faarfild airport pavement design

8/3/2019 FAARFILD Airport Pavement Design

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/faarfild-airport-pavement-design 1/109

FAA Pavem ent Design : AC

150/5320-6E – FAARFIELD

Presented to ACPA Southeast Chapter Workshop

October 21, 2008

Gary L. Mitchell, P.E.

Director of Airports

American Concrete Pavement Association



FAA Pavem ent Design

AC 150/5320-6E, Airport Pavement Design and

Evaluation – Com letel revised in 2008

– New design methodologies for Rigid and Flexible

pavements

– Software dependent design procedures

– Addresses modern air lane arameters



So i l Invest igat ions andva ua on



Chapt er 2

Soi l Invest igat ions and Evaluat ion

Very few significant changes

Still uses Unified Soil Classification (USC) system

50

60

GW CL

30

40

Y I N D E X ( P I )

GM OL

GC CH

SW MH

10

20

P L A S T I C

I

MH - OH

SP OH

SM PT

SC

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

CL - ML ML - OH



Chapt er 2


Same minimum subsurface borin recommendations

Same soil testing recommendations

AREA Minimum spacing Minimum depth

RWY/TWY 200 ft interval 10 ft

Other areas 1 er 10,000 s ft 10 ft

Borrow areas As necessary As necessary



Chapt er 2


Continues to split soil compaction requirements

based upon 60,000 lb gross weight airplane< 60000 ASTM D 698 Standard Proctor

> 60,000 ASTM D 1557 Modified Proctor



Chapt er 2


Soil Strength Parameter for RIGID pavement

Resilient Modulus E (psi) or

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction –k-value (pci)

Design value – “conservative selection”K-value can be estimated from CBR

7788.0CBR1500×

26 ⎥⎦⎢⎣= (k in pci)



Chapt er 2


Modulus of Subgrade Reaction –k-value (pci)

• Removed the statement:“ -

estimating k will not have a large impact on rigid pavement

thickness”

Design comparisons show that FAAFIELD thickness design is

more sens ve o -vaue conver e o an e prevousWestergaard-based procedure.



Chapt er 2


Soil Strength Parameter for RIGID pavement

k-value (pci)With the 3D finite element design procedure

e sens v y o -vaue o rg esgn s

increased. Errors in selection of k-value can

generate noticeable changes in the requiredavement thickness.

20

22

e s s ( i n )

K = 200PCC = 16.14

12

14

16

P C C t h i c k

K = 150PCC = 17.38

10

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400k-value

Example not indicative of all situations



Chapt er 2


Seasonal Frost

Same Frost Groups (FG-1, FG-2, FG-3 & FG-4)

Determination of Depth of Frost Penetration

i.e. local construction practice, building codes, etc.

No nomographs or programs provided



Pavem ent Design



Chapt er 3 - Pavem ent Des ign

Completely New Chapter

Covers standard pavement design procedures for both flexible andrigid pavement

Applies to pavement designed for airplanes with gross weights

exceeding 30,000 lbs

esgn proce ure requres e use o compuer program, .e.

FAARFIELD




FAARFIELD 1.0 – Sc reen Shot s

Main Window StructureWindow

OptionsWindow




Rigid Pavement Design based on 3-Dimensional Finite Element

mo e

Westergaard design procedure no longer used.

Flexible Pavement Design based on Layered Elastic design

US Corp of Engineers CBR Method no longer used




Traffic Models

New procedures require that ALL anticipated traffic beincluded in the traffic model.

Concept of “design aircraft” is no longer used

design aircraft procedure.




Traffic Model - Cumulative Dama e Facto

Sums Damage FromEach AircraftBased upon its unique pavement loading characteristics and

Location of the main gear from centerline

DOES NOT use the “design aircraft” method of condensing

all aircraft into one design model





Sums Damage FromEach Aircraft - Not From “Design Aircraft”

failuretosrepetitionallowableof number

srepetitionloadappliedof numberCDF =

When CDF = 1, Design Life is Exhausted





CDF is Calculated for each 10 inch wide strip over a total820 inch width.

Each strip treated as a 30X30 panel for analysis

Gear location and wander considered for each aircraft

Use Miner’s rule to sum damage for each strip

Must Input Traffic Mix, NOT“Design Aircraft”



Chapt er 3 - Pavem ent Des ignTraffic Model - Cumulative Damage Factor

Critical1

B747-200BB777-200 ER

DC8-63/73

CUMULATIVE

location

D F

0

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500

LATERAL DISTANCE FROM CENTERLINE [inch]



Chapt er 3 - Pavem ent Des ignTraffic Model - Cumulative Damage Factor



Sam le A ir c ra ft T raf f i c M ix CDF Cont r ibut ion Annual CDF CDF Max

Aircraft Name Gross Weight Departures Contribution For Aircraft

Sn l Whl-30 30 000 1 200 0.00 0.00

Dual Whl-30 30,000 1,200 0.00 0.00

Dual Whl-45 45,000 1,200 0.00 0.00

RegionalJet-200 47,450 1,200 0.00 0.00

RegionalJet-700 72,500 1,200 0.00 0.00

Dual Whl-100 100,000 1,200 0.00 0.00

DC-9-51 122,000 1,200 0.02 0.02- , , . .

B-737-400 150,500 1,200 0.09 0.09

B-727 172,000 1,200 0.17 0.17

B-757 250,000 1,200 0.02 0.04

A300-B2 304,000 1,200 0.03 0.14B-767-200 335,000 1,200 0.01 0.13

A330 469,000 100 0.01 0.14

Condition specific and not a general representation of noted aircraft

- - , . .

B-777-200 537,000 500 0.00 0.14



C D

F




Large A i rc ra f t T ra f f ic Mix Gear Loc at ions

B-777-200

B-747-400

i n e

.

-330

B-767-200A-300-B2

B-757

y C e n t e r l B-727

B-737-400

MD-83

MD-90-30

R u n w

DC-9-50

DW 100,000

Regional Jet 700

Regional Jet 200

DW 45,000DW 30,000

SW 30,000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400

Distance From Centerline (in)




Remember

Must use the entire traffic mixture

No more “Design Aircraft”

Comparisons between new and previous design procedures using “designaircraft” for the traffic model will result in significant errors




Traffic Model –Airplane Characteristics

FAARFIELD program currently provides 198 differentaircraft models

Each model is unique with respect to gross load, load

distribution, wheel spacing, and tire pressureGear types identified in accordance with FAA Order

5300.7

Eliminates “widebody” terminolog




Traffic Model – Gear Naming Convention

# of gear types in tandem Total # of body/ belly gears(Because body/belly gear may not(A value of 1 is omitted for

Gear type, e.g. S, D, T, or Q

# of main gears in line on

e symme r ca , e gear musidentify the total number of gearspresent and a value of 1 is notomitted if only one gear exists.)

s mp c y.

one s e o e a rcra , . . , , ,

# of gear types in tandem(Assumes gear is present on bothsides. The value indicates numberof gears on one side. A value of 1is omitted for simplicity.)

(A value of 1 is omitted forsim licit .





Single

SDual

DTriple

TQuadruple

Q





SingleS DualD TripleT QuadrupleQ

2S

2D

2T

2Q

3 Singles in Tandem

3S3 Duals in Tandem

3D3 Triples in Tandem

3T3 Quadruples in Tandem

3Q



Chapt er 3 - Pavem ent Des ign --

Examples

2D

Single Wheel Dual WheelDual Tandem

2D/2D1A340-600

3D 2D/D1DC-10



Chapt er 3 - Pavem ent Des ign --

2D/2D2B747

2D/3D2A380

C5Lockheed C5




Traffic Model –Pass to Coverage (P/C) Ratio

Lateral movement is known as airplane wander and ismodel by statistically normal distribution.

Standard Deviation = 30.435 inches (773 mm)

(P/C) -The ratio of the number of trips (or passes)along the pavement for a specific point on the

pavement to receive one full-load application.

-6E utilizes new procedure for determining P/C





Rigid PavementOne Coverage = One full stress application to the

bottom of the

PCC layer

Flexible Pavement

of the

subgrade layer





-6E (FAARFIELD) uses the concept of “Effective TireWidth”

Rigid Pavement –Effective width is defined at the

surface of the pavement (equal to tire contact patch)(same as previous P/C procedures)

Flexible Pavement Effective width is defined at thesurface of the subgrade layer



Chapt er 3 - Pavement Des ign


Flexible pavement P/C ratio varies with depth of

pavement

Pavement

Surface

Top of

Subgrade



Chapt er 3 - Pavem ent Des ign Typic a l



Chapt er 3 Pavem ent Des ign Typic a l

Sect ions

Air ort avements are enerall constructed in

uniform, full width sections

Variable sections are permitted on runway pavements

Designer should consider:Practical feasibility –complex construction operations

Economical feasibility –cost of complex construction



Chapt er 3 - Pavem ent Des ign Typic a l



Chapt er 3 Pavem ent Des ign Typic a l

Sect ions

Variable sections permitted on runway pavements

1. Minimum 12” u to 36”

2. For runways wider than

150’, this dimension willincrease.

. o apers antransitions on rigidpavements must be aneven multiple of slabs,

minimum one slab width.1

Full pavement thickness

2

3

2

uter e ge t c ness

traffic)

Pavement thickness tapers

to outer edge thickness



- ,Evaluation

–,

Chapt er 3 Sec t ion 3 Rig id Pavem ent




Design

Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)

Subbase Course **

Subgrade

** Stabilization required when airplanes exceeding 100,000 lbs are in the trafficmixture.



Chapt er 3 Sec t ion 3 – Rig id Pavement

3-Dimensional Finite Element Design

NEW procedure Ri id desi n uses 3-D finite element method 3D-FEM

for direct calculation of stress at the edge of a concrete

slab.

Predictor of pavement life

• Maximum Stress at pavement edge

• Assumed failure osition – bottom at slab ed e

Ch t 3 S t i 3 Ri id P t




• Maximum stress at pavement edge

LOAD

• oa rans er to a acent s a

SubgradeMaximum Stress

Bottom of Slab

Ch t 3 S t i 3 Ri id P t




• Maximum stress at pavement edge

LOAD

• oa rans er to a acent s a

SubgradeMaximum Stress

Bottom of Slab

Chapt er 3 Sec t ion 3 Rig id Pavement




Desi n

TOP DOWN CRACKING DUE TO EDGE OR CORNER

• Maximum stress due to corner or edge loading condition

• -

• These conditions may need to be addressed in future procedures

Maximum Stress

LOAD

Top of Slab





Possible Critical Load Locations- Considering SlabCurling

-Up Crack

-Down Crack

Chapte r 3 Sec t ion 3 Rigid Pavement



Chapte r 3 Sec t ion 3 – Rigid Pavement

Pavement Structural Design Life

• e au t es gn e s or years

• Structural design life indicates pavement performance in terms of allowable load repetitions before SCI = 80.

• Structural life is determined based upon annual departures multiplied by

20 (yrs). This value may or may not correlate with calendar years

de endin u on actual avement use.

• Pavement performance in terms of surface condition and other distresses

which might affect the use of the pavement by airplanes is not directly

.

Chapter 3 Section 3



Rigid Failure Model as Implemented in

⎤⎡⎤⎡ SCI

Rigid pavement failure model in FAARFIELD

⎥⎥⎢⎢ ′+− ⎞⎛

−

+− ⎠⎝

−

+×⎥⎥⎢⎢ ′+− ⎞⎛

−

′

=bF bd

SCI

cca

C bF bd

SCI

bd F

F

DF s

s

c 1

100log

1

where:

⎦⎣⎦⎣ 100100

a = 0.5878, b = 0.2523, c = 0.7409, d = 0.2465,

C = coverages

SCI = Structural Condition Index

Fs’ = is a compensation factor that accounts for a high-stiffness(stabilized) base.

c .Note: Equation is linear in log (C ) for any value of

This is a departure from LEDFAA rigid failure model.sF ′


Design



Design

Rigid pavement failure model in FAARFIELD

Initial cracking occurs at thesame time for a re ate and 100

CONCRETE STRUCTURAL MODELFAARFIELD

stabilized subbase

Stabilized section performs 60

80

n

I n d e x ( S C I )

STBS

AGBS

better (longer life) after

initial cracking20

40

t r u c t u r a l C o n d i t i

0

0

Log Coverages (n)

Rigid Failure Model as



Rigid Failure Model as

⎤⎡′⎛ ⎤⎡ SCI

⎥⎥⎢⎢ ′+− ⎞⎛

−

− ⎠⎝

−

+×⎥⎥⎢⎢ ′+− ⎞⎛

−

′

=bF bd

SCI C bF bd

SCI

bd F

F

DF s

s

c 1

100log

1⎦⎣⎦⎣ 100100

is the calibration, or scaling, factor. It is not derived from

analysis of full-scale data, but rather from comparison of the

cF

unca ra e a ure mo e w correspon ng es gns ase on

the design chart method in AC 150/5320-6D. In FAARFIELD

1.1 has a value of 1.13.

c

F

FAARFIELD versus West ergaard



Traffic Mix #4 - MEMPHIS RWY 18R

g

25.00

.

.

R805FAA / COMFAA 2.0

LEDFAA 1.3

FAARFIELD 1.003 (Fc=1.13)

23.00

h i c k n e s s , i

19.00

.

C

C

D e s i g n

17.00

.

P 3 0 1

P 3 0 4

P 3 0 6

P 3 0 1

P 3 0 4

P 3 0 6

P 3 0 1

P 3 0 4

P 3 0 6

P 3 0 1

P 3 0 4

P 3 0 6

P 3 0 1

P 3 0 4

P 3 0 6

P 3 0 1

P 3 0 4

P 3 0 6

P 3 0 1

P 3 0 4

P 3 0 6

P 3 0 1

P 3 0 4

P 3 0 6

P 3 0 1

P 3 0 4

P 3 0 6

P 3 0 1

P 3 0 4

P 3 0 6

P 3 0 1

P 3 0 4

P 3 0 6

P 3 0 1

P 3 0 4

P 3 0 6

E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi

MEM RWY 18R-36L - All traffic MEM RWY 18R-36L - no B777 MEM RWY 18R-36L - All traffic MEM RWY 18R-36L - no B777

= =





Mix 3 - IAD RWY 1L (B727 design aircraft)

27.00R805FAA / COMFAA 2.0

LEDFAA 1.3

FAARFIELD 1.003 Fc=1.13

23.00

25.00

, i n .

. .

21.00

D e s i g n T h i c k n e s s

17.00

19.00 P C C

15.00P301 P304 P306 P301 P304 P306 P301 P304 P306 P301 P304 P306 P301 P304 P306 P301 P304 P306 P301 P304 P306 P301 P304 P306 P301 P304 P306 P301 P304 P306 P301 P304 P306 P301 P304 P306

E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi

Dulles RWY 1L - All traffic Dulles RWY 1L - No B777, A340 Dulles RWY 1L - All traffic Dulles RWY 1L - No B777

R = 500 psi R = 650 psi




Chapt er 3 Pavement Des ign

Westergaard FAARFIELDprocedure procedure

18.26” PCC

8” Stabilized Base

17.38” PCC

(17.61 with P401 base)

” -

SUBGRADE k = 160




Chapt er 3 Pavement Des ign

Westergaard FAARFIELD

procedure procedure

18.25 “ PCC

16.52 “ PCC

Effective

k=323

8” Stabilized Base

=

SUBGRADE k = 323




REQUIRED INPUT VARIABLES

Subgrade support conditions

k-value or Modulus

aera proper es o eac ayeModulus for all layers (flexural strength for PCC)

Poisson’s Ratio –fixed in FAARFIELD

Traffic

Frequency of load applicationAirplane characteristics

, ,




p g

Subgrade Characteristics

FAARFIELD accepts Resilient Modulus ESG or k-value

• Converts k-value to modulus

284.1

26k E =

ESG = Resilient modulus of subgrade, in psi

k = Foundation modulus of the subgrade, in pciAASHTO T 222, Nonrepetitive Static Plate Load Test of Soils and Flexible

Pavement Components, for Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highwayavemen s


Design



Design

Subgrade Characteristics

k-value can be estimated from CBR value

7788.0

26 ⎥⎦

⎢⎣

=k

k = Foundation modulus of the subgrade, in pci

Allowable range of k-value in FAARFIELD – 17.2 to 361.1




Design



g

Subbase Layer Characteristics

Stabilization required with airplanes exceed 100,000 lbs

Aggregate materials - modulus dependent on thickness

Modulus calculated by FAARFIELD based on thickness

4 inch minimum thickness requirement


Design



g

Portland Cement Concrete Layer Characteristics

P-501

FAA recommends 600 –700 psi for design purposes

FAARFIELD will allow 500 –800 psiASTM C 78 Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using SimpleBeam with Third-Point Loading)

6 Inch minimum thickness requirementThickness rounded to the nearest 0.5 inch


Design



g

Design Flexural Strength versus P-501 Specification

esgn reng can e greaer an - - ay

strength e.g. - = ps en esgn a ps

Factors to Consider:

Flexural strength vs. cement content data from prior projects at the airport

Need to avoid high cement contents, which can affect concrete durability

Whether early opening requirements necessitate using a lower strength than 28-day

ASR Concerns




Traffic Input for Rigid Pavement Design

Airplane characteristics

198 Airplane models currently available in FAARFIELD

ee oa etermne automatca y ase on gross

weight

Tire pressure – Internal to FAARFIELD aircraft library

Fre uenc of load a lication

Entered as annual departuresArrival traffic ignored

User determines percent of total

airport volume

Chapter 3 Section 3 – Rigid PavementDesign



Design

FAArfield – Gear Alignment on slab edge

a slab.

•FAARFIELD makes this determination.

3-D Finite Element Model




Design

-

Correctly models rigid pavement- .

Provides the complete stress and

dis lacement fields for the anal zed domain. Handles complex load configurations easily.

or material types.

.

Chapter 3 Section 3 – Rigid Pavement



Disadvantages of 3D-FEM May require long computation times.

Pre-processing and post-processing requirements.

Solution are mesh-dependent.

• In theory, the solution can always be improved by refining the 3D mesh.

• .




Design

3D Finite Element is:

A method of structural analysis.

A licable to a wide ran e of h sical structures

boundary and loading conditions.

3D Finite Element is not:A design method or procedure.

.

Always preferable to other analysis models.




g

Structures and ModelsIn finite element analysis, it is important to distinguish:

The physical structure

The idealized model

The discretized (approximate)

model




g

Improvement in Solution Time

Approximate time for B-777 stress solution:• July 2000: 4 - 5 hours

• July 2001: 30 minutes

(single slab with infinite element foundation)

• Ma 2002: 2 - 3 minute (implement new incompatible modes elements)

• Current version implemented in FAARFIELD:

10 seconds or les



Design

Rigid Pavement Joint Types and Details




Design




Isolation Joints

Type A –Thickened Edge




es gnRigid Pavement Joint Types and Details

Isolation Joints

Type A-1 –Reinforced





Contraction Joints

Type B –Hinged





Contraction Joints

Type C –Doweled

Chapt er 3 Sec t ion 3 – Rig id Pavem ent




Contraction Joints

Type D –Dummy





Construction Joints

Type E –Doweled




DesignRigid Pavement Joint Types and Details

Beveled Joint Detail

Intended to reduce chipping and spalling attributed to

snow plows



Chapt er 5 –Pavem ent s For L ight Ai rc raf t



Rigid Pavement –Joint Steel For Rigid Pavement

TABLE 3-17. DIMENSIONS AND SPACING OF STEEL DOWELS

c ness o a ame er eng pac ng

6-7 in (152-178 mm) ¾ in1 (20 mm) 18 in (460 mm) 12 in (305 mm)

7.5-12 in (191-305 mm) 1 in1 (25 mm) 19 in (480 mm) 12 in (305 mm)

. - n - mm n mm n mm n mm

16.5-20 in (419-58 mm) 1 ½ in1 (40 mm) 20 in (510 mm) 18 in (460 m)

20.5-24 in (521-610 mm) 2 in1 (50 mm) 24 in (610 mm) 18 in (460 mm)

1 - -.each end with a tight-fitting plastic cap or mortar mix.



Rigid Pavement Joint Spacing- . -

RIGID PAVEMENT WITH OR WITHOUT STABILIZED SUBBASE

Part I, without Stabilized Subbase Part II with Stabilized Subbase

Slab Thickness Joint Spacing1

Inches Millimeters Feet Meters

Slab Thickness Joint Spacing1

Inches Millimeters Feet Meters

– -6.5-9 165-229 15 4.6

>9 >229 20 6.1

. .10.5-13 267-330 15 4.6

13.5-16 343-406 17.52 5.32

• Notes:

1. Transverse and longitudinal joint spacing.

2. For typical runway and taxiway geometries, the corresponding longitudinal joint spacing is 18.75 ft. (5.7 m).

3. Joint s acin s shown in this table are maximum values that ma be acce table under ideal conditions.

.

4. Smaller joint spacings should be used if indicated by past experience

5. Pavements subject to extreme seasonal temperature differentials or extreme temperature differentials during

placement may require shorter joint spacings.


Desi n



Rigid Pavement Joint Layout

CHAPTER4



CHAPTER 4

RECONSTRUCTION

Chapt er 4 – Ai rpor t Pavement Over lays .



OVERLAY TYPES

RigidPCC over existing flexible pavement (whitetopping)

PCC bonded to existing PCC

PCC unbondedto existing PCC

e e e par a y on e

xHot Mix Asphalt over existing flexible pavement




Overlay design requires the FAARFIELD program

Input variables include:

Existing pavement structure

Including material properties and traffic requirements

Existing pavement condition

Rigid –use Structural Condition Index (SCI)

Flexible – requires engineering judgment



Structural Condition Index (SCI)

SCI = 80 FAA definition of structural failure

50% of slabs with structural crack

Pavement with an SCI = 80 and no durability issues

.Pavement with SCI > 80 but with durability issues can

.



Cumulative Damage Factor Used (CDFU)

SCI = 100 when there is no visible distress contributing

to reduction in SCI ( no structural distress types)Condition of existing pavement described by CDFU




Cumulative Damage Factor Used (CDFU)=

10080<SCI<100100 % CDFU

CDFU <

80

100

x ( S C I )

STBS

AGBS

I n d e x

40

60

a l C o n d i t i o n I n d distresses

(cracks)

a l

C o n d i t i o

( S C I )

0

20

S

t r u c t u

S t r u c t u

Log Coverages (n )LOG SCALE – COVERAGES


C l ti D F t U d(CDFU)



Cumulative Damage Factor Used (CDFU)CDFU defines amount of structural l ife used

For structures with aggregate base

LU = number of years of operation of the existing pavement until overlay

LD = design life of the existing pavement in years

mo es s re a ons p or s a ze su ase o re ecimproved performance




Overlay on Rubblized Concrete Pavement

Design process is similar to New PCC

Rubblized PCC layer is available in FAARFIELDRecommended modulus values 200,000 to 400,000 psi

Thinner PCC layers warrant lower modulus values

Slab Thickness (inches) Moduli (ksi)

6 to 8 100 – 135

– -

> 14 235 - 400



Chapt er 5

Pavem ent s fo r Ligh t A i rc ra f t


P t d i f i l i hi l th 30000 lb



Pavement design for airplanes weighing less than 30,000 lbs

–

FAARFIELD

– Aggregate -Turf pavement


1400000



1200000198 total air lanes in FAARFIELD

1000000

h t

50 airplanes < 30,000 lbs


600000

800000

r o s s W e i


400000

0

- 1 . 5 7

A - 3 2

3 5 0 P

r - 4 1 4

h l - 1 0

B 2 0 0

t - 4 0 0

h l - 2 0

V I / V I I

r - 8 0 0

- 2 1 5

h l - 4 5

L - 5 0

h l - 6 0

- 1 5 C

- G - I V

- 1 0 0

0 L P

- 5 0 0

- 1 5 0

- 7 0 0

0 E R

B B J 2

0 s t d

1 5 4 B

- 3 0 0

2 S B

3 / 7 3

0 s t d

0 E R

I L 8 6

0 o p t

B e l l y

B e l l y

0 s t d

0 E R

0 0 L R

0 s t d

B e l l y

0 E R

- 2 2 5

S W L

C h k . S i x -

M a l i b u - P A - 4 6 -

C h a n c e l l o

S n g l W

S u p e r K i n g A i r -

B e e c h J e

S n g l W

C i t a t i o n -

H a w k e

C a n a d a i r - C

S n g l W S

D u a l W

G u l f s t r e a m

D u a l T a

A d v . B 7 3 7 - 2

B 7 3

D u a l T a

B 7 3

M D 9 0 - 3

B 7 3 7

A 3 2 1 - 2

T U

B 7 5

A 3 0 0 - B

D C 8 -

A 3 0 0 - 6

B 7 6 7 - 3 0

A 3 3 0 - 3 0

A 3 4 0 - 2 0 0 s t d

D C 1 0 - 3 0 / 4 0

A 3 4 0 - 3

B 7 7 7 - 2 0

B 7 7 7 - 2

A 3 4 0 - 5

A 3 4 0 - 5 0 0 o p t

B 7 4 7 - 4 A

Aircraft in FAARFIELD Internal Library


Ri id P t i l i hi l th 30000lb



Rigid Pavement -- airplanes weighing less than 30,000 lbs

u u

requirements

State Standards permitted for < 30,000 lbs

Minimum thickness = 5 inches < 12,500 lb6 inches 12,501 to 30,000 lbs

Maximum Slab Size

12.5 x 15.0 (ft) (3.8 x 4.6 m)


Rigid Pavement Joint Steel For Light Duty Pavement



Rigid Pavement –Joint Steel For Light Duty Pavement

All dowels

18 inch Long (460 mm)

12 inch on center (300 mm)

All Tie Bars

No. 4 Deformed Bars

20 inch long (510 mm)

36 inch center (0.9 m)

PAVEMENTDESIGNFOR



PAVEMENT DESIGN FOR

Chapter 7 – Pavement Design For Airfield Shoulders

Shoulders are primarily intended to provide



Shoulders are primarily intended to provide

roec on rom eroson an genera on o e rs rom e as

Support for airplanes running off the primary pavement


Shoulder must provide sufficient support for unintentional or



p pp

emergency operation of any airplane in the traffic mix.

Must also provide support for emergency and maintenance vehicle

operations


Minimum section provided by Chapter 7 will not perform in the



Minimum section provided by Chapter 7 will not perform in the

Expect considerable movement and possible rutting

Shoulder pavement should be inspected after every

opera on.


Shoulder Design Procedure



Shoulder Design Procedure

Uses FAARFIELD to determine “most demanding

airplane”

Evaluate proposed shoulder section for each airplane

based on 10 operations

Does not use composite traffic mixture


Shoulder DesignProcedure –Material Requirements



Shoulder Design Procedure Material Requirements

Asphalt

P-401/403 or similar local material specifications

Minimum compaction target density –93% max theo.

density

Minimum thickness = 3 inches

P-501 or similar local material specifications

nmum exura s reng = ps



Shoulder Design Procedure –Material Requirements



g q

FAA specifications or similar local material specifications


Ma be reduced to 4 inch minimum if as halt surface increased b 1 inch

Subbase Material

FAA specifications or similar local material specifications

Expect CBR >20Minimum thickness = 4 inches ractical construction limit

faarfild airport pavement design

Documents