You are on page 1of 16

New Developments in FAA Airport Pavement

Thickness Design Software


Gordon F. Hayhoe
FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
Airport Technology Research and Development Branch
AAR-410
Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405
(609) 485-8555, gordon.hayhoe@faa.gov
Izydor Kawa
Galaxy Scientific Corporation
2500 English Creek Ave., Bldg. C
Egg Harbor Twp., NJ 08234-5562
(609) 645-0900, izydor.kawa@galaxyscientific.com
David R Brill
FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
Airport Technology Research and Development Branch
AAR-410
Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405
(609) 485-5198, david.brill@faa.gov

ABSTRACT
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has upgraded its LEDFAA airport pavement design software. LEDFAA
version 1.2 was released in 1995 as part of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320-16. The new program, LEDFAA
version 1.3, is a full 32-bit implementation which is compatible with the latest Microsoft operating systems. The
user interface and data entry procedures have been updated somewhat, including the addition of an option to change
to metric units and an option to change the evaluation layer for flexible pavements. A new layered elastic
computational program written in Visual Basic replaces the FORTRAN program used in version 1.2. Two changes
have been made to the flexible pavement design procedure. First, in the failure model (subgrade strain versus
coverages), allowable strain is now independent of subgrade modulus, additional data points for six-wheel gears
have been added, and the slope of the model is shallower at high coverages than at low coverages. Second, for
multiple-gear aircraft, such as the B-747 and the A380, subgrade strain is now computed with all of the wheels in
the main landing gear contributing to the strain computation. The rigid pavement design procedure is unchanged.
The changes are described in detail and future developments discussed.
INTRODUCTION
LEDFAA is a computer program for the thickness design of airport pavements. The program is currently referenced
in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular AC 150/5320-16, Airport Pavement Design for the
Boeing 777 Airplane (1). Appendix 2 of AC 150/5320-16 is a users manual for the program and is repeated in the
LEDFAA help file. AC 150/5320-16 is intended to be used in conjunction with AC 150/5320-6D, Airport
Pavement Design and Evaluation (2), and adds requirements specific to operation of the B-777 aircraft as well as
outlining changes to the requirements of AC 150/5320-6D related to the use of LEDFAA for thickness design. AC
150/5320-16 and LEDFAA functionally replace the following paragraphs of Advisory Circular AC 150/5320-6D:

304. Determination of Design Aircraft.


305. Determination of Equivalent Annual Departures by the Design Aircraft.
316. [Flexible Pavement] Design Curves.
332. a. Rigid Pavement Design Curves.
405. Hot Mix Asphalt Overlays on Existing Flexible Pavement.
406. Hot Mix Asphalt Overlay on Existing Rigid Pavement.
410. Concrete Overlay on Flexible Pavement.
411. Concrete Overlay on Rigid Pavement.
412. Bonded Concrete Overlays.

The design aircraft and annual departure equivalency procedures presented in paragraphs 304 and 305 are
replaced in LEDFAA by a cumulative damage factor (CDF) procedure. Paragraph 316 presents the thickness design
curves for new flexible and asphalt overlays on flexible pavements. These curves are based on the CBR method of
design (see, for example, references 2 and 3) and are replaced in LEDFAA by a layered elastic based methodology
which uses vertical strain at the top of the subgrade as a predictor of structure life (reference 4). Paragraph 332 a.
presents the thickness design curves for new rigid and concrete overlays on flexible pavements. These curves are
based on Westergaard edge stress referenced to the flexural strength of the concrete (see, for example, references 2
and 3) and are replaced in LEDFAA by a layered elastic stress computational methodology described in references 1
and 5. The procedures for overlays on rigid pavement in paragraphs 406, 410, and 411 all use the design charts in
paragraph 332 a. to find the thickness of a single layer for the overlay design conditions and are replaced in
LEDFAA by layered elastic stress computations at the bottom of the existing and overlay layers for rigid overlays, at
the bottom of the existing layer for flexible overlays, and a corresponding prediction of the deterioration of the
existing layer over time (reference 6). With the exception of paragraphs 316 and 332 a., AC 150/5320-6D still needs
to be reviewed when using LEDFAA so that other design and construction requirements are satisfied. AC 150/532016 provides additional design and construction requirements specific to the B-777 aircraft.
Change 3 to AC 150/5320-6D is in preparation and will incorporate the contents of AC 150/5320-16 in a
new chapter (Chapter 7). AC 150/5320-16 will be deleted. Thickness design by LEDFAA 1.3 will then become an
option to the use of the current thickness design charts, even when the aircraft mix falls within the current design
aircraft methodology (that is, when a design chart exists for each aircraft in the mix, or reasonable substitutions can
be made). The use of LEDFAA will be necessary when the mix includes the latest large aircraft types, such as the B-

777, A340-500/600, and A380-800. Updates will be made to the aircraft library in LEDFAA but not to the design
charts.
LEDFAA 1.2 was released in 1995 at the same time as AC 150/5320-16 was published. Since then, the
Windows operating system has undergone two major upgrades and has progressed from the 16-bit DOS-based
versions to the current fully 32-bit versions. LEDFAA has therefore been upgraded to version 1.3 to maintain
compatibility with the Windows operating system, to improve the user interface, and to include aircraft added to
the commercial fleet, or announced for introduction, since 1995. The main changes incorporated in Version 1.3 of
the program are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.
8.

The program is a full 32-bit implementation written in Visual Basic 6.0 (VB6) instead of VB 3.0.
Metric units can be selected as an option to the default U.S. standard units.
Drag and drop has been added to the job and section file lists.
Additional working directories can be created.
The help file has been updated and displays in HTML format.
The layered elastic computational program has been changed from JULEA as a Windows executable to
LEAF as an ActiveX dynamic link library. LEAF is written in VB6 and is a completely new layered elastic
implementation (reference 7).
The aircraft library has been updated, including the addition of Boeing B-777-300ER and Airbus A380-800
and A340-500/600 aircraft.
For flexible design, vertical strain at the top of the subgrade is computed using the loads from all wheels of
multiple-gear aircraft such as the B-747 and A380 instead of using the loads from only one of the gears.
This makes LEDFAA compatible with the B-747 design charts in paragraph 316 of AC 150/5320-6D.

LEDFAA 1.3 replaced version 1.2 for thickness design under AC 150/5320-16, and was posted for download, in
June of 2003.
CHANGES TO THE USER INTERFACE
Figure 1 shows the two visible changes which have been made to the user interface in the Startup window. A new
button has been added which is used to switch between standard U.S. units and metric units. The setting applies to
the numerical displays in all windows of the program. Internal calculations and storage in the external data files is
always in standard units. A new text box has been added beneath the Sections list box. Clicking on the text box
displays a standard Windows dialog box which is used to set the default directory for job file storage. Individual job
files may also be stored anywhere within the resources of the computer by right clicking on the job name. Individual
jobs or sections within a job may be deleted by clicking on the name and pressing the delete key. Individual sections
can be dragged to a different job using the left mouse button.
The only other significant changes to the user interface are that the floating Status window in the Structure
window has been deleted in favor of a fixed text box and the pavement response evaluation points are now displayed
in the gear layout picture in the Aircraft Data window. (The gears are all drawn to the same scale in the picture box.
The picture can be copied to the clipboard by right clicking on the picture.)
LAYERED ELASTIC COMPUTATIONAL PROGRAM
The layered elastic computational program used in LEDFAA 1.2, JULEA, was written in FORTRAN and
implemented as a Windows executable. The FORTRAN code was taken directly from the LEDNEW collection of
programs (see reference 8). Documentation for the program structure and mathematical basis is not available and
upgrading the program to match the new implementation of LEDFAA proved to be quite difficult. A new layered
elastic program, called LEAF, was therefore written from scratch in VB6. It is implemented as an ActiveX dynamic
link library with a defined interface and does not share any code with JULEA (7). Numerical results from LEAF and
JULEA are, for all practical purposes, identical except when the evaluation point is close to the top of the top layer.
This has no practical effect because none of the design procedures in LEDFAA require that pavement responses be
calculated close to the top of the top layer.
AIRCRAFT LIBRARY UPDATE
Several changes and additions have been made to the aircraft library in LEDFAA.

Added
o B-717
o B-737-900
o B-747-400ER
o B-767-400ER
o B-777-200LR
o B-777-300ER
Corrected the dual spacing on A300-600 (from 27.0 in to 36.5 in (685.8 mm to 927.1 mm))
Changed the name of the existing A340 to A340-200/300
Added
o A300-600-opt
o A320-opt
o A340-500/600
o A380-800
o A380-800F

FLEXIBLE DESIGN PROCEDURE CHANGES


For flexible pavement thickness design, LEDFAA (and LEDNEW before it) uses the maximum vertical strain at the
top of the subgrade as the predictor of subgrade shear failure, which in turn is assumed to protect against rutting
failure of the complete structure. In outline, the design procedure first computes the maximum vertical strain at the
top of the subgrade for one of the aircraft, followed by computing, from the failure model, the number of departures
to subgrade failure for that aircraft. The assumed number of departures over the design life is then divided by the
predicted number of departures to failure to give the cumulative damage factor (CDF) for that aircraft. The CDFs for
all aircraft in the design mix are added together and if the sum exceeds a value of one the pavement is predicted to
fail before the end of the design life. If less than one, the pavement is predicted to last longer than the design life.
The thickness of one of the pavement layers is adjusted until the total CDF is equal to one (plus or minus a specified
tolerance).
From LEDFAA 1.2 to 1.3, significant changes have been made to two aspects of the design procedure. The
first involves changes made to the criteria for subgrade failure and the second involves changes to the computation
of vertical strain and CDF. The computation of CDF requires that the failure criteria be defined mathematically and,
consequently, changes to the failure model affect the thickness design by changing the computed values of CDF.
Failure model changes are therefore discussed first.
Failure Model for Subgrade Vertical Strain Criteria
The failure model used in LEDFAA 1.2 is expressed by the equation

C = 10,000

0.000247 + 0.000245 log10 ( E SG )

0.559
0.0658 ESG

and is shown in figure 2 plotted on a graph of vertical strain versus coverages to failure. Also shown in the figure are
data points from full-scale tests where rutting of the subgrade is known to have occurred. Vertical strains were
computed using a layered elastic model of the structures, and coverages to failure were computed from the number
of passes to failure in the full-scale tests and the pass-to-coverage model embedded in LEDFAA.
The model expresses coverages to failure, C, as a function of vertical strain at the top of the subgrade, v,
and subgrade modulus, ESG. Figure 2 illustrates the model with four straight lines, one each for subgrade modulus
values of 4,500, 9,000, 15,000, and 22,500 psi (31.0, 62.0, 103.4, and 155.1 Mpa, and equivalent to 3, 6, 10, and 15
CBR). At low coverage values, allowable strain increases with decreasing modulus. This is equivalent to decreasing
the effective modulus of the subgrade when computing vertical strain to account for the more pronounced plasticity
typically exhibited by low-modulus subgrades (or converting resilient modulus to a secant modulus, as is sometimes
done). See reference 4 for the development of the model. However, the model used to represent this behavior

reverses the trend at about 2,000 coverages and it was found to be difficult to make LEDFAA 1.2 thickness designs
compatible with those of AC 150/5320-6D over the full practical ranges of subgrade strength and aircraft departures.
When developing LEDFAA 1.3, it was found that compatibility between the two design procedures could
be improved by assuming a failure model which is independent of subgrade modulus. The following equations and
figure 3 show the model. A two-slope model was required because the preferred equation for low coverages became
excessively conservative at high coverages. The slope of the second equation below, for high coverages, is the same
as the LEDFAA 1.2 model with subgrade modulus set at 15,000 psi (103.4 MPa). The slope of the second equation
also approximates the relationship in table 3-5 of AC 150/5320-6D, Pavement Thickness for High Departure
Levels.

0.004

C=

8.1

when C 12,100

0.002428

C=

14.21

when C > 12,100

It should be noted that, because of the use of the LEDNEW Modulus procedure (4) for aggregate layers in
LEDFAA, increased sensitivity of design thickness to reduced subgrade modulus (or strength) has not been
completely abandoned by eliminating dependence on subgrade modulus in the failure model. The Modulus
procedure adjusts the modulus values of unbound aggregate layers to be compatible with modulus values of the
bounding layers. This is intended to represent the assumed inability of aggregate layers to support tensile stresses.
But also has the effect of reducing the effective stiffness of the complete structure when subgrade modulus is
reduced and, consequently, the tendency increases for the layered elastic model to predict significant tensile stresses
at the bottom of the aggregate layers above the subgrade. The effect is demonstrated by running LEDFAA with two
different subgrade modulus values and noting the modulus values of the aggregate layers above the subgrade.
Computation of Vertical Strain and Cumulative Damage Factor (CDF)

When computing the CDF of B-747 aircraft in LEDFAA 1.2, subgrade strain is computed from the loads applied by
the four wheels in a single dual-tandem landing gear truck. Pass-to-coverage is then computed for all 16 wheels and
the CDF computed as described below with four-wheel strain and sixteen-wheel pass-to-coverage. This
methodology is reasonable in the sense that each truck in the main gear has the same geometry and the same number
of wheels. But when trying to add the A380 to the program, difficulties in implementation by the same methodology
are immediately apparent because the aircraft has different numbers of wheels in the wing and body trucks (four and
six, respectively). After completing an analytic study of the effects on thickness design of including different
numbers of wheels in the strain computation, it was decided to change the methodology for computing CDF for
multiple-gear aircraft such as the B-747 and the A380 so that all of the wheels in the main landing gear are assumed
to contribute to the maximum strain to be used for design. This assumption is also compatible with the B-747 design
charts in AC 150/5320-6D, which were generated with equivalent single wheel load (ESWL) found using all sixteen
wheels in the main landing gear and pass-to-coverage computed for one four-wheel truck. The pass-to-coverage
computation is reasonable because it is based on the width of the tires at the surface and adding more gears has little
effect on the computed number. The methodology used to generate the design charts also complies with the CBR
design procedure as originally defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which requires that the number of
wheels used to compute ESWL for design be that which gives the thickest pavement over all possible combinations
of wheels.
The computation of vertical strain and CDF is straightforward in principle but can become quite
complicated in the programming details. The procedure used in LEDFAA 1.2 is therefore described first so that the
significance of the changes is clearer. The LEDFAA 1.2 procedure closely follows the programmed implementation
in LEDNEW:
1.

Select a representative gear for response computation. For two-gear aircraft the selected gear is simply
one of the main landing gears. Belly gear aircraft such as the MD-11 and A340 all have duals at the belly
position. The spacing of the gears and the amplitude of the responses with these aircraft mean that

separating into two equivalent aircraft (wing gears on one and belly gear on the other) does not
significantly affect the computed responses. The two equivalent aircraft appear explicitly in the design
aircraft list and are treated as being separate aircraft at all times in the computational procedures. There are
only two multiple-gear aircraft in the LEDFAA 1.2 library; the C-5 and the B-747. Each is treated
differently. Responses for the C-5 are computed as if the two six-wheel groups on each side are one gear,
and response is computed using 12 wheels with the two six-wheel groups in tandem. Responses for the B747 are computed using only one four-wheel group (wing and body gears have the same geometry and
assumed wheel loads).
2. Compute maximum vertical strain at the top of the subgrade.
3. Assume that the maximum response computed in step 2 acts across the width of each tire footprint applied
to the pavement by the aircraft. For flexible pavements the tire footprint is an equivalent elliptical cone of
influence projected down from an assumed ellipse at the surface onto the top of the subgrade. The number
of equivalent tires at the top of the subgrade decreases when there is overlap at the top of the subgrade (see
figures 4 and 5). The area of the ellipse at the surface is the wheel load divided by the tire pressure, and the
ellipses have aspect ratios of 1.6 in both cases.
4. Compute the transverse component of pass-to-coverage ratio for each ten-inch strip across the pavement
using the footprint width determined from step 3 for all wheel tracks in the gear configuration (that is,
wheels in tandem are counted as one footprint moving along the pavement).
5. Compute the longitudinal component of pass-to-coverage ratio for the gear used to compute response. For
flexible pavements this is found from the projected cones of influence at the top of the subgrade and the
longitudinal spacing of the wheels on the gear, see figure 6.
6. For each aircraft, compute the number of coverages applied to each ten-inch strip over the design life.
7. For each aircraft, compute the number of coverages to failure from the failure model for the computed
maximum vertical strain.
8. For each aircraft, compute the CDF for each strip by dividing the applied coverages by the number of
coverages to failure.
9. For each strip, add the CDFs for all the aircraft in the mix.
10. The CDF used for design is the maximum across all strips.
In LEDFAA 1.3, the same procedures are used for all aircraft as in version 1.2 except for the multiple-gear
commercial aircraft, B-747 and A380. The multiple-gear aircraft are given new designations so that the new
procedures can be selected correctly during program execution. The designations are:
1.
2.

WFBF: Wing = dual-tandem, Body = dual-tandem.


WFBN: Wing = dual-tandem, Body = triple-dual-tandem.

Designations for two-gear aircraft are F for dual-tandem (see reference 10) and N for triple-dualtandem. Other multiple-gear aircraft configurations which might be added in the future will require additional
designations and alterations to the source code. The designation for four-wheel strain response and 16-wheel passto-coverage computation for B-747 aircraft is J. This designation still exists in the program and the 1.2 procedures
for B-747 CDF computations can still be done if the data is formatted correctly.
For aircraft with WFBF and WFBN designations, response is computed with all of the wheels in the main
gear acting together. Evaluation points used to compute vertical strain are entered into the aircraft library data
structure in a defined order.
1.
2.

3.

The first eight points are the standard locations for the wing gear type.
The second eight points are the standard locations for the body gear type. The standard locations for tripledual-tandem gears have only six points. The number was increased to eight for the WFWN designation so
that the dual-tandem and triple-dual-tandem data structures are compatible. (Aircraft with two triple-dualtandem gears (designation N) still have six evaluation point locations as standard.)
The remaining points comprise a rectangular grid enclosing the plan view area of the wheels on one side of
the aircraft and extending to the centerline of the aircraft. The current grid is six points wide and five points
long.
The evaluation point locations for the B-747 and the A380 aircraft are shown in figures 7 and 8.

After computing response at all of the evaluation points, the maximum response is found among the wing
gear and leftmost three rows of evaluation points. This response is assumed to apply to each wheel in the wing gear.
The maximum response is found among the body gear and rightmost three rows of evaluation points and assumed to
apply to the body gear. CDF is then computed as in version 1.2 for two separate aircraft: one having only the wing
gears and the second having only the body gears.
RIGID DESIGN PROCEDURE CHANGES

Rigid pavement thickness design in LEDFAA 1.3 is unchanged from version 1.2 except that the B-747 is now
treated as a multiple-gear aircraft for response computation. This is for compatibility with the A380, which has
different numbers of wheels in the wing and body locations and forces a change in the program implementation.
However, the landing gear trucks can be treated independently for stress computation without significant error in the
computed values (see reference 11), unlike with flexible pavement strain computations (as discussed above).
Changes to the program were also required for compatibility with the new aircraft designations. CDF computations
are exactly the same as for flexible pavements except for the following.
1.

2.
3.

4.

The pavement response predictor of failure is maximum horizontal stress (maximum principal stress) at the
bottom of the concrete slab for new pavements. For concrete overlays on rigid pavements, maximum
horizontal stress is computed at the bottom of the overlay slab and at the bottom of the existing slab.
The transverse component of pass-to-coverage is computed in the same way as for flexible pavements
except that an ellipse at the surface of the pavement is assumed.
The longitudinal component of pass-to-coverage is unity for tandem wheel spacings less than or equal to 72
inches (1.83 m) and 0.5 for tandem wheel spacings greater than 72 inches (1.83 m). (For wheel spacings
less than 72 inches rigid pavement pass-to-coverages are the same as in AC 150/5320-6D except for small
differences due to the assumed width of the contact patch).
Multiple-gear aircraft are treated completely as two separate aircraft, for both response computation and
CDF computation. The same data structure as for flexible pavements is used to define the evaluation points
but only the first eight points are used to compute the wing gear response and only the second eight points
are used to compute the body gear response. In contrast to the belly gear aircraft implementation, the
multiple gear aircraft implementation for rigid pavements does not explicitly appear as two aircraft in the
design aircraft list. The separation is completely transparent to the user unless the output text file is opened
and inspected.

Items 1 through 3 above apply to both versions of LEDFAA. Item 4 applies to version 1.3 only.
SUMMARY AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

The FAAs computer program for airport pavement thickness design, LEDFAA, has been upgraded from version 1.2
to 1.3 to retain compatibility with new operating systems for personal computers and to accommodate the latest
commercial jet aircraft, in particular the Airbus A380-800. The main changes in the update have been to reprogram
in Visual Basic 6.0, slightly improve the user interface, change the layered elastic computational program, expand
the aircraft library, change the failure criteria for subgrade failure in flexible pavement design, and change the way
in which vertical strain in the subgrade of flexible pavements is computed for multiple-gear aircraft.
The use of a layered elastic model to represent a rigid pavement does not allow design for a jointed
pavement and LEDFAA converts interior stresses to equivalent edge stresses by an approximate correlation
technique. A new program, called FEDFAA, has been developed for rigid pavement thickness design in which a 3D
finite element model is used for jointed rigid pavement structures. Flexible pavement design in FEDFAA is exactly
the same as in LEDFAA 1.3, and any changes which may be made in LEDFAA before FEDFAA is ready as a
replacement will be incorporated in the final version.
A further change which will be made to LEDFAA for flexible pavement design is to treat belly-gear
aircraft such as the MD-11 and the A340 in the same manner as the large multiple-gear aircraft. That is, all wheels in
the main gear will be assumed to contribute to the computation of vertical strain. This will not significantly change
the thickness designs produced by the program, but will be implemented so that the multiple-gear aircraft are all
treated the same. The fact that the belly-gear wheels have different tire pressures than the wing-gear wheels
complicates the implementation and is the reason for the delay. Minor changes may also be made to the flexible
subgrade failure criteria as a result of an ongoing correlation study between the different design procedures. Changes

in thickness designs will not be significant. (A description of the correlation study is contained in a companion
paper.)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work described in this paper was supported by the FAA Airport Technology Research and Development
Branch, AAR-410, Dr. Satish K. Agrawal, Manager. Thanks are also due to Rodney Joel of the FAA Office of
Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-100, for information on Change 3 to AC 150/5320-6D, and for other technical
help during the development of LEDFAA 1.3. The contents of the paper reflect the views of the authors, who are
responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented within. The contents do not necessarily reflect the
official views and policies of the FAA. The paper does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
LIST OF FIGURES

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Visible changes to the user interface in the Startup window (metric option and changeable working directory).
LEDFAA 1.2 failure model showing full-scale test data and model curves for four subgrade modulus values.
LEDFAA 1.3 failure model showing full-scale test data and separate model curves for high and low coverages.
Equivalent tire width at the top of the subgrade with no overlap (two equivalent tires).
Equivalent tire width at the top of the subgrade with overlap (one equivalent tire).
Tandem gear factor as a function of tandem spacing for two wheels in tandem (the maximum gear factor is the
number of wheels in tandem for other gears, e.g. 3 for a triple-dual-tandem such as a B-777).
7. Vertical subgrade strain evaluation points for B-747-400, all 16 wheels contribute to the strain computation at
each evaluation point.
8. Vertical subgrade strain evaluation points for A380-800, all 20 wheels contribute to the strain computation at
each evaluation point.

REFERENCES

1. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Airport Pavement Design for the
Boeing 777 Airplane, Advisory Circular AC 150/5320-16, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995.
2. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Airport Pavement Design and
Evaluation, Advisory Circular AC 150/5320-6D, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995 (also see
http://www.faa.gov/arp/150acs.htm for updates).
3. Horonjeff, Robert and Francis X. McKelvey, Planning and Design of Airports, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1983.
4. Barker, Walter R., and William N. Brabston, Development of a Structural Design Procedure for Flexible Airport
Pavements, Report No. FAA-RD-74-199, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
September 1975.
5. Parker, F., Jr., W.R. Barker, R.C. Gunkel, and E.C. Odom, Development of a Structural Design Procedure for
Rigid Airport Pavements, Report No. FAA-RD-77-81, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, April 1977.
6. Rollings, R.S., Design of Overlays for Rigid Airport Pavements, Report No. DOT/FAA/PM-87/19, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, April 1988.
7. Hayhoe, Gordon F., LEAF A New Layered Elastic Computational Program for FAA Pavement Design and
Evaluation Procedures, 2002 FAA Airport Technology Transfer Conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey, May 58, 2002.
8. Barker, W.R., and C.R. Gonzalez, Pavement Design by Elastic Layer Theory, Proceedings, ASCE Conference
on Aircraft/Pavement Interaction, Kansas City, 1991.
9. Barker, W.R., and C.R. Gonzalez, Super-Heavy Aircraft Study, Technical Report GL-94-12, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, April 1994.
10. Holliway, Robert, and K. Stuart Millard, Aircraft Characteristics for Airfield Pavement Design and
Evaluation, Air Force Engineering and Services Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, August 1990.
11. Brill, David R., Edward H. Guo, and Lia Ricalde, Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Multiple
Aircraft Gear Loadings on Rigid Airfield Pavements, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium: 3D
Finite Elements for Pavement Analysis, Design and Research, 25 April, 2002, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

FIGURE 1 Visible changes to the user interface in the Startup window (metric option and changeable
working directory).

SUBGRADE VERTICAL STRAIN & NUMBER OF COVERAGES


ONLY SUBGRADE FAILURE CONSIDERED
0.01

Vertical Subgrade Strain, inch/inch

CC3-LFC1-6W

CC1-MFS-6W

CC3-LFC2-4W

SG Mod. = 4,500
CC1-MFC-4W

CC3-LFC3-6W

SG Mod. = 9,000
SG Mod. = 15,000
CC1-MFS-4W

SG Mod. = 22,500

CC3-LFC3-4W

0.001

CC3-LFC2-6W

Stockton - 8
MWHGL - 7
Structural Layers Study - 6
NAPTF - 9

CC3-LFC1-4W

CC1-MFC-6W

-0.1149

y = 0.005x
2
R = 0.6906

0.0001
1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

No. of Coverages to Failure

FIGURE 2 LEDFAA 1.2 failure model showing full-scale test data and model curves for four subgrade
modulus values.

SUBGRADE VERTICAL STRAIN & NUMBER OF COVERAGES


ONLY SUBGRADE FAILURE CONSIDERED
0.01

CC3-LFC2-4W

Vertical Subgrade Strain, inch/inch

CC3-LFC1-6W

CC1-MFS-6W

CC1-MFC-4W

CC3-LFC3-6W

CC1-MFS-4W

CC3-LFC3-4W

0.001

CC3-LFC2-6W

Stockton - 8
MWHGL - 7
Structural Layers Study - 6
NAPTF - 9

CC3-LFC1-4W

CC1-MFC-6W

LEDFAA 1.3
Failure Model
-0.1149

y = 0.005x
2
R = 0.6906

0.0001
1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

No. of Coverages to Failure

FIGURE 3 LEDFAA 1.3 failure model showing full-scale test data and separate model curves for high and
low coverages.

10

t
w

w
tires

surface

1
2

top of subgrade
h
2

h
2
w+h

subgrade

FIGURE 4 Equivalent tire width at the top of the subgrade with no overlap (two equivalent tires).

11

t
w

w
tires

surface

1
2
top of subgrade
h
2

w+t

h
2

w+t+h
subgrade
FIGURE 5 Equivalent tire width at the top of the subgrade with overlap (one equivalent tire).

12

Tandem Gear Factor

h /2

net tandem spacing b


FIGURE 6 Tandem gear factor as a function of tandem spacing for two wheels in tandem (the maximum
gear factor is the number of wheels in tandem for other gears, e.g. 3 for a triple-dual-tandem such as a
B-777).

13

FIGURE 7 Vertical subgrade strain evaluation points for B-747-400, all 16 wheels contribute to the strain
computation at each evaluation point.

14

FIGURE 8 Vertical subgrade strain evaluation points for A380-800, all 20 wheels contribute to the strain
computation at each evaluation point.

15