Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/11681/28330
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Cox, Benjamin C. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Carr, Thomas A. | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-08-17T20:05:48Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-08-17T20:05:48Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2018-08 | - |
dc.identifier.govdoc | ERDC/GSL TR-18-20 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11681/28330 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.21079/11681/28330 | - |
dc.description | Technical Report | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | The inability to operate aircraft on a runway after an attack on an airbase poses significant operational challenges. To address limitations of legacy airfield damage repair (ADR) equipment, materials, and tactics, the U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command began the ADR Modernization program, which eventually transitioned to the Rapid ADR (RADR) program. Within the RADR program, this project’s objective was to investigate repair materials and methods for camouflets (i.e., subsurface cavities created by the penetration and detonation of an explosive ordnance). The objective was accomplished through laboratory testing and full-scale testing at the Silver Flag Exercise Site at Tyndall Air Force Base, FL. A method was developed to quickly provide reasonable camouflet volume estimates. Various repair materials were used to repair simulated camouflets that were trafficked at 30-min to 2-hr cure times with a load cart simulating C-17 aircraft. Repairs sustained 112 passes up to 1,568 passes. Repair performance was controlled primarily by existing concrete slab thickness and strength; repair material strength had no perceivable impact (all other factors being equal, this would not be expected to be the case). Repair performance was not adversely affected for the suggested 30-min cure time. | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | Prepared for Headquarters, Air Force Civil Engineer Center under Project 457442; Rapid Airfield Damage Repair (RADR) Program | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | U.S. Air Force Rapid Airfield Damage Repair Program (U.S.) | - |
dc.description.sponsorship | Prepared for Headquarters, Air Force Civil Engineer Center. | - |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Abstract ii Figures and Tables vi Preface x Unit Conversion Factors xi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives 2 1.3 Scope 2 1.4 Outline of chapters 3 2 Literature Review 4 2.1 Camouflets 4 2.2 Rapid-setting concrete materials 10 2.3 Rigid polyurethane foam materials 14 3 Experimental Program 19 3.1 Materials tested 19 3.1.1 Rapid-setting flowable fill 19 3.1.2 Rapid-setting concrete 19 3.1.3 Polyurethane foam 20 3.2 Laboratory material characterization 21 3.2.1 Cementitious materials 21 3.2.2 Foam materials 23 3.3 Void characterization 25 3.3.1 Cavity auto laser scanner 26 3.3.2 MC1 borescope 31 3.3.3 Subsea video systems camera 33 3.3.4 Modified laser range finder 34 3.3.5 Uniprise tubing 37 3.3.6 Loc-Line tubing 38 3.3.7 Plumb bob 39 3.3.8 Laboratory model camouflet 39 3.3.9 Destructive void characterization 41 3.4 Field site description and camouflet generation 42 3.4.1 Field site description 42 3.4.2 Camouflet generation 44 3.5 Camouflet repairs 46 3.5.1 Test plan 46 3.5.2 Weather 47 3.5.3 Equipment 48 3.6 Camouflet repair assessment 56 3.6.1 Material characterization 56 3.6.2 Load cart trafficking 57 3.6.3 Visual assessment 58 3.6.4 Surveys 59 3.6.5 Deflectometer testing 60 4 Laboratory Material Characterization Results 62 4.1 Cementitious materials 62 4.2 Foam materials 64 5 Void Characterization Results 66 5.1 Laboratory void characterization 66 5.1.1 Model 1 67 5.1.2 Model 2 71 5.1.3 Summary of laboratory void characterization 76 5.2 Field void characterization 76 5.2.1 Cavity auto laser scanner results 77 5.2.2 Visual characterization technique results 83 5.2.3 Discrete characterization technique results 86 5.2.4 Destructive void characterization 90 5.3 Development of practical void characterization method 93 6 Camouflet Repair and Trafficking Results 95 6.1 Repair process results 95 6.1.1 Cementitious repairs 95 6.1.2 Foam repairs 99 6.2 Material strength results 101 6.3 Visual assessments 101 6.4 Survey results 107 6.5 Heavy-weight deflectometer results 112 6.6 Post-trafficking forensics 113 7 Discussion of Results 116 8 Conclusions and Recommendations 120 8.1 Conclusions 120 8.1.1 Repair materials 120 8.1.2 Void characterization 120 8.1.3 Repair processes and performance 121 8.2 Recommendations 122 8.2.1 Repair materials 122 8.2.2 Void characterization 122 8.2.3 Repair processes 123 References 124 Appendix A: Photographs of Camouflet Slabs 128 Appendix B: Camouflet Repair Procedure 138 Appendix C: Modified Laser Range Finder Drawings 143 | - |
dc.format.extent | PDF/A | - |
dc.format.medium | 165 pages / 46.36Mb | - |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory (U.S.) | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Technical Report (Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory (U.S.));no.ERDC/GSL TR-18-20 | - |
dc.rights | Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited | - |
dc.source | This Digital Resources was created in Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat. | - |
dc.subject | Runways – Maintenance and repair | en_US |
dc.subject | Pavements – Maintenance and repair | en_US |
dc.subject | Equipment and supplies | en_US |
dc.subject | Explosions | en_US |
dc.subject | Blast effect | en_US |
dc.subject | Cratering | en_US |
dc.title | Camouflet Repair Alternatives | en_US |
dc.type | Report | - |
Appears in Collections: | Technical Report |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
ERDC-GSL TR-18-20.pdf | 47.48 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |