2
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 实测数据与有限元计算结果的误差对比
Table 6. Errors between measured values and finite element values
峰值 平均误差/% 最大误差/% R2 板中动态应变 10.2 13.8 0.95 板角动态应变 11.3 14.7 0.92 板边动态应变 5.8 9.2 0.94 板边竖向加速度 8.1 11.3 0.97
下载: 导出CSV
表 7 匀速滑跑状态
Table 7. Constant speed taxiing condition
界面处治技术工况 不同水泥混凝土罩面层弹性模量（GPa）下的层间极限剪切应力/MPa 不同水泥混凝土罩面层弹性模量（GPa）下层间临界荷位处的最大滑移值/mm 44 42 40 44 42 40 无处理（A1） 1.090 1.056 0.988 0.215 0.206 0.194 刻槽（A2） 1.148 1.121 1.044 0.226 0.215 0.201 凿毛（A3） 1.152 1.129 1.069 0.231 0.216 0.203 SBR界面剂（A4） 1.101 1.088 1.034 0.204 0.192 0.179 SBR界面剂+刻槽（A5） 1.196 1.131 1.083 0.225 0.210 0.202 SBR界面剂+凿毛（A6） 1.211 1.170 1.117 0.230 0.215 0.205
下载: 导出CSV
表 8 匀加速滑跑状态（加速度a=3 m·s-2）
Table 8. Constant acceleration taxiing condition (acceleration a=3 m·s-2)
界面处治技术工况 不同水泥混凝土罩面层弹性模量（GPa）下的层间极限剪切应力/MPa 不同水泥混凝土罩面层弹性模量（GPa）下层间临界荷位处的最大滑移值/mm 44 42 40 44 42 40 无处理（A1） 1.479 1.408 1.348 0.265 0.253 0.242 刻槽（A2） 1.532 1.460 1.414 0.303 0.288 0.276 凿毛（A3） 1.543 1.516 1.436 0.308 0.293 0.281 SBR界面剂（A4） 1.513 1.426 1.372 0.257 0.241 0.231 SBR界面剂+刻槽（A5） 1.600 1.543 1.467 0.324 0.307 0.295 SBR界面剂+凿毛（A6） 1.652 1.549 1.520 0.342 0.323 0.309
下载: 导出CSV
表 9 降落状态
Table 9. Landing condition
界面处治技术工况 不同水泥混凝土罩面层弹性模量（GPa）下的层间极限剪切应力/MPa 不同水泥混凝土罩面层弹性模量（GPa）下层间临界荷位处的最大滑移值/mm 44 42 40 44 42 40 无处理（A1） 1.620 1.612 1.603 0.436 0.414 0.391 刻槽（A2） 2.680 2.565 2.450 0.407 0.394 0.379 凿毛（A3） 2.702 2.589 2.472 0.388 0.376 0.360 SBR界面剂（A4） 2.560 2.529 2.414 0.563 0.536 0.508 SBR界面剂+刻槽（A5） 2.808 2.691 2.578 0.447 0.430 0.414 SBR界面剂+凿毛（A6） 2.835 2.719 2.608 0.462 0.445 0.428
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 中华人民共和国交通运输部. 2021年民航行业发展统计公报[R]. 北京: 中国民用航空局, 2022: 8-9.Ministry of Transport of the People's Republic of China. 2021 statistical bulletin on the development of civil aviation industry [R]. Beijing: Civil Aviation Administration of China, 2022: 8-9. [2] DE MOURA I R, DOS SANTOS SILVA F J, COSTA L H G, et al. Airport pavement evaluation systems for maintenance strategies development: A systematic literature review [J]. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 2021, 14(6): 676-687. doi: 10.1007/s42947-020-0255-1 [3] 凌建明, 李沛霖, 刘诗福, 等. 机场智慧跑道的内涵拓展与功能系统[J]. 土木工程学报, 2024, 57(8): 119-128.LING Jian-ming, LI Pei-lin, LIU Shi-fu, et al. Connotation expansion and function system of airport smart runway [J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2024, 57(8): 119-128. [4] International Air Transport Association. IATA annual safety report 2023, Recommendations for accident prevention[R]. Montreal: IATA, 2023: 49-50. [5] WANG J Q, LI Q, SONG G W, et al. Investigation on the comprehensive durability and interface properties of coloured ultra-thin pavement overlay [J]. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 2022, 17: e01341. doi: 10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01341 [6] GILLANI S AALI, TOUMI A, TURATSINZE A. Effect of surface preparation of substrate on bond tensile strength of thin bonded cement-based overlays [J]. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 2020, 13(2): 197-204. doi: 10.1007/s42947-019-0101-5 [7] LI L H, YANG R. Fatigue life analysis of composite pavement with multiple overlays [J]. Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development (English Edition), 2018, 12(3): 7-15. doi: 10.1061/JHTRCQ.0000634 [8] Federal Aviation Administration. AC 150/5320-6G Airport pavement design and evaluation [R]. Washington DC: FAA, 2021: 96-102. [9] DAS R. Field investigation and performance evaluation of interface bonding between pavement layers [D]. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 2017: 22-31 [10] XU J Y, MA B, LIU F S, et al. Study of the bonding performance and application of an epoxy resin pavement sealant [J]. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2023, 35(7): 04023183. doi: 10.1061/JMCEE7.MTENG-15282 [11] 杨才千, 徐利敏, 曾领雄, 等. 纳米SiO2改性界面剂对混凝土黏结性能的影响[J]. 混凝土, 2024(5): 37-42, 47.YANG Cai-qian, XU Li-min, ZENG Ling-xiong, et al. Effect of nano-SiO2 modified interfacial agent on the bonding performance of concrete [J]. Concrete, 2024(5): 37-42, 47. [12] DRIDI M, HACHEMI S, BELKADI A A. Influence of styrene-butadiene rubber and pretreated hemp fibers on the properties of cement-based repair mortars [J]. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 2023, 27(1): 538-557. doi: 10.1080/19648189.2022.2052968 [13] 汪鹏, 梁鸿骏, 万睿. 界面剂对混凝土-ECC界面粘结性能影响机理研究[J]. 武汉大学学报(工学版), 2026, 59(1): 48-57.WANG Peng, LIANG Hong-jun, WAN Rui. Study on mechanism of interface agent on bonding performance of concrete-ECC interface [J]. Engineering Journal of Wuhan University, 2026, 59(1): 48-57. [14] 郝玉军, 韩文龙, 彭涛, 等. 被动围压下ECC-NC界面粘结性能与韧性评价[J/OL]. 交通运输工程学报, 2025-12-15. https://doi.org/10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2026.103 .HAO Yu-jun, HAN Wen-long, PENG Tao, et al. Bond performance and toughness evaluation of ECC-NC interface under passive confining pressure [J/OL]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2025-12-15.https://doi.org/10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2026.103 .[15] OKUMURA U, LI Y, LI K, et al. Influence of surface roughness and interfacial agent on the interface bonding characteristics of polyurethane concrete and cement concrete [J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2024, 91: 109596. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2024.109596 [16] DANESHVAR D, BEHNOOD A, ROBISSON A. Interfacial bond in concrete-to-concrete composites: A review [J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2022, 359: 129195. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129195 [17] LUO Q R, WANG W, WANG B J, et al. Numerical study on interface optimization of new-to-old concrete with the slant grooves [J]. Structures, 2021, 34: 381-399. doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.07.094 [18] 董海东, 麻旭荣, 裘秋波, 等. 基于斜剪试验的超薄罩面层间黏结性能研究[J]. 公路, 2022, 67(4): 94-97.DONG Hai-dong, MA Xu-rong, QIU Qiu-bo, et al. Study on interlayer bonding performance of ultra-thin overlay based on oblique shear test [J]. Highway, 2022, 67(4): 94-97. [19] MOKHTARI S, HASSAN M. Performance of bond between old and new concrete layers: The effective factors, durability and measurement tests: A review [J]. Infrastructures, 2024, 9(10): 171. doi: 10.3390/infrastructures9100171 [20] 冯硕. UHPC-NSC界面协同服役性能与机理研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 哈尔滨工业大学, 2023: 73-77.FENG Shuo. Study on synergistic service performance and mechanism of UHPC-NSC [D]. Harbin: Harbin Institute of Technology, 2023: 73-77. [21] 陈子璇, 肖建庄, 丁陶. 混凝土-混凝土层间界面的性能及在组合混凝土结构中的应用评述[J]. 同济大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 49(7): 964-974.CHEN Zi-xuan, XIAO Jian-zhuang, DING Tao. Review on behavior of concrete-concrete interface and its application in composite concrete structures [J]. Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science), 2021, 49(7): 964-974. [22] JIA X Y, HU W, ZHU D. Investigation of interlayer shear failure of concrete bridge deck asphalt overlay utilizing shear strength envelopes [J]. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2021, 123: 105278. doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105278 [23] ZHAO H D, TIAN Y, REN L, et al. Improvements to the bonding condition of ultra-thin concrete overlays for airport rigid pavements [J]. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2024, 25: 2427855. doi: 10.1080/10298436.2024.2427855 [24] KIM H, BUTTLAR W G, CHOU K F. Mesh-independent fracture modeling for overlay pavement system under heavy aircraft gear loadings [J]. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 2010, 136(4): 370-378. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000101 [25] BAYRAKTAROVA K, EBERHARDSTEINER L, PEYER M J, et al. Towards a better consideration of the interface bonding conditions in the design of bonded concrete overlays [J]. Materials and Structures, 2023, 56(2): 30. doi: 10.1617/s11527-023-02107-x [26] ZHANG Z Y, PANG K, XU L H, et al. The bond properties between UHPC and stone under different interface treatment methods [J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2023, 365: 130092. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.130092 [27] LIU Q H, MA J D, QIAO P Z, et al. Mesoscale modeling of new-to-old concrete interface under combined shear and compressive loads [J]. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2024, 307: 110331. doi: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2024.110331 [28] SHI X J, LU X Q, HE T, et al. Predictions of friction and flash temperature in marine gears based on a 3D line contact mixed lubrication model considering measured surface roughness [J]. Journal of Central South University, 2021, 28(5): 1570-1583. doi: 10.1007/s11771-021-4716-8 [29] 李聪, 毛庆超, 胡文旭, 等. 栓黏混合连接钢-UHPC组合板界面抗剪试验[J]. 交通运输工程学报, 2025, 25(5): 278-296. doi: 10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2025.05.019LI Cong, MAO Qing-chao, HU Wen-xu, et al. Shear test on interface of steel-UHPC composite slab with hybrid connection of headed stud and adhesive [J]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2025, 25(5): 278-296. doi: 10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2025.05.019 [30] 侯帅龙, 叶华文, 宋雯钰, 等. 考虑界面滑移和阻尼效应的简支钢-混组合梁自振特性的三角级数解[J/OL]. 交通运输工程学报, 2026-04-07. https://doi.org/10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2026.262 .Hou shuai-long, YE Hua-wen, SONG Wen-yu, et al. Triangular series solution for free vibration characteristics of simply supported steel-concrete composite beams considering interface slip and damping effects [J/OL]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2026-04-07.https://doi.org/10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2026.262 .[31] CUNLIFFE C, MEHTA Y A, CLEARY D, et al. Impact of dynamic loading on backcalculated stiffness of rigid airfield pavements [J]. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2016, 17(6): 489-502. doi: 10.1080/10298436.2014.993395 [32] Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Boeing 737 airplane flight manual [R]. Seattle: Boeing, 2023: 72-93. [33] 岑业波. 飞机荷载和湿化作用下道基变形特征及预估[D]. 上海: 同济大学, 2024: 122-130.CEN Ye-bo. Deformation characteristics and prediction of pavement subgrade under aircraft load and wetting effect [D]. Shanghai: Tongji University, 2024: 122-130 [34] 刘诗福. 飞机滑跑随机振动动力学响应及跑道平整度评价[D]. 上海: 同济大学, 2015: 140-148.LIU Shi-fu. Dynamic response of aircraft random vibration during taxiing and runway roughness evaluation [D]. Shanghai: Tongji University, 2015: 140-148 [35] 凌建明, 王增逸, 刘诗福, 等. 飞机滑跑激振和着陆冲击的动载预估模型[J]. 交通运输工程学报, 2026, 26(8): 1-19.LING Jian-ming, WANG Zeng-yi, LIU Shi-fu, et al. Dynamic load predictive model for aircraft taxiing excitation and landing impact [J]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2026, 26(8): 1-19. -
图(7) / 表(9)
计量
- 文章访问数: 25
- HTML全文浏览量: 8
- PDF下载量: 3
- 被引次数: 0
