Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Crater repair of North Auxiliary Airfield, South Carolina|
|Authors:||Air Force Engineering and Services Center (U.S.)|
Alford, Samuel J.
Bush, A. J. (Albert Jasper)
|Publisher:||Geotechnical Laboratory (U.S.)|
Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)
|Series/Report no.:||Miscellaneous paper (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; GL-85-21.|
Abstract: This study was conducted to evaluate two rapid runway repair techniques. Two craters, designated west and east, were blown in an east-west runway located at North Auxiliary Airfield, South Carolina. The west crater was repaired using US Air Force Europe's precast slab technique. The slabs used for the repair were imported from Germany and placed over a ballast rock-leveling course base. The east crater was repaired with a fiberglass foreign object damage (FOD) cover placed over a crushed stone base (ballast rock choked with a graded stone) . Repairs were made by a Prime BEEF Team from Charleston Air Force Base under the supervision of Air Force Engineering Services Center personnel. After the craters were repaired, traffic was applied to the repairs with an F-4 aircraft and a specially designed single-wheel test cart which simulated F-4 and F-15 aircraft traffic. The sequence of test traffic applied to the crater repairs was as follows : (A.) proof-testing the repairs with the F-4 test cart, (B.) F-4 aircraft operations, (C.) F- 15 test cart traffic, and (D.) F-4 test cart traffic. The findings from the traffic testing of the crater repairs showed the following for each crater repair. West crater (precast slab repair) findings were: (1 .) Early F-4 traffic (proof-testing and aircraft) and the F-15 traffic generated crack and/or breaks in the slabs, but these cracks and/or breaks did not impair the performance of the crater repair. (2.) Both the F-4 and F- 15 load cart traffic produced spalling that would likely have been a FOD problem. (3.) The initial movement (tipping) of the slabs indicates that a better seating method or some degree of compaction might be desirable before subjecting a repair of this design to aircraft traffic. The proof-testing reduced the movement or tipping by one-half or more, indicating a need for compaction. (4.) The traffic by the F-4 load cart also indicated that some type of compaction might be desirable. (5.) The F-4 aircraft bounced and had a side-to-side rocking motion at the 20- to 30-knot taxi speeds; however, the pilot did not consider this a major problem. Roughness problems were not encountered at speeds slower or faster than 20 to 30 knots. East Crater (FOD cover repair) findings were : (1.) The crater repair as built was underdesigned. (2.) The thickness of the crater fill materials (base course and ballast) were inadequate to withstand the test traffic. (3.) Although the test results indicate poor performance of this type of crater repair, the performance would have been considerably improved if the base material had been constructed at optimum moisture content. (4.) The poor performance of the FOD cover under traffic was mainly attributed to hinge problems (tearing and spalling) and could be solved by either eliminating or reinforcing the hinges.
|Appears in Collections:||Documents|