基于尾流安全评估的航空器分类方法改进研究

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.07.1241

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为确定不同航空器分类方法的合理性及尾流间隔标准的安全性,基于尾涡流场快速仿真方法,建立尾涡安全评估模型,采用诱导滚转力矩系数(RMC)作为尾涡遭遇严重度评价指标;计算分析不同尾流间隔标准下当前机为10种典型重型机,后机为36种典型中型机的组合条件在进近着陆阶段的尾涡遭遇安全性;将中型机重新分类并调整间隔标准形成RECAT-NEW方法。结果表明:根据ICAO及RECAT-EU方法计算得到的RMC较大,尾涡遭遇严重程度较高;RECAT-CN及RECAT1.5方法在中型机的分类方面较为保守,尾流间隔存在缩减空间。新提出的RECAT-NEW分组方法在安全余度方面比ICAO及RECAT-EU方法提高54%,尾流间隔比RECAT-CN和RECAT1.5缩减0.3 km。

关键词: 安全评估, 航空器分类, 诱导滚转力矩系数(RMC), 尾涡遭遇, 尾流间隔

Abstract:

In order to analyze the rationality of different aircraft classification methods and the safety of wake separation standards, a wake vortex safety assessment model was established based on the rapid simulation method, and the induced RMC was used as the assessment index of wake vortex severity. During approaching and landing phase wake safety of 10 heavy-sized aircraft and 36 medium-sized aircraft under different wake separation standards was calculated and analyzed. RECAT-NEW method was proposed base on reclassification of the medium-sized aircraft and the adjustment of wake separation standards. Results show that the RMC calculated by the ICAO and RECAT-EU methods is larger and the wake vortex severity more serious. The RECAT-CN and RECAT1.5 methods are relatively conservative in the classification of medium-sized aircraft, and there is a reduction space in the wake interval. The RECAT-NEW grouping method is 54% higher than ICAO and RECAT-EU methods in terms of safety margin, and the wake separation is 0.3 km shorter than RECAT-CN and RECAT1.5.

Key words: safety assessment, aircraft classification, induced rolling moment coefficient (RMC), wake vortex, wake interval

魏志强, 李晓晨. 基于尾流安全评估的航空器分类方法改进研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(7): 70-76.

WEI Zhiqiang, LI Xiaochen. Improvement of aircraft classification method based on wake safety assessment[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(7): 70-76.

图/表 15

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

表6

表7

表8

图7

参考文献 20

[1]	魏志强, 葛飞, 王仲, 等. 基于CRM的障碍物椭圆评价面的构建方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(6):135-140. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.06.023
	WEI Zhiqiang, GE Fei, WANG Zhong, et al. Method for constructing obstacle assessment surface based on collision risk model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(6): 135-140. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.06.023
[2]	HALLOCK J N, HOLZÄPFEL F. A review of recent wake vortex research for increasing airport capacity[J]. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2018, 98: 27-36. doi: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2018.03.003
[3]	HOLZÄPFEL F. Probabilistic two-phase wake vortex decay and transport model[J]. Journal of Aircraft, 2003, 40(2): 323-331. doi: 10.2514/2.3096
[4]	PROCTOR F, HAMILTON D, SWITZER G. TASS driven algorithms for wake prediction[C]. Proceedings of the 44^th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2006:1-20.
[5]	MELGOSA F M, PRATS M X, RUIZ N S, et al. A novel framework to assess the wake vortex hazards risk supported by aircraft in en-route operations[C]. Proceedings of the 7^th SESAR Innovation Days, 2017: 1-6.
[6]	MARQUES J M. On an analytical model of wake vortex separation of aircraft[J]. The Aeronautical Journal, 2016, 120(1232): 1534-1565. doi: 10.1017/aer.2016.89
[7]	SCHWARZ C W, HAHN K U, FISCHENBERG D. Wake encounter severity assessment based on validated aerodynamic interaction models[C]. Proceedings of AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2010: 1-9.
[8]	SPEIJKER L, VIDAL A, BARBARESCO F, et al. ATC-wake: integrated wake vortex safety and capacity system[J]. Journal of Air Traffic Control, 2007, 49(1): 17-32.
[9]	VISSCHER D, WINCKELMANS G, TREVE V. A simple wake vortex encounter severity metric: rolling moment coefficient due to encounter of an aircraft with a wake vortex[C]. Proceedings of the 11^th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar (ATM2015), 2015: 5-15.
[10]	魏志强, 屈秋林, 刘薇, 等. 飞机尾涡流场参数的仿真计算方法研究综述[J]. 空气动力学学报, 2019, 37(1): 33-42.
	WEI Zhiqiang, QU Qiulin, LIU Wei, et al. Review on the artificial calculating methods for aircraft wake vortex flow field parameters[J]. Acta Aerodynamica Sinica, 2019, 37(1): 33-42.
[11]	朱睿, 刘锦生, 刘志荣, 等. 新概念机翼尾流特性实验[J]. 航空学报, 2017, 38(4):6-14.
	ZHU Rui, LIU Jinsheng, LIU Zhirong, et al. Experiment on a new concept wing layout with alleviated wake vortex[J]. Acta Aeronautica ET Astronautica Sinica, 2017, 38(4): 6-14.
[12]	LIU Fei, LIU Xinze, MOU Mingjiang, et al. Safety assessment of approximate segregated parallel operation on closely spaced parallel runways[J]. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2019, 32(2): 463-476. doi: 10.1016/j.cja.2018.12.009
[13]	卢飞, 滕景杰, 吴俊, 等. 尾涡流场影响下的CSPRs配对进近侧向碰撞风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(2):99-105. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.02.016
	LU Fei, TENG Jingjie, WU Jun, et al. Lateral collision risk of CSPRs paired approach under wake impact[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(2): 99-105. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.02.016
[14]	卢飞, 滕景杰, 吴俊, 等. 尾涡流场影响下的CSPRs配对进近侧向碰撞动力学分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(4):21-27. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.04.004
	LU Fei, TENG Jingjie, WU Jun, et al. Lateral collision dynamics of CSPRs paired approach under influence of wake vortex field[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(4): 21-27. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.04.004
[15]	HOLZÄPFEL F. Probabilistic two-phase aircraft wake-vortex model: further development and assessment[J]. Journal of Aircraft, 2006, 43(3): 700-708. doi: 10.2514/1.16798
[16]	GREENE G C. An approximate model of vortex decay in the atmosphere[J]. Journal of Aircraft, 1986, 23(7): 566-573. doi: 10.2514/3.45345
[17]	HOLZÄPFEL F, GERZ T, BAUMANN R. The turbulent decay of trailing vortex pairs in stably stratified environments[J]. Aerospace Science and Technology, 2001, 5(2): 95-108. doi: 10.1016/S1270-9638(00)01090-7
[18]	BAREN G V, TREVE V, ROOSELEER F, et al. Assessing the severity of wake encounters in various aircraft types in piloted flight simulations[C]. Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 2017: 1-16.
[19]	ROBERT G. European wake turbulence categorization and separation minima on approach and departure[R]. Eurocontrol, 2015.
[20]	STEVEN L, CLARK L. Federal aviation administration, RECAT I: lessons learned from MEM[R]. WakeNet-Europe Workshop, 2013.

后机机型	尾涡遭遇模拟数据	文中模型计算结果	相对误差/%
B753	0.04	0.039	-2.5
B738	0.043	0.041	-4.7
MD83	0.048	0.047	-2.1
A320	0.047	0.049	4.3
F100	0.053	0.052	-1.9
E145	0.062	0.06	-3.2

ICAO分组			我国现行RECAT-CN
MTOW/t	翼展/m	组别	MTOW/t	翼展/m	组别
≥136	>74.68	A	≥136	>75	J
≥136	>53.34 ≤74.68	B	≥136	>54 ≤75	B
≥136	>38.1 ≤53.34	C	≥136	≤54	C
>18.6	>32	D	7~136	—	M
	>27.43 ≤32	E
	<27.43	F
≤18.6	—	G	≤7	—	L

前机	RECAT-CN/ n mile	ICAO分组/ n mile			RECAT1.5/ n mile		RECAT-EU/ n mile
	后机	后机			后机		后机
	M	D	E	F	D	E	D	E
B	5	4	5	5	5	5	4	5
C	3.5	3	3.5	3.5	3.5	3.5	3	4

参数	机型
参数	B744	A346	B773	B772	A343	A333	A332	MD11	B763	A306
最大着陆质量/t	281.23	256.04	237.68	201.85	186.03	185.03	180.03	222.94	145.15	140
机翼面积/m²	541.16	436.99	427.81	427.81	361.6	361.6	361.6	338.91	283.35	260
翼展/m	64.92	63.42	60.92	60.92	60.32	60.32	60.32	51.66	47.58	44.84
梢根比	0.277 5	0.2	0.148 6	0.148 6	0.219 8	0.219 8	0.219 8	0.245 9	0.267 2	0.3
进近着陆速度/kn	145	141	141	130	132	133	132	151	138	131
RECAT-CN	B	B	B	B	B	B	B	C	C	C
ICAO分组	B	B	B	B	B	B	B	C	C	C
RECAT1.5	B	B	B	B	B	B	B	C	C	C
RECAT-EU	B	B	B	B	B	B	B	C	C	C

参数	机型
参数	A321	B722	B739	B738	A320	A319	MD83	…	E145
最大着陆重量/t	77.8	70.08	66.81	66.36	64.51	62.5	68.04	…	19.3
机翼面积/m²	122.4	157.94	125	125	122.4	122.4	112.32		51.19
翼展/m	33.92	32.92	34.32	34.32	33.92	34.12	32.89		20.03
梢根比	0.249 2	0.321 1	0.218 9	0.218 9	0.249 2	0.249 2	0.2		0.25
进近着陆速度/kn	131	125	137	135	116	113	135		129
RECAT-CN	M	M	M	M	M	M	M		M
ICAO分组	D	D	D	D	D	D	D		F
RECAT1.5	D	D	D	D	D	D	D		E
RECAT-EU	D	D	D	D	D	D	D		E