The National Academies Press: Guidance For Usage of Permeable Pavement at Airports (2017)

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24852 SHARE

   
Guidance for Usage of Permeable Pavement at Airports (2017)
DETAILS
88 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-44649-5 | DOI 10.17226/24852
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK James Bruinsma, Kelly Smith, David Peshkin, Lauren Ballou, Bethany Eisenberg,
Carol Lurie, Mark Costa, Cambria Ung, Somayeh Nassiri, Xianming Shi, and Liv
Haselbach; Airport Cooperative Research Program; Transportation Research Board;
FIND RELATED TITLES National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017. Guidance for

Usage of Permeable Pavement at Airports. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24852.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Guidance for Usage of Permeable Pavement at Airports
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 178

Guidance for Usage of Permeable
Pavement at Airports
James Bruinsma
Kelly Smith
David Peshkin
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
Urbana, IL
Lauren Ballou
Bethany Eisenberg
Carol Lurie
Mark Costa
Cambria Ung
VHB
Boston, MA
Somayeh Nassiri
Xianming Shi
Washington State University
Pullman, WA
Liv Haselbach
Lamar University
Beaumont, TX
Subscriber Categories
Aviation • Environment • Pavements
Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration
2017
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 178
Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans- Project 02-64
portation of people and goods and in regional, national, and interna- ISSN 2572-3731 (Print)
tional commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects ISSN 2572-374X (Online)
with other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for ISBN 978-0-309-44649-5
managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of Library of Congress Control Number 2017947390
state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research
© 2017 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
is necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate
new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into
the airport industry. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)
serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon- published or copyrighted material used herein.
sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). ACRP carries out Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agen- publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
cies and not being adequately addressed by existing federal research understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
programs. ACRP is modeled after the successful National Cooperative FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and Transit Cooperative Research reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give
Program (TCRP). ACRP undertakes research and other technical activi- appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For
ties in various airport subject areas, including design, construction, legal, other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
maintenance, operations, safety, policy, planning, human resources, and
administration. ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can
cooperatively address common operational problems.
NOTICE
ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100—
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary participants in The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight
and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations such as the Airports Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the
Council International-North America (ACI-NA), the American Associa- program sponsors.
tion of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State
The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport Medicine; and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse
Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) TRB products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because
as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the they are considered essential to the object of the report.
FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract
with the National Academy of Sciences formally initiating the program.
ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport
professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials,
equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research organi-
zations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibili-
ties, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort.
Research problem statements for ACRP are solicited periodically but
may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility
of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the highest
priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products.
Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel
appointed by TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and
research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport
professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels
prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors,
and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the Published research reports of the
project. The process for developing research problem statements and
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing coop-
erative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP are available from
project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Transportation Research Board
Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
intended users of the research: airport operating agencies, service pro- Washington, DC 20001
viders, and academic institutions. ACRP produces a series of research
reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other and can be ordered through the Internet by going to
interested parties; industry associations may arrange for workshops, http://www.national-academies.org
training aids, field visits, webinars, and other activities to ensure that and then searching for TRB
results are implemented by airport industry practitioners. Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that
is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all
of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals
interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 178

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Michael R. Salamone, ACRP Manager
Theresia H. Schatz, Senior Program Officer
Hana Vagnerova, Senior Program Assistant
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Doug English, Editor
ACRP PROJECT 02-64 PANEL

Field of Environment
Thomas F. Mahoney, Massachusetts DOT, East Boston, MA (Chair)
Alexander K. Bernier, Stantec, New York, NY
Kane Carpenter, Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, Austin, TX
Mark J. Day, Blue Grass Airport, Lexington, KY
Xue Li, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., Boston, MA
Meghan E. Sheehan, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Newark, NJ
Doug Johnson, FAA Liaison
Kent R. Hansen, National Asphalt Pavement Association Liaison
Frederick Hejl, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under ACRP Project 02-64 by Applied Pavement
Technology, Inc. (APTech), VHB, and Washington State University (WSU) at Pullman, Washington.
Mr. James Bruinsma, APTech, served as the Principal Investigator and the primary author of the report.
The other report authors were Mr. Kelly Smith and Mr. David Peshkin (APTech), Ms. Lauren Ballou (VHB),
Ms. Bethany Eisenberg (VHB), Ms. Carol Lurie (VHB), Mr. Mark Costa (VHB), Ms. Cambria Ung (VHB),
Ms. Somayeh Nassiri (WSU), Mr. Xianming Shi (WSU), and Ms. Liv Haselbach (Lamar University,
formerly WSU).
The authors appreciate the participation of the following individuals who provided project data and
participated in interviews to support development of the case studies:
• Mr. H. D. Campbell, Jr., Mr. Kerr Chase, and Mr. Graham Campbell, Campbell & Paris.
• Ms. Jan O’Neill, Paine Field airport.
• Mr. Kevin Cooley, CH2M.

FOREWORD
By Theresia H. Schatz
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
ACRP Research Report 178: Guidance for Usage of Permeable Pavement at Airports pro-
vides airport practitioners with practical guidance on the advantages and disadvantages
of permeable pavement at a variety of types and sizes of airports. The guidance includes
potential installation locations such as airside and landside applications; environmental,
operational, and economic considerations; and a decision matrix to examine applicability
of installations.
Airports have vast areas that are currently covered by impervious pavement, which
increases stormwater runoff and the heat island effect. This has a direct impact on storm-
water management and the energy consumption of surrounding buildings. Design and
construction standards often treat the use of permeable pavement as an afterthought rather
than a supplemental solution. Various options are available to incorporate permeable
pavements to assist in controlling and directing stormwater runoff.
Traffic loads as well as safety and operational considerations at airports are unique.
Evaluation of the suitability of various types of pavement used has to take into account
the traffic that the pavement will support. Permeable pavement can include all types of
surface layers (asphalt, concrete, and pavers, etc.) as well as the base and subbase layers that
would allow the movement of stormwater through the pavement section. While pervious
pavement may not currently be permitted for runway or taxiway installations, there are other
areas that could be considered.
The various options available to incorporate permeable pavements were explored and
presented to airport practitioners for consideration and potential implementation into
construction projects requiring paved surfaces. The findings from the research suggest that
permeable pavement is a viable stormwater management tool for airports, particularly those
serving light aircraft, but additional design and performance data are needed.
Under ACRP Project 02-64, research was conducted by Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.,
in association with VHB, Washington State University, and Lamar University. The research
involved a nationwide survey of airports and practitioners to identify four implementation
projects that were used to create case studies on the use of permeable pavement at airports.
The case studies can be found at the summary web page for ACRP Research Report 178 at
www.trb.org.

CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Chapter 1 Introduction
3 1.1 Purpose
3 1.2 Background
5 1.3 Research Approach
7 1.4 Audience
7 1.5 How to Use This Guide
7 1.6 Terminology
9 Chapter 2 Types of Permeable Pavements and Their Benefits
9 2.1 Introduction
9 2.2 Permeable Pavement Systems
11 2.3 Porous Asphalt
11 2.4 Pervious Concrete
11 2.5 Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement
12 2.6 Others
14 2.7 Benefits and Concerns of Permeable Pavements
18 Chapter 3 Permeable Pavement Applications
18 3.1 Introduction
18 3.2 Airport Permeable Pavement Projects
19 3.3 Project Selection Considerations
28 Chapter 4 Design Considerations
28 4.1 Overview
28 4.2 Hydrologic Design
39 4.3 Structural Design
45 Chapter 5 Materials Considerations
45 5.1 Overview
45 5.2 Subgrade
46 5.3 Base/Subbase Reservoir Aggregate
46 5.4 Choke Stone, Filter Layer, and Bedding Layer
47 5.5 Stabilized Permeable Base
47 5.6 Permeable Surface Materials
53 5.7 Other Materials
54 5.8 Specifications
56 Chapter 6 Construction Considerations
56 6.1 Introduction
56 6.2 Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
57 6.3 Qualified Material Producers and Contractors
59 6.4 Pre-Construction Planning

60 6.5 Subgrade Preparation

61 6.6 Reservoir Construction
63 6.7 Porous Asphalt Paving
65 6.8 Pervious Concrete Paving
67 6.9 PICP Construction
69 Chapter 7 Operations and Maintenance
69 7.1 Overview
69 7.2 Operations
70 7.3 Maintenance
71 Chapter 8 Summary and Future Research Needs
71 8.1 Summary
71 8.2 Future Research Needs
73 References
76 Glossary
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

Summary
Guidance for Usage of Permeable

Pavement at Airports
Permeable pavement provides a stormwater management alternative that has seen

increased interest in recent years. While there is fairly extensive documentation on the use
of permeable pavements for vehicular and pedestrian applications, there is little informa-
tion available related to their use at airports, particularly in areas used by aircraft. This study
investigated the use of permeable pavements at airports and developed recommendations
for future applications.
There are numerous benefits provided by the use of permeable pavements, but there are
also disadvantages that make their use not the right option for every potential application.
These are addressed in detail later in the report. Some of the study’s findings are summarized
as follows:
• Based on survey responses, experience with permeable pavement at airports (airside
and landside) is limited. There are relatively few airport permeable pavement projects,
particularly for areas where aircraft operate.
• Airside uses of permeable pavements include runway and taxiway shoulders, aprons, and
service roads. Landside uses have primarily been for parking lots.
• Where used in areas of aircraft operations, permeable pavements have been designed
for infrequent, heavy aircraft and frequent, light aircraft. Thickness design has been
performed with FAA’s FAARFIELD program (and LEDFAA, previously) and design
methodology, as well as the AASHTO thickness design methodology.
• Permeable pavement designs were not typically full-infiltration systems. Rather, the sys-
tems were designed for other stormwater management needs, such as delaying the time
of peak discharge or providing a paved surface that did not increase the impermeable area
of the airport.
• Materials selection plays a significant role in the performance of the pavement. For example,
abrasion or raveling observed in some pavements appears to be attributed to mixtures
that were different from current recommended industry guidance.
• State standards have been primarily used for materials specifications. Modifications of
Standards (MOSs) have not been pursued for FAA approval of nonstandard materials.
• Permeability of the pavement can be maintained over time with routine maintenance
(such as vacuum sweeping).
• When considering the overall cost of storm drain systems or the need to purchase land
for surface drainage facilities, permeable pavements can be cost-effective. Although some
materials costs are greater for permeable pavement during initial construction, the overall
cost comparison with a traditional system needs to be considered.
• The airside projects have been constructed without the use of FAA funds.
1

2 Guidance for Usage of Permeable Pavement at Airports
Based on the findings made during this study, the following observations can be made:
• Permeable pavement can fill stormwater management needs at airports, including in
areas with aircraft operations.
• Sites for landside (or vehicular) applications should follow industry recommendations:
parking lots, light- to medium-weight vehicle roadways, pedestrian facilities, and so on.
• Sites for airside (or aircraft) applications can include frequent, light aircraft use and
infrequent, heavy aircraft use. However, there is not a history of performance under
aircraft loadings. As with all permeable pavement locations, the risk of spills needs to be
considered. An MOS from the FAA would be required for the construction of permeable
pavements using federal funds.
• Pavement design using the FAA methodology and software has been performed, but
the layer inputs need to be selected carefully. Future research would be needed to validate
inputs and performance.
• State standards and FAA specifications can be modified to provide durable permeable
pavement materials. (Note: an MOS would be required.)
• User awareness of what permeable pavement is, and establishing maintenance procedures,
can provide long-term permeability.

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The objective of ACRP Project 02-64 was “to develop practical guidance to educate airport
practitioners on the advantages and disadvantages of the use of permeable pavement at a variety
of types and sizes of airports” (from the ACRP Project 02-64 problem statement). The following
guidance was developed in this project:
• Potential installation locations for permeable pavements for both airside and landside
applications.
• Environmental, operational, and economic considerations in the use of permeable pavements.
• Assessment tools to examine applicability of installations.
Currently, there is no single reference that captures the appropriate features, practices, and
procedures for incorporating permeable pavements into airport applications. In the absence of
such a reference, potential and ideal locations for permeable pavements are underutilized in
airport applications, and opportunities for using more efficient stormwater runoff and pavement
systems are missed.
This guide provides information on the selection, design, construction, and maintenance of
permeable pavements at airport facilities, as well as case studies of existing applications. Note
that the term “airport” encompasses areas with both landside and airside pavements. Landside
pavements are those outside of secure areas where aircraft do not operate and include access roads,
parking lots, and pedestrian walkways. Airside pavements are inside of secure areas where aircraft
operate and include aircraft facilities (runways, taxiways, and aprons) as well as vehicular facilities
(service roads, employee parking lots, and so on).
1.2 Background
By design, airports have vast areas of paved surfaces, most of which consist of impermeable
(or impervious) pavement. Paved runways in the United States alone constitute approximately
650 million square yards of impermeable pavement (FAA 2007). When taxiways, aprons,
roadways, and parking lots are added in, the pavement area easily exceeds a billion square yards.
As has long been recognized, impermeable pavements have the ability to increase both storm-
water runoff and stormwater pollutants. Although many sustainability and low-impact devel-
opment (LID) manuals include permeable pavement as an alternative to impermeable surfaces,
available documentation indicates that its use is still limited at airports, particularly in aircraft
movement areas.
Consideration of the use of permeable pavements as a replacement for conventional imper-
meable pavements has increased dramatically in the last 10 years. Permeable pavements are
3

an alternative to impermeable pavements because they encourage infiltration or filtration of

stormwater runoff while still providing structural capacity (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013).
Infiltration and filtration eliminate or reduce stormwater runoff volumes discharged to storm
drain or combined sewer systems and the pollutant loadings associated with the stormwater as
it discharges to the final nearby water bodies or resource areas. Some of the common advantages
and disadvantages associated with permeable pavements are summarized in Table 1.
Permeable pavements generally consist of a permeable surface material underlain by an aggre-
gate reservoir layer. Surface materials typically consist of porous asphalt, pervious concrete,
permeable pavers, or reinforced turf or aggregate. While permeable pavement system designs
are typically for stormwater storage and treatment and potential infiltration into the subsurface
soils, the specific uses for the pavement and adjacent areas are critical factors that affect the
selection and design of the system. Developing and applying appropriate design details are also
necessary for success.
The FAA currently provides little guidance to airport designers and operators on the
design, construction, and maintenance of permeable pavements. The FAA does not currently
have guidance on construction of permeable surface courses because testing to assess permeable
pavement performance under high wheel loads and tire pressures associated with aircraft has
not yet been completed. With the wide range of tire pressures encountered at public airports
in the United States (wheel loads from 6,000 to 65,000 lbs, with tire pressures ranging from
50 to 254 psi), the FAA will not be recommending permeable pavements for surfaces on which
aircraft operate until full-scale testing has been completed. Currently, the FAA suggests limiting
permeable pavements to areas where aircraft do not operate. The FAA requires that the ability of
permeable pavements to withstand anticipated loads be established prior to their introduction
at airfields. Permeable pavements are not suitable for runways in particular.
FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5320-5D, Surface Drainage Design (FAA 2013), references
permeable pavements in Table 11-2, Pollutant Removal Comparison for Various Urban BMP
[Best Management Practices] Designs, but does not provide additional guidance on the use of
permeable pavements as an option for surface drainage. AC 150/5320-6F, Airport Pavement
Design and Evaluation (FAA 2016), provides guidance for the structural design of airport pave-
ments, but does not include the structural design of permeable pavement systems. Additionally,
AC 150/5370-10G, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports (FAA 2014a), does not
include standards for materials that would be considered for use in permeable pavement sys-
tems, and AC 150/5380-6C, Guidelines and Procedures for Maintenance of Airport Pavements
(FAA 2014b), does not discuss the maintenance of permeable pavement systems.
Table 1. Summary of advantages and disadvantages

of permeable pavements.
Advantages Disadvantages
Management of storm runoff (possibly Limited use in conjunction with heavy
reducing size of storm sewers and reducing vehicle loads.
the risk of flooding). Potential lack of experience with design
Filtration of runoff, reducing contamination and construction (e.g., failure of
in waterways. pavement).
Recharging groundwater supply. Potential lack of experience with
Reducing or eliminating need for maintenance can lead to poor performance
retention/detention ponds or swales (also (e.g., clogging of surface).
reduction in wildlife attractant). Possible groundwater contamination from
Reduced surface ponding (reduction in fluid spills.
potential of hydroplaning). Potential higher initial construction costs.
Reduced heat island effect.

Introduction 5
Under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the U.S. Congress
specifically indicates that federal developments that exceed a 5,000-ft2 footprint should main-
tain or restore predevelopment hydrology. This does not directly apply to public-use airports at
this time, but does apply to any federal development. The military provides some guidance on
the use of permeable pavements at Department of Defense installations. The Army Low Impact
Development Technical User Guide (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013) discusses permeable
pavements and provides illustrated examples of locations for their use. Additionally, the Unified
Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) from the U.S. Department of Defense include example
cross-sections for both porous asphalt and pervious concrete, including the underlying aggre-
gate layers (U.S. Department of Defense 2016).
Although the Army Low Impact Development Technical User Guide illustrates areas for the use of
permeable pavement and includes specifications that can be used for construction, the guidance
is still primarily related to the use of these pavements for residential and parking lot facilities.
The guidance indicates that permeable pavement systems should be installed in areas with gently
sloping or flat ground, light traffic, and limited use by heavy trucks, and where pavements will
not receive snow and ice treatments (salt, sand, or chemicals).
The available manuals and specifications for permeable pavements cover parking lots, light-duty
roadways, and pedestrian areas, but there is little to no guidance for airside pavements associated
with aircraft operations, nor is there a reference that is inclusive of the broad range of paved areas
that fall within the jurisdiction of an airport. Because of the environmental and sustainability
goals supported by the use of permeable pavements, there is a need to develop a concise practical
document that airport designers and operators can turn to for guidance on the use of permeable
pavement systems. This report provides information that airport agencies can use to better assess
the option of incorporating a permeable pavement system at their facilities.
1.3 Research Approach

There are numerous references and several guidelines that address the use, design, and con-
struction of permeable pavements for application to roadways, parking lots, pathways, and so on;
however, permeable pavement guidelines specific to aircraft facilities are essentially nonexistent.
Nonetheless, permeable pavements have already been used for airport pavements, and there is
interest in increasing that use. The research approach for developing permeable pavement guid-
ance specific to airport applications built on existing experience on and off airports and included
the following tasks:
• Literature review.
• Agency and industry experience.
• Case studies.
1.3.1 Literature Review

A comprehensive literature search and review was conducted to identify information on per-
meable pavement practices and techniques that would be useful in developing practical guidance
for applications at airport facilities. The search primarily targeted the practices, features, speci-
fications, benefits, and challenges of using porous asphalt, pervious concrete, and permeable
interlocking concrete pavement (PICP) on airside and landside facilities at airports. Because of
the limited use of these pavements at airports and the fact that landside pavements at airports
are similar to those used for highways and roads, the search was extended to include non-airport
applications.

Over 250 documents were identified, obtained, and reviewed for possible use in this study.
As expected, few had direct relevance to aircraft facilities; the vast majority pertained to pave-
ments used for vehicle parking lots or low-traffic roads. Despite this outcome, much valuable
information was obtained from the literature and carefully summarized to aid in the devel-
opment of this guidance document. The information revealed that, while the FAA currently
provides little guidance for airport designers and operators on the design, construction, and
maintenance of permeable pavements, there are several national, regional, and local manuals
and reports available that can be beneficially used for permeable pavements at landside facili-
ties, and even limited-traffic airside facilities, at airports. The available information covers
a wide range of activities, including project selection (suitable facility types and locations),
system design (pavement, hydrological, environmental, and economic), construction (speci-
fications, procedures, quality, and testing), maintenance, and performance. Additionally, the
permeable pavement perspectives of a variety of stakeholders (owner agencies/operators,
expert consultants, paving industries, and regulating authorities) are well represented in the
literature.
Key literature review documents and select permeable pavement project summaries are pre-
sented in Appendix A. A complete bibliography is provided in Appendix C. (The appendices can
be found at the summary web page for this report by searching for “ACRP Research Report 178”
at www.TRB.org.)
1.3.2 Agency and Industry Experience

An exploratory survey focused on identifying experience in planning/design and implemen-
tation of permeable pavements was distributed to the aviation industry, including to airport
owners, engineers/designers, and contractors. The survey also asked about respondents’ levels of
interest in participating in a pilot project.
There were 72 responses to the online survey, representing 41 airports or agencies and 23 con-
sultants or industry groups. Very few airside permeable pavement projects were found. The projects
that were identified included apron areas, roadways, and shoulders. Identified landside projects
were primarily parking lots but also included roadways.
There was moderate interest in participating in pilot projects (or interest in potential future
applications of permeable pavements), with the most interest in parking lots or shoulders (areas
with little to no aircraft traffic loading). These results likely reflect the lack of performance data
in the airport environment and lack of concise guidance materials.
1.3.3 Case Studies

Case studies were developed for four permeable pavement projects: two apron projects, a taxi-
way shoulder project, and a roadway project. These projects represent frequent lightweight air-
craft operations, infrequent commercial aircraft loadings, and vehicle use. Three of the projects
(aprons and shoulders) have porous asphalt surfaces, while the roadway project incorporates a
pervious concrete. The assembled case studies provide project data for the following:
• Site selection and application, including funding and cost considerations.
• Hydrological design.
• Structural design.
• Material selection and specifications.
• Construction practices, plans, and specifications.
• Maintenance activities.
• Performance evaluation/monitoring.

Introduction 7
The case studies, including relevant specification and drawing examples, are provided in
Appendix B (online at the summary web page for ACRP Research Report 178 at www.TRB.org).
1.4 Audience
The primary users of this guidance document are expected to be designers, engineers,
airport personnel, and others responsible for planning, design, construction, and maintenance
of pavement and stormwater facilities at airports of all sizes, including commercial service, cargo
service, general aviation, and military airports.
1.5 How to Use This Guide

Ideally, those interested in knowing more about permeable pavements for airport applications
will read this report in its entirety. Even though the documented experiences may not directly
apply to a specific, planned project, they may provide insight into available techniques for dif-
ferent (and possibly future) projects. However, this guide provides information in three broad
categories related to permeable pavements, and readers may focus solely on the specific area of
interest to them:
• Planning.
• Design.
• Construction and maintenance.
Chapters 2 and 3 are geared toward planning. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the current
permeable pavement types and permeable pavement systems. Chapter 3 discusses the potential
applications of permeable pavements at airports. Assessment tools are provided in Chapter 3 to
facilitate the assessment of where permeable pavements may be applicable.
Chapter 4 provides an overview of the hydrologic and structural design of permeable pave-
ments. As current design procedures are primarily based on vehicular applications, discussion is
provided on how these design methods can be applied to airport pavements. Chapter 5 discusses
the key characteristics of permeable pavement materials and specifications that are currently
available.
Chapters 6 and 7 discuss aspects of construction and maintenance of permeable pavements.
While construction of permeable pavements is similar to construction of conventional pavements,
there are distinct differences, which are discussed. The maintenance of permeable pavements is
also quite different from conventional pavements and is discussed.
1.6 Terminology
The following definitions are for the primary terms used in this report. A more comprehensive
glossary is provided at the end of the report.
Conventional pavement: A pavement structure with low permeability and supporting pedes-
trians and vehicles. Typical examples are Portland cement concrete (PCC), hot-mix asphalt
(HMA), and interlocking concrete pavement placed on dense-graded bases. Drainage is accom-
plished by surface flow over the pavement.
Impermeable pavement: For the purpose of this document, a pavement with a dense surface
that does not allow water to pass through. See also conventional pavement.

Permeable grid pavers: A cellular grid system filled with dirt, sand, or gravel. This system
provides grass reinforcement, ground stabilization, and gravel retention.
Permeable interlocking concrete pavement: A type of permeable pavement made of dis-
crete, hand-sized paving units with rectangular or dentated shapes manufactured from concrete.
These paving units are placed on a highly permeable bedding layer, and the joints are filled with
a highly permeable aggregate.
Permeable pavement: A pavement surface with penetrations capable of passing water and of
supporting pedestrians and vehicles. Typical examples are pervious concrete, porous asphalt,
permeable interlocking concrete pavement, and permeable grid pavers. Typically, the permeable
pavement surfaces are underlain with variable depths of subbases that serve as both a structural
layer and a reservoir layer where infiltrated water is temporarily stored in void spaces until it
infiltrates into subsurface soils or is discharged via an underdrain.
Pervious concrete: A type of permeable pavement made of PCC.
Porous asphalt: A type of permeable pavement made of HMA.

Chapter 2
Types of Permeable Pavements

and Their Benefits
2.1 Introduction
Permeable pavements can be constructed using a variety of surface materials. These permeable
surfaces are typically placed over an aggregate base/subbase reservoir, which collects the water
that infiltrates through the surface. Although permeable pavement systems are often designed
for soils with high permeability, the systems can also be designed for other conditions. This
chapter provides a general overview of permeable pavement systems, while Chapter 3 discusses
the application of these systems at airports.
2.2 Permeable Pavement Systems

The use of permeable pavement systems is a structural stormwater management practice
designed to manage the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff (ASCE 2015). Permeable
pavements are alternative paving surfaces that allow stormwater runoff to filter through voids in
the pavement surface into an underlying stone reservoir, where the runoff is temporarily stored
or infiltrated (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 2011). As shown in Figure 1, a
typical permeable pavement system cross-section includes a permeable pavement surface layer
on top of open-graded aggregate base/subbase reservoir layers, which serve to retain or detain
stormwater and support traffic loads (ASCE 2015). The thickness of this reservoir layer is deter-
mined by structural and hydrologic design analyses (Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality 2011).
As illustrated in Figure 2, there are typically four major categories of permeable pavement:
• Porous asphalt.
• Pervious concrete.
• PICP.
• Others (such as grid pavement systems).
The type of permeable pavement material selected and the design of the full pavement system
will be dependent on the site goals and the particular use for the pavement (ASCE 2015).
The reservoir system can be designed for full stormwater infiltration, partial infiltration, or
no infiltration (Smith 2015); these are discussed in Chapter 4. The most common system, full
infiltration, directs water through the base/subbase reservoir and infiltrates it into the soil sub-
grade. A full-infiltration system is typically used in areas with high-permeability soils and generally
does not require underdrains (ASCE 2015). Partial-infiltration systems rely on drainage of the
base/subbase into the subgrade soil and drainage pipes to direct excess water to a sewer or stream.
No-infiltration systems are required when the soil has very low permeability and low strength
(Smith 2015) or to restrict groundwater recharge into soil with contamination. An impermeable
9

Figure 1. Generic permeable pavement cross-section.
Porous asphalt1
Pervious concrete1
PICP2
Grid pavement system (plastic or concrete)3
1
Source: Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
2
Source: EPA.gov website, https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/
what-green-infrastructure, accessed 5/3/17.
3
Source: EPA.gov website, https://buildingdata.energy.gov/sites/
default/files/styles/slideshow_grid/public/nv_data/projectfiles/
project_902/IMG_2154.jpg?itok=1aeMUwOU, accessed 5/3/17.
Figure 2. Typical permeable pavement

surfaces.

Types of Permeable Pavements and Their Benefits 11
liner (e.g., geotextile, clay barrier) between the reservoir course and subgrade is included to prevent
infiltration of stormwater into the subgrade (ASCE 2015).
2.3 Porous Asphalt

Porous asphalt pavements include one or more layers of porous asphalt underlain by a choke-
stone layer (or treated base layer) and aggregate base/subbase reservoir (Figure 3). Layer depth is
based on structural load, stormwater requirements, and frost depth requirements (ASCE 2015).
Porous asphalt typically consists of conventional HMA or warm-mix asphalt (WMA) with sig-
nificantly reduced fines (aggregate passing the No. 4 sieve), resulting in an open-graded mixture
that allows water to pass through an interconnected void space. Additives and higher-grade binders
are often used to improve durability and reduce the potential of draindown of the asphalt. Porous
asphalt is similar in appearance to conventional asphalt pavement, although generally coarser in
texture. The porous asphalt surface void space typically ranges from 18% to 25% (conventional
HMA has around 5% air voids), and surface permeability ranges from 170 to 500 in./h (ASCE 2015).
2.4 Pervious Concrete

Pervious concrete consists of a hydraulic cementitious binding system (e.g., Portland cement)
combined with an open-graded aggregate to produce a rigid, durable pavement. Pervious concrete
is typically placed over a choke-stone layer (or treated base layer) and aggregate base/subbase
reservoir (Figure 4).
Pervious concrete pavement typically has 15% to 25% interconnected void space and a
surface permeability of 300 to 2,000 in./h (ASCE 2015). Overall thickness of the permeable
pavement system is determined based on hydrologic design, vehicle loading, and frost depth
considerations. A minimum thickness of 12 in. in freeze–thaw climates is typical (ASCE 2015).
2.5 Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement

PICP consist of manufactured concrete units that form permeable voids and joints when
assembled into a laying pattern (ASCE 2015). The joints allow stormwater to flow into a crushed
stone aggregate bedding layer and base/subbase reservoir that support the pavers (Figure 5). The
Figure 3. Typical porous asphalt system cross-section.

Figure 4. Typical pervious concrete pavement system section.
joints typically make up 5% to 15% of the paver surface area and maintain surface permeability
of 400 to 600 in./h (ASCE 2015). PICP typically includes a small-sized aggregate bedding layer
below the pavement surface and on top of the choke-stone layer to ensure a level surface for the
pavers/grids (ASCE 2015).
2.6 Others
2.6.1 Grid Pavements
Grid pavements are composed of concrete or plastic open-celled paving units. The cells or
openings penetrate the full thickness so they can accommodate aggregate, topsoil, or grass
(ASCE 2015). Concrete and plastic grid pavements (Figure 6) typically include a small-sized
aggregate bedding layer below the pavement surface and on top of the choker course to ensure
a level surface for the pavers/grids. Surface void space ranges from 20% to 75% (ASCE 2015).
Surface permeability depends on the fill material and ranges from 30 to 40 in./h, 200 to 400 in./h,
and 1 to 2 in./h for sand, aggregate, or grass fill, respectively (ASCE 2015).
Figure 5. Typical PICP cross-section.

Figure 6. Typical grid paving unit cross-section.
2.6.2 Pervious Pavers

Pervious paver pavement consists of unit paving typically made of a combination of uncrushed
or crushed pea-sized stones bound together with a polymer or cement (ASCE 2015). These pavers
differ from PICP systems in that the pavers themselves are permeable and, as such, the permeability
is related to the entire paver surface and not limited to the open joints between them. The paver
matrix typically contains 20% to 40% voids (ASCE 2015).
Pervious pavers generally are rectangular or square. Depending on the intended use and specific
design goals, pervious pavers may be situated over a permeable aggregate base/subbase reservoir
(Figure 7). In some cases, the pavers may be designed to be placed directly over the underlying
soil subgrade (ASCE 2015).
The paving units vary in thickness. A 2-in. minimum thickness for polymer-bound units can
be used for areas of light traffic load, including pedestrian areas. With the proper base/subbase
depth specifically designed to support the required loads, the pavers can support periodic use by
emergency or utility vehicles. Paver thickness can be increased up to 4 in. for use in heavier or
higher-frequency traffic areas, including parking lot entrances and exits (ASCE 2015).
Figure 7. Typical cross-section for a pervious paver system.

2.6.3 Rubber Overlay Pavement

Rubber overlay pavements are a type of permeable pavement made from a mix of recycled
rubber granules (0.24 to 0.4 in. in size), dry aggregate, and a proprietary binder (ASCE 2015).
When bound together into the overlay matrix, they form a permeable surface with open voids.
Rubber overlay pavements have flow-through rates of as high as 400 in./h (ASCE 2015).
If properly mixed, the binder enables the rubber to resist degradation from transmission fluid,
brake fluid, hydraulic fluid, salt water, oil, chlorine, ozone, bromine, muriatic acid, and other
reactive materials. Rubber overlay pavements also demonstrate elastic properties that help them
resist cracking (ASCE 2015).
The pavement material is typically poured in place by hand using specialized labor and
equipment.
2.6.4 Rubber Composite Permeable Pavers

A rubber composite paver is a lightweight paver made from up to 95% post-consumer recycled
materials, such as scrap tires and plastic (ASCE 2015). While the pavers themselves are not per-
meable, they can be placed with open joints between them and backfilled with small aggregate
to create a permeable surface. The pavers are roughly one-third the weight of standard concrete
pavers and are available in a variety of shapes and sizes.
2.7 Benefits and Concerns of Permeable Pavements

2.7.1 Environmental, Operational, and Economic Benefits
Permeable pavements offer a number of environmental, operational, and economic benefits.
However, there are also risks associated with their use.
2.7.1.1 Environmental Benefits

Permeable pavements have historically been known for the following environmental benefits:
• Reduced stormwater volume (infiltration systems), reducing flows to storm sewer systems
and streams.
• Increased groundwater recharge (infiltration system).
• Decreased and delayed peak discharge.
• Reduced pollutants and improved water quality (by filtering and capture).
• Reduced urban heat island effect.
An additional potential benefit in the airport environment is the possibility of reducing
wildlife attractants. At some airports, wildlife such as birds nest in open drainage ponds and
create the risk of bird strikes. Eliminating the open water source and providing subsurface water
storage can reduce the number of birds and other wildlife on the airport. The removal of open
water sources in public areas also reduces safety risks (such as accidental drowning).
Permeable pavements also generally require no (or at least less) deicing (FHWA 2012). Water
does not stay on the surface, so icing does not generally occur. Therefore, less deicer product is
introduced into the environment.
While the environmental benefits of permeable pavements are many, there are also risks. The
primary environmental risk for permeable pavement is accidental chemical spills, such as spills
of hydraulic or engine oils. An impervious pavement surface allows a window of opportunity
to collect chemicals if there is a spill. However, once a fluid is spilled on permeable pavement,

it is going to drain into the permeable pavement structure. For a full-infiltration system, this
provides a nearly direct access to the subgrade. Mitigation of a chemical spill once it reaches the
subgrade can be costly.
If the permeable pavement is a lined system, chemical spills may not be as significant an issue.
While the chemical does enter the permeable pavement structure, it will be transported to the
outflow, and the outflow can be designed with a separator, filter, or other collection system
to contain potential spills. Lined permeable pavement systems could actually be a benefit for
chemical collection: lined systems could potentially be used for aircraft deicer collection. Aircraft
deicing chemicals need to be collected and, therefore, are problematic for the use of unlined
permeable pavement systems.
2.7.1.2 Operational Benefits

Permeable pavements also provide operational benefits. These pavements reduce the risk
of surface ponding and, therefore, the risk of hydroplaning, making travel safer during rain
events (FHWA 2012). As mentioned previously, permeable pavements do not generally ice over
because the water does not remain on the surface. Therefore, there is a lower risk of skidding
on ice. There are typically fewer snow removal and deicing operations overall than for impervious
surfaces (FHWA 2012). However, snow removal procedures can be different from those for
other pavements, and this requires changes in operational procedures (e.g., raising plow blades)
that personnel need to be aware of.
Some operations may require restrictions with permeable pavements. Fueling would not be
allowed near the permeable pavement, and the location for maintenance activities may need to
be restricted, such as by requiring maintenance to be performed in maintenance buildings or
hangars. These limitations could be made part of the leasing agreement if the activities are tenant
related. The users of the pavement need to be aware of what the pavement is and how their actions
can influence performance of the permeable system.
Maintenance and repair operations will also be different from those for conventional pave-
ment areas. Chapter 7 provides more in-depth discussion of maintenance and repair activities.
To maintain permeability, periodic vacuuming of the surface will be required, which may not
be common maintenance work at some airports. This will require appropriate maintenance
equipment that an airport may not currently own. Pavement repairs will also be different from
those for conventional pavements. Patching methods and surface treatments applied elsewhere
should not be applied to permeable pavements.
2.7.1.3 Economic Benefits

Initial construction costs for permeable pavement are often considered to be higher than those
for conventional pavement, but these costs are often offset by a reduction in other traditional
stormwater structures. Some of the reasons for the initial cost difference are as follows:
• Unfamiliarity with permeable pavement materials/construction. With unfamiliar materials and
techniques, contractors are likely to increase their unit costs to cover contingencies. Suppli-
ers are also likely to charge more for the materials because they are not typically common
products and require manufacturing changes to produce a comparatively small quantity of
material.
• Additional high-quality material. The base/subbase reservoir required for permeable pavement
can be thick, depending on local climate and design requirements. A thick reservoir will require
greater excavation because of the pavement depth. Aggregate used for the reservoir is typically
a high-quality material. Therefore, the aggregate has a higher price. Although standard pave-
ments may be just as thick, particularly if there are frost depth requirements, the non-frost

materials used may not be as costly as the base/subbase reservoir aggregate. A filter fabric may
also be required in the permeable pavement design but may not be needed for a conventional
pavement.
Although the initial construction costs of permeable pavements may be higher than those for
conventional pavements, the cost comparison needs to take into consideration items beyond
just pavement materials. That is, the cost comparison should include the difference in overall
construction items, such as catch basins and stormwater pipes. These items are likely minimal
for a runway or taxiway project, but apron pavements often have extensive stormwater drainage
systems. Permeable pavement will require fewer of the traditional drainage features, so the cost
savings from a reduction in those materials may offset the higher initial construction cost of the
permeable pavement materials.
Permeable pavement typically satisfies any required water quality obligations, thus reducing
the need for additional water quality measures.
For Wittman Field in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, Givens and Eggen (2012) compared costs between a
permeable pavement structure and a conventional pavement structure with a drainage system
to carry stormwater to a drainage pond. The drainage pond in this case had to be relatively
far from the project site (a half mile) because of existing airport facilities and the availability
of land. For cost comparisons, the designer determined the cost for a conventional pavement
and a drainage pond constructed adjacent to the taxiway (if there had been available land).
The analysis showed that the permeable pavement design cost was twice that of the baseline
cost, but providing a stormwater system to reach the pond a half mile away was ten times the
baseline cost.
Although Paine Field (Everett, Washington) did not conduct a cost analysis for its apron pave-
ment project, the difference in costs was apparent during planning. If the airport had added an
impervious surface, it would have had to do extensive upgrades to the drainage system to meet
county stormwater management requirements. By using permeable pavement and not increasing
the impermeable surface area, upgrades to the drainage system were not required.
Similar subjective cost analyses were considered in the Richmond and Culpeper case study
projects (discussed in Appendix B—online at www.TRB.org). The Richmond project would have
required installation of stormwater piping and structures over a significant distance, extending
through existing paved facilities. This work was not needed with the use of permeable pavement.
The Culpeper project’s location at the airport would have required the airport to purchase
adjacent land outside of the current airport property or would have required the installation of
a drainage system to move water across the airport to where there was open space. Both options
would have been costly. The use of permeable pavement avoided expensive land acquisition or
drainage work. In a similar fashion, the use of permeable pavement can potentially increase avail-
able leasable property because the property would not be tied up as surface drainage facilities.
2.7.1.4 Funding
A concern expressed in survey responses for this study was the ability to fund permeable
pavement projects. Permeable pavements are not currently a standard FAA pavement design, and
obtaining FAA funds for any project incorporating this type of pavement would likely be difficult.
Securing federal funding through the FAA would require obtaining a Modification of Standards
(MOS) in accordance with FAA Order 5300.1, Modifications to Agency Airport Design, Con-
struction, and Equipment Standards. The case study projects were funded with non-FAA funds.
The actual funding mechanisms included the use of airport funds (generated from landing fees
and lease revenues) and outside grants, such as from the Virginia Department of Ecology and
Virginia Department of Agriculture.

2.7.2 Performance Expectations and Concerns

Permeable pavements need to meet design requirements for their expected design lives, just
as other pavements do. They also need to meet similar functional and safety requirements as
standard pavements.
The hydrologic expectation is to maintain the minimum design permeability, storage capacity,
water quality, and other design requirements over the planned life of the pavement. The most
commonly expressed concern is maintaining permeability. Studies have shown that vacuum
sweeping can maintain permeability of the pavement over time (Suozzo and Dewoolkar 2012).
Other steps should be taken during the design process to maintain hydrologic function as well,
such as limiting run-on, particularly from areas that may be a source of sediments, and not using
sand for winter maintenance. Proper construction (discussed in Chapter 6) and using the right
materials (discussed in Chapter 5) are also essential to long-term performance.
Structural performance is generally measured by the presence of rutting or cracking due to
loading. Rutting can occur in porous asphalt due to rutting in the subgrade or one of the pave-
ment layers. Fatigue cracking can also occur in the porous asphalt. Pervious concrete pavement
is designed based on cracking from the bottom up due to loadings (i.e., for cracking not to occur
until the anticipated design loading). While permeable pavement structural design has historical
data for vehicular applications, the ability of permeable pavements to support heavier loads and
higher tire pressures associated with aircraft loadings is not well documented. Airport permeable
pavement projects identified during this research are discussed in Chapter 3. While there have
been permeable pavements in areas with potential aircraft loadings (shoulder pavements), it is
not known if aircraft have actually loaded these pavements. The Culpeper project in the case
studies was recently completed, so no performance data are yet available, and it is for general
aviation aircraft (lighter loads).
A safety concern with using permeable pavements for aircraft areas is the potential production
of foreign object debris (FOD). Because of the open nature of the surface, permeable pavements
can be more susceptible to raveling and damage from abrasion, particularly with turning wheel
movements. Materials selection, mix design, and construction play primary roles in surface
performance.

Chapter 3
Permeable Pavement Applications
3.1 Introduction
Airports, especially commercial airports, can have vast networks of paved surfaces, as sum-
marized in Figure 8. As previously discussed, the paved surfaces at these facilities are generally
classified as either landside or airside, with landside referring to those areas outside of secured
locations, and airside being those areas within secured areas where aircraft operate. Traffic on
landside pavements consists of both vehicles and pedestrians; on airside pavements, those may
also be present (e.g., traffic on service roads, security roads, facility access roads), but the primary
traffic is aircraft. Within this network of airport pavements, permeable pavements can help to
fill specific stormwater management needs.
This chapter discusses the typical applications of permeable pavements for both landside
(vehicular areas) and airside areas. The benefits and risks of these applications are discussed,
and methods are presented for determining the suitability of permeable pavement for a project,
including assessment tools.
3.2 Airport Permeable Pavement Projects

One of the initial goals of this research was to identify permeable pavements specifically serving
aircraft traffic and generally associated with airports. Figure 9 summarizes the airport proj-
ects identified through the literature review and industry outreach. Many of the applications of
permeable pavements at airports have been for landside (vehicular) areas. However, there are
projects that have been implemented on airside areas, including pavements supporting aircraft
loadings.
As identified in Figure 9, the airside applications exposed to aircraft traffic include runway
shoulders, taxiway shoulders, and aprons. Permeable pavement shoulders have been designed
for heavier aircraft, but these areas are designed for infrequent load applications. (Shoulders
need to be designed in accordance with FAA AC 150/5320-6F.) It is also not known whether
these shoulders have ever actually been trafficked by aircraft. The permeable pavement apron
projects were designed for lighter loads. The Culpeper apron project also included taxiing lanes,
which suggests light aircraft taxiways are potential candidates.
Airside vehicular applications include roadway shoulders (Wittman Field) and an access road
(Seattle–Tacoma International Airport). The shoulders at Wittman Field are for roadways access-
ing general aviation facilities. Seattle–Tacoma constructed a permeable concrete grid pavement
for an airfield facility access road. It is located mid-field and has infrequent traffic.
Landside applications have primarily been parking lots. Only Paine Field was found to have
used pervious concrete for a roadway project.
18

Permeable Pavement Applications 19
Landside
• Vehicular
•Roadways
•Parking Lots
•Service Areas
• Public/Pedestrian
•Sidewalks
•Plazas
Airside
• Aircraft
•Runways
•Taxiways
•Aprons
•Maintenance Areas
• Vehicular
•Service Roads
•Parking Lots
•Service Areas
•Employee/Pedestrian
•Sidewalks
Figure 8. Typical airport pavement facilities.
FOD potential needs to be considered when selecting materials for airside pavements. While
some of the vehicular applications have included PICP and grids, these surfaces are not ideal
for aircraft areas because of their FOD potential. The grids and PICP joints are generally filled
with aggregate, which can come loose and be a FOD concern. Therefore, the primary surfaces
considered for aircraft applications are porous asphalt and pervious concrete. The use of PICP
and grids in airside applications needs to be carefully considered since any loose aggregate may
be tracked onto aircraft facilities.
Based on the applications already implemented, other airside areas (such as overruns) could
also be candidates for permeable pavements. Although porous friction courses have been used
on runways, permeable pavements should not be used for runways, at least at this time. Even
though permeable pavement has been designed for shoulders serving heavy aircraft, there are
no data currently available to determine how these have stood up to heavy aircraft loadings.
Therefore, applications should be limited to shoulders, at most, for heavy aircraft facilities.
A general assessment of possible permeable pavement locations is provided in Tables 2 and 3.
Figure 10 provides a flowchart to illustrate the process of possible selection. Using permeable
pavement assumes use of high-durability mixes and appropriate hydrologic and structural design
(discussed more in Chapters 4 and 5). There are many considerations to make in determining
the suitability of using permeable pavement. These considerations are discussed in the following.
3.3 Project Selection Considerations

The suitability of permeable pavement for a particular project depends on many variables.
The selection of permeable pavement begins by establishing the overall design objective: retention/
infiltration, delaying time of peak discharge, and so on. These requirements are set by the storm-
water management or environmental regulations that need to be met; these vary widely by locale

Figure 9. Summary of identified airport permeable pavement locations.

Table 2. Potential airside applications of permeable pavement.
Aircraft Facilities Comments

Runways No Not recommended.
Taxiways No Possibly for light aircraft.
Aprons Yes Primarily for light aircraft.
Maintenance areas No Risk of spills is a primary concern.
Shoulders/overruns Yes Designed for appropriate traffic.
Vehicular/Pedestrian Facilities
Service roads Yes Generally not for high-volume, heavy
vehicle roads.
Parking lots Yes Designed for appropriate traffic.
Service areas No Risk of spills. Heavy wheel loads turning
can abrade the surface.
Sidewalks Yes Must be Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliant.
Table 3. Potential landside application of permeable pavement.
Vehicular/Pedestrian Facilities Comments

Roadways Yes Generally not for high-volume, heavy
truck roads.
Parking lots Yes Designed for appropriate traffic.
Service areas No Risk of spills. Heavy wheel loads turning
can abrade the surface.
Sidewalks Yes Must be Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliant.
Stormwater Paving Project

Management
Airport Location Airside Landside
Vehicular/ Vehicular/
Type of Traffic Aircraft
Pedestrian Pedestrian
Continued Continued Continued

A-1 V-1 V-2
Figure 10. Potential permeable pavement locations.

(continued on next page)

Aircraft A-1
Maintenance
Facility Type Runway Taxiway Apron
Areas
Continued Continued
Weight > 60,000 lbs < 60,000 lbs A-2 A-2
Locked-Wheel Turns,
Yes No
High-Speed Braking
Shoulders/
Overruns Mainline/
Potential Application Shoulders Shoulders Shoulders
ONLY
Aircraft A-2
Maintenance
Facility Type Aprons
Areas
Weight > 60,000 lbs < 60,000 lbs
Locked-Wheel Turns Yes No
Risk of Spills Yes No Yes No
Not Not Not Mainline/ Not

Potential Application Shoulders
Shoulders
Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended
Figure 10. (Continued).

Vehicles/Pedestrians
V-1
(Airside)
Service Parking Service

Facility Type Roads Lots Areas
Pedestrian
Traffic Volume High Low
Fueling/Maintenance Yes No
Mainline1/ Not Mainline1/ Not

Shoulders Recommended Shoulders Recommended
Sidewalks2
Vehicles/Pedestrians
V-2
(Landside)
Parking Service
Facility Type Roadways
Lots Areas
Pedestrian
Traffic Volume High Low
Fueling/Maintenance Yes No
Mainline1/ Not Mainline1/ Not

Shoulders Recommended Shoulders Recommended
Sidewalks2
1
Ensure adequate structural design for heavy vehicles. 2Must be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant.
Figure 10. (Continued).
and may be more stringent than FAA stormwater management requirements. Therefore, local
regulations should be consulted. As examples:
• Paine Field’s pervious concrete roadway project was one part of an overall design to reduce
peak flow, delay time of discharge, and provide water filtration (water quality).
• The Paine Field apron project was intended to provide no net increase in impervious sur-
faces to mitigate the otherwise needed drainage system improvements for providing a paved
surface.
• Culpeper’s apron and Richmond’s shoulders were primarily designed to delay the time of
peak discharge.
In some cases, existing conditions may eliminate the option of designing one type of system
or another, such as full- or partial-infiltration systems.

3.3.1 Traffic Demands

Traffic on airport pavement is divided into vehicular traffic and aircraft traffic. Aircraft traffic data
need to conform to the FAA’s design procedure in AC 150/5320-6F, Airport Pavement Design and
Evaluation (FAA 2016). For aircraft facilities being considered for permeable pavement, it is sug-
gested that facilities with frequent load applications be limited to loads of no more than 60,000 lbs,
which corresponds to FAA’s aircraft weight limit for nonprimary airports that may apply for the use
of state standards or materials. For infrequent applications, like shoulders, a permeable pavement
system could be designed for heavier loads, as in projects discussed previously. However, as far as
is currently known, these projects have not carried heavy aircraft loads. Other aircraft traffic con-
siderations are whether stacking (lining up), turning, braking, or high-speed uses are anticipated.
Roadway and parking lot pavements are generally limited to vehicular traffic and medium-
weight truck applications. Guidance in available design manuals by the National Asphalt
Pavement Association (NAPA), the American Concrete Institute (ACI), and the Interlocking
Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI) should be followed for vehicle recommendations.
3.3.2 Soil Conditions

A common response to the survey for this study was that subgrade soils did not have adequate
infiltration rates to allow the use of permeable pavement. However, that would only be a require-
ment for a system designed for full infiltration. Many of the permeable pavement applications were
found to be designed to delay the time of peak discharge and not for full infiltration. However,
the designers found that the peak volumes also decreased because there is some infiltration even
with low-permeability soils.
Soil conditions, particularly infiltration rates, influence the required thickness of the base/
subbase reservoir layer and system outflow configuration. The Natural Resources Conservation
Services (NRCS) hydrologic soil groups of the site should be identified, and soil permeability
should be tested. A geotechnical engineer should be involved to determine the suitability of the
soils on site for permeable pavements (ASCE 2015).
Soil conditions that should be identified during a preliminary analysis include:
• NRCS hydrologic soil groups.
• History of fill soil or previous disturbances or compaction of soils.
• Current and future land uses with drainage onto the site (ASCE 2015).
Certain conditions preclude the use of infiltration systems, and in such instances no-infiltration
systems should be used:
• The site is directly over solid rock or an impermeable rock/soil layer, such as compacted
glacial till with no loose permeable rock layer above it.
• The site is over fill soils that have unacceptable stability when exposed to infiltrating water,
such as expansive soils or poorly compacted fill soils.
• The site is adjacent to fill or natural slopes where soil conditions may result in lateral breakout
of the stormwater on the slope.
• The site is in an area with karst geology with limestone deposits subject to sinkhole develop-
ment due to underground artesian water movement.
• The site is in an area with soils that have high shrink/swell potential (ASCE 2015).
3.3.3 Stormwater Capacity

The base/subbase reservoir of the permeable pavement needs to provide sufficient storage for
the design storm and drainage area. This may not be possible in all situations. Shoulder pavement

may provide adequate capacity for a rainfall event on a taxiway, but shoulder pavement may not
provide sufficient capacity for a rainfall event on a large apron area.
Wittman Airfield constructed a hybrid system in which the taxiway pavement was a conventional
HMA (impervious) surface, and the shoulders consisted of a porous asphalt (Givens and Eggen
2012). The porous asphalt shoulder provided for infiltration of rainwater from the pavement
into the aggregate reservoir. While the main trafficked surface was a conventional HMA on a
dense-graded base, the aggregate reservoir layer was carried across the entire width of the taxi-
way (as shown in Figure 11), which greatly increased the holding capacity of the system.
3.3.4 Topography
The topography and drainage patterns of the site and surrounding area should be evaluated.
Slope should be limited to 5% (Hansen 2008). Stepped (or terraced) subgrade design may be
used on sloped areas (Hansen 2008). The stepped design provides for required infiltration or
storage capacity. While topography generally needs to be relatively flat, sufficient grade still
needs to exist to provide for outflow.
Permeable pavements should not be built in floodplains since sediment transported during
flood events can clog the pavement.
3.3.5 Subsurface Constraints

During a field investigation, the locations of all subsurface and surface structures on site should
be identified, and the locations of any utility lines should be confirmed. Permeable pavement
should not be used on sites where infiltration into the subgrade will affect existing structures, such
as basements subject to flooding, building foundations, septic systems, wells, and embankments
in risk of horizontal permeability. Infiltration systems should not be used within 100 ft of source
wells (ASCE 2015). It is not recommended to have the reservoir course within 10 ft of basements
or building foundations (ASCE 2015). It is also not recommended to have utility lines in the
reservoir course unless they are adequately protected and approved by the utility owner. Permeable
pavement should not be used in areas with soil contamination.
3.3.6 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater conditions need to be investigated, and any evidence of high water tables should
be noted during a field analysis. The bottom layer of the permeable pavement system should not
Source: Givens and Eggen (2012).
Figure 11. Hybrid permeable pavement design.

intersect with groundwater. A minimum of 2 ft between the elevation of seasonally high ground-
water and the bottom of the permeable pavement is recommended to ensure adequate filtering
of stormwater before it enters groundwater (ASCE 2015). Additional depth or other require-
ments may be mandated by local regulations or if the site is located near drinking-water aquifers
or in a water resources protection area, recharge zone, or wellhead protection zone (ASCE 2015).
3.3.7 Additional Selection Considerations

Several other considerations need to be made in determining the suitability of any location
for permeable pavement:
• Ability to control or limit, as required, sources of run-on, such as adjacent pavements or
vegetated areas.
• Treatment of potential sediment sources, such as roof drains.
• Equipment availability for future maintenance.
• Availability of sufficient funding.
• Experience level of local contractors and suppliers.
• Risk of chemical spills.
3.3.8 Assessment Tool

Table 4 presents a preliminary framework for assessing some of the key variables that need
to be considered when determining whether to use permeable pavements at airports. Similar to
Table 4. Selection criteria for use of permeable pavement.
Consideration Feasible Possible Not Likely

Stormwater management
Stringent Moderate None
regulations
Stormwater quality regulations Stringent Moderate None
Infrequent or low-intensity Moderate frequency and/or Frequent and intense
Stormwater storage capacity storms/large permeable intensity storms/moderate storms/small permeable
pavement area permeable pavement area pavement area
Seasonal groundwater depth below
Greater than 5 ft Between 2 and 5 ft Less than 2 ft
reservoir
Depth to bedrock Greater than 5 ft Between 2 and 5 ft Less than 2 ft
Risk of flooding None Infrequent Frequent
Source wells Greater than 150 ft away 100 to 150 ft away Less than 100 ft away
Utilities None Non-critical Critical
Distance to building foundation Greater than 10 ft Between 5 and 10 ft Less than 5 ft
Grades Less than 2% Between 2% and 5% Greater than 5%
Greater than 0.5 in./h (or full
Subgrade infiltration 0.1 to 0.5 in./h Less than 0.1 in./h
infiltration not required)
Run-on can be controlled Significant run-on; cannot be
Control of run-on No adjacent run-on.
during design diverted
Sediment sources can be
Sediment point sources No sediment sources. Significant sediment sources
pretreated
Risk of spills Low Moderate High
Contractor experience Certified/experienced Some experience No experience
Material producer experience Certified/experienced Some experience No experience
Designer/engineer experience Experienced Some experience No experience
Owner/agency interest Strong champion Moderate None
High level of justification
Low level of justification
Funding source Funding secured required (Modification of
required
Standards)
Maintenance equipment Available Able to obtain Not available
Total items checked per column 7 11 2
Multiply by weighting factor 5 3 1
Weighted score per column 35 33 2
Overall Score: 70 81 to 100 46 to 80 20 to 45

the feasibility matrix developed by Hein et al. (2013) for highway shoulder pavements, this tool
rates variables as they apply to a specific project and weights responses to assess the level of
feasibility. This decision tool provides the user with practical guidance on the types of projects
that are feasible for a variety of facilities. However, even though a project may be feasible, it
may not necessarily be the right selection. A complete engineering study is necessary to fully
determine the applicability of permeable pavements. This tool was developed based on lessons
learned from case studies of successful projects and available literature but is based on limited
data because there have not been many permeable pavement implementations for aircraft use.
Table 4 includes a list of considerations, discussed previously, that need to be addressed in
selecting permeable pavement, and those are rated according to three levels: feasible, possible
(items that need more analysis), and not likely. Each rating level selected is then summed and
multiplied by a weighting factor, and then the weighted scores are added for the total score. An
example project assessment is shown in the table for a potential general aviation apron project.
The apron example is based on the following project variables:
• County stormwater management requirements require the airport to control stormwater for
a 100-year storm event. Land is not available for a traditional stormwater basin, and the cur-
rent stormwater infrastructure cannot support additional development (feasible).
• The county’s stormwater management does not currently have set quality control require-
ments (not likely).
• The overall area of the apron should provide sufficient surface area for required surface infil-
tration (possible).
• Seasonal groundwater depth and depth to bedrock are both greater than 5 ft, and there are no
source wells in the area. There is very little risk of flooding (feasible).
• Utilities are within the project area but are not critical utilities and can be moved (possible).
• Distance to building foundation will be between 5 and 10 ft. Approach aprons will be used
between the apron and hangar (possible).
• Grades in the area are generally less than 2% (feasible).
• Subgrade infiltration is poor because of high clay content (not likely).
• Control of run-on from other areas is more than likely possible, but some areas may remain
(possible).
• Sediment point sources can be routed into the underdrain system, if needed (possible).
• Risk of spills is a possibility since it is an apron, but anticipated leases will require any
maintenance be performed in the hangars (possible).
• The contractor, material producer, and designer have had some experience with roadway
permeable pavements but have not had experience with permeable pavements intended for
aircraft (possible).
• The owner has a strong interest in low-impact design alternatives (feasible).
• The funding source has not been secured, but the owner is aware of several state grants that
may be available (possible).
• The airport does not currently own a vacuum sweeper for maintenance but anticipates that
the equipment can be obtained based on the following year’s budget (possible).
Based on the preliminary considerations, the number of checked items in each column are
summed. For the example in Table 4, there are 7 feasible, 11 possible, and 2 not likely responses.
Each column total is multiplied by the weighting factor, and the total is summed. The overall
score is 70, which indicates that a permeable pavement project may be possible but that additional
study needs to be performed.

Chapter 4
Design Considerations
4.1 Overview
The design of permeable pavements must take into consideration both hydrologic and
structural requirements, as discussed in the following sections. In roadway systems subjected
to vehicular loading, structural pavement design is typically more than adequate for the layer
thicknesses determined in hydrologic design. However, at their upper end, aircraft weights are
significantly greater than those of vehicles, so structural design can play a greater role in the
required layer thicknesses.
4.2 Hydrologic Design

4.2.1 Hydrologic Design Overview
Permeable pavement systems are designed to meet a variety of stormwater management goals,
including reductions in runoff volume and peak discharge rates and improvements in water
quality. The hydrologic design process ensures that the proposed permeable pavement cross-
section is hydrologically adequate to meet these goals in light of site-specific characteristics and
constraints. In the airport context, this is of particular relevance due to safety and wildlife hazard
management concerns. To minimize the attraction of wildlife, stormwater facilities at airports
are commonly designed to limit open water. Airport drainage design, as directed through the
FAA AC 150/5320-5D, aims to safely and efficiently remove water from airport premises, to aid
in safe travel on runways and other surfaces, and to discourage waterfowl and other wildlife. The
FAA states, “one of the fundamental objectives of stormwater management is to maintain the
peak runoff rate from a developing area at or below the predevelopment rate to control flooding,
soil erosion, sedimentation, and pollution” (FAA 2013). Therefore, permeable pavement systems
at airports should be designed to meet these hydrologic objectives.
A permeable pavement system can be modeled as a water balance of stormwater sources and
destinations (Figure 12).
Water balance variables, as follows, are used to quantify permeable pavement hydrology:
• Precipitation – the amount of precipitation falling onto a permeable pavement surface.
• Surface run-on – runoff that flows onto a permeable pavement surface from adjacent areas.
• Surface runoff – water that flows off the permeable pavement surface and does not infiltrate into
the base/subbase layers; runoff can occur if the rainfall intensity exceeds the surface infiltration
rate, if the pavement base/subbase becomes saturated, or if the pavement surface geometry
allows for a direct runoff flow path.
• Surface infiltration – passage of direct precipitation or surface run-on through the permeable
pavement surface layer.
28

Design Considerations 29
Figure 12. Water balance variables for permeable

pavement design.
• Subgrade infiltration – water that exits the subbase of a permeable pavement system and enters
the soil subgrade.
• Underdrain outflow – water exiting via underdrains.
In most cases, evaporation is not considered a significant water balance variable in the airport
context. However, evaporation is relevant for pavement systems in arid climates and for
vegetated grid pavements (ASCE 2015).
If the site is determined to be suitable for permeable pavement, as discussed in Chapter 3, the
hydrologic design considerations discussed in the following may be used to guide permeable
pavement design. The hydrologic design process is consistent among different types of perme-
able pavement systems (e.g., porous asphalt, pervious concrete, and permeable interlocking
concrete pavers). Hydrologic design of permeable pavement systems relies on:
• Existing conditions.
• Design storms and rainfall depth.
• Run-on from surrounding areas.
• Infiltration rates of the soil subgrade.
• Outflow configuration.
• Base/subbase reservoir thickness and storage capacity.
The hydrologic design of permeable pavements for airport-specific applications must ensure
that the pavement system complies with FAA regulations for stormwater management facili-
ties. These regulations address safety concerns that arise from standing water on the surface
of the pavement. To address these concerns, pavement systems must be designed to infiltrate
and store stormwater at a rate that prevents water from pooling. As a result, the hydrologic
design for airport locations incorporates a specific design storm, dewatering time, and overflow
conveyance.
Other design requirements and steps for permeable pavement systems at airports follow a
more generic hydrologic design process. Pavement systems must temporarily store the design
storm volume, which is dependent on the design storm and the size of the surrounding area con-
tributing surface run-on. The base/subbase reservoir thickness is designed to provide adequate
storage of this volume, considering the infiltration rate of the existing subgrade and system
outflow configuration (ASCE 2015).

To meet stormwater management goals, permeable pavement systems should be designed to

encourage the processes of filtration, detention, and subgrade infiltration to reduce peak runoff
rates, improve water quality, and promote groundwater recharge. Systems can be designed to
infiltrate all stormwater (full-infiltration or retention), some stormwater (partial-infiltration),
or no stormwater (no-infiltration or detention) into the underlying subgrade (ASCE 2015).
While no-infiltrating designs do not reduce stormwater volume, benefits still include reduced
peak discharge rates and improved water quality.
The hydrologic design of permeable pavement systems involves an iterative process influenced
by numerous variables (Figure 13). Design begins by characterizing the site to determine any site
constraints. The design storm volume is then calculated after selection of the design storm and
calculation of surface run-on volumes from surrounding areas. Together with subgrade infiltration
rates and an initial outflow configuration design, the thickness of the initial base/subbase reservoir
system is determined. The storage and runoff of this initial design are evaluated for the design
storm given the materials of the cross-section. The initial design may be adjusted by changing
the outflow configuration and base/subbase thicknesses until the pavement system meets design
goals and complies with site constraints (ASCE 2015).
Soil conditions that should be identified during a field analysis include:
• Soil logs at least 3 ft below the bottom of the base/subbase.
• Test pits at least 5 ft deep every 7,000 ft2 of paving (minimum two per site).
• USCS classification of soil types (using test method ASTM D2487).
• Soil infiltration permeability tests (recommended test method ASTM D5093).
• Evidence of impermeable soil layers.
• Evidence of bedrock/glacial till.
• Soil testing for hazardous waste or other contaminants (ASCE 2015).
Adapted from Smith (2015) courtesy of ICPI.
Figure 13. Hydrologic design steps for permeable pavement systems.

4.2.2 Design Storm and Rainfall

Rainfall events, along with watershed characteristics, determine the runoff flows upon which
permeable pavement design is based. Different sizes of storms, classified by their return intervals,
will have different rainfall characteristics, and therefore runoff flows (Leming et al. 2007). This
section discusses how to determine precipitation characteristics of the selected design storm.
The required design storm for drainage features at airports is addressed in Chapter 2, Sec-
tion 2-2.4 of FAA AC 150/5320-5D, Airport Drainage Design (FAA 2013). The recommended
minimum design storms are summarized in Table 5.
The FAA recommends a 5-year storm for airfield pavements because the increased cost of a
drainage system to accommodate a larger storm may be greater than the damage or inconve-
nience caused by the larger storm (FAA 2013). However, AC 150/5320-5D further notes that
to reduce the likelihood of flooding a facility essential to operations, and to prevent loss of life,
some portions of drainage system designs have been based on storm events of as high as 50 years.
In addition to the minimum design storms, AC 150/5320-5D also indicates that the center 50%
of runways and taxiways serving those runways and helipad surfaces along the centerline should
be free from ponding resulting from a 10-year storm event frequency and intensity (FAA 2013).
While Table 5 provides FAA recommended minimums, local requirements may be more
stringent. As seen in the case studies discussed in Chapter 3, local regulations required the
Culpeper stormwater storage capacity be designed to maintain peak runoff below pre-construction
levels for a 10-year storm. The Paine Field pervious concrete project was designed to a 100-year
storm event to meet local requirements. However, funding through the FAA is generally limited
to that required to meet FAA standards. Eligibility for federal funds for storm drainage in excess
of FAA standards will need to be evaluated by the FAA’s Airports Financial Assistance Division.
After selecting the appropriate design storm, designers should identify several aspects of pre-
cipitation characteristics used in hydrologic design calculations. Intensity–duration–frequency
(IDF) curves can be used to find the intensity (inches/hour) of the design storm. The IDF curve
provides a summary of a site’s rainfall characteristics by relating storm duration and exceedance
probability (frequency) to rainfall intensity (FHWA 2013). IDF curves can be obtained for most
states from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14 through
NOAA’s Precipitation Frequency Data Server (http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/).
If needed, the design storm intensity can be converted to a maximum depth of expected rain-
fall (inches) by multiplying by the storm duration. This information would be used to calculate
the volume of runoff or peak flow to be captured, infiltrated, and/or released by the permeable
pavement system from the design storm (ASCE 2015).
4.2.3 Surface Run-on Capture

Permeable pavement systems are often designed to accept surface run-on from existing adjacent
areas. These areas may be either impervious or pervious as long as the surface run-on is fairly free
Table 5. Summary of FAA minimum

design storms.
Minimum Storm
Application
Event
Department of Defense
2 year
airfields and heliports
FAA facilities 5 year
Areas other than airfields 10 year

of sediments and contaminants. Surface run-on from adjacent surfaces should not be allowed
if the area is under construction, contains unstable soils, is used for snow storage, or contains
mulch or leaf debris from landscaping (ASCE 2015). These conditions may increase the potential
for clogging and increase maintenance requirements.
Pretreatment of stormwater run-on to the permeable pavement system is rarely required
(Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 2013). In some cases, a pretreatment
gravel filter strip may be required if the sediment load of an impervious area draining to the
permeable pavement is high. To avoid potential clogging, the pavement may be designed so that
adjacent surface run-on is discharged directly to the reservoir layer (e.g., run-on from roof drains).
Peak run-on volumes should be calculated using the NRCS Technical Release 55 (TR-55)
method (NRCS 1986). It is not recommended to use the Rational Formula (the most common
method used for sizing sewer systems) to estimate run-on to permeable pavements since it is
a simplistic approach using reference list runoff coefficients, which can lead to both over- and
under-prediction of flows (ASCE 2015).
The NRCS Technical Release 55: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds peak flow method
calculates peak flow as a function of drainage area, potential watershed storage, and the time
of concentration (NRCS 1986). This method is appropriate for permeable pavement design
because of the following:
• It captures the essential elements of permeable pavement system behavior.
• It is appropriate for the design of a structure intended to capture and hold some portion of
the runoff in small urban watersheds.
• It is flexible and easily adapted to a site with several types of surfaces contributing to runoff.
• It is implemented by adapting well-known stage storage-discharge principles to the simple
geometry of a permeable pavement system.
• It can be used to analyze systems intended to function within the constraints of many different
regulatory requirements (Leming et al. 2007).
The NRCS TR-55 method is outlined in Chapter 2, Section 2-3.2 of FAA AC 150/5320-5D,
Airport Drainage Design. Example calculations are also provided. An easy-to-use graphical
approach to this method can also be found in the TR-55 publication (NRCS 1986). In addition,
there are several TR-55 hydrology programs compatible with Windows operating systems that
implement NRCS methods for calculating time of concentration, peak flows, hydrographs, and
detention basin storage volumes.
4.2.4 Infiltration Rates

In a full- or partial-infiltration design (see Section 4.2.5, System Outflow Configuration),
the subgrade infiltration rate of the permeable pavement system will help maintain the effective
storage capacity of the permeable pavement system by removing some of the rainfall over time
(ASCE 2015). The effect of infiltration on storage capacity and, therefore, excess surface runoff,
is a critical element in design (Leming et al. 2007).
For infiltration testing, field tests are preferred over laboratory tests because they are more
reflective of site conditions. The tests should be completed at the elevation for which natural soil
subgrade infiltration is being proposed. Individual test results should not be considered absolute
values for infiltration rates but should be interpreted with soil texture and structure (ASCE 2015).
Because predicting sediment loading of the soil subgrade is difficult, a conservative infiltra-
tion reduction factor of 0.5 (safety factor of 2) should be applied to the average soil infiltration
rate measured on site (ASCE 2015). This ensures that compaction of the soil subgrade during

construction and the resultant reduction in the infiltration rate are considered in the design
process. A higher safety factor may be appropriate for sites where samples show highly variable
infiltration rates (ASCE 2015).
Most designs assume that water infiltration into the soil subgrade occurs uniformly across
the bottom of the permeable pavement as the base/subbase reservoir becomes saturated (ASCE
2015). The simplest approach uses Darcy’s Law, which assumes a constant rate of infiltration
into a saturated subgrade:
Q =kh A
where
Q = rate of flow (ft3/h),
k = coefficient of permeability (ft/h),
h = hydraulic gradient, and
A = area of flow (ft2).
Since the water table is typically some distance below the base/subbase reservoir layer, the
hydraulic gradient can be assumed to be 1.0 as the drop in elevation causes downward flow
(ASCE 2015). The water flux (flow per unit area) is then equal to the measured infiltration rate
and gives the depth of water that will be infiltrated into the subgrade over a specific time. This
method provides an appropriate estimation for most designs where permeable pavement systems
are modeled as an infiltration basin with a constant rate of infiltration (ASCE 2015).
In reality, the infiltration rate into the subgrade will vary (ASCE 2015). As the water depth in
the base/subbase reservoir increases, the static pressure also increases, encouraging infiltration.
Moisture conditions of the underlying subgrade also affect infiltration rates. Physics-based models
based on the Green-Ampt or Richard’s equation provide a more accurate representation of varying
infiltration rates and may also be used in permeable pavement design. However, these methods are
more complex and require more detailed information about subgrade properties (ASCE 2015).
4.2.5 System Outflow Configuration

There are several design options for stormwater discharge for permeable pavement systems.
After infiltration through the base/subbase reservoir, stormwater can either infiltrate into the
underlying subgrade or be directed to be discharged into a piped drainage system through an
underdrain (ASCE 2015). FAA regulations require that drainage systems be capable of draining
85% of the design storm volume within 24 h if they are used on airfield runways and taxiways.
The drainage system should be capable of draining 85% of the design storm volume within 10 days
for airfield parking aprons and other pavement areas receiving only low-volume, low-speed
traffic (FAA 2013). Drainage systems should be designed so that no runoff from the design
storm encroaches onto taxiway and runway pavements, including paved shoulders (FAA 2013).
Designers should ensure that the total system outflow rate, including overflow, underdrain dis-
charge, and subgrade infiltration, meets these dewatering time requirements.
The following relationship between required system storage and required dewatering time can
be used to calculate the required outflow rate (ASCE 2015):
Total system storage ( volume ) = Total outflow rate ( volume/time ) Dewatering time ( time )
If the infiltration rate of the underlying subgrade is not sufficient to meet dewatering times
[as is often the case with C or D soils (from the hydrologic soil groups of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service)], the design of a permeable pavement system may need to include an

underdrain. A perforated underdrain pipe may also be required for sites where stormwater
infiltration into underlying soil is limited or prohibited, such as those with high groundwater
elevations, with shallow bedrock, or where natural soils are contaminated or have low perme-
ability (ASCE 2015).
Underdrains are located in the base/subbase reservoir and are typically perforated polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) pipes that are 4 to 6 in. in diameter. The Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality Stormwater Design Specification No. 7 provides additional information on underdrain
design (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 2011). Table 6 compares the differences
in outflow configurations between full-infiltration, partial-infiltration, and no-infiltration designs
Table 6. Permeable pavement outflow configurations.
Full-Infiltration Designs
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVER • Do not use underdrains.
• Infiltrate all stormwater into
soil subgrade.
• Used in areas with high-
permeability native sandy
soils.
Partial-Infiltration Designs
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVER • Use perforated underdrains.
• Infiltrate some stormwater
into soil subgrade and
discharge some via
underdrain.
• Used in areas with lower-
permeability native soils.
• May include upturned elbow
or other flow restriction device
to increase temporary storage
and promote infiltration by
ASPHALT
ponding water in the reservoir.
CONCRETE PAVER
No-Infiltration Designs
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVER • Use perforated underdrains.
• Discharge all stormwater via
underdrain.
• Prevent infiltration with
impermeable liner
(geosynthetic liner or clay
barrier).
• Used in areas with low-
permeability native soils or
areas with soil or groundwater
contamination.

(ASCE 2015). Although not shown, an upper underdrain may be needed to make sure the water
does not back up into the permeable pavement layer (overflow conveyance), especially in areas
susceptible to freezing.
The physical configuration/elevations of underdrains affect the outflow rates and storage perfor-
mance in permeable pavement systems. The following are the three most common underdrain/
outflow configuration designs with systems using perforated underdrain discharges:
1. Perforated pipe placed at elevation above frequent water level in reservoir storage. The water level
in the storage area during certain storm events is below the perforated pipe elevation with no
discharge. This might be encountered in certain storm events if the reservoir is designed as an
infiltration system and the permeability of the underlying soils is rapid, or the pipe is placed
at a higher elevation to encourage a greater depth or ponding/greater head below the pipe to
encourage higher rates of infiltration to the existing soils.
2. Water is ponded above the perforated pipe while discharging. Flow is determined by the head
of water above the pipe and the size of the pipe and its performance. In this condition, the
discharge rate can be manipulated by applying well-documented principles of orifice and
pipe hydraulics to the perforated discharge pipe. In most cases, the outflow rate from the
underdrain will exceed system inflows. If desired, the underdrain can be fitted with a small
orifice to control extended detention rates.
3. The perforated pipe’s capacity is large enough to allow free flow without limiting the discharge
out of the reservoir. Instead, discharge is limited by the lateral flow rate through the reservoir
aggregate; the pipe and its perforations carry water away as fast as the reservoir delivers it.
In this condition, the discharge rate is determined by the storage area’s ponding depth, porosity,
and hydraulic conductivity. It can be manipulated by controlling the number of pipes and the
reservoir’s hydraulics (ASCE 2015).
The underdrain should also be at an elevation to prevent water from freezing in the aggregate
storage bed due to the frost depth. The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center recom-
mends a minimum bottom of reservoir depth of 65% of the frost depth locally observed, with
the underdrain then placed 4 in. above the bottom (University of New Hampshire Stormwater
Center 2014).
4.2.6 Base/Subbase Reservoir Thickness and Storage Capacity

The base/subbase depth is related to the required runoff volume that needs to be temporarily
stored within the permeable pavement system. Storage in permeable pavement systems includes
the void space in base/subbase layers, which is replenished through infiltration of water into the
subgrade. It is important to note that the structural design process for permeable pavement will
also determine a base/subbase material thickness required to support loads on the pavement.
If the thickness requirements for structural and hydrological needs differ, the thicker of the two
designs should be selected (ASCE 2015).
As shown in Figure 14, permeable pavements designed on a slope will have lower storage
capacity than flat permeable pavements with the same base/subbase design. Leming et al. (2007)
discuss how to adjust storage capacity calculations for sloped permeable pavement designs.
For sloped designs, subsurface terracing, check dams, baffles, or berms may be incorporated
into the permeable pavement design to encourage vertical infiltration and reduce potential for
lateral flow onto the surface, as seen in Figure 15 (ASCE 2015).
Storage can be calculated as a static volume for more conservative assessments or for worst-
case scenarios by neglecting infiltration. In the case of permeable interlocking concrete pavers,
the total storage capacity of the permeable pavement system should not include the capacity

Figure 14. Difference in storage capacity for permeable pavement designs on flat
versus sloped surfaces.
within the surfacing and the bedding layer (ASCE 2015). Assuming static conditions, the effec-
tive depth of storage can be calculated as:
dr = dp ηr
where
dr = depth of runoff stored (ft),
dp = depth of the reservoir layer (ft), and
hr = effective porosity of the reservoir layer.
Figure 15. Sloped permeable pavement design with check dams, baffles, or berms.

The net storage of a permeable pavement system is dynamic and should include the amount
of water that leaves the system during a storm through infiltration into the subgrade. Storage
in permeable pavement is a function of the surface run-on and precipitation rates, available
void space, depth of the base/subbase materials, any runoff that has accumulated from previous
rainfall, the subgrade infiltration rate, and discharge through underdrain pipes and overflows
(ASCE 2015). Storage of permeable pavement systems can be calculated using storage routing
and follows a basic water balance equation:
∆storage = inflow − outflow
Computational methods and routing techniques, such as dynamic storage-indication routing,

are used to address the storage and hydraulic processes in the system (ASCE 2015). These methods,
for the most part, can be applied to permeable pavement design, as long as site-specific conditions
are modeled. One approach is to model the permeable pavement system as a detention or recharge
system with modest infiltration or controlled outlets for discharge. The major point of difference
is the presence of material in the storage reservoirs and the various layers of permeable pavement
designs. Some modeling tools have incorporated open storage chambers within an aggregate bed
(HydroCAD, n.d.) for additional water storage (ASCE 2015).
4.2.7 Overflow Conveyance

All permeable pavement systems must be designed to safely convey overflows. Overflows may
occur when flow exceeds the design storm capacity or when the rate of rainfall exceeds the rate
of infiltration into the subgrade (ASCE 2015). Even though full-infiltration systems are designed
to infiltrate the entire runoff volume, overflow conveyance must still be included in the design.
Designs must take into consideration the flow path from the point of overflow, including
downstream receiving areas and potential impacts. Overflows may be directed to surface con-
veyance channels or closed drainage systems (ASCE 2015). The North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Stormwater BMP Manual, Section 18: Permeable
Pavement includes detailed drawings of a variety of configurations for outlet control and bypass
control structures (NCDENR 2007).
4.2.8 Water Quality Considerations

Water quality control using permeable pavement depends on two pollutant removal pathways:
infiltration and filtration (ASCE 2015). The effectiveness of permeable pavement for water quality
improvements depends on the depth of the base/subbase layers, material properties, native soils,
and quality of inflow.
The base/subbase materials in permeable pavement improve stormwater quality through the
removal of heavy metals, oil/grease, total suspended solids, and some nutrients (ASCE 2015).
Soluble solids, such as in deicing fluids, will not be treated (ASCE 2015). Filter courses of poor-
graded sand may be included in the base/subbase layer for additional water quality treatment,
as seen in Figure 16. Permeable pavement systems with a filter course can provide a very high
level of filtration prior to infiltration and provide exceptional water quality treatment. Filter
course material and depth are based on targeted pollutants for removal. A choker course may be
required below the filter course to prevent the filter course material from moving to the reservoir
course below (ASCE 2015).
There is currently no single recommended method for water quality modeling of permeable
pavement given the complexity of the variables (ASCE 2015). Continuous simulation models can
be used to estimate pollutant loads based on historical precipitation records and to help assess

Figure 16. Permeable pavement system with filter course for additional water quality
treatment.
the performance of permeable pavement within a watershed (ASCE 2015). The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Best Management Practice (BMP) Performance Curves provide some
guidance on the pollutant removal rates of permeable pavement using these methods (EPA 2010).
Permeable pavement design must take into consideration the initial stormwater runoff that
will carry the highest concentration of pollutants (called the first flush). In more arid areas, with
long periods between rains, a seasonal first flush may need to be considered. Permeable pavement
helps to meet one of the common goals of mitigation, which is to capture and treat the first flush
of runoff (Leming 2007).
Permeable pavements may also be designed to detain water, which can assist in nutrient
reduction. This approach is more applicable in low-infiltration rate soils, which can also capture
metals. Besides detention, which encourages denitrification, additional nutrient treatment can
be realized with discharge to other stormwater management BMPs (ASCE 2015).
4.2.9 Additional Hydrologic Design Considerations

4.2.9.1 Percent Imperviousness
Permeable pavement can be used to reduce the percent imperviousness of a site to meet design
goals or requirements. The percent imperviousness of permeable pavement systems depends
on outflow configurations, base/subbase depth, and subgrade infiltration rate. The NCDENR
assigns this percentage based on the hydrologic soil group of the subgrade and whether the system
meets water quantity and pollutant removal requirements.
4.2.9.2 Intersection of Permeable Pavement with Conventional Pavement

A variety of design approaches and materials are used for the intersection (or tie-in) between
permeable pavement and conventional pavement. It is important that the sides of the reservoir

course be lined with an impermeable liner or barrier to prevent stormwater from entering the sub-
base of the conventional pavement. It is recommended that a detail be prepared to specify the
construction process at the pavement intersection between two pavement types. For maintenance
purposes, a visual delineation between pavement types may be beneficial (ASCE 2015).
4.2.9.3 Drainage Structures

Beyond underdrain pipes that may be used for outflow or overflow conveyance, other drain-
age structures are necessary. For example, cleanouts will be necessary for underdrain systems.
Cleanouts provide surface access points to the underdrains for the purpose of the removal of
sediments that might accumulate in the underdrain pipe. Underdrains can be connected to a
manhole structure or outlet structure. Section 18: Permeable Pavements of the Stormwater BMP
Manual includes different solutions for the outlet control (NCDENR 2012).
Large-scale permeable pavement systems require the installation of one or more observation
wells and cleanouts. The observation well should be capped and positioned at the lower end of
the structure to monitor the time necessary for the base course to fully drain between subsequent
storm events (ASCE 2015).
4.3 Structural Design

4.3.1 Structural Design Overview
A structural design method specific to permeable pavements has not yet been developed.
Instead, the structural design of permeable pavements has been accomplished using methods
established for conventional pavements, such as design procedures from AASHTO or, to a lesser
extent, the FAA. The Culpeper apron and Richmond taxiway case study projects assessed struc-
tural requirements using both AASHTO (AASHTO 1993) and FAA (FAA 1995 and FAA 2009)
design methods. Each of these design procedures has the ability to analyze pavement structures
containing permeable layers. However, the models behind the procedures are not calibrated
with any data on in-place permeable pavements.
Although there are other industry guides (e.g., from the Portland Cement Association and the
Asphalt Institute [AI]) for the structural design of airport pavements, the primary guidance for
airport pavement structural design for commercial and general aviation airports is the FAA’s AC
150/5320-6F, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation (FAA 2016). This AC is accompanied by
the FAA’s FAARFIELD pavement design software. The design methods incorporated in the design
procedure include layered elastic analysis (LEA) for flexible pavements and a finite-element method
(FEM) for rigid pavements. The FAA design procedure uses the anticipated aircraft traffic mix,
along with layer modulus and strength parameters, to characterize pavement response to loading.
Structural design for permeable pavements solely carrying roadway vehicles can be performed
using design procedures developed by AASHTO, individual state highway agencies, or pavement
industry organizations. AASHTO procedures include both the long-used empirical approach
and the newer mechanistic–empirical approach:
• Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (AASHTO 1993): Uses 18,000-lb equivalent single-axle
loads (ESALs) to define traffic loadings, layer structural coefficients (ai) to characterize the
strength/stiffness of individual pavement layers, and certain modulus parameters to charac-
terize the load-bearing capacity of the subgrade soil.
• Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide Manual of Practice (AASHTO 2015): Uses an
array of vehicle classes and loading characteristics to define loadings, along with modulus,
strength, and mixture parameters, to characterize the response of individual pavement layers
and the subgrade soil when subjected to loading.

The American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA) has developed combination software
(PerviousPave) for conducting structural and hydrological design for highways and streets incor-
porating pervious concrete (ACPA, n.d.). PerviousPave is based on the organization’s thickness
design methodology for jointed plain concrete pavements, StreetPave, and uses a modified version
of Los Angeles County’s hydrological design method. The program is capable of determining
(1) the required minimum pervious concrete pavement thickness based on the design traffic,
design life, and other structural inputs, and (2) the required subbase/reservoir thickness necessary
to satisfy stormwater management requirements based on volume of water to be processed by
the pavement within the required maximum detention time.
AASHTO design methods can be applied to full-strength pavements for aircraft in some limited
circumstances. For nonprimary airports, a sponsor can request the use of state standards that are
different from FAA specifications and state highway construction and material specifications for
full-strength airfield pavements. 49 USC 47105(c) and 49 USC 47114(d)(5) give the FAA the
authority to approve state standards and the use of state highway specifications. The use of this
method is limited to the design of pavements at airports with runways 5,000 ft long or less and
serving aircraft weighing 60,000 lbs or less. The requirements for using state standards are
contained in FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Improvement Program Handbook (FAA 2014c)
and AC 150/5100-13A. An MOS would need to be submitted to and approved by the FAA in
accordance with FAA Order 5300.1 (FAA 2014c).
Brief descriptions of the AASHTO 1993 and FAA pavement design procedures are provided
in the following. The layer properties of permeable pavements for use in these structural design
methods are discussed in the following sections.
4.3.1.1 FAA Thickness Design

As mentioned previously, FAARFIELD uses LEA for flexible pavement design and FEM for
rigid pavement design. For flexible pavements, rutting in the subgrade is the primary analyzed
failure mode. The process is based on determining the vertical compressive strain on the subgrade
using the layered elastic subprogram, LEAF, and correlating that response to failure through a
performance model. FAARFIELD also allows the option of evaluating the horizontal tensile strain
at the bottom of the HMA surface layer to investigate the potential for fatigue cracking of the
HMA surface, but fatigue is not the primary design criteria.
Rigid pavement design in FAARFIELD is based on bottom-up cracking of the slab. The hori-
zontal tensile stress at the bottom of the slab is determined, and that response is correlated to
failure through a performance model.
The following inputs are required for new pavement design using FAARFIELD:
• Design period.
• Traffic data.
• Subgrade support.
• Layer types and characteristics.
In addition to these inputs, flexural strength is required for rigid pavement designs.
The pavement cross-section is input in the “Structure” screen of FAARFIELD, using appro-
priate layers for the design being considered. Many of the default layer type characteristics
are fixed within the program. Because most of the default materials within FAARFIELD
have set moduli, the use of user-defined and “variable” layers is needed to model permeable
pavements. The FAA’s design procedure also has minimum layer requirements. However,
these are based on the default material types (i.e., HMA, PCC, and aggregates) meeting the
specifications in FAA AC 150/5370-10G. Therefore, minimum thicknesses for permeable

pavements may be different. FAARFIELD performance models are also based on observed
performance of conventional pavements, which may not be accurate for permeable pave-
ment materials.
FAA AC 150/5100-13A, Method A, provides guidance for equating FAARFIELD-determined
thicknesses based on P-specification materials to thicknesses using state highway materials. In
general, additional thickness is added to the FAARFIELD-determined layer thickness. However,
these thickness adjustments are based on conventional state highway materials. Greater thicknesses
would likely be required for permeable materials.
4.3.1.2 AASHTO 1993 Thickness Design

The AASHTO 1993 pavement design method is based on the use of nomographs to determine
a structural number (SN) for flexible pavement and concrete thickness (D) for rigid pavement.
The SN is an abstract index representing the pavement strength based on soil support, traffic
loadings, serviceability, and environment (AASHTO 1993). To facilitate this empirical design
procedure, AASHTO developed the computerized design program known as DARWin.
The AASHTO general design equation for flexible pavements requires the following inputs:
• Expected 18-kip ESALs (W18).
• SN.
• Standard normal deviate for selected reliability level (ZR).
• Overall standard deviation (SO).
• Change in 0-to-5 scale present serviceability index (DPSI).
• Subgrade resilient modulus (MR; psi).
SN is determined using the following equation:
SN = a1 D1 + a2 D2m2 + a3 D3m3
where
ai = structural layer coefficient for layer i,
Di = thickness of layer i (inches), and
mi = layer drainage coefficient.
The layer coefficient (ai) is the empirical recognition of the ability of a layer to function as
a structural component. In general terms, a higher ai indicates a stronger pavement layer. The
drainage coefficient (mi) represents an assessment of how long a layer remains saturated. A
higher value represents a layer that drains well, while a lower value indicates a poorly draining
layer.
The AASHTO general design equation for rigid pavements requires the following inputs:
• Expected 18-kip ESALs (W18).
• Concrete thickness (D; in.)
• Standard normal deviate for selected reliability level (ZR).
• Overall standard deviation (SO).
• Change in 0-to-5 scale present serviceability index (DPSI).
• Terminal serviceability index (pt).
• Concrete modulus of rupture (S′c; psi).
• Drainage coefficient (cd).
• Load transfer coefficient (J).
• Concrete elastic modulus (Ec; psi).
• Modulus of subgrade support (k; psi/in.) (AASHTO 1993).

For vehicular design, state highway agencies and AASHTO have established required values for
inputs depending on anticipated vehicular traffic. FAA AC 150/5100-13A, Method B, provides
guidance and inputs for the use of the AASHTO 1993 thickness design method. For flexible
pavement design, minimum SNs are required based on the aircraft weight and subgrade support.
Minimum concrete thicknesses are provided for rigid pavement design. However, these design
requirements are based on conventional materials.
4.3.2 Traffic Data

As mentioned previously, the AASHTO 1993 pavement design method uses ESALs to character-
ize traffic for design. For parking lots and roadways, traffic data can be obtained and conversions
made for the axle types to reach a number of design ESALs.
FAA pavement design uses the aircraft type, including weight, gear type, tire pressure, and volume,
for each aircraft in the traffic mix. The FAARFIELD design software has an extensive aircraft library
that contains most of the common aircraft models in use as well as generic gear configurations.
Aircraft gear configurations are quite different from vehicle axle configurations, and there
is no straightforward method for conversion of aircraft loadings to ESALs to use the AASHTO
1993 design procedure. As part of the Airport Asphalt Pavement Technology Program (AAPTP)
report, Guidelines for Use of Highway Specifications for HMA Airport Pavements, two categories are
recommended for ESAL and aircraft gross weight correlation (Buncher and Boyer 2009), sum-
marized in Table 7. The categories in that study are based on the correlation developed as part of
a 2008 AAPTP report, PG Binder Grade Selection for Airfield Pavements (Christensen et al. 2008).
4.3.3 Subgrade Characterization

In order to promote as much infiltration as possible, full-infiltration designs for vehicular
applications indicate not compacting the subgrade. However, under the heavier loads of aircraft,
not compacting the subgrade may lead to additional settlement. FAA pavement design indicates
that subgrade compaction is needed to avoid settlement from loadings. Compaction can reduce
the infiltration rate of the soil. Therefore, design must take into consideration both compaction
requirements and the impact on infiltration.
Subgrade strength is often characterized using California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing. FAA
flexible pavement design indicates the use of saturated CBR results because subgrades gen-
erally reach saturation over time or from seasonal moisture variability (FAA 2016). Rigid
pavements are designed using modulus of subgrade support (k-value, k). However, plate load
testing to determine k-value is costly and time consuming. Therefore, correlations to labora-
tory CBR testing are generally used. CBR, k-value, or elastic modulus (Esg) can be entered in
the FAARFIELD program, and FAARFIELD will automatically calculate the other parameters
using the following correlations:
Esg = 1500 CBR

Esg = 20.15 k1.284
Table 7. Correlation of aircraft weight

to ESALs.
Aircraft Weight (lbs) ESALs (millions)

Less than 12,500 Less than 0.3
12,500 to less than 60,000 0.3 to less than 3.0
Source: FAA (2011a).

4.3.4 Paving Layer Properties

4.3.4.1 Base/Subbase Reservoir Aggregate
The reservoir aggregate is an open-graded or uniform aggregate with high permeability
properties. The high permeability of the layer results in a lower layer modulus (and structural
number) for the layer.
NAPA recommends a structural coefficient of 0.10 to 0.14 for the reservoir layer (Hansen
2008). In the recommendations for using the AASHTO 1993 design, the FAA guidance indicates
a structural coefficient of 0.14 and 0.11 for the base and subbase, respectively (AASHTO 1993).
These values would be representative of a P-209 crushed aggregate base course and P-154 sub-
base course, respectively. The recommended values from NAPA for the reservoir layer generally
range between these two materials.
The AASHTO 1993 correlation between the granular base layer structural coefficient and layer
modulus (EBS) is as follows:
a2 = 0.249( log E BS ) − 0.977
Similarly, the granular subbase layer and modulus (ESB) correlation is as follows:
a3 = 0.227 ( log ESB ) − 0.839
These equations and suggested structural coefficients indicate moduli ranging from around 13,000
to 30,000 psi for a reservoir layer. When a default aggregate layer type (such as P-209 or P-154) is
selected in FAARFIELD, the modulus is internally calculated, but the initial moduli for P-209 and
P-154 layers are 75,000 and 40,000 psi, respectively. Based on structural coefficients and these equa-
tions, these layers correlated to moduli of around 31,000 and 15,000 psi, respectively. It appears that
the AASHTO equations result in a very conservative correlation compared to FAARFIELD. Regard-
less, a user-defined layer is needed in FAARFIELD to characterize the reservoir layer.
4.3.4.2 Stabilized Permeable Base Layers

Although FAA pavement design requires a stabilized base layer only for pavements supporting
aircraft weighing more than 100,000 lbs, it may be beneficial to provide a stabilized base for all
pavements supporting aircraft. Stabilized permeable bases can be either cement-treated permeable
bases (CTPBs) or asphalt-treated permeable bases (ATPBs). Neither the FAA’s pavement design
procedure nor the associated software currently contain stabilized permeable layers.
For the AASHTO 1993 flexible design method, NAPA suggests a structural coefficient of 0.30 to
0.35 for ATPBs. For the rigid pavement design, the effective modulus of subgrade support under
the surface slab is determined based on the thickness of the base layer and the underlying subgrade
k-value. However, the correlations are based on either unbound aggregate or more typical stabilized
material.
For design in FAARFIELD, a user-defined layer can be used to incorporate a stabilized per-
meable base. However, there does not appear to be clear consensus on a layer modulus. The
Vermont Department of Transportation (Vermont DOT) recommends an ATPB modulus of
110,500 psi (Pologruto 2004). The Ohio DOT has developed a temperature-based correlation:
M r = 0.00005T 2 − 0.011T + 0.7481
where
Mr = resilient modulus (Mpsi), and
T = °F; along with statewide ATPB temperatures of 48°F (spring, fall), 75°F (summer), and
33°F (winter) (Masada et al. 2004).

For this correlation and these temperatures, the ATPB modulus ranges from 204,000 to
439,000 psi.
A modulus of 750,000 psi is recommended for CTPB in reference materials (Masada et al. 2004,
Colorado DOT 2016), which is even greater than the cement-treated base modulus (700,000 psi)
used in FAARFIELD.
4.3.4.3 Porous Asphalt Surface

Conventional dense-graded asphalt mixtures have a structural coefficient of 0.44 in the
AASHTO 1993 design method. The NAPA design procedure recommends a structural coefficient
of 0.40 to 0.42 for porous asphalt (Hansen 2008).
The modulus of porous asphalt is temperature dependent, as with conventional HMA. FAA
pavement design assumes a higher design temperature (90°F) than that for roadway design (77°F).
The HMA surface modulus in FAARFIELD is 200,000 psi, while a value of 400,000 psi is used for
an HMA base. The FAA’s HMA base modulus is comparable to the HMA modulus used in roadway
design. Therefore, temperature needs to be considered when selecting the porous asphalt modulus
for use in FAARFIELD and would require the use of a user-defined layer.
Roadway studies where deflection testing and back calculation of layer properties were con-
ducted have indicated that porous asphalt has a modulus of approximately half that of conven-
tional HMA controls (Hossain and Scofield 1991, Uju 2010). These studies did indicate high
modulus values for porous asphalt, ranging from approximately 500,000 to 1,000,000 psi, which
are quite high for the material. These results are from pavements that were in use (i.e., aged) but
do suggest that porous asphalt may have a similar initial modulus as that of the FAARFIELD
default surface layer.
4.3.4.4 Pervious Concrete Surface

Pervious concrete properties depend on many factors related to materials selection and mix
design. However, typical values of 28-day compressive strength for pervious concrete range from
400 to 4000 psi (Tennis et al. 2004). Relatively high values of compressive strength of pervious
concrete can be achieved, but with the reduction of void content and compromising permeability
(ACI 2010). The reported values of pervious concrete flexural strength in ACI 522R-10 range
from 300 to 600 psi. The relationship between compressive and flexural strength can be expressed
as follows:
fr = 2.3 f c′ 2/3
where fr and f ′c represent the flexural and compressive strength of pervious concrete, respectively,
in psi (ACI 2010).
Slightly lower flexural strength values of 150 to 550 psi are reported on the Pervious Pavement
website (http://www.perviouspavement.org/engineering.html).
FAARFIELD currently only allows flexural strengths of as low as 500 psi, providing a range
of 500 to 900 psi. Therefore, it may not be possible to model a pervious concrete surface in the
current FAARFIELD software unless the mix design has a higher flexural strength. Additionally,
the concrete modulus in FAARFIELD is fixed at 4,000,000 psi, and pervious concrete can be
expected to have a lower elastic modulus.

Chapter 5
Materials Considerations
5.1 Overview
Proper pavement design and materials selection are crucial to the durability and life-cycle per-
formance of permeable pavements because they provide proactive defense against potential risks
related to poor drainage, nondurable permeable pavement (such as due to raveling), and so on.
For instance, if properly designed and constructed, pervious concrete pavements can remain in
use for collector streets and most residential streets for 20 to 30 years while exhibiting structural
performance similar to traditional pavements (Goede and Haselbach 2012).
This chapter provides an overview of important considerations to be made during the materials
selection stage. The discussion applies to all permeable pavements in general, but primarily focuses
on porous asphalt and pervious concrete pavements because these are the pavement types most
likely to be used for aircraft-area applications. However, it is acknowledged that much of the
experience and technical basis for these guidelines are derived from roadway or parking lot
applications of permeable pavements (instead of airport applications).
5.2 Subgrade
The saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) of the subgrade is an important factor that needs to
be considered in the design of permeable pavement systems. For full-infiltration (or retention)
systems, a minimum Ks value of approximately 0.5 in./h is recommended to ensure effective per-
meability (ASCE 2015). ASTM D3385, Test Method for Infiltration Rate of Soils in Field Using a
Double-Ring Infiltrometer, is generally the recommended test for subgrade infiltration (or, for
soils with an expected infiltration rate of 1.4 × 10-2 in./h to 1.4 × 10-5 in./h, ASTM D5093, Test
Method for Field Measurement of Infiltration Rate Using a Double-Ring Infiltrometer with a
Sealed Inner Ring).
Subgrade support also needs to be determined for use in structural design. CBR testing using
ASTM D1883, Bearing Ratio of Laboratory-Compacted Soils, which includes soaking the soil
samples for 96 h to reach saturation, is generally recommended. A minimum CBR of 3 is rec-
ommended in FAA design guidance (FAA 2016); the recommended input for PICP design is a
minimum CBR of 5 (Smith 2015).
With full-infiltration systems, the subgrade is not typically compacted, so the permeability
is not compromised. However, not compacting the subgrade can increase the risk of rutting or
settlement under heavier aircraft loading. For partial-infiltration (or no-infiltration) systems, the
subgrade permeability is not as significant an issue. In this case, the subgrade can be compacted
to meet FAA specifications, as required in Item P-152, Excavation, Subgrade, and Embankment
(FAA 2014a).
45

5.3 Base/Subbase Reservoir Aggregate

The base/subbase reservoir layer serves to retain stormwater and to support the permeable
surface layer in accommodating traffic loads. Aggregates should be clean and uniformly graded.
The minimum void space recommendation varies slightly between industry segments. For per-
vious concrete, the recommended minimum void space is 20% to 40% (ACPA 2009), while the
recommendation for porous asphalt pavement is a minimum of 40% (Hansen 2008). Void space
in percent for the reservoir aggregate is determined using ASTM C29, Standard Test Method for
Bulk Density (“Unit Weight”) and Voids in Aggregate. Furthermore, the amount of fine material
in the aggregate passing sieve No. 100 should be between 0% and 2% in order to avoid clogging
of the base (Hansen 2008).
The reservoir aggregate gradation is typically ASTM No. 2 or No. 3, with ASTM No. 57 some-
times used under pervious concrete (ASCE 2015). This layer, depending on hydrology and traffic
applications, ranges from 8 to 36 in. thick for porous asphalt and 8 to 18 in. thick for pervious
concrete. However, a thicker base/subbase reservoir layer may be needed in cold climates with
freeze–thaw cycling. The final thickness is dependent on considerations of hydrology, soil per-
meability, retention or detention system needs, frost depths, locations of underdrains, and so on.
The case study projects (see Appendix B) investigated for this project typically used state
materials specifications (such as summarized in Table 8), but the gradations of the base/subbase
reservoir aggregates generally provide an open-graded material consistent with ASTM gradations.
Both of the case study systems are partial-infiltration designs.
Recycled construction materials, including crushed brick, recycled concrete aggregate, and
reclaimed asphalt pavement, have been demonstrated to be suitable as base/subbase reservoir
material for permeable pavement (Rahman et al. 2015).
5.4 Choke Stone, Filter Layer, and Bedding Layer

The base/subbase reservoir aggregate can leave a rough surface. Open-graded aggregates can
also be unstable under construction equipment loading. A choker stone course is sometimes
used between the permeable surface layer and the reservoir course to provide an even and more
stable platform for surface paving. Choke stone is typically a clean, uniform-sized, crushed
aggregate. ASTM No. 57 stone is generally used for this layer (ASCE 2015).
Although not a common component, a filter layer may be included in the design. This layer is
used to assist in pollutant removal from stormwater. The thickness of this layer can range from
8 to 12 in., and the material composing it is generally poor-graded or coarse sand (Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality 2011). To prevent the migration of sand particles into the
reservoir layer, the filter layer should be underlain by a thin (3-in.) choker course.
Table 8. Example gradations of base/

subbase reservoir aggregate.
Paine Field
Culpeper (Washington State
Sieve Size (Virginia DOT No. 1) DOT Permeable
Ballast)
Percent Passing
4 in. 100 –
3½ in. 90 to 100 –
2½ in. 26 to 60 99 to 100
2 in. – 65 to 100
1½ in. 0 to 15 –
¾ in. 0 to 5 40 to 80
No. 4 – 5 max
No. 100 – 0 to 2
Source: Campbell and Paris (2014a), CH2M (2013a).

Materials Considerations 47
PICP also incorporates a bedding layer for uniform placement of the units. This material is
typically of an ASTM No. 8 gradation (Smith 2015) and is 1½ to 2 in. thick. It is the same material
that is used for filling the paver joints.
5.5 Stabilized Permeable Base

For roadway applications, the permeable surface layer is typically placed directly on the choke-
stone layer (except for PICP having a bedding layer). However, the wheel loads of aircraft can
be much greater than those of passenger vehicles. The FAA’s current design policy requires a
stabilized base for aircraft traffic mixes with aircraft weights of more than 100,000 lbs. In air-
field applications, a stabilized permeable base is beneficial because of the higher loads. Both the
Culpeper apron and Richmond taxiway shoulder projects used a CTPB layer under the porous
asphalt surface.
Stabilized permeable bases are primarily CTPB and ATPB. The Innovative Pavement Research
Foundation (IPRF) sponsored a study that evaluated the use of stabilized bases at airports,
including providing guidance on CTPB and ATPB layers. The recommendation from that study
was that CTPB and ATPB should have a permeability of not less than 250 in./h or more than
750 in./h (Hall et al. 2005). The permeability should be tested in the laboratory in accordance
with ASTM D 2434, Constant Head Permeability Test (Hall et al. 2005). Further guidance in the
IPRF document indicates that CTPB mix proportioning should have approximately 250 lbs/yd3
of cementitious material, and the job-mix formula for ATPB should have a minimum asphalt
binder content of 2.0% to 3.5% to provide stability during construction and durability of the
mix (Hall et al. 2005).
Aggregate gradations range from ¾ in. to 1½ in. maximum aggregate size, and fines are
limited to 0% to 6% passing the No. 8 sieve (Hall et al. 2005). An example gradation of CTPB
(referred to as cement-stabilized open-graded mix) for the Culpeper apron project is provided
in Table 9.
5.6 Permeable Surface Materials

5.6.1 Porous Asphalt Materials
As described in Chapter 2, porous asphalt typically consists of conventional HMA or WMA
with significantly reduced fines resulting in an open-graded mixture that allows water to pass
through an interconnected void space. Porous asphalt typically has a higher binder content
(6% to 6.5%) and can have additives to assist with durability and to reduce draindown.
5.6.1.1 Aggregate
As with conventional HMA or WMA, aggregates need to be sound and durable. Requirements
for conventional HMA aggregates, such as for wear, soundness, and deleterious content, also
apply to the aggregates used for porous asphalt.
Table 9. Stabilized open-graded

mix gradation.
Culpeper
Sieve Size (Virginia DOT No. 57)
Percent Passing
1½ in. 100
1 in. 95 to 100
½ in. 25 to 60
No. 4 0 to 10
No. 8 0 to 5
Source: Campbell and Paris (2014b).

Table 10. Comparison of aggregate gradations for porous

asphalt surfaces.
Percent Passing
Sieve Size Item P-402
IS 115
¾ in. ½ in.
¾ in. 100 – 100
½ in. 70 to 90 100 85 to 100
3 8 in. 40 to 65 85 to 95 55 to 75
No. 4 15 to 25 30 to 45 10 to 25
No. 8 8 to 15 20 to 30 5 to 10
No. 30 5 to 9 9 to 17 –
No. 200 1 to 5 2 to 7 2 to 4
Porous asphalt maximum aggregate size for the surface courses is typically ½ to ¾ in. Although
they are no longer included in FAA’s construction standards, for comparative purposes, FAA
Item P-402, Porous Friction Course, provides aggregate gradations for ½ and ¾ in. maximum,
shown in Table 10 along with the NAPA Information Series (IS) 115 gradation (FAA 2011b,
Kandhal 2002).
5.6.1.2 Asphalt Cement Binder

Based on case study interviews and literature review results, binder selection and content are
significant factors in the performance of porous asphalt projects at airports. Improper binder
selection or content has led to early raveling of the porous asphalt for some projects.
Binder content is commonly between 6% and 6.5%, per AASHTO T 164 (ASCE 2015). The
binder content will vary depending on the aggregate top size, with larger top-size aggregate
requiring less binder (Hansen 2008).
Performance-graded (PG) binders are recommended. State standards generally provide local
climate-based grade requirements. The performance grade may be bumped depending on the
aircraft weights or tire pressures. A grade bump is increasing the high-temperature rating to
the next PG grade. The FAA Item P-401 specification (included in FAA 2014a) provides guid-
ance on grade bumps for pavements receiving aircraft loadings (see Table 11). These should be
considered in binder selection.
The use of additives should be considered for porous asphalt pavements to prevent binder
draindown into the lower layers and pavement degradation (ASCE 2015). Synthetic rubber is
one additive that can be used. The Culpeper design required a minimum of 2% synthetic rubber.
Table 11. FAA-required grade bump.
High-Temperature Adjustment to Binder

Aircraft Gross Weight Grade
All Pavement Types
12,500 lbs –
<100,000 lbs 1 grade
100,000 lbs 2 grade
Typically, rutting is not a problem on airport pavements. However, at airports with a history of aircraft
stacking at runway ends and taxiway areas, rutting has occurred due to the slow speed of loading on the
pavement. If there has been rutting related to the project or it is anticipated that stacking may occur
during the design life of the project, then the following grade bumping should be applied for the top 5
in. (125 mm) of paving in the end of runway and taxiway areas: for aircraft tire pressure of between
100 and 200 psi (0.7 and 1.4 MPa), increase the high temperature one grade; for aircraft tire pressure
greater than 200 psi (1.4 MPa), increase the high temperature two grades. The low-temperature grade
should remain the same.
Source: FAA (2014a).

Cellulose or mineral fibers are additional possible additives, which are generally added at 0.3%
to 0.4% content, respectively, by total mass of mix (ASCE 2015).
5.6.1.3 Mixture Design

A primary objective of porous asphalt mix design is to provide a mixture that is permeable yet
durable. Raveling of the porous asphalt surface was one of the most common concerns expressed
in the responses to this study’s survey.
Two methods of porous asphalt mix design are discussed in NAPA publication IS 115, Design,
Construction, and Maintenance of Open-Graded Asphalt Friction Courses (Kandhal 2002)
and ASTM D7064, Standard Practice for Open-Graded Friction Course (OGFC) Mix Design.
AI’s MS-2 Asphalt Mix Design Methods (AI 2015) may also be used, or states may have devel-
oped their own mix design process. These methods are generally for pavements supporting
vehicular loadings, so the process will need to take into consideration potentially heavier load
applications. For instance, roadway porous asphalt may be designed using 50 gyrations in the
Superpave method. The FAA’s Item P-401 requires 75 gyrations for aircraft weights greater
than 60,000 lbs (FAA 2014a).
The porous asphalt surface void content typically ranges from 18% to 22%, and surface per-
meability ranges from 170 to 500 in./h (ASCE 2015). Testing voids of porous asphalt should
measure the volume by dimension, using ASTM D3203, Standard Test Method for Percent Air
Voids in Compacted Dense and Open Bituminous Paving Mixtures, or ASTM D6857, Standard
Test Method for Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures Using
Automatic Vacuum Sealing Method (Hansen 2008).
Because water easily flows through the layer, moisture issues are normally not present (Hansen
2008). However, NAPA recommends that porous asphalt be tested in the same manner as dense-
graded HMA. The testing is performed using the porous asphalt materials in a “surrogate” mix.
A minimum tensile strength ratio of 80% is recommended (Hansen 2008). Abrasion resistance
is not generally considered in the current P-401 specification. With porous asphalt, abrasion
resistance needs to be assessed. Cantabro abrasion testing (ASTM D7064) on unaged samples
and samples aged 7 days is recommended, with results of the testing needing to be less than or
equal to 20 and greater than or equal to 30, respectively (ASCE 2015). Higher binder content
can yield a decrease in abrasion loss; however, too high a binder content may compromise the
permeability of the pavement (ASCE 2015).
Draindown is another porous asphalt property not generally included in conventional HMA
design. Draindown should be less than or equal to 0.3% by testing in accordance with ASTM
D6390 (Hansen 2008).
5.6.1.4 Common Porous Asphalt Testing Requirements

The following are some of the testing requirements for porous asphalt:
• ASTM D3203, Standard Test Method for Percent Air Voids in Compacted Dense and Open
Bituminous Paving Mixtures: This test method is used to determine the percent air voids in
compacted dense- and open-graded asphalt paving mixtures.
• ASTM D3625, Standard Practice for Effect of Water on Bituminous-Coated Aggregate Using
Boiling Water: This practice covers a rapid procedure for visually observing the loss of adhe-
sion in uncompacted bituminous-coated aggregate mixtures due to the action of boiling water.
• ASTM D4867, Standard Test Method for Effect of Moisture on Asphalt Concrete Paving
Mixtures: This test method is to determine the potential of asphalt binder stripping from
aggregate. The test determines the tensile strength ratio of the composite mixture.
• ASTM D6390, Standard Test Method for Determination of Draindown Characteristics
in Uncompacted Asphalt Mixtures: This test method is used to determine the amount of

draindown in an uncompacted asphalt mixture sample when the sample is held at elevated
temperatures comparable to those encountered during the production, storage, transport,
and placement of the mixture. The test is particularly applicable to mixtures such as porous
asphalt and stone matrix asphalt.
• ASTM D6752, Standard Test Method for Bulk Specific Gravity and Density of Compacted
Bituminous Mixtures Using Automatic Vacuum Sealing Method: This test method covers
the determination of bulk specific gravity of compacted bituminous mixtures by the vacuum
sealing method.
• ASTM D6857, Standard Test Method for Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bitumi-
nous Paving Mixtures Using Automatic Vacuum Sealing Method: This test method covers the
determination of maximum specific gravity and density of uncompacted bituminous paving
mixtures at 77°F.
• ASTM D7064, Standard Practice for Open-Graded Friction Course (OGFC) Mix Design: This
practice covers the mix design of OGFC using the Superpave gyratory compactor or other
suitable forms of compaction. The OGFC mix design is based on the volumetric properties of
the mix in terms of air voids, as well as the presence of stone-on-stone contact.
• ASTM WK44391, New Practice for Construction of Porous Asphalt Pavements with Stone
Reservoirs: A committee is working on a specification for the design and construction of
porous asphalt pavement.
5.6.2 Pervious Concrete Materials

Pervious concrete features an open network of pores formed by using an open-graded aggre-
gate to allow infiltration of stormwater through the pavement. As with porous asphalt, raveling
of the surface was a common concern found in this study’s survey and interviews. Freeze–thaw
durability was also identified as a concern in the industry survey and interviews.
5.6.2.1 Aggregate
As in conventional concrete, aggregates used in pervious concrete need to be sound and durable.
Requirements for conventional concrete aggregates, such as reactivity, wear, soundness, and
deleterious content, apply to the aggregates used for pervious concrete. Coarse aggregate should
comply with ASTM C33.
Permeability of pervious concrete is attained by the coarse aggregate gradation being limited
to a single size or close to a uniform gradation (open graded). Although smaller aggregate has
been effectively used for certain applications, aggregate grading is typically between ¾ and 3⁄8 in.
maximum size, and using aggregate larger than 1 in. is not recommended for any application
(ACI 2013). Gradations used for pervious concrete include ASTM C33 No. 67 (¾ in. to No. 4),
No. 8 (3⁄8 in. to No. 16), and No. 89 (3⁄8 in. to No. 50).
Very little to no fine aggregate (sand) is included in the mixture. A lower sand content con-
tributes to higher void content and a permeable matrix. While the addition of even a small
amount of fines in the mixture increases compressive strength and density, at the same time it
reduces the infiltration rate (FHWA 2016).
One study found that the connected porosity of permeable concrete mixtures was influ-
enced more by the aggregate type (dolomite or steel slag) than the size of the aggregates (3⁄8 in.
to No. 4 or ¾ in. to 3⁄8 in. aggregate fractions) (Ćosi ć et al. 2015).
5.6.2.2 Cement/Cementitious Materials

Cement should comply with ASTM C150; Types I or II are commonly used for pervious con-
crete, and occasionally Type V (low alkali) is used, if needed. Secondary supplementary cementi-
tious materials can be used. Fly ash conforming to ASTM C618 can be used in the mixture at
20% maximum weight replacement. Slag cement meeting ASTM C989, Grade 100 or Grade 120,

can also be used. Total cementitious material content commonly ranges from 450 to 550 lbs/yd3
(NRMCA [National Ready Mixed Concrete Association], n.d.).
Alkali-silica reactivity-based requirements (maximum cement alkali content, maximum fly
ash calcium oxide content, and so on) for conventional PCC should be followed. These are
usually a part of state specifications and are also included in FAA Item P-501, Portland Cement
Concrete Pavement.
5.6.2.3 Mix Design

Pervious concrete is a highly permeable concrete that contains a high content of macroscopic
pockets of air ranging from 15% to 25% and has flow rates in the range of 192 to 1,724 in./h (ACI
2010). A variety of mix proportions can produce a wide range of properties in pervious concrete,
and various admixtures are available to enhance its overall performance. In general, it is difficult
to simultaneously optimize the mechanical and durability properties and infiltration perfor-
mance of pervious concrete. The current mix design and fabrication practices are documented
by ACI Committee 522 (ACI 2010) and the ASCE Permeable Pavements Task Committee (ASCE
2015). The goal of pervious concrete mix proportioning is to produce a permeable, smooth, and
durable pavement surface, typically achieved at around 20% voids.
In the United States, the typical mix design of permeable concrete features a water/cement
(w/c) ratio of between 0.27 and 0.34 (FHWA 2012). With a lower w/c ratio than conventional
PCC, pervious concrete has lower slump and less workability. Higher w/c ratios may provide
greater workability, but can result in the cement paste draining off the aggregate during place-
ment. As with conventional PCC, the use of water reducers can improve workability. Water-
reducing admixtures should meet the requirements of ASTM C494, Type A, B, or D. Further,
hydration stabilizers are commonly used to increase workability over a longer duration and
delay the initial set of the cement (FHWA 2016). Hydration stabilizers should conform to ASTM
C494, Type B or D.
Typical values of 28-day compressive strength for pervious concrete range from 400 to
4,000 psi (Tennis et al. 2004). Relatively high values of the compressive strength of pervious
concrete can be achieved, but this occurs with a reduction of void content and compromised
permeability (ACI 2010). ASCE’s Permeable Pavements manual points out that, for pervious
concrete, strength and permeability are inversely related (ASCE 2015).
The freeze–thaw durability of pervious concrete can be improved using many different
methods, including using a small amount of fine aggregate, adding polypropylene fibers, using
a slightly higher w/c ratio, increasing consolidation (lower porosity), introducing entrained air,
increasing paste volume, replacing some Portland cement with fly ash or silica fume, and using
a latex admixture (Schaefer et al. 2006, Kevern et al. 2008, Wu et al. 2010). A few studies have
shown that the addition of air entraining admixtures complying with ASTM C260 is help-
ful in maintaining the durability of the mixture in cold regions, but this is not confirmed
(NRMCA, n.d.). However, there is no current method to measure the air content in the paste
of pervious concrete; air content can only be measured in the hardened pervious concrete.
The use of polyethylene or cellulose fibers can also improve freeze–thaw resistance, as well as
increase abrasion resistance and tensile strength (Amde and Rogge 2013). Partial replacement
of coarse aggregate with fines in mass dosages ranging from 4% to 6% tends to improve the
freeze–thaw durability of pervious concrete (ASCE 2015).
There are also admixtures that can be employed to improve abrasion resistance. These include
styrene butadiene rubber polymer latex (Wu et al. 2010) or a small amount of nano-silica (2.5%
by the weight of cement) (Longhi et al. 2015).
Permeable concrete, relative to its impermeable counterpart, requires strict quality control
of mixture proportioning during fabrication. The paste content is particularly critical to ensure

that the paste fully coats and adheres to the aggregates and allows the open structure to be con-
nected with adequate strength and permeability. The aggregate moisture level must be carefully
monitored since the water absorbed by the aggregate and excess moisture accompanied with
the aggregate largely affects the final performance of the permeable concrete. Generally, the unit
weight test is a better test than the slump test for quality control. In comparison to conventional
concrete, the mixing time requirements with the same equipment are increased, and the deliv-
ery and installation times must be largely shortened. In addition, the freeze–thaw durability,
strength, and permeability of permeable concrete are also largely determined by the compaction
energy (Kevern 2010, Kevern et al. 2010).
5.6.2.4 Common Pervious Concrete Testing Requirements

The following are some of the common testing requirements used for pervious concrete:
• ASTM C1688, Standard Test Method for Density and Void Content of Freshly Mixed Pervious
Concrete: This test method is used to determine the density of freshly mixed pervious concrete
under standardized conditions and gives formulas for calculating the void content of pervious
concrete.
• ASTM C1701, Standard Test Method for Infiltration Rate of In Place Pervious Concrete: This
test method covers the determination of the field water infiltration rate of in-place pervious
concrete.
• ASTM C1747, Standard Test Method for Determining Potential Resistance to Degradation of
Pervious Concrete by Impact and Abrasion: This test method is used to determine the poten-
tial resistance to degradation of pervious concrete by measuring the mass loss of specimens
subjected to the combined action of impact and abrasion in a rotating steel drum.
• ASTM C1754, Standard Test Method for Density and Void Content of Hardened Pervious
Concrete: This test method provides a procedure for determining the density and void con-
tent of hardened pervious concrete specimens.
• ASTM WK29213, Test Method for Compressive Strength of Pervious Concrete: This is a pro-
posed test method for verifying pervious concrete material strength on a project.
• ISO 17785-1:2016, Testing Methods for Pervious Concrete, Part I Infiltration Rate: Specifies
the procedure for testing the infiltration rate of hardened pervious concrete specimens in the
laboratory. It is not a method for measuring the permeability of pervious concrete.
5.6.3 PICP
One advantage of concrete pavers is that they are manufactured in a controlled environment
and can be tested prior to placement. Concrete pavers should be manufactured in accordance
with ASTM C936. Concrete pavers are typically 23⁄8 in. thick for vehicular applications and typi-
cally 31⁄8 in. thick for aircraft applications (McQueen et al. 2003). Concrete pavers 31⁄8 in. thick
can achieve compressive strengths of 8,000 to 10,000 psi at 28 days (McQueen et al. 2003).
Freeze-thaw–resistant pavers can be achieved for local conditions and can be tested for durability.
Concrete paver shape should be uniform, and spacer bars should be uniform in size.
5.6.3.1 Common PICP Testing Requirements

• ASTM C67, Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Brick and Structural Clay Tile:
Provides test methods for the sampling and testing of brick and structural clay tile.
• ASTM C140, Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units and
Related Units: Provides general testing requirements for application to concrete products.
• ASTM C144, Standard Specification for Aggregate for Masonry Mortar: Specification provides
aggregate characteristic requirements for use in masonry mortar.
• ASTM C936, Standard Specification for Solid Concrete Interlocking Paving Units: Specifica-
tion for interlocking concrete pavers used in the construction of paved surfaces and manufac-
tured from cementitious materials, aggregates, chemical admixtures, and other constituents.

This specification provides guidelines for physical requirements, sampling and testing, visual
inspection, and rejection of specimens.
• ASTM C979, Specification for Pigments for Integrally Colored Concrete: Specification covers
the requirements for colored and white pigments in powder form to be used as admixtures
for producing integrally colored concrete.
• ASTM C1645, Test Method for Freeze–Thaw and De-icing Salt Durability of Solid Concrete
Interlocking Paving Units: Evaluates the freezing and thawing resistance of solid interlocking
concrete paving units conforming to the requirements of ASTM C936.
• ASTM C1781, Standard Test Method for Surface Infiltration Rate of Permeable Unit Pavement
Systems: Determines the field surface infiltration rate of in-place permeable unit pavement
systems.
• CSA-A231.2, Precast Concrete Pavers: Specifies requirements for concrete pavers manufac-
tured from hydraulic cement concrete to be used in the construction of pedestrian and vehicu-
lar traffic areas.
5.7 Other Materials

5.7.1 Fabric/Liner
The base/subbase reservoir layer is typically separated from the subgrade by a layer of filter
fabric. The use of a filter fabric reduces the migration of fines into the base/subbase reservoir,
which would ultimately reduce the storage capacity of the reservoir. For no-infiltration systems,
an impervious liner (e.g., geotextile, clay barrier) between the base/subbase reservoir course and
subgrade is used to prevent infiltration of stormwater into the subgrade (ASCE 2015).
Generally, woven or non-woven geotextiles fabrics can be used for separation, reinforcement,
or drainage between pavement layers or neighboring soils; AASHTO M 288 is a common ref-
erence for selection criteria (ASCE 2015). Specifically, a filter fabric or an impervious liner in
compliance with ASTM D6767-02 is placed between the subgrade layer and the base/subbase
course (NRMCA, n.d.). Non-woven geotextile fabrics can prevent the migration of fines from
the subgrade and contamination of a base layer (Hansen 2008). While requirements can vary
from state to state, Table 12 provides an example of required properties of the filter fabric.
Filter fabrics are not recommended for use underneath the permeable surface layer since they
can collect fines and reduce permeability (ASCE 2015).
In addition to protecting weak subgrades, liners are incorporated into some design features.
As an example, an impervious liner was used in the Paine Field pervious concrete project to pro-
tect the berms (or check dams) between infiltration beds in the stepped design. Liner properties
used for Paine Field are summarized in Table 13.
Table 12. Example filter fabric requirements.
ASTM Test
Property Unit Requirement
Method
Grab tensile lb D4632 180
Elongation percent D4632 50
Puncture lb D4833 80
Burst psi D3786 290
Trapezoid tear lb D4533 50
UV resistance percent D4355 70
Water flow rate gpm/ft2 D4491 130
Permeability cm/s D4491 33
Apparent opening size sieve size D4751 70
Elongation percent D4632 50
Source: Campbell and Paris (2014a).

Table 13. Example liner requirements.
Property Unit Test Method Requirement

Thickness mils ASTM D1593 40 ± 2%
Specific gravity N/A ASTM D792 1.20, min
ASTM D882,
Elongation at break percent 430, min
Method A
ASTM D882,
Tensile strength lb/in. width 97, min
Method A
Tear resistance, each ASTM
lbs 10, min
direction D1004, Die C
ASTM D882,
100% modulus lbs/in. 40
Method A
Water extraction, as compared
to blanks of same nominal percent loss ASTM D1239 0.2% loss, max
thickness
ASTM
Volatility percent loss D1203, 0.5, max
Method A
Low temperature, pass ºF ASTM D1790 minus 29
Dimensional stability
percent
(designated MD and TD in the ASTM D1204 3, max
change
specification), each direction
Source: CH2M (2013b).
5.8 Specifications
5.8.1 Industry Groups
Two ACI publications, ACI Standard 522.1-13 (Specification for Pervious Concrete Pavement)
and ACI Report 522R-10 (Report on Pervious Concrete), provide useful specifications related to
the construction of pervious pavements. The former covers materials, preparation, forming, plac-
ing, finishing, jointing, curing, and quality control of pervious concrete pavement. It includes
provisions for testing, evaluation, and acceptance of pervious concrete pavement, which can be
referenced as a supplement to project specifications, as appropriate. The latter provides technical
information on pervious concrete’s application, design methods, materials, properties, mixture
proportioning, construction methods, testing, and inspection. It is not intended as a reference to
project specifications but rather as a basis for developing mandatory language within the project
specifications. Among the various applications cited for pervious concrete are (a) parking lots;
(b) base course for streets, roads, driveways, and airports; and (c) pavements, walls, and floors
where better acoustic absorption characteristics are desired.
NAPA IS 131 (Porous Asphalt Pavements for Stormwater Management: Design, Construction,
and Maintenance Guide) provides detailed guidance on the structural and hydrological design
of porous asphalt pavements as well as the materials used and construction and maintenance
practices (Hansen 2008). While detailed guidance is provided for materials and construction,
specifications are not included with the document. Although the guide does not specifically cite
airport airside facilities as feasible locations for porous asphalt pavement systems, it does provide
design details for applications involving roads, streets, and parking lots that are often part of an
airport’s landside facilities.
The ICPI’s Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements (Smith 2015) provides specifications
for PICP in Section 4. The publication provides for materials requirements and includes a
construction checklist to assist with inspection. It also provides an example of a maintenance
agreement. Although not specifically for PICP, paver materials requirements for aircraft load-
ings are provided in Airfield Pavement Design with Concrete Pavers (McQueen et al. 2003).

These industry references focus on vehicular applications. The IPRF report, Stabilized and
Drainable Base for Rigid Pavement (Hall et al. 2005), provides example specifications for stabilized
permeable base layers for pavements supporting aircraft loads. This report also provides guidance
on construction.
5.8.2 State Specifications

Most state standards contain permeable pavement materials specifications, and these stan-
dards typically vary by state. Each state’s standards are based on local conditions and experi-
ence. The FAA’s AC 150/5100-13A provides a procedure for approval of state standards that is
permitted under U.S. Code 47105(c). However, as discussed in Chapter 4, there are additional
requirements for using state standards for pavements carrying aircraft loadings. The AAPTP
report, Guidelines for Use of Highway Specifications for HMA Airport Pavements (Buncher and
Boyer 2009), provides some guidance on the use of state standards. One of the primary require-
ments identified in that report is to have acceptance and quality control levels equivalent to the
requirements in the FAA’s materials specifications.
5.8.3 Federal Specifications

5.8.3.1 FAA Specifications
The FAA’s materials specifications are contained in AC 150/5370-10 (version “G” at the time
of this study), Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports. The current FAA construc-
tion specifications do not contain permeable pavement materials. An MOS would be needed for
permeable pavements under its construction guidelines. The specifications can provide a base-
line document that can be modified to the properties required for permeable pavement—for
example, modifying P-209, Crushed Aggregate Base Course, to meet the requirements of base/
subbase reservoir aggregate. In any airside construction project, it is important to ensure that
appropriate levels of acceptance and quality control are maintained.
The Culpeper apron and Richmond taxiway shoulder projects used the FAA’s Item P-402,
Porous Friction Course, specification (included in FAA 2014a) for their porous asphalt surfaces.
The project specifications required a synthetic-rubber–modified asphalt cement. However, since
those projects were designed, P-402 has been removed from the current version of the AC.
5.8.3.2 Unified Facilities Guide Specifications

The UFGS provides construction specifications for the military branches. UFGS does contain
sections for permeable pavement materials; however, permeable pavement materials are identi-
fied as being for roadways and parking lots. The following specifications are included in the UFGS:
• Section 32 10 00 – [Pervious] Bituminous Concrete Pavement.
• Section 32 11 10 – Drainage Layer (includes both aggregate and stabilized layers).
• Section 32 11 16.16 – [Base Course for Rigid] [and Subbase Course for Flexible] [Subbase
Course for Pervious] Paving.
• Section 32 11 24 – Graded Crushed Aggregate Base Course for [Pervious][Flexible] Pavement.
• Section 32 13 43 – Pervious Concrete Paving.
• Section 32 12 43.16 – Porous Friction Course for Airfields and Roads (U.S. Department of
Defense 2016).
ICPI has also developed a federal specification for PICP: Section 32 14 13.19 – Permeable
Interlocking Concrete Pavement (ICPI 2016).

Chapter 6
Construction Considerations
6.1 Introduction
Because the design and functionality concepts of permeable pavements are quite different
from those of conventional pavements, the construction of these pavements is also quite differ-
ent. In constructing a pavement that drains internally rather than by diverting the flow of water
to a stormwater system, meticulous production and installation of specially designed materials
are required. As such, it is critical that the owner agency or its engineering consultant retain only
highly experienced and trained contractors for the job and that they establish and implement
effective specifications, construction plans, and testing/inspection procedures to ensure a quality
product.
As described in previous chapters, each permeable pavement type includes some features that
are common to the other pavement types (such as base/subbase reservoir aggregate) and other
features that are unique to that pavement type—in particular, the surface layer. Thus, it follows
that some of the construction activities associated with the three pavement types are similar,
whereas others are unique to a certain type. Table 14 summarizes the various components of
construction and their applicability to each type of permeable pavement system. The remainder
of this chapter discusses key considerations in permeable pavement construction, beginning
with the development of detailed construction documents and extending through the complete
construction of the as-designed pavement. Chapter 7 discusses operation and maintenance issues.
6.2 Plans, Specifications, and Estimates

As the design of the permeable pavement project materializes, construction details must be
prepared that provide the basis for contractor bidding and construction execution. These details
largely consist of plans, specifications, and estimates. The plans depict the locations and limits of
the permeable pavement project, the cross-sectional details of the pavement system, and the
standard details of the various pavement system components. The specifications provide the
governing procedures and requirements for the materials to be used and installed, as well as
the quality of workmanship expected and the consequences of deficient levels of materials and
workmanship quality. The estimates reflect the expected quantities of material and the rates of
application or coverage.
Guide specifications for porous asphalt, pervious concrete, and PICP pavements are available
and should be used as needed to develop the specifications for the subject project. Pertinent
guide specifications, as discussed in Chapter 5, include state, industry, and federal standards.
Industry and state standards provide plan details specific to permeable pavements, such as
edge restraint and tie-in details between pavement sections, as shown in Figures 17 and 18.
56

Construction Considerations 57
Table 14. Permeable pavement construction activities/components.
Permeable Pavement Type

Activity/Component
Porous Asphalt Pervious Concrete PICP
Plans, specifications, and estimates
Experienced contractors and producers
Contractor certifications N/A1
Pre-construction meeting
Install erosion and sediment controls
Test strip construction Optional2
Subgrade preparation
Excavation
Finishing to design elevations and
grades
Soil density and infiltration testing Per specs Per specs Per specs
Reservoir layer construction
3 3 3
Geotextile for soil filtering of
excavated sides
4 4 4
Geotextile for soil filtering of
underlying subgrade
Geomembrane for subgrade Optional Optional (per Optional (per
impermeable barrier (per plans/specs) plans/specs) plans/specs)
Underdrain installation Optional Optional (per Optional (per
Open-graded base/subbase (per plans/specs) plans/specs) plans/specs)
aggregate placement
Reservoir layer density and
stiffness testing Per specs Per specs Per specs
Choke-stone/filter layer construction

Placement of choke-stone layer for Optional Optional (per Optional (per
leveling of reservoir layer prior to (per plans/specs) plans/specs) plans/specs)
paving or preventing migration of
fines from filter layer (if used) into
reservoir layer
Filter layer for added pollutant Optional Optional (per Optional (per
removal capability (per plans/specs) plans/specs) plans/specs)
Permeable pavement construction

Treated permeable base (ATPB or Optional (per Optional N/A
CTPB) paving plans/specs) (per plans/specs)
Porous asphalt paving N/A N/A
Pervious concrete placement and N/A N/A
finishing
PICP bedding placement N/A N/A
PICP paver installation N/A N/A
PICP joint filler application N/A N/A
1
May consider “Gold” certification. 2Test strip recommended. 3Unless impermeable liner is specified. 4A separation
aggregate layer is sometimes used.
6.3 Qualified Material Producers and Contractors

As with all pavements, successful construction of a properly designed permeable pavement
requires the use of experienced and qualified material manufacturers/suppliers and installation
contractors. The fact that permeable pavements require the use of more specialized materials
and more meticulous material placement procedures compared to conventional pavements only
heightens the need for expert producers and installers.
During the planning and design stages, it is important to determine the availability of local
enterprises capable of successfully constructing permeable pavement. Ideally, such entities will
have a track record of projects with which they have been involved and where they have met or
exceeded the client’s expectations for construction. The performance of their projects should

Source: CH2M (2014).
Figure 17. Edge restraint detail.
also be carefully considered in the process since materials and construction quality are major
determinants of performance.
Material manufacturers must have experience in producing proper mix designs for porous
asphalt and pervious concrete and in making materials that comply with national standards
(Carlson et al. 2013). Similarly, PICP manufacturers must have experience producing pavers
that conform to national product standards.
Contractor certification is a common requirement in an increasing number of pervious con-
crete and PICP specifications and should be a prerequisite for all potential bidders of these types
of pavements in airport applications.
Source: CH2M (2014).
Figure 18. Tie-in detail to existing pavement.

• Pervious concrete. ACI’s pervious concrete pavement specification addresses contractor

qualifications as follows: “The contractor shall employ no less than one NRMCA-certified
pervious concrete craftsman who must be on site, overseeing each placement crew during
all concrete placement, or the contractor shall employ no less than three NRMCA-certified
Pervious Concrete Installers, who shall be on site working as members of each placement crew
during all concrete placement, or the contractor shall employ no less than five NRMCA-certified
Pervious Concrete Technicians, who shall be on site working as members of each placement
crew during all concrete placement unless otherwise specified” (ACI 2013).
• PICP. The guide specification in the Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements: Design, Speci-
fication, Construction, and Maintenance manual stipulates that job foremen should have a
current certificate from the ICPI Concrete Paver Installer Certification program and a record
of completion from the PICP Specialist Course on best construction practices (Smith 2015).
Because open-graded asphalt mixtures have a long history of use (both as surface courses
and base courses), and the process of producing and placing them is fairly straightforward, the
need for contractor certification for porous asphalt pavement construction is low. While NAPA
maintains that any qualified asphalt pavement contractor can construct such pavements, and
virtually any asphalt plant can produce the required material (NAPA 2009), due diligence is
necessary to ensure that the contractor possesses skilled and trained workers. Although not a
requirement, NAPA offers the Diamond Commendations program, which identifies a higher level
of training and certification for producers and contractors. Although not specific to permeable
pavements, this certification can provide help in distinguishing among producers and contractors.
6.4 Pre-Construction Planning

Prior to the start of construction, the owner agency or its engineering consultant should
undertake several planning activities that will help lead to a successful permeable pavement
project. First and foremost is to review the contract documents and note any changes brought
about by updated geotechnical information. New information on soil permeability and density
profiles, as well as groundwater levels, may necessitate a change in the pavement system design,
which in turn could affect construction (e.g., the need for a thicker reservoir layer or inclusion
of underdrains corresponding to lower soil permeability).
Specifications included in the contract documents should include the requirement for a
pre-construction meeting between the owner agency or its engineering consultant and the
organizations involved in the construction of the permeable pavement (e.g., general contractor,
subcontractors, material producers and manufacturers, testing labs). In addition to discussing
the methods and schedule for accomplishing all phases of construction, this on-site meeting
should clearly define the standards of workmanship and the level of material and construction
quality specified for the project, as well as the inspection and testing activities that will be per-
formed to ensure a high-quality permeable pavement system. Furthermore, in addition to dis-
cussing changes in design brought about by updated soil information, a number of other items
should be discussed and addressed. These include the following:
• Erosion and sediment control. Installation of temporary stormwater and erosion controls is
needed to protect the permeable pavement (and material stockpiled for use in the pavement)
from soil sediment, which could clog the pavement surface or fill the voids of the stone reservoir
(Hansen 2008, ASCE 2015). Such controls should remain in place until all disturbed areas that
could allow soil sediment to reach the permeable pavement are stabilized (e.g., via vegetation
or paving) (Caltrans 2014).
• Protection of pavement from traffic. To the maximum extent possible, construction equip-
ment should be restricted to those units needed to properly place, shape, and consolidate the

pavement layers. Use of heavy equipment and equipment with narrow tires must be avoided
to prevent over-compaction and permeability reduction (Caltrans 2014, Hansen 2008). Pro-
cedures should be developed and issued to prevent the tracking of soil and other particles onto
the pavement by construction equipment.
• Construction timing and weather limitations. The timing of permeable pavement construc-
tion is largely governed by the potential for adverse weather conditions. Permeable pavements
must never be installed in rain or snow or when the prepared subgrade is saturated or frozen
(Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 2011). In addition, so that pervious concrete
and porous asphalt mixes can be satisfactorily placed, consolidated, and cured, temperatures
must not be excessively high or low.
• Construction sequencing and staging. Porous pavement construction should take place late
in the project schedule, so that most of the dirtier work (e.g., grading and landscaping) is
completed first (Hansen 2008). Staging should be planned such that equipment and vehicular
traffic are kept off the pavement to the greatest extent possible.
• Materials management. An efficient and rational plan for stockpiling, delivery, and place-
ment of paving materials must be developed to ensure minimum pavement disturbance and
maximum quality and consistency of the in-place materials.
• Paving schedule. Information on the anticipated timeframe for construction (of each compo-
nent of the pavement system) and the expected rates of daily production will enable all parties
to better plan and prepare for their respective activities (e.g., excavation, grading, material
production, paving, inspection and testing, and traffic control).
• Test strip. If required by the specifications, a test strip must be built to demonstrate the
contractor’s ability to construct the permeable pavement to the standards defined in the con-
tract. The location and dimensions of the test strip should be determined, and the condi-
tions for accepting the strip and approving the construction procedures should be clearly
defined. Typical test strip sizes for pervious concrete and PICP pavements are 10 ft × 30 ft and
10 ft × 10 ft, respectively.
• Contingency plans. A practical set of contingency plans must be developed that describes the
actions to be taken should certain design- or construction-related issues arise.
6.5 Subgrade Preparation

Subgrade preparation consists of excavating the subgrade soil, leveling the grade to promote
uniform infiltration, and grading and shaping the soil as necessary to the design elevations and
grades. For designs that include terracing (i.e., the practice of constructing the subgrade layers
in level steps or infiltration beds), soil or fabric barriers/berms must be constructed to serve as
internal check dams that prevent lateral water flow and promote infiltration (ASCE 2015).
Subgrade excavation is typically performed using excavators or backhoes. Where possible,
these pieces of equipment should be operated from areas outside of the proposed permeable
pavement limits in order to prevent over-compaction of the soil and a reduction of infiltration
(ASCE 2015). Where operation of equipment on the subgrade is unavoidable, tracked vehicles or
units with low tire pressures (<4 psi) may be acceptable. Additionally, if over-compaction occurs
as a result of the equipment, subgrade remediation to a depth of at least 8 in. will be necessary.
This can be achieved via scarification (York rake, loader with bucket teeth) or tilling.
The final prepared subgrade should be true to grade and free of rocks, ruts, and over-
compacted areas. If required by the specifications, density measurements should be taken and
should indicate adherence to the specified density level. Installed erosion and sediment con-
trols should be checked for effectiveness in protecting the excavated area (and any material
stockpiles).

6.6 Reservoir Construction

The construction of the reservoir layer involves installing any geosynthetic materials and
underdrains that are part of the design, placing and compacting the open-graded aggregate sub-
base layers, and applying a choker/base course as required. Prior to and during the construction
process, continuous checks should be made to ensure that the erosion and sediment controls
are in place and fully serving their purpose. Any noticeable debris or sediment on the individual
in-place layers should be removed prior to the placement of the next layer, and no layer should
be constructed on a layer that is muddy, saturated, or frozen (ACI 2010).
Large-scale permeable pavement installations should include one or more observation wells
for monitoring the length of time required for the reservoir layer to fully drain between storms
(ASCE 2015). These wells, which consist of perforated PVC pipe 4 to 6 in. in diameter, should be
installed below the bottom of the reservoir layer at locations no closer than 3 ft from the perimeter
of the permeable pavement system (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 2011). Each
pipe should be anchored into the subgrade and kept vertical during placement of the stone
reservoir. The top of each pipe should be fitted with a lockable cap that is flush with the paved
surface. (In the case of PICP, the cap can also be located just beneath a paver block.)
6.6.1 Geotextiles
Geotextiles are typically placed vertically against the walls of the excavated soil, but in some
cases may also be placed horizontally atop the prepared subgrade. The purpose of the geotextile
is to prevent the intrusion of the native soils into the aggregate reservoir layer (ASCE 2015). All
geotextiles should be placed in accordance with the manufacturer’s standards and recommenda-
tions, with adjacent strips of the material overlapping downslope by at least 16 in., or 24 in. for
poor-draining, weaker soils (University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center 2014).
Side-slope geotextiles should be placed vertically against the excavated sidewall, with the
bottom portion of the strip extending at least 1 ft horizontally atop the subgrade and the top
portion extending at least 4 ft beyond the edge of the excavation (Carlson et al. 2013). The top
portion should be temporarily secured outside the reservoir bed to prevent sediment migration
into the bed. Following placement of the reservoir layer aggregate and again after placement of
the permeable pavement, the fabric should be folded over each respective placement and then
resecured outside the reservoir bed. Excess fabric present following the placement of pavement
should only be trimmed after the site is fully stabilized. In cases where a concrete curb extends
the full depth of the reservoir layer, geotextile is not required on the sides.
6.6.2 Geomembranes
For permeable pavement systems, an impermeable liner (or geomembrane) may be used in
areas where the movement of stormwater into the existing soil subgrade is not desired, such as
on soils with a high shrink/swell potential or for sole-source aquifer protection.
If included in the design, geomembranes should be installed at the specified locations in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions (Smith 2015). It is often recommended that a
layer of sand be placed beneath the geomembrane to prevent tears or punctures from the aggre-
gate that will be placed on top of it. Once installed, the geomembrane should be tested for leaks,
with special attention to seams and pipe penetrations.
6.6.3 Underdrains
Underdrains consist of perforated PVC pipes 4 to 6 in. in diameter and are used for conveyance/
overflow purposes. They are a requirement for no-infiltration design and are commonly required

for a partial-infiltration design, where lower-permeability soils are unable to drain the stormwater
fast enough, and a portion of the water must be conveyed to a storm drain system. Underdrains
are not typically required for a full-infiltration design involving high-permeability soils but may
be used for overflow.
Underdrains are typically installed near the bottom of the reservoir layer but can be placed at
an elevated level within the reservoir layer. The frost depth needs to be considered during design
to determine their elevation. A minimum of 2 in. of aggregate below the drain pipes should be
placed in order to provide a buffer from the subgrade soil. A minimum of 6 in. of aggregate cover
above the pipes is needed for protection against construction equipment and vehicular loadings.
The underdrains should slope down toward the discharge point (e.g., outfall or storm sewer pipe,
catch basin) at a slope of 0.5% or greater (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 2011).
In addition, the up-slope end of underdrains should be capped, and there should be no perforations
within 1 ft of a connection with a drainage structure.
Underdrain installation should conform to the construction plans and specifications. Cleanouts
also need to be installed according to construction plans and specifications. Checks of the final
pipe elevations, slopes, and connections, and for any potentially crushed pipes, should be made
to ensure that the system will function as designed.
6.6.4 Base/Subbase Reservoir Aggregate

The collective lifts of base/subbase reservoir aggregate must be sufficiently seated and compacted
for strength yet remain largely open for drainage and retention of water. The clean, washed, open-
graded aggregate making up the layers should be placed according to the plans and specifications.
Typical lift thicknesses are between 6 and 8 in. (Indianapolis Department of Public Works 2009).
However, 8- to 12-in. lifts may be acceptable for very thick reservoirs, provided that the lifts can
be adequately compacted.
The material for each lift should be dumped at the edge of the reservoir bed and then carefully
spread and shaped using track-type (or low-contact-pressure) equipment (Hansen 2008). Care
must be exercised to avoid damaging any previously installed geosynthetic materials, underdrains,
and observation wells. Regular checks should be made to ensure that the aggregate does not
segregate during the spreading and shaping operations.
To facilitate spreading, shaping, and compaction, the aggregate should be kept in a moist
state. Shaping and rolling patterns should begin on the lower side of the subbase and prog-
ress to the higher side, while lapping the roller passes parallel to the centerline (University of
New Hampshire Stormwater Center 2014). For larger-sized aggregate (e.g., No. 2 or No. 3),
two passes of a 10-ton steel vibratory roller in static mode are generally adequate; however, roll-
ing should continue until there is no visible movement of the aggregate (Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency 2016). In areas that rollers cannot reach, compaction should be achieved
using a vibratory plate compactor capable of least 13,500 lbf and equipped with a compaction
indicator.
Available documents do not have a consensus on density testing: some sources recommend it
while others do not. The lack of fine material and typically large top size of the reservoir aggregate
can make density testing ineffective. Some gradations that would be used for the reservoir do still
allow density testing to be determined, and the use of a nuclear density gauge (ASTM D2922,
Standard Test Methods for Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods) is
generally cited using the “target” density method.
The infiltration rate of the compacted subbase can be determined using the double-ring
infiltrometer test (ASTM D3385) or an approved alternate (University of New Hampshire

Stormwater Center 2014). The infiltration rate should be no less than 2.5 to 15 in./h at 95%
standard Proctor compaction.
6.6.5 Choke-Stone Course

A choke-stone course is used to level out the top of a reservoir layer and provide a smooth,
level surface for the permeable pavement (ASCE 2015). A 4-in. choke-stone layer composed of
clean, washed aggregate is the standard application for PICP (Smith 2015), whereas a 1- to 2-in.
layer of the same is adequate for single-layer porous asphalt pavement (ASCE 2015), if used. The
layer can be placed and compacted in one lift, and again the aggregate should be moist during
compaction for better consolidation.
To achieve density, at least two passes of a 10-ton vibratory roller in vibratory mode (typically
high frequency and low amplitude) followed by two passes in static mode should be made, until
there is no visible movement of the aggregate (ASCE 2015). (Note: fewer passes may be needed
with the thinner applications of choker/base course.) Nuclear density testing on the No. 57
aggregate is possible if done in backscatter mode (Smith 2015). A base stiffness gauge may also
be used to assess compacted base density. Often, because this layer is quite thin, density testing
is not required.
6.6.6 Filter Layer Construction

While not a typical design, permeable pavement systems can be designed to include a filter
course between the aggregate reservoir and choke stone for the purpose of providing additional
water quality treatment (ASCE 2015). The thickness of this layer can range from between
8 and 12 in., and the material composing it is generally a poor-graded or coarse sand (Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality 2011). To prevent the migration of sand particles into the
reservoir layer, the filter layer should be underlain by a thin (3-in.) choke-stone layer.
The construction of a filter layer requires meticulous quality assurance due to its two key
functions of filtration and load bearing. Each of these functions is greatly affected by layer
compaction, with filtration adversely affected by over-compaction, and load-bearing capacity
sacrificed by under-compaction. Filter layer compaction should result in 90% to 95% standard
Proctor density per ASTM D698 and a hydraulic conductivity of 5 to 30 in./h per ASTM D2434
(ASCE 2015).
Following construction of the reservoir layer, with or without the inclusion of a filter layer,
curbs, gutters, and associated drainage structures should be installed, as designed and specified.
The curbs and gutters provide edge restraint for the permeable pavement layer that is yet to
be constructed. During this sequence of construction, it is recommended that the completed
reservoir layer be protected from contamination or clogging by placing a geotextile over its
surface.
6.7 Porous Asphalt Paving

Porous asphalt is placed in a single layer or multiple layers depending on the specified thick-
ness. NAPA IS 131 (Hansen 2008) provides construction recommendations for porous asphalt
pavement. Guidance from IS 131, as well as the ASCE Permeable Pavements manual (ASCE 2015),
has been compiled in the sections that follow to cover the construction of the pervious concrete
layer on a properly constructed reservoir layer and properly prepared subgrade. Placement of
ATPB will be similar to the placement of the porous asphalt surface, so the following sections
apply to ATPB construction as well. An additional source for construction guidance of the ATPB

is IPRF’s Stabilized and Drainable Base for Rigid Pavement (Hall et al. 2005). As with other layers
and materials, all construction activities should be performed in accordance with the specifications
and plans.
6.7.1 Installation
Porous asphalt needs to be mixed and hauled properly to avoid segregation. Typical ranges of
manufacturing and laydown temperatures for porous asphalt mixes are as follows:
• HMA: 300°F to 350°F; 250°F to 275°F.
• WMA: 260°F to 300°F; 22°F 5 to 250°F (Washington State Department of Transportation 2012).
However, a porous asphalt parking lot project at Stewart International Airport demonstrated
that allowing the mix to cool closer to 250°F provided better compaction results (Louie et al. 2011).
Placement of the porous asphalt layer(s) should be done using a track paver (Hansen 2008).
The ambient air temperature should be at least 45°F and rising (Carlson et al. 2013), and in no
case should the materials be installed on wet aggregate or treated bases.
Compaction activities should be in accordance with the specifications and can generally
commence once the mix has cooled sufficiently so as to not push or displace under loading.
Two to three passes with an 8- to 10-ton static steel-wheel roller are generally recommended for
achieving a target air void range of 18% to 22% (ASCE 2015). Additional passes of a lighter roller
may be required to remove roller marks, particularly in the final surface.
6.7.2 Tack Coat

One key difference in the placement of porous mixes is in the use of prime and tack coats.
A prime coat is required on top of unbound layers for conventional pavement because moisture
must be prevented from penetrating further into the pavement structure and causing damage
over time. In conventional HMA paving, tack coats are applied between paving lifts to ensure bond
between layers. In permeable pavements, so that there is no barrier to the flow of water through
the pavement structure into the reservoir layer, a prime coat must not be used, and most refer-
ences also indicate that a tack coat should not be used. However, if the surface is not completely
clean prior to placing the next lift, a light tack coat can be considered. If the porous asphalt is
placed on CTPB, such as for the Culpeper apron and Richmond shoulder projects, a light tack
coat could also be beneficial for bonding the two different material types. Slippage of layers due
to aircraft trafficking has been a common problem at airports; therefore, at least a light tack coat
should be used for aircraft applications. The application rate should be monitored closely to
ensure that permeability is not decreased.
6.7.3 Testing and Opening to Traffic

After final rolling of each layer, the permeability of the pavement should be tested. This can
be accomplished by applying clean water at a rate of at least 5 gal/min over the surface (Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality 2011). All water must infiltrate directly, without puddle
formation or surface runoff. Infiltration testing of the completed porous asphalt pavement should
be performed using ASTM C1701. The recommended minimum infiltration rate is 200 in./h
(Carlson et al. 2013).
As with the reservoir aggregate, density testing of porous asphalt can be ineffective because of
the open gradation. However, there also appears to be no consensus for testing porous asphalt.
IS 131 does not indicate density testing, but the UFGS requires either laboratory testing of cores

Source: Campbell and Paris (2014b).
Figure 19. Finished porous asphalt surface.
or nuclear density testing. There may be nondestructive testing methods that could be used to
verify layer strengths, but these have not been proven.
The completed pavement (such as shown in Figure 19) should be to the elevations, grades, and
surface tolerances specified in the construction plans. Traffic should be restricted for the first
48 h following completion to allow the pavement to cure and stiffen (ASCE 2015).
6.8 Pervious Concrete Paving

Pervious concrete is placed in a single layer to the specified thickness, as determined by its
inherent structural and hydrological properties and the design traffic loadings. ACI 522.1-13
(ACI 2013) is the current national standard for specification of pervious concrete pavement.
Key guidelines from ACI, as well as the ASCE Permeable Pavements manual (ASCE 2015), have
been compiled in the sections that follow to cover the construction of the pervious concrete layer
on a properly constructed reservoir layer and properly prepared subgrade. NRMCA’s Pervious
Concrete Construction Checklists (NRMCA, n.d.) provide detailed construction checklists that
can be useful. The following discussion also applies to CTPB since it will be placed in a similar
manner. IPRF’s Stabilized and Drainable Base for Rigid Pavement (Hall et al. 2005) provides an
additional reference for construction guidance. As with other layers and materials, all construction
activities should be performed in accordance with the specifications and plans.
6.8.1 Installation
The pervious concrete mix should be placed within 60 min of water being introduced to the mix,
and within 90 min of using an extended set control admixture (ACI 2013). The material should
be deposited as close to its final position as possible directly from the truck, using a conveyor belt
or via hand or powered carts. (Note: pervious concrete mixes are stiff and cannot be pumped.)
The underlying reservoir aggregate should be in a moist condition at the time the pervious con-
crete is installed (ASCE 2015). The concrete mix can be placed using various screeding devices,
including hand screeds, low-frequency vibrating truss screeds, laser screeds, rotating Bunyan
screeds, and hydraulically powered screeding drums (ACI 2013). The latter two devices have
the advantage of providing proper compaction at the finished elevation and a nearly finished
surface in one operation. The former devices level the concrete at above form (typically 0.375
to 0.75 in.), and then require the use of a static drum roller (capable of 10 psi vertical force) for

final compaction. Because high-frequency vibrators can seal the surface of the concrete, they
should not be used.
Control or contraction joints are optional for pervious concrete (ACI 2013). However, if used,
the spacings and depths should be the same as for conventional concrete—15- to 20-ft intervals
for spacing and one-fourth to one-third the slab thickness for depth. The joints should be con-
structed using a rolled joint former, also known as a “pizza cutter” (ASCE 2015) (see Figure 20).
Saw-cutting joints is problematic because of the created slurry potentially clogging some of the
pavement, and it would require removing the curing sheeting.
6.8.2 Curing
Curing is a critical step in pervious concrete construction due to the rapid drying that can
occur as a result of the material’s porous nature (ACI 2013). This rapid drying can weaken the
bond within the aggregate, which in turn can weaken the structural integrity of the concrete. To
provide maximum curing, the entire pervious concrete surface and edges should be covered with
6-mm plastic within 20 min of concrete discharge. All edges of the plastic should be adequately
secured using lumber, reinforcing bars, or concrete blocks (ACI 2013), or by stapling the plastic
to the wood construction forms (ASCE 2015). The use of sheeting material can be difficult in the
airside environment because this environment is often open to winds, propeller wash, and jet blast.
A surface sealant, as used with conventional PCC, is ineffective with pervious concrete because of
the open surface.
A 7-day curing time is recommended for pervious concrete with no additives, and a 10-day cur-
ing time is recommended for mixes with supplementary cementitious materials (e.g., fly ash, slag).
6.8.3 Testing and Opening to Traffic

Infiltration testing of the completed pervious concrete pavement should be performed using
ASTM C1701. The recommended minimum surface infiltration rate is 200 in./h (Carlson et al. 2013).
The completed pavement should be to the elevations, grades, and surface tolerances specified
in the construction plans. Traffic should be restricted until curing of the pavement is complete,
Courtesy of NRMCA; © NRMCA.
Figure 20. Pervious concrete pavement joint

formation using “pizza cutter.”

and truck traffic should not be permitted for at least 14 days following construction (ASCE 2015).
For aircraft traffic, the pervious concrete needs to reach full design strength before opening to
traffic, which may take longer than 14 days.
6.9 PICP Construction

PICP construction consists of three steps: (1) placement of the bedding layer, (2) paver instal-
lation, and (3) joint filling. The bedding layer provides a smooth, level surface on which the
paver units can be placed. The concrete paver units placed in tight-knit configurations provide a
strong, durable surface over which a broad range of traffic can pass. The joint filler aggregate pro-
vides interlock between the pavers so that the surface responds more integrally to traffic loadings.
The ICPI Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements manual (Smith 2015) is the national
standard for specification of PICP. Key guidelines from this document, as well as the ASCE
Permeable Pavements manual (ASCE 2015), have been compiled in the sections that follow to
describe the construction of the PICP layer on a properly constructed aggregate reservoir and
properly prepared subgrade. As with other layers and materials, all construction activities should
be performed in accordance with the specifications and plans.
6.9.1 Bedding Layer

The bedding layer consists of 1.5 to 2 in. of washed No. 8 aggregate, a crushed stone with a
0.375-in. nominal maximum aggregate size. This material should be placed in a moist state over
the choke-stone layer, and then screeded and leveled for paver unit installation. To maintain
permeability throughout the system, the bedding layer should not be compacted.
Various sizes and types of screeds are available for use, ranging from hand screeds, to manual-
or machine-powered bucket screeds, to modified asphalt spreaders with laser guidance systems
(Smith 2015). The surface of the fully screeded bedding layer should meet the requirements of
the specifications. The typical surface tolerance is ±0.375 in. over 10 ft.
6.9.2 Paver Unit Installation

Paver units should be placed immediately after final screeding of the No. 8 bedding layer
(Smith 2015). Paver installation can be by hand or with mechanical equipment (Figure 21),
Source: FHWA (2015).
Figure 21. Mechanical installation of concrete paver

units for PICP.

with the former being most appropriate for small projects and the latter for larger projects due
to much higher rates of installation.
Pavers should be installed in the patterns and joint widths shown in the construction plans,
and straight pattern lines should be maintained at all times (ASCE 2015). Gaps at the edges should
be filled with cut units, with the caveat that any cut unit that will be subject to traffic should not
be cut to smaller than one-third of a whole unit.
6.9.3 Joint Filling and Compaction

Paver unit joints should be filled to the top with No. 8 aggregate or with a finer gradation
conforming to No. 89 or No. 9 (Smith 2015). This material should be swept into the joints, with
any excess aggregate removed from the surface.
Compaction and seating of the pavers should be done using a low-amplitude (75 to 90 Hz)
plate compactor capable of at least a 5,000-lbf compaction force. At least two passes should be
made across the entire surface, with each pass overlapping the previous pass by several inches.
Because compaction will cause some settlement of the joint filler aggregate, additional
material should be swept into the joints to a level approximately 0.25 in. below the paver surface.
(Note: a third application may be necessary 6 months after construction.) As with the bedding
layer, the final PICP surface should meet the requirements of the specifications, with the typical
surface tolerance being ±0.375 in. over 10 ft.
For pavements subject to aircraft traffic, a sealer is necessary to prevent loss of the joint sand
from the effects of repeated jet blast and propeller wash (McQueen et al. 2003). The sealer will
also prevent the ingress of water, oils, and fuel through the joint sand into the bedding sand.

Chapter 7
Operations and Maintenance
7.1 Overview
Permeable pavements are different from conventional, impervious pavements in many respects.
Therefore, operations on and maintenance of permeable pavements are different from those for
other types of airport pavements. The primary concerns with these pavements is maintaining
their permeability and preventing infiltration of hazardous or environmentally unsound products
into subsurface layers.
7.2 Operations
When an airport’s facilities include permeable pavements, it must make sure that employees
and contractors using and maintaining the pavements know about them. There needs to be
awareness of what permeable pavement is and how it should and should not be used. Signs can
be placed in areas with permeable pavements to create this awareness. Additionally, lease agree-
ments with tenants should include language that makes the tenants aware of the differences
between permeable pavement and conventional pavement. Tasks performed by tenants, such as
aircraft maintenance, should be performed inside of hangars and not on permeable pavement.
The permeable pavement will need to be inspected routinely to make sure it is free of debris
and sediments. Additionally, the pavement should be inspected after rain events to ensure that
it is draining properly. Permeability testing once or twice per year is an effective way of monitoring
that the pavement is functioning properly. Such tests include ASTM C1701, Standard Test Method
for Infiltration Rate of In Place Pervious Concrete, and ASTM C1781, Standard Test Method for
Surface Infiltration Rate of Permeable Unit Pavement Systems.
Vacuum sweeping should be conducted on a regular basis to maintain surface permeability.
While this may be considered a maintenance item, it should become part of normal airport
operations. However, the frequency of this maintenance does not appear to be well established.
Practices identified in the case studies ranged from weekly to biannually to no scheduled cleanings.
The generally recommended frequency is twice per year. However, the required frequency likely
varies by site based on the amount of traffic and the potential of fine materials/sediments to be
tracked onto the surface (or contained in surface run-on). The use of permeability testing of the
surface can help with determining the required frequency. Maintenance may also be required
at a certain frequency based on local stormwater requirements to meet water quality objectives.
Flushing or power washing has been shown to re-establish permeability (Werner 2016), but
there is concern that power washing can drive fine material into the pavement structure.
Winter operations on permeable pavements are different from similar operations on impervious
pavements. Snow removal with plows should be performed with non-metal blades; references
differ on whether the plow blade should be slightly elevated above the pavement. A metal plow
69

blade on the surface of permeable pavement can abrade the surface and potentially create FOD.
Snow should not be piled on the permeable pavement.
Sand should not be used on permeable pavements to improve friction during winter opera-
tions. Occasional application of sand is acceptable on pervious concrete as long as it is not a fine
sand. Permeable pavements usually do not need deicers, or they may require less deicer. Porous
asphalt and PICP (for the most part) are not greatly influenced by deicers. The NRMCA’s Pervious
Concrete Pavement Maintenance and Operations Guide (NRMCA 2015) further indicates for
pervious concrete that:
• Anti-icing pretreatments should not be used.
• Deicers containing magnesium chloride, calcium magnesium acetate, or potassium acetate, or
containing fertilizers such as ammonium sulfate or ammonium nitrate, should never be used.
NRMCA indicates that, for pervious concrete, agents containing calcium chloride should not
be used until after the first year of service, and it is recommended that these agents not be used
even after the first year of service (NRMCA 2015). Tracking of these materials from adjacent
areas also needs to be minimized, which may require sweeping adjacent areas and monitoring
application in adjacent areas.
Permeable pavement surfaces should not be used to stockpile materials such as mulch,
topsoil, or aggregate that are being used elsewhere. If it is absolutely necessary to use the area for
temporary stockpiling, the area should be covered in tarps, boards, or other material to prevent
clogging of the surface.
7.3 Maintenance
Permeable pavement will require maintenance activities over time. However, these will be dif-
ferent from maintenance performed on conventional pavement. Surface seals that may be placed
elsewhere on an airport cannot be placed on permeable pavement. Nor should the permeable
pavement receive conventional HMA overlays. Crack sealing is also not performed on permeable
pavement.
NAPA suggests that conventional, nonporous patching materials can be used for repairs as
long as the total area is less than 10% of the paved area (Hansen 2008). This recommendation is
acceptable for pervious concrete as well. Approved permeable patching material should be used
if the total area of patching exceeds 10%. PICP repairs are typically replacing cracked pavers,
replacing joint filler aggregate, or addressing settlement by removing the pavers, repairing the
bedding layer, and replacing the pavers and joint aggregate (Smith 2015).
At the end of its life, permeable pavement is typically milled off, down to the choker layer.
If surface distresses (such as raveling) are prevalent, grinding the surface and overlaying with
new permeable material may be possible. This may be appropriate especially for permeable
pavements with a stabilized base layer. However, ensuring that fine material does not enter the
underlying permeable material to remain may be difficult. The permeability of the remaining
material would need to be verified.
Adjacent areas need to be maintained—particularly vegetated areas that may allow soil to
wash over the permeable pavement. These areas should be designed to drain away from the
permeable pavement or at least have sufficient vegetation to avoid erosion. Maintenance work
includes mowing grasses and seeding bare areas.
Drainage structures need to be inspected occasionally to ensure proper functioning. Inspec-
tion after major rain events will show if the systems are flowing properly. Underdrain systems
should have cleanouts to facilitate inspection and cleaning. Cleaning needs to be performed
when water flow is impeded.

Chapter 8
Summary and Future

Research Needs
8.1 Summary
There are many benefits to using permeable pavements for stormwater management, but there
are also risks. Based on the literature review and aviation industry survey responses, experience
with permeable pavement at airports (airside and landside) is limited. There are relatively few
airport permeable pavement projects, particularly in areas where aircraft operate. Airside appli-
cations of permeable pavements have included runway and taxiway shoulders, general aviation
aprons, and service roads, while landside applications have been primarily parking lots.
Permeable pavements are selected to fulfill specific stormwater management requirements.
While the traditional design is for full infiltration, the permeable pavement designs investigated
in the case studies were not full-infiltration systems. Rather, the systems were designed for other
stormwater management needs, such as delaying the time of peak discharge or providing a paved
surface that did not increase the impermeable area on the airport.
Where used in areas of aircraft operations, permeable pavements have been designed for
infrequent, heavy aircraft (e.g., for shoulders) and more frequent, light aircraft (e.g., general avia-
tion). Thickness design has been performed with the FAA’s design methodology and FAARFIELD
program (and LEDFAA, previously), as well as the AASHTO thickness design methodology.
However, neither methodology is specifically calibrated to permeable pavement performance
but rather is based on conventional pavement performance models.
Materials selection plays a significant role in the performance of the pavement. For example,
abrasion or raveling observed in some pavements appears to be attributed to mixtures that
were different from current recommended industry guidance. Current guidance from industry
groups (ACI, NAPA, and ICPI) needs to be considered in selecting materials for any project.
Projects have primarily used state standards for materials specifications. The identified projects
did not pursue an MOS to use FAA-approved specifications, nor where they constructed with
funding through the FAA.
Permeability of the pavement can be maintained over time with routine maintenance (such as
vacuum sweeping). User awareness of what permeable pavement is, and establishing maintenance
procedures, can provide for a long-term pavement alternative. However, the operations and
maintenance for permeable pavements are different from those for conventional pavements.
8.2 Future Research Needs

While research about and implementation of permeable pavements for vehicular applications
are readily available, few projects have been identified that have aircraft loadings. The low number
of projects can be attributed, in part, to the lack of long-term performance data in an airport
71

environment and no design and construction guidance in the FAA’s policies. Some research
topics that could be beneficial to the use of permeable pavements at airports are:
• Development of FAA pavement specifications for permeable pavement layer types that take
into account the difference in loadings and environmental effects on an airport.
• Development and validation of thickness design methods for aircraft loadings.
• A pilot project site using FAA-based design methods and specifications to obtain long-term
performance data and design validation. This could be constructed at the FAA National Airport
Pavement Test Facility to accelerate results.
• Continued development of maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation guidelines in relation to
permeable pavements.
• Laboratory testing assessment to determine if there is a method to predict surface abrasion
under aircraft tire loadings and use the testing method to develop durable mixtures.

References
AASHTO. 2015. Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of Practice. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO. 1993. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State Highway and Transpor-
tation Officials, Washington, D.C.
ACI. 2013. Specification for Pervious Concrete Pavement. 522.1-13. ACI Committee 522, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI. 2010 (reapproved 2011). Report on Pervious Concrete. 522R-10. ACI Committee 522, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACPA. 2009. Stormwater Management with Pervious Concrete Pavement. Concrete Paving Technology IS334.02P.
American Concrete Pavement Association, Skokie, IL.
ACPA. n.d. PerviousPave. American Concrete Pavement Association, Washington, D.C.
AI. 2015. MS-2 Asphalt Mix Design Methods. 7th Edition. Asphalt Institute, Lexington, KY.
Amde, A. M. and S. Rogge. 2013. Development of High Quality Permeable Concrete Specifications for Maryland
Conditions. A final report prepared for the Maryland Department of Transportation.
ASCE. 2015. Permeable Pavements. Permeable Pavements Task Committee, Edited by B. Eisenberg, K. Collins
Lindow, and D. R. Smith. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Buncher, M. and B. Boyer. 2009. Guidelines for Use of Highway Specifications for HMA Airport Pavements. Final
Report. Project 06-05. Airfield Asphalt Pavement Technology Program, Auburn, AL.
Caltrans. 2014. Pervious Pavement Design Guidance. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/stormwtr/bmp/DG-Pervious-Pvm_082114.pdf.
Campbell and Paris. 2014a. Contract Documents and Technical Specifications. T-Hangar and Executive Hangar
Development, Culpeper Regional Airport, Culpeper, Virginia. Campbell and Paris, Chantilly, Virginia.
Campbell and Paris. 2014b. Project Drawings. T-Hangar and Executive Hangar Development, Culpeper Regional
Airport, Culpeper, Virginia. Campbell and Paris, Chantilly, Virginia.
Carlson, W., E. Fitzpatrick, E. Flanagan, R. Kirschbaum, H. Williams, and L. Zickler. 2013. Eastern Washington
Low Impact Development Guidance Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology, Lacey, WA. Online
at http://www.wastormwatercenter.org/eastern-washington-lid-manual/.
Christensen, D. W., H. Bahia, and R. D. McQueen. 2008. PG Binder Grade Selection for Airfield Pavements. Revised
Final Report. Project 04-02. Airfield Asphalt Pavement Technology Program, Auburn, AL.
CH2M. 2014. Record Drawing Set. Central Ramp – Phase 1 Drainage Improvements, Snohomish County
Airport–Paine Field. CH2M, Bellevue, WA.
CH2M. 2013a. Full Drainage Plan, Paine Field Airport, Central Ramp Phase 1. Final Report. CH2M, Bellevue, WA.
CH2M. 2013b. Technical Specifications. Central Ramp – Phase 1 Drainage Improvements, Snohomish County
Airport – Paine Field. CH2M, Bellevue, WA.
Colorado DOT. 2016. Chapter 5: Granular and Treated Base Materials. 2017 Pavement Design Manual. Colorado
DOT, Denver, CO.
Ćosić, K., L. Korat, V. Ducman, and I. Netinger. 2015. Influence of Aggregate Type and Size on Properties of
Permeable Concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 78, 69–76.
EPA. 2010. Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Performance Analysis. Environmental Protection
Agency, Boston, MA.
FAA. 2016. Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation. AC 150/5320-6F. Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C.
FAA. 2014a. Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports. AC 150/5370-10G. Federal Aviation Administra-
tion, Washington, D.C.
FAA. 2014b. Airport Pavement Management Program (PMP). AC 150/5380-7B. Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C.
73

FAA. 2014c. Airport Improvement Program Handbook. FAA Order 5100.38D. Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C.
FAA. 2013. Airport Drainage Design. AC 150/5320-5D. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.
FAA. 2011a. Development of State Standards for Nonprimary Airports. AC 150/5100-13B. Federal Aviation
Administration, Washington, D.C.
FAA. 2011b. Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports. AC 150/5370-10F. Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C.
FAA. 2009. Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation. AC 150/5320-6E. Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C.
FAA. 2007. Airport Technology Pavement Research, R&D Review, Issue 2, pp. 6–9. Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C.
FAA. 1995. Airport Pavement Design for the Boeing 777 Airplane. AC 150/5320-16. Federal Aviation Administra-
tion, Washington, D.C.
FHWA. 2016. Permeable Concrete Pavements. TechBrief. FHWA-HIF-16-004. Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/pubs/hif16004.pdf.
FHWA. 2015. Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement. TechBrief. FHWA-HIF-15-007. Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C. Online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/pubs/hif15006.pdf.
FHWA. 2013. Urban Drainage Design Manual. Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 22. Third Edition. U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
FHWA. 2012. Pervious Concrete. TechBrief. FHWA-HIF-13-006. Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C. Online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/pubs/hif13006.pdf.
Givens, B. and P. Eggen. 2012. Porous Asphalt at EAA AirVenture. OMNNI Associates presentation. Online at
http://www.waterstarwisconsin.org/documents/PorousAsphaltatEAA_Givens_Eggen.pdf.
Goede, W. and L. Haselbach. 2012. Investigation into the Structural Performance of Permeable Concrete. Journal
of Transportation Engineering, 138, 98–104.
Hall, J. W., J. Mallela, and K. L. Smith. 2005. Stabilized and Drainable Base for Rigid Pavement – A Design
and Construction Guide. Report IPRF-01-G-002-02-1(G). Innovative Pavement Research Foundation,
Washington, D.C.
Hansen, K. R. 2008. Porous Asphalt Pavements for Stormwater Management: Design, Construction, and Maintenance
Guide. Information Series (IS) 131. National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD.
Hein, D. K., E. Strecker, A. Poresky, R. Roseen, and M. Venner. 2013. Permeable Shoulders with Stone Reservoirs.
Unofficial report for NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 82. AASHTO Standing Committee on the Environment,
Washington, D.C. Online at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP25-25(82)_FR.pdf.
Hossain, M. and L. A. Scofield. 1991. Porous Pavement for Control of Highway Run-off. Final Report. FHWA-
AZ91-352. Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ.
HydroCAD. n.d. (Computer Aided Design tool for modeling stormwater runoff). Online at http://www.hydrocad.
net/.
ICPI. 2016. Section 32 14 13.19 – Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement. Interlocking Concrete Pavement
Institute, Chantilly, VA.
Indianapolis Department of Public Works. 2009. 4.2. Permeable Pavement Systems. Stormwater Design and Speci-
fication Manual. Draft Green Infrastructure Supplemental Stormwater Document. Indianapolis Department of
Public Works. Online at http://www.indy.gov/eGov/City/DPW/SustainIndy/WaterLand/Documents/4.2%20
Permeable%20Pavement%20Systems.pdf.
Kandhal, P. S. 2002. Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Open-Graded Asphalt Friction Courses. IS 115.
National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD.
Kevern, J. T. 2010. Evolution of Portland Cement Permeable Concrete Construction. Challenges, Opportunities,
and Solutions in Structural Engineering, and Construction. Ghafoori (ed.), 471–478.
Kevern, J. T., K. Wang, and V. Schaefer. 2010. Effect of Coarse Aggregate on the Freeze–Thaw Durability of
Permeable Concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 22, 469–475.
Kevern, J. T., K. Wang, and V. Schaefer. 2008. Permeable Concrete in Severe Exposures. Development of Pollution-
Reducing Pavement for Northern Cities. Concrete International, July 2008, 43–49.
Leming, M. L., H. R. Malcom, and P. D. Tennis. 2007. Hydrologic Design of Pervious Concrete. EB303. Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, IL, and National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD.
Longhi, M., M. Gonzalez, S. Rahman, S. L. Tighe, and C. Sangiorgi. 2015. Evaluation of Strength and Abrasion
Resistance of Permeable Concrete Mixes Using Three Types of Cements. Presented at the 94th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Louie, D. W., J. A. Calautti, and S. D. Murrell. 2011. Case Study of the Sustainable Parking Facility at Stewart
International Airport. Transportation & Development Institute Congress 2011. American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA.

References 75
Masada, T., S. M. Sargand, B. Abdalla, and J. L. Figueroa. 2004. Material Properties for Implementation of
Mechanistic–Empirical (M-E) Pavement Design Procedures. Ohio Research Institute for Transportation &
the Environment, Ohio University, Athens, OH.
McQueen, R. D., J. Knapton, J. Emery, and D. R. Smith. 2003 (updated 2012). Airfield Pavement Design with Concrete
Pavers. 4th Edition. Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute, Chantilly, VA.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2016. Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Online at https://stormwater.pca.
state.mn.us/index.php?title=Main_Page.
NAPA. 2009. Porous Asphalt Pavements. PS-33. National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD.
NCDENR. 2007. Section 18: Permeable Pavements. Stormwater BMP Manual. Revised June 01, 2012. NCDENR,
Raleigh, NC.
NRCS. 1986. Technical Release 55: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. United States Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
NRMCA. n.d. Pervious Concrete Construction Checklists. NRMCA, Silver Spring, MD.
NRMCA. 2015. Pervious Concrete Pavement Maintenance and Operations Guide. NRMCA, Silver Spring, MD.
Online at http://www.perviouspavement.org/downloads/pervious_maintenance_operations_guide.pdf.
Pologruto, M. 2004. A Study of In Situ Pavement Material Properties Determined from FWD Testing. Vermont
Agency of Transportation, Montpelier, VT.
Rahman, M. A., M. Imteaz, A. Arulrajah, M. Disfani, and S. Horpibulsuk. 2015. Engineering and Environmental
Assessment of Recycled Construction and Demolition Materials Used with Geotextile for Permeable
Pavements. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 141(9), 04015019.
Schaefer, V. R., K. Wang, M. T. Suleiman, and J. T. Kevern. 2006. Mix Design Development for Permeable Concrete
in Cold Weather Climates. Iowa DOT Final Report No. 2006-01.
Smith, D. R. 2015. Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements: Design, Specifications, Construction, Mainte-
nance. 4th Edition. Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute, Herndon, VA.
Suozzo, M. J. and M. M. Dewoolkar. 2012. “Long-Term Field Monitoring and Evaluation of Maintenance Practices
of Pervious Concrete Pavements in Vermont,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 2292. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2292-12.
Tennis, P., M. L. Leming, and D. J. Akers. 2004. Pervious Concrete Pavements. Engineering Bulletin 302.02.
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, and National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver Spring, MD.
Uju, I. 2010. A Study of the Strength of Pervious Pavement Systems. Master’s Thesis. University of Central
Florida, Orlando, FL.
University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center. 2014. (Updated 2016). UNHSC Design Specifications for Porous
Asphalt Pavement and Infiltration Beds. University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, Durham, NH.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2013. Army Low Impact Development Technical User Guide. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Defense. 2016. Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS). U.S. Department of Defense,
Washington, D.C. Online at http://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/unified-facilities-guide-specifications-ufgs.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2013. Stormwater Design Specification No. 7, Version 2.0.
Online at http://chesapeakestormwater.net/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/04/VA-BMP-Spec-No-7-
PERMEABLE-PAVEMENT-FINAL-DRAFT-EDITS-v2-0-02April2014.pdf.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2011. Virginia DEQ Stormwater Design Specification Number 7.
Permeable Pavement. Version 1.8. Virginia DEQ, Richmond, VA.
Werner, B. 2016. Impacts of Temperature Variation, Rejuvenation, and Testing on the Surface Infiltration Rates
of Pervious Concrete. MS Thesis. Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
Washington State Department of Transportation. 2012 (updated 2016). Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge,
and Municipal Construction. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA.
Wu, H., B. Huang, X. Shu, Q. Dong, E. Shrum, D. Jared, and P. Wu, 2010. Laboratory Evaluation of Latex-
Modified Permeable Concrete. Presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.

Glossary
Aggregate: Crushed stone or gravel used in concrete and hot-mix asphalt mixes and for base
and subbase, jointing, and bedding materials.
Airside: Area of airport with aircraft operations, typically within secured areas.
Asphalt-treated permeable base (ATPB): Open-graded base material with liquid asphalt
added for stability.
Base/base course: A material of a designed thickness placed under the surface wearing course
of paving and bedding courses. It is placed over a subbase or a subgrade to support the surface
course and bedding materials. A base course can be compacted aggregate or asphalt stabilized
aggregate, asphalt, or concrete. For permeable pavements, the base may also serve as a reservoir
course or layer.
Bedding course: A layer of coarse, crushed, and washed aggregate screeded smooth as bedding
for the pavers. This material generally conforms to the grading requirements of ASTM No. 8.
This layer is generally around 2 in. thick.
Best management practice (BMP): A practice designed to infiltrate, temporarily store, or
treat stormwater runoff in order to reduce pollution and flooding.
California Bearing Ratio (CBR): A test method and result that renders an approximation of
the bearing strength (expressed as a percent) of soil compared to that of a high-quality, compacted
aggregate base. Testing follows ASTM D1883 or AASHTO T 193.
Cement-treated permeable base (CTPB): Open-graded base material with cement added for
stability.
Choke course: A layer of aggregate placed or compacted into the surface of another layer to
provide stability and a smoother surface. The particle sizes of the choke course are generally
smaller than those of the surface into which the choke course is being pressed.
Clay soil: For this document, a fine-grained soil with more than 50% passing the No. 200
sieve with a high plasticity index in relation to its liquid limit (according to the Unified Soil Clas-
sification System).
Cleanout: A drainage structure providing access to the underdrain system to allow cleaning
of the underdrain pipe.
Coarse aggregate: Typically that portion of an aggregate retained on the No. 4 sieve.
Compaction: The process of inducing close packing of solid particles such as soil, sand, aggre-
gate, or a combination thereof.
76

Glossary 77
Compressive strength: The measured maximum loading resistance expressed as force per
unit area, such as pounds per square inch.
Concrete pavement: For the purposes of this document, concrete pavement is pavement
made with cement as the binder, plus water, aggregate, and air.
Concrete pavers: Precast concrete units meeting the requirements of ASTM C936 or
CSA A231.2.
Consolidation: For this document, the process of removing entrapped air from freshly placed
concrete.
Conventional pavement: A pavement structure with low permeability and supporting pedes-
trians and vehicles. Typical examples are PCC, HMA, and interlocking concrete pavement placed
on dense-graded bases. Drainage is accomplished by surface flow over the pavement.
Crushed stone: An aggregate produced from mechanical crushing of rocks, boulders, or large
cobblestones at a quarry. Faces of each aggregate particle have well-defined edges because of the
crushing operation.
Dense-graded aggregate base: A compacted aggregate base whose gradation yields very small
voids between the particles with no visible spaces between them.
Density: Measure of mass per unit volume.
Design storm: A rainfall event that has a given percent chance of it or a larger storm occurring
in a given number of years.
Detention pond or structure: Pond or drainage structure designed to temporarily store
stormwater runoff.
Equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs): 18,000-lb single-axle loads used to combine mixed
traffic to a design traffic load for the design period.
Filter course: A layer in a permeable pavement system for water quality or hydrological pur-
poses. It is usually made of sand, with its location varying in the pavement cross-section depend-
ing on the system design.
Fine aggregate: Generally considered aggregate material passing the No. 4 sieve, such as sand.
Flexible pavement: Hot-mix asphalt is an example of a flexible pavement.
Flexural strength: Also known as modulus of rupture, or bending strength, flexural strength
is a material property, defined as the stress in a material just before it yields in a flexure test.
Geomembrane: Material used for separation or to prevent drainage between pavement layers
or neighboring soils.
Geotextiles or geotextile fabrics: Woven or non-woven fabrics used for separation, reinforce-
ment, or drainage between pavement layers or neighboring soils.
Gradation: Soil, sand, or aggregate distributed by mass in specified particle-size ranges.
Gradation is typically expressed in percent of mass of sample passing a range of sieve sizes in
accordance with the ASTM C136 test method.
Grade: (noun) The slope of finished surface of an excavated area, base, or pavement, usually
expressed in percent; (verb) To finish the surface of same by hand or with mechanized equipment.
Gravel: Rounded or semi-rounded particles of stone that will pass a 3-in. sieve and be retained
on a No. 4 sieve, which naturally occurs in streambeds or riverbanks that have been smoothed
by the action of water.

Hot-mix asphalt pavement: For the purposes of this document, pavement made with asphalt
as the binder. See also concrete pavement.
Impermeable pavement: For the purpose of this document, a pavement with a dense surface
that does not allow water to pass through. See also conventional pavement.
Infiltration rate: The rate at which stormwater moves into the top surface of the pavement or
ground, measured in inches or centimeters per hour.
Interlocking concrete pavement: A system of paving consisting of discrete, hand-sized paving
units with either rectangular or dentated shapes and manufactured from concrete. Either type
of unit is placed in an interlocking pattern and compacted into coarse bedding sand, the joints
are filled with sand, and the units are compacted again to start interlock. The paving units and
bedding sand are placed over an unbound or bound aggregate layer.
Joint: The space between concrete paving units typically filled with small-sized, open-graded
aggregate, or the separation of a concrete pavement slab from the neighboring slab.
Jointing aggregate: Small-sized aggregates used to fill the openings between pavers. The
aggregate size typically varies the joint width.
Layer coefficient: From the 1993 AASHTO pavement design procedure. A dimensionless
number that expresses the material strength per 1 in. of thickness of a pavement layer (surface,
base, or subbase).
Life-cycle cost analysis: A method of calculating all costs anticipated over the life of the pave-
ment, including construction costs. Factors that influence the results include the initial costs,
assumptions about maintenance and periodic rehabilitation, pavement user and delay costs,
salvage value, inflation, discount rate, and the analysis period.
Lift: During placement of a pavement system, a layer or portion of a layer that is placed and
worked on separately from another layer.
Low-impact development (LID): Developmental design that tries to mimic the natural
hydrologic cycle.
Mechanistic design: Analysis of structural response of applied loads through modeling of
stresses and strains in a pavement structure.
Modulus of elasticity (or elastic modulus): The ratio of stress to strain for a material under
given loading conditions.
Observation well: A perforated pipe inserted vertically into an open-graded base and used to
monitor water levels within the pavement system.
Open-graded base: Generally a crushed stone aggregate material used as a pavement base
that has no fine particles in it. The void spaces between aggregate can store water and allow free
drainage from the base.
Outlet: The point at which water is discharged from an open-graded base through pipes into
a stream, lake, river, or storm sewer.
Pavement structure: A combination of subbase, base course, and surface course placed on a
subgrade to support traffic loads and distribute them to the subgrade.
Peak discharge rate: The maximum short-term flow from a detention or retention pond,
open-graded base, pavement surface, storm sewer, stream, or river, usually related to a specific
storm-size event.

Glossary 79
Perforated underdrain: A perforated piping system to carry water flow from the pavement
system, typically the reservoir layer for a permeable pavement system. Its vertical location varies
depending on design and conditions such as retention or detention, water quality issues, and
frost depths. See also underdrain.
Performance period: Refers to the period of time that an initial pavement structure will last
before requiring rehabilitation.
Permeability: The rate of water movement through a soil column, most commonly under
saturated conditions (saturated hydraulic conductivity).
Permeable grid pavers: A cellular grid system filled with dirt, sand, or gravel. This system
provides grass reinforcement, ground stabilization, and gravel retention.
Permeable interlocking concrete pavement: A type of permeable pavement made of discrete,
hand-sized paving units with rectangular or dentated shapes that are manufactured from con-
crete. These paving units are placed on a highly permeable bedding layer, and the joints are filled
with a highly permeable aggregate.
Permeable pavement: A surface with penetrations capable of passing water and supporting
pedestrians and vehicles. Typical examples are pervious concrete, porous asphalt, permeable
interlocking concrete pavement, and permeable or grid pavers.
Permeable pavement system: A permeable pavement and the underlying layers/courses and
features for support, storage, and so forth.
Pervious concrete: A type of permeable pavement made of Portland cement concrete.
Porous asphalt: A type of permeable pavement made of hot-mix asphalt.
Porous friction course: A top layer of pavement that has large enough voids for water to
infiltrate and typically placed over an impermeable pavement layer. The flow then moves
horizontally to the sides of the pavement. The phrase may also be used to indicate the material
itself.
Prime coat: Typically an application of an asphalt cutback or emulsified asphalt to a prepared
base prior to placement of hot-mix asphalt.
Proctor density: The Proctor compaction test is a laboratory method of experimentally deter-
mining the optimal moisture content at which a given soil type will become most dense and
achieve its maximum dry density.
Reservoir bed, course, or layer: The layer in a permeable pavement system for detention or
retention of water.
Retention pond or structure: Collects runoff and allows for infiltration into the soils below
for long-term storage instead of detained discharge. See also detention pond or structure.
Rigid pavement: Concrete is an example of a rigid pavement.
Sand: For this document, soil larger than the No. 200 sieve and passing the No. 4 (according
to the Unified Soil Classification System).
Serviceability: The ability of the pavement to serve the type of traffic (vehicular) that uses the
facility. The primary measure of serviceability is the present serviceability index (PSI), which
ranges from 0 (very poor road) to 5 (perfect road).
Silt: For the purpose of this document, soil with no more than 50% passing the No. 200 that
has a low plasticity index in relation to the liquid limit (according to the Unified Soil Classification
System).

Structural number (SN): A calculation used by AASHTO to assess the structural capacity of
a pavement to handle loads based on ESALs and soil subgrade strength.
Subbase: The layer or layers of specified or selected material of designed thickness placed on
a subgrade to support a base course.
Subgrade: The soil upon which the pavement structure is constructed.
Tack coat: Typically an application of an asphalt cutback or emulsified asphalt applied
between layers of hot-mix asphalt to promote bonding between the layers.
Time of concentration: The time runoff takes to flow to a drainage area’s most distant point
to the point of drainage.
Treated base: An aggregate base with cement, asphalt, or other material added to increase its
structural capacity.
Underdrain: A piping system to carry flow from the reservoir layer of a permeable pavement
system. Its vertical location varies depending on design and conditions such as retention or
detention, water quality issues, and frost depths. See also perforated underdrain.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
ISBN 978-0-309-44649-5
NON-PROFIT ORG.
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
U.S. POSTAGE
90000
PAID
9 780309 446495

The National Academies Press: Guidance For Usage of Permeable Pavement at Airports (2017)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Academies Press: Guidance For Usage of Permeable Pavement at Airports (2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24852 SHARE

Guidance for Usage of Permeable Pavement at Airports (2017)

88 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017. Guidance for

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 178

Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 178

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 178

ACRP PROJECT 02-64 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

60 6.5 Subgrade Preparation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Guidance for Usage of Permeable

Permeable pavement provides a stormwater management alternative that has seen

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Guidance for Usage of Permeable Pavement at Airports

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Guidance for Usage of Permeable Pavement at Airports

an alternative to impermeable pavements because they encourage infiltration or filtration of

Table 1. Summary of advantages and disadvantages

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.3 Research Approach

1.3.1 Literature Review

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Guidance for Usage of Permeable Pavement at Airports

1.3.2 Agency and Industry Experience

1.3.3 Case Studies

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.5 How to Use This Guide

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 Guidance for Usage of Permeable Pavement at Airports

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Types of Permeable Pavements

2.2 Permeable Pavement Systems

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. Generic permeable pavement cross-section.

Grid pavement system (plastic or concrete)3

Figure 2. Typical permeable pavement

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Types of Permeable Pavements and Their Benefits 11

2.3 Porous Asphalt

2.4 Pervious Concrete

2.5 Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement

Figure 3. Typical porous asphalt system cross-section.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

12 Guidance for Usage of Permeable Pavement at Airports

Figure 4. Typical pervious concrete pavement system section.

Figure 5. Typical PICP cross-section.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Types of Permeable Pavements and Their Benefits 13

Figure 6. Typical grid paving unit cross-section.