Pavement Thickness Design for Canadian Airports by Leanne Claire Whiteley A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Applied Science in Civil Engineering Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2006 © Leanne Claire Whiteley, 2006Library and Archives Canada Published Heritage Branch 395 Wellington Street ‘Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada NOTICE: The author has granted a non- exclusive license allowing Library and Archives Canada to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, communicate to the public by telecommunication or on the Internet, loan, distribute and sell theses worldwide, for commercial or non- commercial purposes, in microform, paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission. Direction du Patrimoine de lédition Bibliotheque et Archives Canada 395, rue Wellington Ottewa ON K1A ONG Your fle Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-23777-9 Ourfle Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-23777-9 AVIS: L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliothéque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par télécommunication ou par linternet, préter, distribuer et vendre des théses partout dans le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou autres formats. Lauteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protage cette thése Ni la thése ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent étre imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation. In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this thesis While these forms may be included in the document page count, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the thesis. Canada Conformément a la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privée, quelques formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de cette these. Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.Abstract Limited research has been conducted in the area of airfield pavement design in Canada over the past decade. This research attempts to review the most current international airport pavement design software programs and compare them to the Transport Canada design method. There are five flexible pavement design programs (Transport Canada, Federal Aviation Administration CBR Method, Federal Aviation Layered Elastic Design, MINCAD Systems Pty. Ltd Airport Pavement Structural Design System, and Asphalt Institute SW-1) and five rigid pavement design programs (Transport Canada, Federal Aviation Administration Westergaard Method, Federal Aviation Administration Layered Elastic Design, Federal Aviation Administration Finite Element Design, and American Concrete Pavement Association AIRPAVE 2000) included in the research. (On overview of each of the design methods included in this research is provided. Also included is, discussion on the important airport pavement design factors and how these design methods account for these key factors. In total, there are fifteen airports from all across Canada that participated in this research by providing airport-specific data, including traffic, climate, and pavement structure. These data were used to run each of the design programs. In order to compare the various airport pavement design methods, a sensitivity analysis of the input parameters for each of the design methods is presented. The sensitivity analysis includes subgrade strength in terms of the California Bearing Ratio (CBR); climate in terms of either Freezing Index (FI) or Mean Average Air Temperature (MAAT); and traffic in terms of either design aircraft characteristics or percent annual growth (%AG). Finally, the design programs are compared to the Transport Canada design method. The basis for comparison for the flexible pavements is the equivalent granular thickness (EGT) and total pavement thickness (TPT); whereas, the basis for comparison for the rigid pavements is the Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) slab thickness and the total pavement thickness (TPT). Ultimately, this research shows that the pavement thickness increases as the subgrade strength decreases for all pavement design methods. The design programs that account for traffic volumes (LEDFAA, FEDFAA, AIRPAVE, and APSDS) are fat more sensitive to a change in subgrade strength than increase in annual traffic growth of up to 10%. Finally, as the Federal Aviation ‘Administration rigid pavement designs have evolved, the PCC slab thickness has decreased, thereby indicating conservatism in previous design methods. In conclusion, this research emphasizes the need to conduct more airport pavement design research in Canada in order to compete with other international aviation markets.Acknowledgements | would like to thank the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority for funding my Masters research. I would also like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Susan Tighe from the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Waterloo for her support and guidance. I would also like to thank the Asphalt Institute, the Cement Association of Canada, and MINCAD for contributing to the research by providing software programs. 1 would also to thank the following airports and agencies that have provided data and feedback for this research: Mounir Moughabghab, Alan Herring and Kevin Chee from the Greater Toronto Airports Authority; Kevin Campbell and Currie Russell from the Region of Waterloo Intemational Airport; Leigh Wardle and Bruce Rodway from Australia; Rodney Joel from the Federal Aviation Administration; Allan Dolinksi, Alice Krol, Rob Clark and Mahmoud Farha from Transport Canada; Gary Mitchell and Jim Lafrenz from the American Concrete Pavement Association; Rico Fung from the Cement Association of Canada; Claudette Adamezyk, Vincent Martin and Chris Farmer from the Greater Moncton International Airport; John Graham from Iqaluit Airport; Walter Gutowksi and John Rogers from Whitehorse International Airport; Tickie Hayes, Darren Ronaghan and Mark Ritchie from Watson Lake Airport; Graham Karlowsky from Churchill Airport; Alvin Maier from Fort St John Airport; Wayne McAllister from Saint John Airport; Eugene McDonald from Charlottetown Airport; Angus Sabo and Dennis Sanddoff from Regina International Airport; Brian Salamondra from Flin Flon Airport; Felipe Salgado from Nunavut Airports Division; Derek Thielman from Vancouver International Airport; Laurin Trudel from Yellowknife Airport; and Jason Todd from Rankin Inlet Airport. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my family and friends for their love and support. I would like to particularly thank my mum for checking all my data and packing my home cooked meals when I worked long hours at the airport. I would also like to thank my fiancé Phil Lagacé for standing by me and supporting me as I furthered my career. ivTable of Contents Abstract... Acknowledgements Table of Contents.. List of Tables.. List of Figures... Chapter 1 Introduction. 1.1 Background. 1.2 Types of Airports 1.3 Types of Airfield Pavements. 1.4 Objectives and Scope of the Research. 1.5 Methodology... 1.6 Organization of Thesis... Chapter 2 Literature Review. 2.1 Airport Pavement Structure: 2.1.1 PCN/PLR.... 2.2 Aircraft & Significant Characteristics 8 2.2.1 ACNIALR. 10 2.2.2 Alpha Factors... 2.3 Types of Airport Pavement Design Methods wl, 2.4 Current Design Practice of North American Agencies... AB 2.4.1 Transport Canada.... senna 2.4.2 Federal Aviation Administratic 2.5 Other Available Design Methods. 2.5.1 Asphalt Institute, SW-1 .. 2.5.2 MINCAD, Airport Pavement Structural Design System 2.5.3 Federal Aviation Administration, LEDFAA ... 2.5.4 Federal Aviation Administration, FEDFAA.. 2.5.5 American Concrete Pavement Association, AIRPAVE 2000 (FAA) 2.5.6 Airport Pavement Design Method Summary. 2.5.7 International Pavement Design Methods..2.6 Pavement Design Factors and Their Importance.. 2.6.1 Climate and Environment 2.6.2 Traffic 2.6.3 Materials... 2.6.6 Mix Design . oA 2.6.7 How Design Methods Reflect Important Design Factors... 2.7 Comparative Studies Chapter 3 Methodology... 3.1 Overview... 3.2 Stage 1: Data Collection. 3.2.1 Data Req 3.2.2 Sources of Data... 3.3 Stage 2: Data Organization. 3.3.1 Climate. 3.3.2 Aircraft Traffic & Volumes... sments.. 3.3.3 Pavement Structure.. 3.4 Stage 3: Sensi ity Analysis of Individual Design Programs 3.4.1 Climate Sensitivity Analysis, 3.4.2 Traffic Sensitivity Analysis 3.4.3 Subgrade Strength Sensitivity Analysis. 3.5 Stage 4: Data Analysis Among Design Programs wm Chapter 4 Analysis of Individual Flexible Pavement Design Methods. 059) 4.1 Rationale of Sensitivity Analysis 4.2 Transport Canada. 4.2.1 Subgrade... 42.2 Climate. 4.2.3 Traffic: Design Aircraft 4.2.4 Traffic: Aircraft Movement 4.2.5 Other Considerations 4.2.6 Transport Canada Summary4.3 Federal Aviation Administrato 43.1 Subgrade... 4.3.2 Climate.. 4.3.3 Traffic: Design Aircraft. 4.3.4 Traffic: Aireraft Movements.. 4.3.5 FAA Summary. 4.4 LEDFAA and FEDFAA Analysis 4.4.1 Subgrad “ 4.4.2 Climate & Traffic: Design Aircraft. 4.4.3 Traffic: Aircraft Movements. 4.4.4 LEDFAA and FEDFAA Summary... 4.5 SW-1 4.5.1 Subgrade 4.5.2 Climate. 4.5.3 Traffic: Design Aircraft. 4.5.4 Traffic: Aircraft Movement 4.5.5 SW-1 Summary 4.6 APSDS. 4.6.1 Subgrade.. 4.6.2 Climate & Traffic: Design Aircraft 4.6.3 Traffic: Aircraft Movements... 4.6.4 APSDS Summary .. 4.7 Flexible Pavernent Summary of Findings. Chapter 5 Analysis of Individual Rigid Pavement Design Methods 5.1 Rationale of Sensitivity Analysi 5.2 Transport Canada, 5.2.1 Subgrade.. 5.2.2 Climate.... 5.2.3 Traffic: Design Aircraft. 5.2.4 Traffic: Aircraft Movements. 5.2.5 Transport Canada Summary 5.3 Federal Aviation Administration. vii5.3.1 Subgrade..... 5.3.2 Climate.. 5.3.3 Traffic: Design Aircraft... 5.3.4 Traffic: Aircraft Movement 5.3.5 FAA Summary. 5.4 LEDFAA 5.4.1 Subgrade... 5.4.2 Climate & Traffic: Design Aircraft. 5.4.3 Traffic: Aireraft Movements... 5.4.4 LEDFAA Summary... 5.5 FEDFAA. 5.5.1 Subgrade ono 5.5.2 Climate & Traffic: Design Aircraft 5.5.3 Traffic: Aircraft Movement 5.5.4 FEDFAA Summary 5.6 AIRPAVE 2000 5.6.1 Subgrade.. 5.6.2 Climate 5.6.3 Traffic: Design Ai 5.6.4 Traffic: 5.6.5 AIRPAVE Summary .. ircraft Movements... 5.7 Rigid Pavement Summary of Findings. Chapter 6 Data Analysis Among Airport Pavement Design Programs 6.1 Flexible Pavement Designs. 6.1.1 Variability Significance.. 6.1.2 Airport Specific EGT vs. Design Method 6.1.3 Airport Specific Design Method Relative Comparison... 6.1.4 Summary of Findings for Flexible Pavement Design Methods.. 6.2 Rigid Pavement Designs, 6.2.1 Variation Sig 6.2.2 PCC Slab Thickness vs. Design Method . 6.2.3 Airport Specific Design Method Relative Comparison,7.1 Economic & Financial Considerations... 7.1.1 Airport Funding... 7.1.2 Life Cycle Cost... 7.1.3 Landing fees. 7.2 Social Implications... 7.3 User delays 7.4 Gravel runways. 7.5 AIRPAVE 2000... 7.6 The Role of Innovation. 7.1 The Role of Airport Pavement Management... 7.8 Challenges to the Airport Community. Chapter 8 Conclusions & Recommendations . 8.1 Summary. 8.2 Conclusions 8.3 Recommendations... Chapter 9 References. Appendix A Airport Data Form. Appendix B Supplemental Data for Individual Flexible Pavement Design Methods ‘Appendix C Supplemental Data for Individual Rigid Pavement Design MethodsList of Tables Table 1.1 National airport policy transfer progress [TC 05}... Table 2.1 Airfield pavement layer details [TC 04a]... Table 2.2 Standard gear loads [Argue 05, PWGSC 97] Table 2.3 ALR subgrade categories... Table 2.4 ACN subgrade categories... ‘Table 2.5 Granular base equivalencies [PWGSC 97] Table 2.6 Minimum layer thickness for flexible and rigid airport pavements [PWGSC 97] 16 Table 2.7 Equivalent annual departures [FAA 95]... Table 2.8 FAA minimum base requirements [FAA 95] Table 2.9 FAA reduced subgrade strength rating [FAA 95] Table 2.10 SW-1 available aircraft list ‘Table 2.11 MINCAD typical wander statistics [MINCAD 00] Table 2.12 Summary of key features of airport pavement design methods.. Table 2.13 Cement types [TAC 97].. Table 2.14 Aggregate tests[AASHTO 91-05, ASTM 05 -n, Argue 05, CSA 05, MTO 02, TAC 97].39 Table 2.15 Aggregate tests for pavement layer components [Argue 05] 40 Table 2.16 Materials and their suitability for subgrade construction [Argue 05].n.nnmnnnnnn4l Table 2.17 Spring subgrade reduction factors [TAC 97, TC 97]. Table 2.18 Mix properties for airfield pavements [Argue 05, ASTM 050-u].. Table 2.19 Rigid mix design admixtures [West 2004}. Table 2.20 How pavement design methods account for the important design factors Table 3.1 Flexible airport pavement design input parameter Table 3.2 Rigid airport pavement design input parameters... ‘Table 3.3 Sources of Canadian airport data Table 3.4 SW-1 airport MAAT [EC 05]. - Table 4.1 Impact of CBR on TC flexible thickness for various Canadian airports 60 Table 4.2 Impact of Fl on TC flexible thickness for various subgrade strengths... Table 4.3 Impact of MGW on TC flexible thickness for various subgrade strengths Table 4.4 Influence of wheel load on TC flexible thickness for various subgrade strengths... Table 4.5 Evaluation of relationships for TC flexible design aircraft wheel load vs. MGW Table 4.6 Transport Canada flexible summary of findings . xTable 4.7 Impact of CBR on FAA modified thickness for various Canadian airports. Table 4.8 Impact of Fl on FAA flexible stabilized thickness for various subgrade strengths. Table 4.9 Impact of MTOW on FAA flexible stabilized thickness for various subgrade strengths.....75 ‘Table 4.10 Impact of wheel load on FAA flexible stabilized thickness for various subgrade strengths Table 4.11 FAA flexible summary of findings. ‘Table 4.12 Slope of lines for LEDFAA flexible thickness vs. CBR. ‘Table 4.13 LEDFAA flexible summary of findings... Table 4.14 Impact of CBR on SW-I flexible thickness for various Canadian airpors.. Table 4.15 Impact of MAAT on SW-I flexible thickness for various subgrade strengths. Table 4.16 Impact of revised MAAT on SW-I flexible thickness for various subgrade strengths. Table 4.17 SW-I flexible summary of findings. Table 4.18 Impact of CBR on APSDS flexible thickness for various Canadian airports. Table 4.19 APSDS flexible summary of findings . ‘Table 4.20 EGT summary of findings for all flexible design methods Table 4.21 TPT summary of findings for all flexible design methods.. ‘Table 5.1 Impact of CBR on TCHD rigid thickness various Canadian airport... Table 5.2 Impact of FI on TC rigid HD PCC thickness for various subgrade strengths... Table 5.3 Impact of MGW on TC rigid HD PCC thickness for various subgrade strengths. Table 5.4 Impact of wheel load on TC rigid HD thickness for various subgrade strengths... Table 5.5 Transport Canada HD rigid summary of findings . Table 5.6 Impact of CBR on FAA rigid thickness for various Canadian airports. Table 5.7 Impact of FI on FAA rigid thickness for various subgrade strengths... Table 5.8 FAA rigid thickness vs. MTOW for various subgrade strengths Table 5.9 FAA rigid thickness vs. wheel load for various subgrade strengths. Table 5.10 FAA rigid summary of findings Table 5.11 Impact of CBR on LEDFAA rigid thickness for various Canadian airports.... Table 5.12 LEDFAA rigid summary of findings... Table 5.13 Impact of CBR on FEDFAA rigid thickness for various Canadian airports Table 5.14 FEDFAA rigid summary of findings.. Table 5.15 Impact of CBR on AIRPAVE rigid thickness for various Canadian airports... Table 5.16 Impact of gear load on AIRPAVE rigid thickness for various subgrade strengths .Table 5.17 Impact of contact area on AIRPAVE rigid thickness for various subgrade strengths.....126 Table 5.18 AIRPAVE rigid summary of findin; Table 5.19 PCC slab summary of findings for all ri design method: Table 5.20 TPT summary of findings for all rigid design methods. Table 6.1 Block test - CBR variability within each flexible design method ... Table 6.2 Block test - %AG variability within each flexible design method Table 6.3 Transport Canada vs. flexible design method and airport variability. Table 6.4 Transport Canada no frost vs. flexible design method and airport variability. Table 6.5 EGT ranking for subgrade categories. Table 6.6 Flexible TPT ranking for subgrade categori Table 6.7 EGT ranking for frost categories. ‘Table 6.8 Flexible TPT ranking for frost categories... ‘Table 6.9 EGT ranking for airport class.. Table 6.10 Flexible TPT ranking for airports class Table 6.11 EGT absolute percent difference relative to TC ranking for subgrade categori Table 6.12 EGT absolute percent difference relative to TCNF ranking for subgrade categories......143 Table 6.13 EGT absolute percent difference relative to TC ranking for frost categories... Table 6.14 EGT absolute percent difference relative to TCNF ranking for frost categories... Table 6.15 EGT absolute percent difference relative to TC ranking for airport class. Table 6.16 EGT absolute percent difference relative to TCNF ranking for airport class Table 6.17 Block test - CBR variability within each rigid design method... Table 6.18 Block Test - %AG variability within each rigid design method, Table 6.19 TC vs. rigid design method and airport variability. Table 6.20 TCNF vs. rigid design method and airport variability. ‘Table 6.21 TCHDNF vs. rigid pavement design method and Table 6.22 PCC slab ranking for subgrade categories... Table 6.23 Rigid TPT ranking for subgrade categories.. ort variability Table 6.24 PCC slab ranking for frost categories... Table 6.25 Rigid TPT ranking for frost categories.. Table 6.26 PCC slab ranking for airport class. Table 6.27 Rigid TPT ranking for airports class... Table 6.28 PCC slab absolute percent difference relative to TC ranking for subgrade categories....155 xiiTable 6.29 PCC slab absolute percent difference relative to TCNF ranking for subgrade categories 155 Table 6.30 PCC slab absolute percent difference relative to TCHDNF rankg for subgrade categories Table 6.31 PCC slab absolute percent difference relative to TC ranking for frost categori Table 6.32 PCC slab absolute percent difference relative to TCNF ranking for frost categories.. Table 6.33 PCC slab absolute percent difference relative to TCHDNF ranking for frost categories. 156 Table 6.34 PCC slab absolute percent difference relative to TC ranking for airport class.. 1ST Table 6.35 PCC slab absolute percent difference relative to TCNF ranking for airport c1888...0m.-157 Table 6.36 PCC slab absolute percent difference relative to TCHDNF ranking for airport class.....157 Table 7.1 ACAP criteria for eligible airports and projects (TC 04e] 159 Table 7.2 ACAP funding formula [TC 04¢].. 159 Table 7.3 ALR & ACN values for sample aircraft. Table 7.4 Results of sample landing feesList of Figures Figure 1.1 Pavement surface identification at LBPIA [GTAA 99]... Figure 1.2 Thesis methodology Figure 2.1 Typical airport pavement structure [adapted from TC 04a]. Figure 2.2 Typical gear assemblies [Haas 94] Figure 2.3 Typical aircraft wheel assemblies (Haas 94]. Figure 2.4 Antonov An-225 wheel assembly [Goleta 05]. Figure 2.5 Freezing Indices in Canada (°F-days) [Boyd 73] Figure 2.6 Flexible airfield pavement structural thickness requirements (re 04h] Figure 2.7 Rigid airfield pavement structural thickness requirements [PWGSC 97]. Figure 2.8 Rigid pavement bearing modulus [PWGSC 97]. Figure 2.9 FAA flexible pavement design curve for dual wheel gear [FAA 95] Figure 2.10 FAA rigid pavement design curve for a dual wheel gear [FAA 95]... Figure 2.11 FAA depth of frost penetration based on Freezing Index [FAA 95].... Figure 2.12Freezing Indices in United States [FAA 95] Figure 2.13 AI full-depth asphalt concrete thickness design curve for GA airports [AI 87b] Figure 2.14 AI air carrier airport pavement design method [AI 873] Figure 2.15 AI air carrier horizontal tensile strain design curve for B747-200 [AI 87a] Figure 2.16 APSDS aircraft wander and cumulative damage [MINCAD 00} Figure 2.17 APSDS sample cumulative damage plot for mixed traffic [MINCAD 00]. Figure 2.18 Example of D-cracking [Argue 05]. Figure 2.19 Fatigue factor for various design methods [ACPA 0b] Figure 2.20 B747 SP thickness vs. subgrade strength for various design methods [ACPA ost}. Figure 3.1 Data analysis methodology Figure 3.2 Distribution of participating airports. Figure 3.3 Distribution of MAAT Figure 4.1 TC flexible EGT vs. CBR... Figure 4.2 Case study airports grouped by FI for TC. Figure 4.3 TC flexible EGT vs. Fl Figure 4.4 Case study airports grouped by TC flexible design aircraft MGW. Figure 4.5 Case study airports grouped by TC flexible design aircraft wheel load. Figure 4.6 TC flexible EGT vs. MGWFigure 4.7 TC flexible EGT vs. wheel load. Figure 4.8 TC flexible relationship between wheel and MGW... Figure 4.9 TC flexible relationship between MGW and FT... Figure 4.10 TC flexible relationship between wheel load and FT. Figure 4.11 TC flexible basis for minimum thickness design. Figure 4.12 FAA flexible stabilized pavement section EGT vs. CBR... Figure 4.13 Additional FAA flexible CBR analysis for Toronto ON. Figure 4.14 Additional FAA flexible CBR analysis for Vancouver BC... Figure 4.15 Case study airports grouped by FI for FAA Figure 4.16 FAA flexible stabilized EGT vs. FI. Figure 4.17 Case study airports grouped by FAA flexible MTOW .. Figure 4.18 FAA flexible stabilized EGT vs. MTOW .. Figure 4.19 Case study airports grouped by FAA flexible wheel load. Figure 4.20 FAA flexible stabilized EGT vs. wheel load. Figure 4.21 FAA flexible EGT vs. %AG with CBI Figure 4.22 FAA flexible EGT vs. %AG with CBR- Figure 4.23 FAA flexible EGT vs. CBR and %AG for Toronto ON. Figure 4.24 FAA flexible EGT vs. CBR and % AG for Watson Lake YT... Figure 4.25 LEDFAA flexible EGT vs. CBR. Figure 4.26 LEDFAA flexible EGT vs. %AG with CBR=: Figure 4.27 LEDFAA flexible EGT vs. CBR & %AG for Fort St John BC. Figure 4.28 LEDFAA flexible EGT vs. CBR & %AG for Saint John NB. Figure 4.29 SW-I flexible EGT vs. CBR... “ Figure 4.30 Case study airports sorted by SW-I flexible MAT. Figure 4.31 SW-1 flexible EGT vs, MAT... Figure 4.32 SW-I flexible EGT vs. MAT revised. Figure 4.33 SW-1 flexible EGT vs. %AG for CBR=10 Figure 4.34 SW-1 flexible EGT vs. CBR & %AG for Charlottetown PE. Figure 4.35 APSDS flexible EGT vs. CBR. “ Figure 4.36 APSDS flexible EGT vs. %AG with CBI Figure 4.37 APSDS flexible EGT vs. CBR & %AG for Yellowknife NT... Figure 5.1 TC rigid HD PCC slab vs. CBR. xvFigure 5.2 TC rigid HD total thickness vs. CBR. Figure 5.3 TC rigid HD PCC slab vs. FI Figure 5.4 TC rigid HD total thickness vs. FI Figure 5.5 Case study airports grouped by TC rigid design aircraft MGW ..... Figure 5.6 Case study airports grouped by TC rigid design aircraft wheel load .. Figure 5.7 TC rigid HD PCC slab vs. MGW. Figure 5.8 TC rigid HD PCC total thickness vs. MGW. Figure 5.9 TC rigid HD PCC slab vs. wheel loa Figure 5.10 TC rigid HD PCC total thickness vs. wheel load... Figure 5.11 FAA rigid PCC slab vs. CBR. Figure 5.12 FAA rigid PCC slab vs. FL Figure 5.13 Case study airports grouped by FAA rigid MTOW Figure 5.14 FAA rigid PCC slab vs. MTOW... Figure 5.15 Case study airports grouped by FAA rigid wheel load. Figure 5.16 FAA rigid PCC slab vs. wheel load ... Figure 5.17 FAA Rigid PCC slab vs. %AG for CBR 3 Figure 5.18 FAA rigid PCC slab vs. CBR and %AG for Toronto ON. Figure 5.19 FAA rigid PCC slab vs. CBR and %AG for Watson Lake YT Figure 5.20 LEDFAA rigid PCC slab vs. CBR... Figure 5.21 LEDFAA rigid PCC slab vs. %AG with CBR=3... Figure 5.22 LEDFAA PCC slab vs. CBR & %AG for Toronto ON. Figure 5.23LEDFAA PCC slab vs. CBR & %AG for Vancouver BC. Figure 5.24 FEDFAA rigid PCC slab vs. CBR Figure 5.25 FEDFAA rigid PCC slab vs. %AG with CBR=3. Figure 5.26 FEDFAA tigid PCC slab vs. CBR & %AG for Toronto ON. Figure 5.27 FEDFAA rigid PCC slab vs. CBR & %AG for Rankin Inlet NU. Figure 5.28 AIRPAVE PCC slab vs. CBR... Figure 5.29 Case study airports grouped by AIRPAVE rigid total gear loa: Figure 5.30 AIRPAVE PCC slab vs. total gear load . Figure 5.31 Case study airports grouped by AIRPAVE 2000 rigid contact area Figure 5.32 AIRPAVE 2000 rigid PCC slab vs. contact area... Figure 5.33 AIRPAVE rigid PCC slab vs. %AG with CBR=:Figure 5.34 AIRPAVE 2000 PCC slab vs. CBR & %AG for Toronto ON. Figure 5.35 AIRPAVE 2000 PCC slab vs. CBR and %AG for Watson Lake YT... Figure 6.1 EGT vs. %AG for Vancouver BC with CBR=: Figure 6.2 EGT vs. %AG for Watson Lake YT with CBR=15, Figure 6.3 EGT vs. CBR for Churchill MB with %AG=0%.... Figure 6.4 EGT vs. CBR for Fort St John with %AG=10%... Figure 6.5 % Difference of FAA EGT relative to TC vs. CBR vs. %AG for Flin Flon MB., Figure 6.6 %Difference of FAA EGT relative to TCNF vs. CBR vs. %AG for Flin Flon MB Figure 6.7 % Difference of LEDFAA and FEDFAA EGT relative to TC vs. CBR vs. %AG for Waterloo ON.. Figure 6.8 % Difference of LEDFAA & FEDFAA EGT relative to TCNF vs. CBR vs. %AG for Waterloo ON.. Figure 6.9 % Difference of APSDS EGT relative to TC vs. CBR vs. %AG for Regina SK.. Figure 6.10 % Figure 6.11% Figure 6.12 % Difference of SW-1 EGT relative to TCNF vs. CBR vs. %AG for Iqaluit NU.. Figure 6.13 PCC slab vs. %AG for Vancouver BC with CBI Figure 6.14 PCC slab vs. %AG for Watson Lake YT with CB Figure 6.15 PCC slab vs. CBR for Churchill MB with %AG=0%. Figure 6.16 PCC slab vs. CBR for Fort St John BC with %AG=10% Figure 6.17 % Difference of FAA PCC slab relative to TC vs. CBR vs. %AG for Flin Flon MB.....153 Difference of LEDFAA PCC slab relative to TC vs. CBR vs. %AG for Waterloo ON . 53 Figure 6.19 % Difference of FEDFAA PCC slab relative to TC vs. CBR vs. %AG for Regina SK .154 Figure 6.20% Difference of AIRPAVE PCC slab relative to TC vs. CBR vs. %AG for Iqaluit NU.154 160 5, Figure 6.18 9 Figure 7.1 Generalized life cycle cost analysis procedure..Chapter 1 Introduction This chapter includes a brief background on the purpose of this research and provides the scope and objectives of the research. Furthermore, the research methodology and the organization of the thesis are also provided. 4.4 Background In the past decade, limited research has been done in the area of airfield pavement design in Canada, ‘The most recent Manual of Pavement Structural Design ASG-19 (an update of Transport Canada AK- (68-12) was created in July 1992 by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) [PWGSC 97]. However, individual Aircraft Pavement Structural Design and Evaluation Charts have been created as recently as May 2002 and Aircraft Loading Tables were developed in August 2004 [TC 02, TC 04b]. Although these design charts and loading tables include the new larger aircraft (NLA) such as the Boeing 777 and the Airbus 380, the original design methods do not directly consider the impacts of these NLA. ‘The current airfield pavement design method from PWGSC considers frost protection, whereby minimum pavement thickness is required for a given average annual air freezing index. This minimum thickness is achieved by adjusting the subbase layer thickness. Furthermore, the minimum requirements for pavement surface and base layer thicknesses are based on the design aircraft gear load and the design aircraft tire pressure. Finally, the pavement structure for flexible and rigid pavements are provided for a given standard aircraft gear loading. Despite the limited airfield pavement design development in Canada, there have been efforts made in other countries to examine the impact of the NLA and how the current design practices can be adjusted to compensate and account for the new complex gear configurations. Wherever possible, experience and knowledge from other jurisdictions has been examined to see how appropriate itis for Canadian conditions. 1.2 Types of Airports ‘There are currently 726 certified airports in Canada. Prior to the introduction of the National Airport Policy (NAP) in 1994, Transport Canada owned and operated 150 of those airports. The NAP ‘grouped airports into various categories, including National Airport System (NAS), regional/local airports, small airports, arctic airports, and remote airports. Through the NAP, the federal government retained ownership of the 26 airports in the NAS, which also represent 94% of all air passenger and cargo processed in Canada, Although the federal government maintained ownership, the operations of these NAS airports were transferred over to Canadian Airport Authorities (CAA’s) or Local Airport ‘Authorities (LAAs). Ownership and operations of regional/local, small, and arctic airports will eventually be transferred to regional interests, including provincial, territorial and local governments 1and private businesses. The progress of the transfers is shown in Table 1.1. With respect to remote airports, Transport Canada is to continue supporting the thirteen remote airports that were previously receiving financial assistance. [TC 94, 04c, 05] Table 1.1 National airport policy transfer progress [TC 05] ‘Airport Category Airports Transferred Airports to be Transferred, National Airport System 26 0 Regional/local 6 1 Small 30 1 Arctic 8 0 Remote NIA NIA ‘N/A indicates that remote airports are not to be transferred 4.3 Types of Airfield Pavements Airfield pavements, including runways, taxiways, and aprons, are the most important asset at an airport facilities in terms of operations [TC 04a]. A prolonged shutdown in any of these areas will result in delays on the ground and in the sky. Runways provide a landing and departing surface for aircraft; taxiways provide a route for aircraft to travel between the runways and the terminal gates or ‘cargo areas; and aprons provide a site for the loading and unloading of passengers and cargo, as well as, aircraft refuelling [TC 93]. Therefore, airport operations depend very heavily on its pavement infrastructure and its ability to withstand aircraft load and the local environment. ‘A runway system is designed so that it is usable at least 95% of the time. Usability is generally determined based on wind speed and direction. An aircraft should not operate on a runway when the crosswinds are greater than 15 nautical miles per hour. Furthermore, when tailwinds reach more than five nautical miles per hour, the operations on the runway should be reversed such that the tailwind becomes a head wind. In order to increase the usability factor, many airport facilities have at least one primary runway, as well as, a secondary or crosswind runway that can be used when winds will not allow operations on the main or primary runway. [TC 93] Runways are labelled such that there is a two digit number located at each end of the runway. Runway numbers are established by rounding the compass bearing of the runway centerline to the nearest ten degrees and then dividing by ten as viewed by the direction of approach. If the result is @ single digit, then the number is preceded by a zero. If an airport has multiple parallel runways, the runways have suffixes labelled L, C, and R to designate the left, centre, and right runways, respectively. Furthermore, airports located close to the north pole have a suffix T added to their runway number to indicate that the runway number is based on the true bearing, as opposed to the magnetic bearing. [TC 93] The true bearing is used in those cases since the magnetic north is not stationary and having a magnetic reading becomes increasingly difficult to maintain as you approach cither of the magnetic poles [BBC 02]. An example of the runway identification system is shown in Figure 1.1 for Lester B. Pearson International Airport (LBPIA) in Toronto, Ontario [GTAA 99]. The main parallel runways are 06R-24L, O6L-24R and 05-23; whereas, the crosswind runways are 15R- 233L and 15L-33R. In terms of capacity, there is an opportunity to construct one more parallel runway next to the existing 05-23. It is anticipated that this will be constructed within the next several years. ‘According to Transport Canada practice, taxiways should be designated by a letter, letters or a combination of letters followed by a number. Rapid exit taxiways, which are used to quickly remove aircraft from the runway and decrease runway occupancy time, should use an alpha/numeric system that should identify the taxiway to which they are connected. The numeric portion of the rapid exit taxiway should be odd numbers for exits serving easterly runways and even numbers for westerly runways. The intersection of a rapid exit taxiway and a runway should be between 25 and 45 degrees. [TC 93] The taxiway labels at LBPIA are shown in Figure 1.1 [GTAA 99]. Examples include ‘Taxiway D (Delta) and Rapid Exit Taxiway WI (Whiskey One). ‘Transport Canada recommends that aprons be labelled with roman numerals and that apron exits from taxiways should be labelled using an alpha/alpha system. The first alpha, or letter, should represent the associated taxiway; the second letter should represent the apron exit and should be lettered sequentially. [TC 93] Examples of aprons at LBPIA include Apron AJ (Alpha-Julict) at 3Terminal 3, which is connected to Taxiway A (Alpha) and Apron JE (Juliet-Echo) at the FedEx Cargo, which is connected to Taxiway J (Juliet), 1.4 Objectives and Scope of the Research ‘The scope of this research includes all classes of civil or non-military airport facilities in Canada, including national, regional/local and arctic airports. The research investigates the state of the practice in airport pavement design in North America and around the world. The research also examines the state of the art in airport pavement design programs, including the Federal Aviation Administration layered elastic design (LEDFAA), the Federal Aviation Administration finite element design (FEDFAA), the Asphalt Institute SW-1, the MINCAD Systems Pty. Ltd Airport Pavement Structural Design System (APSDS), and the American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA) AIRPAVE various loading and climatic conditions. These design methods are examined and compared to current Canadian practice. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis on subgrade strength, traffic, and climate is performed for all design methods. Ultimately, the research examines how these design methods and practices can be used or applied to Canadian airports. 1.5 Methodology The methodology used in this research is illustrated in Figure 1.2, Initially, data are collected from 1 variety of airports across Canada. These data are used as input parameters for the various airport pavement design programs/methods included in this research. Case studies, based on data from Canadian airports, are used to run each design program. Each design output is compared to outputs from other design methods. Following that, a sensitivity analysis is performed on the subgrade, traffic and climate input parameters. Ultimately, the comparison of the design methods and the results of the sensitivity analysis are used to provide future changes and recommendations to Canadian airports.‘American Concrete Pavement “Association International Design Methods Asphalt Institute + Airport Paver J Sensitivity Analysis Future Changes! Recommendations Figure 1.2 Thesis methodology 4.6 Organization of Thesis Chapter One provides an overview of the research project. It provides a brief background for the research and explains the scope and objectives of the research, Chapter Two is a literature review of airport pavements, aircraft characteristics and current airport pavement design practices. ‘Chapter Three explains the methodology used in the research. Chapter Four presents the sensitivity analysis of the flexible airport pavement design methods. Chapter Five presents the sensitivity analysis of the rigid airport pavement design methods. Chapter Six provides the comparison of the outputs from all the airport pavement design methods to the outputs of the Transport Canada airport pavement design method. Chapter Seven includes a discussion on other airport pavement design considerations, such as ‘economics, social implications, as well as, the role of innovation and airport pavement management. Chapter Bight provides conclusions from the research and recommendations for future work.Chapter 2 jiterature Review ‘The purpose of this chapter is to provide some background information on the types of airport pavement structures and aircraft characteristics that are examined in this research, Furthermore, this chapter also provides a summary of the various airport pavement design methods studied in this research. Finally, this chapter discusses the important factors in airport pavement design and how well the airport pavement design methods address these factors. 2.1 Airport Pavement Structures ‘There are essentially two types of pavement structures: flexible and rigid, Flexible pavements, also referred to as asphalt or asphalt concrete pavements, consist of an asphalt concrete surface layer over fa granular base layer, a subbase layer, and a subgrade. Rigid pavements, also knows as concrete pavements or portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements, consist of a PCC surface layer over a chemically treated or unbound base layer, a subbase layer and a subgrade. PCC pavements can be further grouped into jointed plain concrete pavements (IPCP), jointed reinforced concrete pavement GIRCP), continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP), and pre-stressed or post-tensioned concrete pavements. JPCP is the most commonly used PCC pavement type at Canadian airports [TAC 97, TC 04a] Typical airport pavement structures are shown in Figure 2.1 [TC 04a}. Asphaltic Concrete (Ac) _| Portland Cement Conerete (PCC) (Flexible) Pavement Structure | (Rigid) Pavement Structure om Figure 2.1 Typical airport pavement structure [adapted from TC 04a]Flexible pavements carry their load in shear deformation and are often characterized by a layered system analysis; whereas, rigid pavements carry their load in bending and are often characterized by a slab analysis [Haas 94]. There are a number of layer components in a pavement structure, including the surface, base, subbase, and subgrade. Each layer has its own purpose within the pavement structure as detailed in Table 2.1 [TC 04a). Table 2.1 Airfield pavement layer details [TC 04a] Layer Material Used Purpose Thicknes Surface Asphalt or portland To provide stability and durability Asphalt: $-10 cm Q. cement concrete Concrete: 23-40 cm (9-16 in) Base high quality crushed To provide stability under high areraf. stone or gravel tire pressures 15-30 cm (6-12 in) Subbase _non-frost susceptible To increase pavement strength and lower quality granular reduce the effects of frost ation on 30+ em (12+ in) aggregates the subgrade Subgrade tural in-situ soil or To provide stable and uniform support imported material for overlying pavement structure indefinite ‘The purpose of the surface layer, whether it consists of asphalt or portland cement concrete, is to provide stability and durability for the structure. Typical surface thicknesses for asphalt concrete are 5-10 em and 23-40 em for portland cement concrete. The base provides stability under high aircraft tire pressures and usually consists of 15-30 cm of high quality crushed stone or gravel. The subbase, which consists of non-frost susceptible lower quality granular aggregates, is used to increase pavement strength and reduce the effects of frost action on the subgrade. Subbase layers are at least 30 om thick. The last layer component is the subgrade, which is infinite in thickness since it consists of the natural in-situ soil or imported material. The subgrade is the foundation of the pavement structure and provides stable and uniform support for the overlying structure. [TC 04a] 2.4.4 PCNIPLR All the certified airports in Canada are required to report the bearing strength of all airside pavement structures at their airports in terms of the Canadian Pavement Load Rating (PLR). In addition, all international airports must report the bearing strength of their airside pavement structures in terms of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard for Pavement Classification Number (PCN). In the Canadian PLR system, pavements are assigned a number between one and thirteen denoting their relative strength. In the ICAO PCN system, pavements are assigned a number between five and 120, Pavements with a low PLR or PCN are very weak; whereas, pavements with a high PLR are very strong. [TC 04a] ‘The PLR and PCN values are used in conjunction with Aircraft Load Rating (ALR) and Aircraft Classification Number (ACN), respectively. These types of aircraft classifications are further examined in the subsequent section, However, it should be noted that these load control systems are not to be used for design purposes. Nevertheless, it is recommended that only aircraftALRVACN equal to or less than the PLR/PCN be allowed to use the specified pavement facility, since overloading will result in accelerated structural deterioration, [TC 04a] 2.2 Aircraft & Significant Characteristics ‘There are several types of aircraft with various loading configurations available in the aviation industry for the transportation of both passengers and cargo. Aircraft can be characterized by their main gear type and wheel configurations. Typical gear assemblies and wheel assemblies are shown in Figures 2.2 and 2.3, respectively. , A eo. Cor 65 a WShgewiqce ——_—) Sige ote co beable ece et en Figure 2.2 Typical gear assemblies [Haas 94] A single tricycle gear assembly consists of a nose gear and a set of main gears located on each wing, A single bicycle-tricycle combination gear assembly consists of a nose gear, a pair of wing gears and a belly gear along the centerline of the aircraft. The double tricycle gear assembly consists of a nose gear, a set of wing gears and a set of body gears or a nose gear and two sets of wing gears. Typically, it is assumed that the nose gear carries only 5% of the aircraft load, with the remaining 95% being equally distributed among the main gears [ACPA 01]. However, gross weights on the gears are a function of the contact area and tire pressure, which is subsequently discussed. ‘The most common types of gear configurations are the single, twin (also known as dual), and the ‘win-twin tandem (also referred to as the dual tandem). The new large aircraft (NLA) typically have a twin-triple tandem gear configuration, which are also referred to as a triple dual tandem (TDT) or 3 duals in tandem or twin-tridemv/dual tridem wheel configuration. The gear and wheel configurations affect how the aircraft load is distributed through the wheel contact area to the underlying pavement. Additionally, there are aircraft like the Antonov AN-124-100 and the Antonov AN-225, which have five duals in tandem and seven duals in tandem, respectively. An Antonov AN-255 wheel assembly is, shown in Figure 2.4, [Goleta 05] ‘The aircraft's most critical load is its static load when it is parked on the apron while is it fully Joaded with passengers, cargo and fuel. The aircraft load decreases as the aircraft makes its way from the apron at the terminal gate to the taxiway system and onto the runway primarily due to the accelerated speed before take-off. Therefore, the maximum taxi-off weight (MTOW) or the maximum ‘gross weight (MGW) is commonly used as the design load for pavement design purposes. [TC 04a]' : () Single (©) Single Tandem +++ +3 (@) Twin-Twin (e)Twin-Twin Tandem, eee mn (g) Twin-Twin Triple (b) Twin Triangular Tandem Figure 2.3 Typical aireraft wheel assemblies (Haas 94] The tire contact area for an aircraft tire is calculated by dividing the single wheel load by the tire inflation pressure. Aircraft tire pressures are available from the aircraft manufacturers. The shape of the tire footprint area is generally assumed to be an ellipse. The major axis, which runs parallel to the direction of travel, is assumed to be 1.6 times the minor axis. Furthermore, the minor axis, which is perpendicular to the direction of travel, is calculated to be 0.894 times the square root of the contact, area. [Boeing 04] igure 2.4 Antonov An-225 wheel assembly [Goleta 03] 92.2.4 ACNIALR As previously mentioned, aircraft in Canada are grouped into Aircraft Load Ratings (ALR) based on their gear load, tire pressure, and load distribution. A rating scale of one to thirteen is used, whereby an aircraft with an ALR of one would create minimal damage to a pavement structure; and an aircraft with an ALR of thirteen could cause extensive damage to a pavement structure. The characteristics of standard gear loads for single, dual and dual tandem wheels are shown in Table 2.2 [Argue 05, PWGSC 97]. Standard gear loads for an ALR of thirteen are not currently published. ‘Table 2.2 Standard gear loads [Argue 05, PWGSC 97] ‘Standard ‘Characteristics of Standard Gear Loads Gear Single Whee! Dual Whee! Gear Dual Tandem Gear Example Load Gear Tire Gear Tire Tire. Gear_—Tire Tire of ALR (ALR) load Pressure Load Pressure Spacing Load Pressure Spacing -—Areraft (MPa) (kN) __(MPa)_ (mm) _(kN)_(MPa) (mm) 7 20 030 Beech 18 2 30 0.35 King Air 3 45040 Lockheed 4 60 048 = 80050500 DC3 5 80 050 «1100.60 550 Dash-7 6 1100.55 1300.65 600 Convair 440 7 140 060 © 170 «0.70650 DC4 8 220 085 = 700 peg 9 290 1.05 750440, 1.10 650x150 B-737 10 400 11S 900,660. 1.20 900x100 —B-767 u 900 155 1100x1650 DC-10 2 1120 1.80 1150x1650 _L-1011 From Table 2.2 it can be seen that the ALR increases as the gear load, the tire pressure, and the tire spacing increase. Generally, ALR of one to three are assigned to single wheel gear aircraft with a tire pressure of less than 0.5 MPa. ALR between four and seven are assigned to single and dual wheel gear aircraft with tire pressures between 0.5 and 0.75 MPa. An ALR of 8 is for a dual wheel gear aircraft with a tire pressure between 0.75 and 1.00 MPa. Finally, ALRs between nine and twelve are for dual tandem wheel aircraft with tire pressures greater than 1.0 MPa. ALR for all aircraft serviced Canada have been calculated by Transport Canada and are provided in their Aircraft Loading Tables (TC 046}. ‘The ICAO has its own Aircraft Classification Number (ACN) to predict the amount of damage that a given aircraft has on a pavement structure. The ICAO ACN values for flexible pavements are based con calibrated full scale tests, which are subsequently discussed. Both ALR and ACN values are provided for both flexible and rigid pavements and are also grouped into four subgrade categories. The reason for the different groupings is because of the different effects each aircraft has on a pavement structure with different components (asphalt vs. PCC) and varying subgrade, The ALR and ‘ACN values increase as the subgrade strength decreases, indicating that the aircraft creates more damage on a pavement with a weaker subgrade or foundation. The Canadian ALR subgrade values are grouped as shown in Table 2.3. 10Table 2.3 ALR subgrade categories Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement CBR__S(kN)___k (MPa/m) 3 50 20 6 90 40 10 130 80 15 180 150 CBR is the California Bearing Ratio, which is a unit less subgrade strength measurement, S is the subgrade bearing strength (KN) for flexible pavements, and k is the subgrade modulus (MPa/m) for rigid pavements. The equivalent ICAO ACN subgrade values are grouped as shown in Table 2.4. Table 2.4 ACN subgrade categories Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement Cate CBR___Cate (MPa/m) DVeryLow 3 D-Ultra Low 20 c-Low 6 CLow 40 fedium 10 B= Medium 80 A 15 A=High 150 As previously noted with the discussion of the PLR/PCN, the Canadian PLR/ALR and ICAO PCN/ACN systems are load control systems that categorize pavements and aircraft. These load control systems should not be used for design purposes. 2.2.2 Alpha Factors Alpha factors, also referred to as “traffic volume factors” [FAA 05b] or “load repetition factors” [Brill 04], are used in the thickness determination of flexible pavements for four and six wheel gear configurations. Originally, alpha factors were introduced to account for gears with multiple wheels in the CBR thickness design method. The alpha factors were calibrated against full-scale traffic tests done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1968 and 1969. The required thickness of a flexible pavement is shown in Equation 2.1. [FAA 05b] t= ee 4) ea) (8.1xCBR) 7 Where, 1 = the total thickness of the pavement to the top of the subgrade (in), a= the alpha factor and is a function of coverages to failure, P= the Equivalent Single Wheel Load (ESWL) (Ibs), uCBR the California Bearing Ratio measurement of the subgrade, A= the contact area of the ESWL or the contact area of each tire on the landing gear (all assumed to be equal. Alternatively, Equation 2.2 is also calibrated by the USACE full scale tests. [FAA 05b] rae n(n (8-2) @2) Where, t= the is the total kness of the pavement to the top of the subgrade (in), c= the alpha factor and is a function of coverages to failure, CBR =the California Bearing Ratio measurement of the subgrade, A= the contact area of the ESWL or the contact area of each tire on the landing gear (all assumed to be equal), (p= the contact pressure of the ESWL (psi) which is equal to the ESWL divided by the contact area, but is not equal to the tire pressure of the landing gear wheels. ICAO uses Equation 2.1 for calculating the thickness for the landing gear of interest, but uses Equation 2.2 to calculate the pavement thickness for the reference single-wheel gear. Based on the USACE fill scale tests, alpha factors of 0.825 and 0.788 were assigned to four and six-wheel gear, respectively, and used by ICAO in their ACN determination, [FAA 05b] More recently, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted its own alpha factor calibration test at the National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF) in Atlantic City, New Jersey. It has concluded that the alpha factor of 0.825 for four-wheel gears is consistent with the existing ICAO four-wheel gear alpha factor. However, the study has shown that the existing ICAO six-wheel gear alpha factor of 0.788 should be reduced to 0.720 [FAA 05b]. It should be noted that with the use of elastic layered design methods, the FAA no longer requires alpha factor calibration since it does convert all the aircraft in the mix to an equivalent design aircraft. 2.3 Types of Airport Pavement Design Methods There are essentially four types of pavement structural design methods: experience-based, empirically-based, mechanistic-empirical, and mechanistic-based. Experience-based methods rely on standard sections that have produced successful results in the past and are re-used in other cases with soil, traffic and climatic conditions. A major disadvantage of the experienced based method is, that it cannot be applied to new loading conditions or different construction materials and practices. Empirically-based methods use the results of measured responses to determine pavement limits for successful sections with varying traffic volumes. Similar to the experience-based method, the empirically-based method does not allow for the extrapolation of data for new loading, environmental 12or material conditions. Theory-based methods, also referred to as mechanistic-empirical methods, relate calculated stress, strain or deflection in the pavement to observed performance measures under various conditions. Full-scale tests have also been used to calibrate some of the theory-based design methods. A fully mechanistic method can also be employed, but these methods for all intensive purposes are still currently under development. [TAC 97] In the past, airport pavement design methods were adapted and extrapolated from the highway ‘empirically-based design methods. As previously discussed, the US Army Corps of Engineers conducted full-scale traffic tests in the late 1960’s to calibrate these adapted highway design methods for airport conditions. However, since these designs are empirically-based, they cannot be adapted to account for the loading conditions of the new large aircraft (NLA). Therefore, these design methods are insufficient for aircraft with triple dual tandem wheel configurations [FAA 05b, Wardle 98). Recognizing that there was lack of certainty on how to handle these NLA and their complex gear configurations, the FAA, in conjunction with the Boeing Company, commissioned the NAPTF in April 1999. Their objectives were to provide additional traffic data for new FAA design procedures, to provide full-scale pavement response and failure data for aircraft landing gear and configuration studies, and to re-evaluate the flexible CBR design method (Hayhoe 04]. The FAA and their design procedures are further examined in the next sections. 2.4 Current Design Practice of North American Agencies This next section reviews the current practice in airport pavement design used in North America. In Canada, Transport Canada and Public Works Government Services of Canada oversee airport pavement design for civil airports. In the United States, the FAA oversees the pavement design for civil airports. The design methods for these agencies are described in this section and other design methods are presented in Section 2.5 2.4.1 Transport Canada Even though the Federal Government of Canada released ownership of their regional/local, small and arctic airports to regional interests, all airports facilities constructed within the Airports Group’s funds must adhere to the pavement design practices prepared by Transport Canada and Public Works Government Services of Canada (PWGSC). ASG-19, which is the Manual of Pavement Design, was created in 1992 by the PWGSC. It provides standards and guidelines for the structural design of both airside and groundside airport pavements. [PWGSC 97] ASG-19 has design procedures for both flexible and rigid pavements. ‘The design requirements for flexible pavements include a minimum thickness for frost protection, design aircraft, and design aircraft tire pressure. Frost protection minimum thickness requirements, as show in Equation 2.3, are based on the average annual air freezing index (Fl). [PWGSC 97] FI is the sum of the negative mean air temperatures in a given region [Raymond 03]. Tein, = 18(F ~55)°2" 23) Where, 13Tym = the minimum thickness of pavement structure (em), F= the average annual air freezing index (°C-days). ‘The FI contours across Canada are shown in Figure 2.5 [Boyd 73]. There is a large range of FI values across Canada. Southwest British Columbia and Southwest Nova Scotia have a FI of less than 450°R-days (250°C-days); whereas, some arctic regions within Canada have a FI greater than 7200°F- days (4000°C-days). Figure 2.5 Freezing Indices in Canada ("F-days) [Boyd 73] ‘The minimum pavement equivalent granular thickness requirements for the design aircraft are shown in Figure 2.6 [PWGSC 97]. The design aircraft is the aircraft that is expected to use the airport facility over the next 15 to 20 year analysis period and cause the most pavement damage. The minimum pavement thickness increases as the ALR increases, but decreases as the subgrade strength increases. The pavement equivalent granular thickness is based on the thicknesses of the surface, base, and subbase and their respective granular base equivalency (GBE) factors. GBEs for typical pavement layers are shown in Table 2.5 [PWGSC 97]. To determine the total granular base equivalency, each pavement layer is multiplied by its GBE and summed. In addition to the overall minimum pavement thicknesses, there are minimum thickness requirements for other pavement layer components, which are based on the design aircraft tire pressure. These requirements are show in Table 2.6 [PWGSC 97].Pavement Equivalent Grater Thickness 1 (em) Bees: 8 8 a 28 mm 6 1% HM M% 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 ‘Subgrade Bearing Strength -§ (i, 750mm Diam Plate, 12.5 mm Def, 10 APD.) Figure 2.6 Flexible airfield pavement structural thickness requirements [TC 04h] Table 2.5 Granular base equivalencies (PWGSC 97] Pavement Material GBE Selected granular subbase 1 ‘Crushed gravel or stone base 1 aterbound macadam base 15 Bituminous stabilized base 15 Cement stabilized base 2 Asphalt concrete (good condition) 2 Asphalt concrete (poor condition) 1s Portland cement concrete (good condition) 3 Portland cement concrete (fait cor Portland cement concrete (poor condition) 2 ‘The minimum asphalt concrete surface course layer ranges from 5 to 10 cm as the tire pressure increases; whereas, the base course layer minimum thickness for flexible pavements increase from 15 to 30 cm for tire pressures of less than 0.SMPa and greater than 1.0 MPa, respectively. The minimum PCC slab thickness is 23 em regardless of the design aircraft tire pressure. The minimum base course for rigid pavements is 15 cm of crushed gravel or 20 cm of cement stabilized base for airports serving heavy aircraft. The subbase course does not depend on design aircraft tire pressure, but rather the total pavement depth for frost protection and structural support. 15Table 2.6 Minimum layer thickness for flexible and rigid airport pavements [PWGSC 97] Pavement Layer Component Design Aircraft Tire Pressure 1.0 MPa 0.75MPa__1.0MPa 2 Asphalt concrete surface 5.0 cm 65cm 8.0cm 10.0 cm: a course (Hot-mixed) © Crushed gravel orerushed. Sem 23m 250m 30cm —__Stone basecourse Portland cement concrete 230m 23em 23. em Bom 3 surface @ Crushed gravel or crushed 15 cm 15m 15cm 1Sem stone base Cement stabilized baset 20cm __20em__—20em_20em * Cement-stabilized bases should be used for concrete pavement service heavy aircraft traffic For example, consider a dual wheel gear aircraft with a gear load of 400kN and tire pressure of 1.15 MPa at an airport with a FI of S00°C-days and subgrade bearing strength of 92 KN. The ‘minimum thickness based on frost protection from Equation 2.3 is 672 mm. The minimum pavement equivalent granular thickness based on an ALR of ten from Figure 2.6 is 940 mm. Since the tire pressure of the aircraft is greater than 1.00 MPa, the minimum surface thickness is 100 mm and the minimum base thickness is 300 mm. The subbase can then be calculated to be 940 ~ (100 x 2-300) = 440 mm, This also satisfies the minimum thickness for frost protection. In terms of rigid design requirements for PWGSC, the design process is iterative and is described as follows. Initially, the bearing modulus, k, is assumed to be 75 MPa/m. Then the minimum concrete slab thickness is determined from Figure 2.7 based on the assumed k-value and standard design aircraft. The minimum pavement thickness for frost protection is determined from Equation 2.3. The base and subbase is then determined to be the thickness when the slab thickness is subtracted from the ‘overall pavement thickness. Then, Figure 2.8 is used to determine the actual bearing modulus k based ‘on the thickness of the base and subbase layers. The steps are then repeated until the bearing modulus converges. Using the same dual wheel gear aircraft with a 400KN gear load and a tire pressure of 1.15 MPa, the calculation for the minimum pavement thickness for a rigid pavement is as follows: Similar to the flexible pavement calculation, the minimum thickness for frost protection is 672 mm. Using Figure 2.7 with k=75 MPa, the minimum slab thickness is 310 mm. The base and subbase can then be calculated to be 672 ~ 310 = 362 mm. Therefore, with a subgrade bearing strength of 92KN, k is determined to be 72 MPa/m from Figure 2.8. After several iterations, the k is determined to be 73, MPa/m, the slab thickness is 315 mm, the base is 200 mm of cement stabilized base, and the subbase is 157 mm. 16Figure 2.8 Rigid pavement bearing modulus [PWGSC 97] 7In addition to the ASG-19 manual, Transport Canada has prepared aircraft pavement structural design charts for both flexible and rigid pavements structures. There are currently over 270 aircraft models operating at Canadian airports, which are represented in these structural pavement charts. For the design of flexible pavements, the subgrade bearing strength, S (KN) and various operating weights are used to determine the pavement equivalent granular thickness, t (mm). Similarly, the bearing ‘modulus, K (MPa/m) and various operating weights are used to determine the concrete slab thickness, ‘h (mm) for rigid pavements. [TC 02] 2.4.2 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ‘The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is primarily responsible for the safety of the civil aviation in the United States. However, their other roles include regulating civil aviation, developing new aviation technology, developing and operating a system of air traffic control and navigation, researching and developing civil aeronautics, developing aircraft noise controls, and regulating U.S. commercial space transportation. [FAA 05a] ‘The FAA has developed an advisory circular (AC 150/5320-6D) for the design of their airport flexible and rigid pavements. The flexible pavement design is based on the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) method of design; whereas, the rigid pavement design is based on the Westergaard analysis of edge loading. The FAA has also recently developed a layered elastic design procedure for flexible airfield pavements and a finite element design procedure for rigid airfield pavements, which are both discussed in subsequent sections. Similar to the individual Transport Canada aircraft design charts, the FAA have produced design charts for both flexible and rigid pavements. Also similar to the ‘Transport Canada methodology, the FAA design aircraft is determined to be the aircraft which requires the thickest pavement structure, The design aircraft may not necessarily be the heaviest aircraft if other lighter aircraft have significantly more movements that the heaviest aircraft. To account for mixed traffic, the FAA uses the conversion factors in Table 2.7 and Equation 2.4 to convert all aircraft to the design aircraft. [FAA 95] Table 2.7 Equivalent annual departures [FAA 95] To Convert From To ‘Multiph ‘Single Wheel Dual Wheel 08 Single Wheel Dual Tandem 0s Dual Whee! Dual Tandem 06 Double Dual Tandem Dual Tandem 10 Dual Tandem Single Wheel 20 Dual Tandem Dual Wheel 17 ‘Dual Wheel Single Wheel 13 Double Dual Tandem Dual Whee! 17 log R, = log R, ("m) 4 18Where, Ry = the equivalent annual departures by the design aircraft, Ry = the annual departures expressed in design aircraft landing gear, W, = the wheel load of the design aircraft, W,= the wheel load of the aircraft in question. [FAA 95) FAA design inputs for flexible pavements include: subbase CBR value, subgrade CBR value, design aircraft gross weight and annual departures. There are fourteen flexible pavement design curves representing various gear and wheel configurations. From the appropriate design chart, the total pavement thickness, the thickness of subbase course, and the asphalt surface thickness can be determined, First, the total pavement thickness is determined from the appropriate aircraft design chart using the subgrade CBR value, gross weight of the design aircraft and equivalent annual departures. [FAA 95] To illustrate, assume a critical area with a design aircraft having dual wheel gears and a gross weight of 90,720 kg (200,000 tbs) and 1200 equivalent annual departures supported on a subbase and subgrade with CBR values of 20 and 6, respectively. Using the appropriate design chart, shown in Figure 2.9, the total pavement thickness is determined to be 851 mm (33.5 in), which would be rounded up to 860 mm.CBR 3 4 5 678910 15 20 30 40 50 DUAL WHEEL GEAR att 3 4 5678910 15 20 30 40 50 o ‘THICKNESS, IN. Figure 2.9 FAA flexible pavement design curve for dual wheel gear [FAA 95] The subbase thickness is also determined from Figure 2.9, but with using the subbase CBR value tead of the subgrade CBR value. The thickness determined using the subbase CBR value represents the thickness of material required above the subbase, in other words, the combined thickness of the surface and base thickness. Therefore, the subbase is determined from subtracting the ‘combined surface and base thickness from the total pavement thickness. [FAA 95] Using the aforementioned example, the combined base and surface thickness determined from Figure 2.9 is 400 ‘mm (15.5 in); therefore the subbase thickness is 860 mm — 400 mm = 460 mm (33.5 in 15.5 in = 18 in), The thickness of the asphalt surface is determined from either the critical or non-critical thickness shown on the design chart. Finally, the base thickness is found by subtracting the surface thickness 20from the thickness determined by using the subbase CBR value. In the example provided, the required surface thickness is 100 mm (4 in); therefore the base thickness is 400 mm ~ 100 mm = 300 mm (15.5, in ~ 4 in = 11.5 in). It is important to note that the base must meet the minimum base thickness requirements as shown in Table 2.8 [FAA 95]. The flexible pavement design method can be automated through the use of the F806FAA.xls program, which is available for download from the FAA website [FAA 05a]. Table 2.8 FAA minimum base requirements [FAA 95] Design Aircraft Design Load Range Minimum Base Course Thickness (mm) ‘Single Wheel 13,600 - 22,700 100 22,700 - 34,000 150 Dual Wheel 22,700 - 45,000 150 45,000 - 90,700 200 Dual Tandem 45,000 - 113,400 150 113,400 - 181,000, 200 787, 767 90,700 - 181,000 150 DC-10,LI011 181,000 -272,000 200 B47 181,000 -272,000 150 272,000 - 385,700 200 C130 34,000 - 56,700 100 6,700 - 79,400 150 FAA design inputs for rigid pavements include: concrete flexural strength, subgrade modulus (k), gross weight of the design aircraft and annual departures of design aircraft. There are 25 rigid pavement design curves for various wheel configurations and specific aircraft. From the appropriate design chart, the concrete slab thickness is determined from the concrete flexural strength of the concrete, the subgrade modulus, the gross weight of the design aircraft and the annual departures, as shown in Figure 2.10 for a dual wheel gear. The same aircraft conversions used in the flexible design ‘method are also used in the determination of mixed traffic for the rigid pavements. [FAA 95] Similar to the FAA flexible pavement design method, the rigid pavement design method can be automated through the use of a program entitled R80SFAA.xls, which can also be downloaded from the FAA website [FAA 05a]. 21DUAL WHEEL GEAR 550: e z aso Figure 2.10 FAA rigid pavement design curve for a dual wheel gear [FAA 95] 2.4.2.1 FAA Frost Protection ‘According to the FAA, frost protection is only required when the following three frost action conditions are simultaneously met [FAA 95] 1. the soil must be frost susceptible, 2. freezing temperatures must penetrate into the frost susceptible soils, and 3. free moisture must be available in sufficient quantities to form ice lenses. Similar to Transport Canada, the FAA also has a design chart indicated the depth of frost penetration based on the Freezing Index (FI), as shown in Figure 2.11 [FAA 95]. However, their design chart also considers the dry density of the subgrade. Moreover, the FI (F-days) for the United States are shown in Figure 2.12 [FAA 95]. For the most part, the FI range for the U.S. is between 0 and 3500 °F-days (0-1945 °C-days); with the exception of Alaska that has FI between 1000 and 9000 °F-days (555 and 5000 °C-days), 22AIR FREEZING INDEX, Degree Days F* 1000 2000 ° Inches Beesasas (meters) z 8 ce < a & wy z a a e a a @ t g 130 160! Baa eg? > — 00> «4009 6009 <1do0> «1200» «40> <16d0> @egree Days C*) Figure 2.11 FAA depth of frost penetration based on Freezing Index [FAA 95] "AIRFREEZING INDEX (FAVS) Furthermore, the FAA identifies two types of frost conditions for flexible pavements: seasonal frost ‘and permafrost. Seasonal frost has three types of frost protection methods: complete frost protection, 23limited subgrade frost penetration, and reduced subgrade strength. Permafrost also has three types of frost protection methods: complete protection method, reduced subgrade strength method, and insulating panels. [FAA 95] ‘The complete frost protection method requires that sufficient pavement thickness or non-frost- susceptible material be used to contain the frost above the subgrade. In the case of permafrost condition, only non-frost susceptible material may be used. This is the most effective and typically the most costly method of frost protection. The limited subgrade frost protection method attempts to keep the frost heave action to within a tolerable level by allowing up to 35% of the subgrade material to be frost-susceptible. The reduced subgrade strength method uses the reduced subgrade strength during the weakest time, that is, during the frost melting or thawing period. Reduced subgrade strength ratings are shown for each frost group in Table 2.9. Finally, in some instances insulating panels are used to protect against degradation of the permafrost. In these cases, their use must be independently reviewed by the FAA before approval. [FAA 95] ‘Table 2.9 FAA reduced subgrade strength rating [FAA 95) Frost Group Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement CBR Value Kevalue FGI 9 50 FG2 7 40 FG3 4 25 FG-4 Reduced subgrade strength method does not apply Frost Group FG-1 consists of gravely soils with 3-10% finer than 0.02 mm by weight, FG-2 consists of gravely soils and sands with 10-20 and 3-15% finer than 0.02 mm by weight, respectively. FG-3 contains gravely soils, sands (except very fine silty) with over 20 and 15% finer than 0.02 mm by weight, respectively, and clays with PI above 12. FG-4 consists of very fine silty sands with over 15% finer than 0.02 mm by weight, all silts, clays with PI less than 12, varied clays, and other fine grained banded sediments. Clearly frost susceptibility increases as the frost group number increases. 2.5 Other Available Design Methods In addition to the current practices in North America discussed in the previous section, there are a number of state of the art airport pavement design programs that are used around the world. The programs which are used and subsequently discussed are the Asphalt Institute SW-1, the MINCAD Systems Pty Airport Pavement Structural Design System (APSDS), the FAA LEDFAA, the FAA. FEDFAA, and the American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA) AIRPAVE 2000. 2.5.1 Asphalt Institute, SW-1 The Asphalt Institute (AI) is based in the United States, but serves as an international trade ‘organization for petroleum asphalt producers, manufacturers, and affiliates (AI 03]. The AI has 24essentially two airport pavement design methods based on airport use: general aviation and air carrier. ‘The general aviation (GA) airport pavement design methods covers airports with aircraft with gross weights less than 270 KN (27,500 kg, 60,000 Ib) and the air carrier airport pavement design method accounts for airports serving aircraft with gross weight greater than 270 KN. {AI 87a, 87] For GA airports, the thickness of the asphalt concrete is based on the gross weight of the aircraft and the subgrade strength, There are three different design curves for full-depth asphalt concrete, emulsified asphalt base under asphalt concrete, and asphalt concrete over untreated base. The design ‘curve for full-depth asphalt concrete is shown in Figure 2.13 [AI 876]. TRICO OF ASPULT CONCRETE, Ty tml THIOOESS OF ASPULT CONCRETE, Ty (hn) FOSS METEIT OF ATREMT (1b x 10% Figure 2.13 AI full-depth asphalt concrete thickness design curve for GA airports [AI 87b] ‘The Air Carrier airport pavement design method is based on satisfying two strain criteria: vertical compressive and horizontal tensile. The vertical compressive strain is measured at the top of the subgrade and the horizontal strain is measured at the bottom of the asphalt layer. The design thickness is based on the greater thickness required to satisfy both strain criteria. The AI Air Carrier flexible pavement design criteria are shown in Figure 2.14, [AI 87a] 25Tina Pomme Paso soma Se see Sar ae L =a Figure 2.14 AI air carrier airport pavement design method [AI 87a] ‘The inputs for the Air Carrier design method include traffic (aircraft mix and traffic volumes), subgrade strength (resilient modulus), and climate (mean annual air temperature). AI has developed design charts for each strain criterion. These charts indicate the required thickness based on the type of design aircraft, the number of aircraft movements, the equivalent design aircraft strain repetitions 1s a distance from the centerline, and the distance from the centerline, as shown in Figure 2.15 for a B747-200. [AI 87a] 26{STANCE FROM CENTERLINE (X) ‘ices, © me) EQUIVALENT + STRAIN REPETITIONS AT OI! ‘ rs ‘0 rr a at MUMGER OF AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS (PASSES) AIRCRAFT: 8747-200 (100%) STRAIN CAITERION: Ce Figure 2.15 AI air carrier horizontal tensile strain desiga curve for B747-200 [AI 87a] To facilitate these design procedures, the AI has developed SW-1, which is a mechanistic-empirical pavement thickness design program that can be used for designing highways, streets, parking lots, airports, and industrial pavements [Al 03]. The inputs for the software program include the project type/use (general aviation vs. air carrier and new vs. overlay pavement), climate (mean annual air temperature), traffic (aircraft type and movements in design period), and subgrade strength (CBR, resilient modulus, or R-value) [AI 04]. ‘The benefits of the AI SW-1 program is that it includes a wide-range of uses for flexible pavements, including design methods for both new and overlay airport pavements. However, the SW- 1 has a limited list of available aircraft as shown in Table 2.10. And more importantly, it does not directly account for the new large aircraft (NLA). In fact, to date AI has only considered single, dual, 27and dual-tandem gear configurations. The AI recognizes that their Air Carrier design method is in need of updating. This update, however, will depend on their available resources within the next few years. ‘Aircraft Types ‘A300-B2 'B767-200 DOS A300-C4 BAC-1-11-500 ELECTRA L-188 1B707-120B Concorde L-100-20 or C-130 B707-320C ORC-141 __DC-10-10-/10CF (100%) L-1011-1 (100%) 1B727-200 (100%) DC-10-10-/10CF (80%) L-1011-1 (80%) B727-200 (80%) DC-10-3030CF MD-82 B747-SP DC-8-73/73F 8757-200 DC9-15 Since there are only 22 types of aircraft available in the SW-1 program, aircraft mix not contained in this list, must be converted to an equivalent aircraft and movements. This aircraft conversion is, further addressed in Chapter Three. 2.5.2 MINCAD, irport Pavement Structural Design System MINCAD System Pty Ltd. is a consulting company based out of Australia that specializes in developing software programs for mining and pavement engineering. In terms of pavement design analysis, MINCAD has developed CIRCLY, which is used as part of the Australian Pavement Design Guide for roads; APSDS (Airport Pavement Structural Design System), which is used for airport pavements; and HIPAVE, which is used for heavy duty industrial pavements. The APSDS method ‘considers all aircraft in the traffic mix and accounts for lateral vehicle wander, as well as, pavement material properties and performance models. [MINCAD 05] ‘The failure criterion for the APSDS is strain. Strains are computed using the CIRLCY program, which is embedded within APSDS. The strains are then converted to a damage factor using the performance relationship shown in Equation 2.5. [MINCAD 00] N= wy Qs) Where, N= the predicted life (repetitions of e), k= the material constant, ‘b= the damage exponent of the material, = the load-induced strain (unit less strain). For large aircraft, the k and b parameters are determined to be 0.004276 and 6.635, respectively, based on full-scale aircraft trafficking tests to failure. For light commuter aircraft, APSDS has been calibrated against the US Army Corps of Engineers Instructional Report S-77-1 [Pereira 77}. The 28pavement is assumed to have reached its design life when the cumulative damage factor (CDF), as calculated in Equation 2.6, reaches 1.0. [MINCAD 00] = i, CDF = sum ‘K,) 2.6) Where, CDF = cumulative damage factor ie number of repetitions for a given damage indicator, N, ¢ allowable repetitions of the damage indicator that would cause failure. ‘The damage for each aircraft is combined with its wander statistics to determine the overall pavement damage. To account for all the aircraft in the traffic mix, the CDF for each aircraft is summed using Miner’s hypothesis. The general concept of the aireraft cumulative damage and ‘wander combinations for a single wheel is shown in Figure 2.16 and a sample cumulative damage plot for mixed traffic is also shown in Figure 2.17. It should be noted that aircraft wander is assumed to follow a normal distribution, Furthermore, typical wander statistics for various pavement types are shown in Table 2.11. [MINCAD 00] Figure 2.16 APSDS aireraft wander and cumulative damage [MINCAD 00] 29Figure 2.17 APSDS sample cumulative damage plot for mixed traffic [MINCAD 00] Table 2.11 MINCAD typical wander statistics [MINCAD 00] Pavement Type (mm) Minimum __ Maximum Runways 1800 3400 Taxiways 800 1800 Runway Exits 2400 3200 The APSDS program inputs include traffic (aircraft type, gross weight, percent weight on main gear, and tire contact area), wander statistics, layered system properties and performance models. APSDS contains an aircraft database with several common aircraft. However, the user has the ability to add an aircraft and change the characteristics of the available aircraft. [MINCAD 00] ‘The advantages of using the APSDS program are that it considers material properties and performance models and also allows the use of both isotropic and anisotropic elastic material types. Moreover, APSDS accounts for the multi-wheel gear layout and therefore, does not require equivalent single wheel conversions. However, APSDS does not account for the interaction effects of multiple ‘gears. Furthermore, APSDS has had problems with performance predictions for thin asphalt layers and the consistency of elastic properties and performance criterion. (MINCAD 00, 05] Finally, terms of the scope of this research, the APSDS program does not consider frost protection since it is developed out of Australia, where frost protection is not a concern like it is in North America. 2.5.3 Federal Aviation Administration, LEDFAA. As previously discussed, the FAA regulates all aspects of civil aviation in the U.S (FAA 05a]. In addition to the Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation Advisory Circular [FAA 95], the FAA has developed a program, LEDFAA (Layered Elastic Design Federal Aviation Administration) to be used as a design tool. In fact, Change 3 of the Advisory Circular consists of new chapter detailing the layered elastic pavement design method and the LEDFAA program [FAA 95]. The layered elastic design theory is used by the FAA to account for the new large aircraft (NLA) and their triple dual tandem wheel configurations [FAA 04a]. 30Similar to the APSDS program, LEDFAA uses the concept of the Cumulative Damage Factor (CDF), which is the amount of the structural fatigue life of a pavement which has been used up and is, expressed as the ratio of applied load repetitions to the allowable load repetitions to failure. Unlike previous FAA methods which have used the concept of a design aircraft, the LEDFAA sums the CDF of each aircraft in the traffic mix using Miner's hypothesis. [FAA 06] ‘The LEDFAA design inputs are structure (layer material, thickness and modulus or R-value for each pavement layer) and aircraft (gross taxi weight, annual departures, percent annual growth, the percent gross weight on the main gear, the tire spacing, tire contact width, and tire contact length). LEDFAA has an extensive list of aircraft within its database. However, there are also some generic aircraft whose characteristics can be altered if another type of aircraft is not already included in the database, The major advantage of the LEDFAA program, compared to the other programs, is that it can be used for both flexible and rigid pavements. It also considers design for both new and overlay pavements. Furthermore, it accounts for the actual damage by each aircraft and does not try to convert the traffic mix to an equivalent design aircraft. [FAA 04b] One of the disadvantages of the LEDFAA program is that the rigid pavement design analysis portion is outdated and has been replaced by a finite element design method. Furthermore, the FAA is, currently developing another mechanistic-empirical program (FAARFIELD) that will eventually replace all previous design methods. The new model is expected to be released as a new design standard sometime in 2006 [FAA 04b]. Finally, the LEDFAA program does not direetly account for frost protection. 2.5.4 Federal Aviation Administration, FEDFAA ‘The FAA FEDFAA program includes the layered elastic design method for flexible pavements used in the LEDFAA program and a finite element design procedure for rigid pavements. A finite element design breaks the structure into smaller sub-structures to allow a more in-depth look at the relationship between stress, strain, and deflections based on an applied load. ‘The FEDFAA design inputs are the same as used for the LEDFAA program, which are structure (layer material, thickness and modulus or R-value for each pavement layer) and aircraft (gross taxi weight, annual departures, percent annual growth, the percent gross weight on the main gear, the tire spacing, tire contact width, and tire contact length). FEDFAA is more useful than the LEDFAA program since it contains an updated design method for rigid pavements, but also contains the layered elastic design method for flexible pavements. Similar to the layered elastic design method, the finite element design procedure does not convert the traffic ‘mix to an equivalent design aircraft, but rather, computes the actual damage for each aircraft Although, the FEDFAA is an updated version of the LEDFAA program, it is still not the final product of the FAA airport pavement design methods. As previously noted, the new FAA program, FAARFIELD, is expected to be released sometime in 2006. Another consideration for adopting this ‘model in Canada is that the FEDFAA program is that is does not directly account for frost protection. In short, a thorough evaluation of this is required. 312.5.5 American Concrete Pavement Association, AIRPAVE 2000 ‘The American Conerete Pavement Association (ACPA) is based in the United States and represents ‘concrete pavement contractors, cement companies, manufacturers, suppliers, as well, as professional consultants [ACPA 05a}. The ACPA AIRPAVE 2000 program was intended as replacement for the Portland Cement Association (PCA) AIRPORT program. The original AIRPORT program was developed in 1967 by Robert Packard and considered the loads in the interior of the slab, which is supported by a dense-liquid subgrade. The new AIRPAVE 2000 program includes the analysis of both interior and free-edge pavement design analysis. [ACPA 01] ‘The design inputs for the AIRPAVE 2000 program include, the design aircraft gross weight, number of wheels, main gear wheel spacing, tire contact area, tire pressure, modulus of subgrade reaction (k), concrete modulus of elasticity (E), the concrete flexural strength (ot modulus of rupture), and the concrete pavement thickness. The design process is iterative since the user selects a value for the concrete pavement thickness until the program yields the desired safety factor or stress ratio. [ACPA 01] The distinct advantage of the AIRPAVE 2000 program is that it computes the stress ratio of a given aircraft and its allowable load repetitions. Like many of the other programs, it contains a library of aircraft. However, unlike the other programs, AIRPAVE 2000 allows the user to define a vehicle, including gross weight, number of wheels, wheel coordinates, contact area and tire pressure. This can be used at airports when the design vehicle might not be an aireraft, but perhaps an airfield fire truck or paving equipment. Furthermore, AIRPAVE 2000 permits the comparison of edge and interior loading. It also indicates the sensitivity of the stress output to both the allowable repetitions and the modulus of elasticity. ‘The AIRPAVE 2000 program is limited to analyzing one aircraft at a time. Therefore each aircraft in the traffic mix must be designed individually. Furthermore, AIRPAVE 2000 is an iterative process, which requires the user to re-enter the slab thickness in order to calculate the stress ratio of the design aircraft. Finally, the AIRPAVE 2000 program does not directly consider frost protection in its analysis. 2.5.6 Airport Pavement Design Method Summary ‘A summary of the key features for each of the previously discussed airport pavement design methods is presented in Table 2.12. 32oq doueuuopd pu squodoad ageeo jo Aouays009 2 pu sine sey sp ‘suoysiaauoo [294m sof uoyeat apa jgay-jnul 9tp 405 syunosoy “sed sjapour ‘soueuntoysod ‘sontadasd waysAs pasado} sep ssonoipand sourubojed 6 | Toya aga tdogome p 2tdonon_ sos opuen wage mins a a@ uj] SOSA Surayqoud “$2898 21483191 JO $12H9 | 109 Jo asn axp SMOjIY “sjapour souEuLIO}ed| wo 1YB!am IUaduad ‘YyB!OM SsOu3 YEON onoeq ap 0) uR0338 00 20 | Fee ae uo ‘juousoned 91@X9f 105 KUO PLEA uadox “Y-IN s2p!su09 30u Soop pue aamerodway sr yonuue weou “puons | (ote sy Areagny yesoate para Aton StH ‘apesqns ‘syusweaow pue xiuryeroury | s1y) [-MS “uowoned 0q3xay 205 Kuo PEA ssp yuowaaed 21219009“ ‘mp ‘uotnoeas apexSqns Jo sqpapou ‘Axnse|a | 0007 ‘Jo snjnpouw ‘ear ewes am ‘amssaud | BAVARIIV ‘un ‘Butoeds fooyn 1098 wus ‘jaay Jo saqumu "Blox ss018 yeuosE U8}S9q aTaisavva be rueiSoud aremgjos uiisop | so,uaqearnbo ue or iS enue wusaied nau viva equ & pooeyda aq | ou Soop ue yesoute yaw 4a oBeuepyenne | have nmin sound amnion MNS | yaaa vada pee vwaci'T Areravana, oj sornpout pac sup yeuoreunsaKer, | (WYATT aed pr 30} 3189p woUH9[9 ‘pnp 10U S90P VVC Tama “squawrannd pi 303 A1U0 PHeA enue “yesoute uBisap Jo 1y8tom ss018 () | prBra VV tinpow opesiqns ‘ySuons jemxay 21019009] saunuedap squawaned 2j@}xay 105 £1U0 PHEA enuue flow ssox8 yosoue wBisap —_bignerg vv ‘anjea yao apesBgns ‘anges AD a50GaNS “SSE ————} ssa AUIS iB pure ajqrxays tno 303 suoneoniddy | fuyseaq apeiSgns ‘xapuy Surzoay ty _|SPOMAOA suopeuyy soBenueapy, sonduy soy PowaH spoyyour ufisop juomaaed yodaye so soamyeay Cay Jo Axons Z1°7 3481 332.5.7 International Pavement Design Methods ‘The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is responsible for establishing international standards, recommended practices and procedures relating to the technical fields of aviation (ICAO 05}, Although it does not have a specific design procedure, ICAO does publish the design procedures of various countries, including Canada, United States, and France. Moreover, the ICAO has a PCN/ACN load control system similar to the ALR/PLR load control system used in Canada as discussed in a previous section. [ICAO 83] 2.6 Pavement Design Factors and Their Importance There are many design factors that impact the long term performance of airport pavements. The following sections identify and discuss the role of these factors in airport pavement design. Moreover, potential problems that may occur if these factors are not clearly addressed in the design process and ‘ways to avoid or mitigate these problems are discussed. 2.6.1 Climate and Environment Climate and environmental factors that should be considered in the design process include drainage/moisture, frost protection, temperatures and paving conditions as discussed herein. Drainage is how water escapes from the pavement structure, Drainage is very important for pavements for a number of reasons, including skid resistance, transport of contaminants into cracks and joints, reduction of strength and stability, and stripping of asphalt concrete. Moreover, water is a primary concern for frost protection and freeze-thaw damage. Frost damage occurs when water within a structure is unable to escape and the temperature drops to cause the water to freeze. The expansion from the frozen moisture creates hydrostatic pressures within the pavement, which reduces the strength and stability of the pavement structure. This is particularly damaging when frost-susceptible materials are used in the pavement structure. Some large aggregates in concrete can breakdown when exposed to freeze-thaw cycles and create what is know as D-cracking (Haas 94]. A sample of D- cracking is shown in Figure 2.18 [Argue 05]. If adequate frost protection is not provided then frost action or heaving may also occur within a pavement structure. A frost heave is a rise in a pavement surface caused by the freezing of pore water and/or the creation of ice lenses in the underlying layers. In the springtime pavements go through various freeze-thaw cycles due to the drop and fluctuations in temperatures around the freezing point. ‘Thawing within the pavement structure begins at the surface and continues downwards. Thawing is critical for flexible pavements as they rely heavily on the subgrade support. The most critical period is, when the pavement is only partially thawed, as the asphalt concrete modulus is relatively high (cool temperature) and the partially thawed granular base is unable to provide adequate support. Loading of the asphalt pavement surface during this time results in significant strains at the bottom of the surface layer and can lead to premature cracking. [TAC 97] In order to account for the reduced strength during the spring time, Public Works Canada has introduced spring subgrade reduction factors for flexible pavements, which is discussed in Section 2.6.4 [PWGSC 97] 34Figure 2.18 Example of D-cracking [Argue 05] Although it is not possible to completely stop water infiltration into the pavement structure or prevent freeze-thaw cycles, there are means to mitigate possible damage. In order to provide adequate drainage, a permeable open graded drainage layer (OGDL) can be used as a base layer for both flexible and rigid pavements. The OGDL is effective in allowing the infiltrated water to escape the pavement structure. The OGDL can be un-stabilized, asphalt-stabilized, or cement-stabilized, but ‘must connect to a positive drainage system with sub drains and free flow ditches. [TAC 97, Haas 94] If a pavement is subjected to a wide-body aircraft, it is recommended that un-stabilized OGDL be avoided since it does not provide sufficient stability. Insufficient stability can lead to problems like rutting due to construction traffic [ACPA 03]. Furthermore, adequate grades/slopes should be provided to allow water to runoff the pavement surface. Furthermore, proper maintenance, including crack sealing for asphalt pavements and crack and joint sealing for PCC pavements helps to prevent water infiltration into the pavement structure, In terms of frost protection, the reduced spring subgrade bearing strength should be used as the design value for the subgrade bearing strength when designing airports having freeze-thaw conditions. Furthermore, care should be taken to make sure that the materials used in the pavement structure are not frost-susceptible. Aggregates can also be tested for possible D-cracking potential as noted in Section 2.6.3, In addition to the fluctuation of temperatures during freeze-thaw periods, extreme temperatures can also be detrimental to pavement structures. According to the American Concrete Institution (ACI), hot weather is defined as a period of more than 3 days when the average daily temperature is greater 35than 24°C (77°F) or the air temperature for more than one-half day of any 24-hour period is not less than 30°C (86°F) [ACPA 03]. According to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), hot weather is defined as conditions when the air temperature is at or above 28°C or when the temperature is likely to rise above 28°C 1.24 hour period [MTO 95]. High temperatures cause concrete structures to expand, thereby creating high compressive stresses at the joints, as well as, curling and warping stresses in the slab. Moreover, high temperatures can also create excessive rapid curing of concrete. In terms of flexible pavements, high temperatures can soften the asphalt cement resulting in a stiffness reduction. The high temperatures can also reduce the asphalt cement viscosity. (Haas 94] During hot weather, rapid slump loss, reduced air contents, premature stiffening, plastic shrinkage cracking, and thermal cracking can also be expected (ACPA 03] ‘ACI defines cold weather as a period for more than three consecutive days when the average daily temperature is less than 4°C (40°F) or the air temperature is not greater than 10°C (50°F) for more than one-half of any 24-hour period [ACPA 03]. The MTO defines cold weather as conditions when the air temperature is at or below 5°C or when the temperature is likely to fall below 5°C within 96 hours after concrete placement [MTO 95]. Low temperatures can lead to the widening of joints and cracks in concrete pavements, increase the thermal contraction stressed in asphalt and concrete pavements, reduce the flexibility of the asphalt concrete by increasing the modulus, and as previously noted, can cause the entrapped water to freeze and cause internal hydrostatic stresses within the pavement structure [Haas 94]. Cold weather paving should be avoided for both flexible and rigid pavements, Typical problems associated with cold weather paving for asphalt pavements include less time available for placing and compaction operations [Argue 05]. Typical problems with cold weather paving for concrete pavements are insufficient joint spacing [Argue 05]. Ideally, paving should be avoided once the cold weather comes, However, at an airport facility there are always occasions where cold weather paving is unavoidable. In these cases, precautions should be taken to ensure that the cold weather does not affect the pavement structure. Such techniques may include insulated truck boxes, covered truck loads, a continuous paving operation, screed heaters, joint heaters, wind barriers, increased plant dryer temperatures, and, as a final resort, increasing the mixing temperature [Argue 05]. Another environment-related paving condition is night paving. Night paving occurs when there is no daytime light and additional or supplemental artificial lighting is required. Night paving increases safety concerns for the already dangerous work environment. Furthermore, night paving may increase the cost of construction by up to 25% [Argue 05]. Unfortunately, major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects at airports often occur during the night hours simply because the airport cannot afford to shut down one of its primary pavement structures during peak hours. Delays in the primary areas, like runways, major taxiways, and even some aprons, would cause a significant delay in air traffic within and around the airport. Airport delays are further discussed in Chapter Seven. Since night paving is expected at airport facilities contractors should ensure that they have a self- contained lighting system with shaded or directed lights that won’t interfere with aircraft or air traffic control operations [Argue 05]. The contractor should also be familiar with the airport operations and know who to contact in the event of an emergency. 362.6.2 Traffic Perhaps an obvious design consideration for airport pavements is traffic. However, there are more than just aircraft that load airport pavements. Other airport vehicles include ground transportation vehicles like cars, trucks, maintenance vehicles, fuel tankers, water trucks, fire trucks, ete. These other vehicles become increasingly more important in the design procedure at airports that service smaller aircraft as these vehicles may actually be considered the “design aircraft” based on their loading to the underlying pavement structure and cause more pavement damage than their expected “design aircraft”. Therefore, a caution is made that airport authorities be aware of all types of vehicles using their pavement structures, In addition to knowing the types of vehicles using the airport facility, it is important to know the volume of those vehicles. Many of the design procedures require a long term, generally 20 years, estimate of the expected aircraft movements. Therefore, it is important to have reliable forecasts These forecasts should be based on past experience, future and anticipated demands, the type of services being provided by the airport and expected changes in the airline industry, such as the introduction of new aircraft. Ultimately, traffic volumes influence pavement thickness design and therefore inherently impact overall costs to the airport. ‘Common pavement problems and surface distresses related to traffic include overloading, alligator cracking, rutting in the wheel path, polished aggregate, and pumping. Rutting is a safety concer as, ruts can lead to accumulation of water and a potential for hydroplaning, Polished aggregates are a result of repeated load applications. Pumping is when material is ejected from the slab foundation through cracks and joints and is caused by the deflections in the slab from passing traffic loads. [Haas 94] Feasible maintenance treatments for asphalt pavements with load or traffic related surface distresses include drainage improvements or full depth patching. Rehabilitation treatments can include reconstruction, resurfacing with a thin overlay and full depth reclamation. In terms of ri pavements, typical maintenance treatments include drainage improvements, partial slab repair, full depth slab repair and load transfer retrofit. Feasible rehabilitation for rigid pavements with load related distressed may include asphalt concrete surfacing, joint stabilization, rubbilizing and reinforcing, and bonded or unbonded concrete overlays. [TAC 97] 2.6.3 Materi Pavement materials are all materials incorporated into the various pavement structure layers. This includes the subgrade, subbase, base and surface layers. The following sections provide a description of the types of typical airport pavement materials used in North America. The focus is specifically on aggregate materials used in the surface, base, and subbase layers; whereas, Section 2.6.6 discusses other materials used within the mix design and Section 2.6.4 discusses subgrade materials ‘Aggregates are discussed in terms of material selection for airport pavements based on material characteristics and testing, past experience, material availability, and material sources. 372.6.3.1 Airport Pavement Design Materials Asphalt cement is a dark cementitious material obtained as a residue from the petroleum manufacturing process. The main components of asphalt cement are asphaltenes, asphaltic resins and oily constituents. Asphalt cements are commonly graded based on their hardness as defined by ASTM Ds [ASTM OSI]. The Canadian General Standards Board has grades based on the penetration number, which ranges from 60 to 400. As the penetration number increases the asphalt becomes softer. More recent developments have included performance graded modified asphalts through the Superpave system. In this system, the binder must meet a series of test standards at specified high and low temperatures. These tests are performed on the original binder, with a rolling thin film oven or with a pressure aging vessel. For example, a PG 58-34 must meet performance criteria at an average 7-day ‘maximum pavement design temperature of 58°C and a minimum pavement design temperature of 34°C. [TAC 97] Portland cement is a hydraulic cement material that consists of very fine grains produced by pulverizing clinkers. The main components of portland cement are hydraulic calcium silicates and calcium sulphate. There are five cement types available in Canada and the United States which are highlighted in Table 2.13. [TAC 97] ‘Table 2.13 Cement types [TAC 97] Types ‘Name “Applications Canada __ United States 10 T Normal ‘General concrete construction practice 20 1 Moderate ‘When moderate sulphate action and heat of hydration is required 30 m High-carly strength When high early strength is required 40 Vv Low-heat of hydration When low heat of hydration is required 50 v Sulphate-resistant When sulphate resistance is required Although they have a slightly different chemical composition, the cement types used in Canada and the United States are very similar thus, for PCC airfield pavements Types 10 and 30 (or I and III) are ‘commonly used. Aggregates are hard, inért, mineral materials, which include gravel, crushed stone, sand and recycled materials. Aggregates can be classified into three categories: coarse aggregates, fine aggregates and fines. Coarse aggregates (C.A.) are aggregates that are retained by the 4.75 mm sieve; fine aggregates (F.A.) are ageregates that pass the 4.75 mm sieve, but generally retained by the 75 jum sieve; and fines consist of soils, clays and silt particles passing the 75 um sieve. [TAC 97] Stabilized materials, such as cement stabilized or asphalt stabilized materials are chemically or mechanically treated in order to increase, or in some cases, maintain the stability of a mass of soil and improve its engineering properties [TAC 97] 38In addition to the asphalt cement, portland cement and agaregates, there are also materials such as additives and admixtures that are used in airport pavement mix designs. These other materials are further discussed in Section 2.6.6. 2.6.3.2 Aggregate Selection There are many factors that need to be taken into consideration when choosing the appropriate aggregate for an airport pavement, The first of which is aggregate testing. There are several aggregates tests that can be performed to ensure the quality of the aggregates, which are described in Table 2.14 [AASHTO 91-05, ASTM OSa-n, Argue 05, CSA 05, MTO 02, TAC 97]. Table 2.14 Aggregate tests[AASHTO 91-05, ASTM 05a-n, Argue 05, CSA 05, MTO 02, TAC 97} Test Type Test Name ‘What it tests ‘Canadian American Gui Mineralogy Petrographic Determines mineralogy of ageregate analysis Physical Water absorption Determines the porosity of the ‘AASHTO aggregate ‘Te4,T85 C127, C126 Plasticity index: Determines possible source of AASHTO ASTM (Atterberg limits) deleterious material like clays 790 4318 Sand equivalent Determines relative proportion of clay- AASHTO ASTM like material in a graded aggregate -T176-86 2419 Magnesium Determines the freeze-thaw AASHTO ASTM C88 sulphate soundness _susceptibility of the aggregates TI04 [Los Angeles Determines the resistance of aggregates AASHTO ASTM abrasion to abrasion and degradation caused by T96 127 construction and traffic Aggregate Determines percent by weightof _MTOLS ASTM. angularity particles with one ore more fractured 607 Ds821 faces (from crushing) Micro-Deval CSA abrasion ABD BA, 232-294 Flat and elongated Determines the ratio of maximum to ASTM particles minimum dimensions greater than 5 pa791 Deleterious Determines contaminants such as soft. AASHTO, ASTM materials shale, cola, wood, clay lumps, or mica T112,CSA C123, C40, AQ24A, C12 ABI3A Degradation by Determines aggregate resistance to CSA abrasion abrasion and degradation A23.2-23A Tor FA. Gradation Sieve size Determines distribution of particle sizes. AASHTO ASTM requirements in a soil or aggregate M92___C136, E11 There are essentially three types of aggregate properties that are tested: mineralogy, physical properties and gradation. The physical characteristics of the aggregate are determined based on a 39series of tests. However, not all aggregates need to be tested for all the types of tests. The tests required for the aggregates used in the various pavement layers are shown in Table 2.15 [Argue 05]. Table 2.15 Aggregate tests for pavement layer components [Argue 05) Property, Soils ‘Aagregates Subbase Base _Asphalt_Cement Gradation x x Xx x “Atterberg limits x x Xx (Crushed content x Los Angeles degradation x x Sulphate soundness Micro-Deval abrasion Sand Equivalent ‘Absorption Loss by washi Tight weight particles Organic impurities Clay lumps Elongated particles Petrographic analysis z Stripping Wear and polish 2 Alkali reactivity Decracking > x “x Physical General | Deleterious x dele oe oe 96 3s > bere oe oe oboe It is not the intention of this research to detail all the testing procedures or the test limits for each of the aforementioned aggregate tests. However, it should be noted that these test procedures help to censure a better quality aggregate material and mitigate many of the problems associated with improper aggregate materials. Guidelines for Canada and the United States tests have been provided in Table 2.14 for reference purposes. In addition to specific aggregate testing, an airport authority can also rely on past experience with aggregates. If an aggregate source has performed well in the past, it will most likely perform well in the future provided the aggregate source produces the same quality material as before, The final components of aggregate selection to consider are material availability and sources. Aggregates are often produced from quarries, which are open pits or operations from which stone construction or building material is extracted [TAC 97]. Care should be taken to ensure that the quarry is performing up-to-date aggregate tests for the materials being provided for the construction of airfield pavements. Furthermore, when specifying a specific aggregate type or gradation, airport authorities should ensure that the material is readily available from a local source. Otherwise, airport authorities may have to pay a premium for material traveling from afar and/or contractors may have a difficult time meeting specifications. 402.6.4 Subgrade ‘The quality and strength of the subgrade material is very important as it can significantly influence the performance of the overlying pavement structure, particularly for flexible pavements. The subgrade soil can consist of either native soil or in some cases imported soils. In all cases, a soils investigation should be conducted at the beginning of the design procedure to determine the existing. geological conditions of the subgrade. The objectives of the soils investigation are as follows [TAC 97} 1, To determine the thickness of topsoil and organic strata, 2. To identify soil types and their engineering properties, 3. To determine the depth to bedrock, if relevant to design and construction, 4, To determine the groundwater conditions, 5. To determine the existing pavement structure layer thickness and material properties, if applicable. Soils can be grouped into various classes according to the Unified soil classification system. The Unified soil classification groups are shown in Table 2.16 [Argue 05], as well as their suitability as a pavement subgrade material based on drainage, potential frost action and compaction. Table 2.16 Materials and the Unified soil classification Suit r suitability for subgrade construction [Argue 05] Drainage Potential frost Compaction GW-well graded gravel Excellent Excellent Good GP-poorly graded gravel Good-excellent _Excellent Good GM-gravel with sity fines Good Faiecimpervious _Slight-medium ‘GC-gravel with clay fines Good Poor-impervious _Slight-medium SW-well graded sand Good Excellent None-slight SP-poorly graded sand Good-fair Excellent None-slight ‘SM-sand with silty fines Fair Fair-impervious _—_‘Sight-high ‘SC-sand with clay fines Fair Poor-impervious _Slight-high ML-silt with low LL Fair-poor Fai-poor -Medium-very high CL-clay with low LL Fair-poor Impervious ‘OL-organic with low LL Poor Poor MHLSilt with high LL Poor-very poor —Fair-poor_——-Medium-very high CH-clay with high LL Poor-very poor Impervious Medium ‘Oli-organic with high LL. Poor-very poor Impervious Medium Pr-peat (highly organic) Not suitable Fair-poor Sight Not practical LL=liguid limit As noted in section 2.6.1, drainage and frost protection are very important factors that need to be included in the airport pavement design process. In general, gravels and sands have very good drainage capability and very little potential frost action; whereas, silts, clays and organics have very poor and in some cases no drainage capacity. These materials also have a medium to high frost action potential and can be considered frost susceptible soils. Another important factor for subgrade material is compaction. Proper subgrade compaction is a very important for the pavement structure as the 41subbase and base materials cannot be properly compacted if the subgrade material is not well compacted, Overall, gravels are best suited for subgrade materials, followed by sands, and silts and clays with low liquid limits. Silts and clays with high liquid limits and organics are not generally suitable for subgrade materials. In these cases, subgrade material might have to be removed and replaced with better fill. As previously noted, subgrade strength can vary from season to season based on freezing and thawing effects. In order to account for the reduced strength during the spring time, Public Works Canada has introduced spring subgrade reduction factors for flexible pavements as shown in Table 2.17 [TAC 97, TC 97]. Table 2.17 shows the typical fall range subgrade bearing strength for various subgrade soil types and provides the usual spring reduction factors. ‘Table 2.17 Spring subgrade reduction factors [TAC 97, TC 97] ‘Subgrade Soil Type Usual Spring Fall Range Subgrade Reduction % _ Bearing Strength GW — well-graded gravel 0 290-400 GP — poorly graded gravel 10 180-335 GM ~ gravel with silty fines 25 135-335 GC- gravel with clay fines 25 110-245 ‘SW — well-graded sand 10 135-335 SP — poorly graded sand 20 110-200 SM ~ sand with silty fines 45 95-190 ‘SC- sand with clay fines 25 65-155 ML silt with low liquid limit 50 90-180 CL clay with low liquid limit 25 65-135 ‘MH - silt with high liquid limit 50 25-90 ay with high liquid limit 45 2! 0 As previously noted organics are not generally suitable for subgrade materials and are therefore not listed in Table 2.17. The spring reduction factors vary between 0 and 50% depending on the subgrade type and tend to increase as the soil becomes less suitable as a subgrade material. Airport pavements should be designed based on the spring reduced subgrade bearing strength, as this represents the ‘weakest period during the life of the structure. 2.6.5 Construction Construction plays a significant and extremely important role in the design of airport pavements. It is essential that the designer understands what the contractor is able to construct and that the contractor clearly understands what the designer wants and needs constructed. It is easily understood how the design plans and specifications provide direct input into the construction process. However, including the contractor in the design process at an early design stage will shorten the overall project time by 2providing the contractor with sufficient time to locater materials and allow the airport authority and the contractor to establish quality and quantity control techniques at the on-set of the project. Furthermore, contractor feedback in the early stages may also help to eliminate potentially costly design options. For example, contractors can provide information on current local material availability and problems associated with specific paving equipment using particular materials. [Haas 94) The construction technique, or the equipment used during the paving process, is a very important factor in the long-term performance of airport pavements. There are different types of equipment used for both flexible and rigid pavements. Paving equipment for asphalt concrete paving includes: asphalt concrete pavers, rollers, graders, and seal coaters. Paving equipment for portland cement concrete paving includes: slip form pavers, dowel bar inserters, cure/texture machines, concrete placer spreaders, joint cutting saws. It is important that the contractor can assure the availability of its pavement equipment, including trucks hauling concrete, as this may affect the production rate. The slip form pavers should be checked to ensure proper consolidation can be met. Curing applications should be checked to ensure uniform application. Blades for joint sawing should be suitable for the aggregate type used in the mix. [ACPA 03] Pavement geometrics include grading and jointing. Grading is important because it facilitates drainage and placement of successive layers. A. very critical component of rigid pavement design is joint details, including slab dimensions, load transfer, and joint sealing provision. [ACAP 03] Joints are used to control cracking, accommodate slab movement, provide load transfer, and divide pavement into practical construction increments [TAC 97]. If a conerete pavement panel is too long it may lead to early cracking because the load is not distributed across the panel. Conversely, a panel that is too short may act as a stepping stone, thereby decreasing the life of the pavement. The ACPA recommends that the length of the concrete panel be limited to four to six times the radius of relative stiffness, ¢ , which is calculated as shown in Equation 2.7 [ACPA 05b].. t -( Br y @7 TA ‘Where, £ E= the modulus of elasticity h=the PCC slab thickness: the radius of relative stiffness = Poisson’s Ratio ‘k= the subgrade bearing modulus According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), “Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of high intentions, intelligent direction, and skilled execution. It represents a wise choice amongst many alternatives” [ACPA 05a]. A poor quality pavement structure leads to low serviceability, which results in earlier maintenance and rehabilitation needs, as well as, an overall 43increased in the life cycle cost of the pavement structure. Furthermore, poor quality pavement structures are at a higher risk of foreign object debris (FOD) which can lead to frequent disruptions and user delay costs. Life cycle costs and user delays costs are further discussed in Chapter Seven. 2.6.6 Mix Design Airport flexible pavement design mixes are typically based on the Marshall method of mix design. ‘Superpave is another method available on the market for asphalt pavements; however, insufficient experience to set reliable criteria has delayed the use of Superpave method for airfield pavements [Argue 05]. There are different mix properties that are of concem for asphalt and portland cement concrete pavements. These different mix properties, as well as ASTM test methods and requirements are shown in Table 2.18 [Argue 05, ASTM OSo-u]. Acceptance of airfield pavement mix designs are usually done based on some mix properties detailed in Table 2.18. These properties are easily ‘measurable and have proven to be related to long term performance. Table 2.18 Mix properties for airfield pavements [Argue 0S, ASTM 050-u] Mix Mix Property Requirement “ASTM Test. Type Method ‘Marshal Toad EN) Grinimumy D581 Desired tire pressure <0,35 MPa 4.50 g 035-140 MPa 675 5 > 140 MPA 9.00 é Marshal low index 2-4 Dsssi 3 Air voids 3-5 3208 = Voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) 12.5 mm max sized aggregate 1s 25.0 mm max sized aggregate B Tensile strength ratio 15 base FBOSIO kyo - 0.50 3 ‘Severe freeze-thaw exposure 0.45 2 ‘Sever sulphate exposure 0.40 8 28-day flexural strength 78 and c192 g 4.0 MPa & maximum standard deviation _9% of the average 8 28-day compressive strength 30 MPa 3 ‘sump cuss 5 Slip form paving 10-35 mm Fixed form paving 25-60 mm Entrained air content S412 1% ca aggregate fineness modulus 25-34 44Air voids are important for both flexible and rigid pavements as they allow for the expansion of frozen water, thereby reducing the effects of freezing and thawing. However, a balance must be met as voids in the mix reduce the strength of the structure. Traditionally, slump has been used for concrete pavements as a measure of workability of the mix. However, research prepared by the ‘ACPA has shown that slump loss occurs over time and therefore, slump would need to be measured at a specified time in order to have comparable results. In lieu of slump, the ACPA recommends defining workability based on placement, consolidation and finish properties. [ACPA 05b] Additionally, there are admixtures that can be added to the rigid pavements, as shown in Table 2.19, Mineral admixtures are also known as supplementary cementitious materials because they can bbe added to or even replace a portion of the cement content. Special attention must be used when using admixtures, as improper use or incorrect dosages can lead to construction and long-term performance problems. Generally, admixtures should only be used when necessary. Table 2.19 Rigid mix design admixtures {West 2004] ‘of Admixture Properties Com ‘or types ‘Chemical _Air-entraining Provides freeze-thaw resistance ___ Most are hydrocarbon-based Water-reducing/ Increase lubrication provided by __Low-range, mid-range, high- plasticizing, mortar range (super-plasticizer) Set controlling Prolong the plasticity of fresh Retarders concrete ‘Accelerate process of setting and Accelerators strength development Mineral —_Fiyash Necessary for high strength ‘Class F, Class C Silica fume concrete, improves resistance to _ Silicon or ferrosilicon alloy Slag sulphate attack and AAR. Residue from production of metals or refinement of impure metals 2.6.7 How Design Methods Reflect Important Design Factors Table 2.20 summarizes how the airport pavement design methods described in this research account for the important design factors formerly discussed. None of the airfield pavement design methods in this study include a component for drainage, materials, construction or mix design, or if they do, it is not included directly in their pavement design literature. However, all the design methods include a subgrade strength input and consider some form of traffic input. Furthermore, only the Transport Canada method, earlier FAA design methods and the SW-I program directly account for climate. 45Table 2.20 How pavement design methods account for the important design factors Important Design Factors Pavement Design Meta 2 5 septa dd: po 4 bee pb a é oF aa 4 3S aq a@a@e 3 Taam a WOE EE 7 tron Xe NA eta XX x ibrar ar: repens yx AMAveon BX ov xe Ok wa Ars x NA "uses design aircraft concept, ** limited available aircraft, [N/A indicates flexible pavement designs that do not require joint details 2.7 Comparative Stu To date, there have been no other research studies in the literature that compares the various design ‘methods at least in the traditional literature.. However, there are comparative studies between two programs have been prepared by agencies like MINCAD Systems Pty Ltd and the American Concrete Pavement Association [Wardle 98, ACPA 05b]. A paper prepared for the 3" International Conference on Road and Airfield Technology discusses the differences between the APSDS and the LEDFAA program (Wardle 98]. A case study example for a given traffic mix and subgrade strength is provided, however, the paper does not provide any detailed sensitivity analysis. The ACPA have prepared charts indicating the difference among various design programs as illustrated in Figures 2.19 and 2.20 [ACPA 05] Figure 2.19 illustrates the change in fatigue factor for many design methods used in the United States, including the Westergaard rigid design method as presented in the FAA advisory circular [FAA 95] and the LEDFAA program [ACPA 0Sb]. Figure 2.20 highlights the difference in thickness for a particular aircraft (B747-SP) with varying modulus of subgrade reaction for the PCA, FAA, and CoE design methods [APCA 056]. The PCA design method represents the AIRPAVE, 2000 program; the FAA design method is the Federal Aviation Administration Westergaard rigid design method; and the CoE is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers design method. Figure 2.20 also shows the dual tandem gear configuration of the B747-SP aircraft for illustrative purposes. 46ow MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION, K [pet] Figure 2.20 B747 SP thickness vs. subgrade strength for various design methods [ACPA 05b] 47Chapter 3 Methodology This chapter discusses in detail the methodology used in this research. The research work can be broken down into four different stages: data collection, data organization, sensitivity analysis of individual design programs and data analysis among design programs, which are subsequently discussed 3.1 Overview ‘An overall schematic of the thesis methodology is shown in Chapter One. However, Figure 3.1 is a more detailed graphical representation of the methodology used for the data analysis in this research, ‘Stage 1 Data Collection Data Sources Reauirements of Data Stage2 Data Organization Climate Pavement Structure “Teatfe ¥ + Stage 3 Stage 4 ‘Sensitivity Analysis of Individual Design Programs Data Analysis Among Design Programs fo FT ¥ Climate Traffic Subgrade Design Programs Sensitivity Sensitivity Sensitivity vs. “Analysis, “Analysis ‘Analysis “Transport Cenada Figure 3.1 Data analysis methodology 483.2 Stage 1: Data Collection As previously noted, the first step in the research process is to obtain data from various airports across. Canada. However, it is necessary to first determine which data is needed according to the requirements of the various airport pavement design methods. The following sections review the {input parameters for each of the airport pavement design methods used in this research and provide some information regarding how the data from the various participating airports (case studies) is used in the research program, 3.2.4 Data Requirements All the airport pavement design methods discussed in this research require an input parameter related to traffic, whether it is a design aircraft or a mix of aircraft traffic with annual movements or departures. Furthermore, cach airport pavement design method considers the strength of the underlying subgrade soil. Other airport pavement design inputs include climate, specific aircraft characteristics, and pavement layer characteristics. Climate inputs include freezing index (FI), mean average air temperature or soil frost codes. Aircraft characteristics include gross weight, percent load on main gear, tire pressure and wheel coordinates. Pavement layer characteristics include material selection, granular base equivalency factors and strength, Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 are a summary of the input parameters required for each design method, as well as, the appropriate design units. The Canadian and Australian pavement design methods include only metric units; whereas the FAA includes only imperial design units. The LEDFAA, FEDFAA, AIRPAVE 2000, and SW-1 programs allow for the use of either imperial or metric units. ‘Table 3.1 Flexible airport pavement design input parameters Pavement Tnput parameters Design Method TC ig weight (KN), percent weight on main gear (04), number Of tires in main PWGSC gear, tire pressure (MPa), tire center coordinates, subgrade spring reduced be (KN), FI CC-days) FAA Subgrade strength (CBR), subgrade soil frost condition, number of subbase, subbase strength (CBR), subbase frost code, non-stabilized granular base material, Fl (*F-days), dry unit weight ofthe soil (b/c, aircraft gear type, maximum takeoff weight (Ibs), annual departures, stabilized base and subbase material (if required) ing strength FAA Subgrade strength (CBR), aircraft traffic mix, gross taxi weight (Ibs, tns), annual departures, LEDFAA and percent annual growth FAA Subgrade strength (CBR), aircraft traffic mix, gross taxi weight (Ibs, tns) annual departures, FEDFAA and percent annual growth AISW-1 Mean annual average temperature (°C, °F), aircraft traffic mix and total movements (design period), subgrade strength (CBR, resilient modulus) MINCAD. Aircraft traffic mix and total movements, subgrade strength (CBR), APSDS 49‘Table 3.2 Rigid airport pavement design input parameters Pavement Input parameters Design Method TC! design aircraft operating weight (KN), percent weight on main gear (%),number of tires in main PWGSC g¢ar, tire pressure (MPa), tire center coordinates, subgrade spring reduced bearing strength (kN), FL CC-days) FAA —_FI(F-days), dry unit weight of soil Ib/cf), thickness of stabilized subbase (in), thickness of subbase ageregate layer (in), thickness of free draining non-frost susceptible layer (in), foundation modulus (pei) concrete flexural strength (psi) Poisson's ratio, modulus of elasticity, aircraft gear type, maximum takeoff weight (Ibs), annual departures FAA Subgrade strength (MN/m, pi), aircraft traffic mix, gross taxi weight (Ibs, tns) annual LEDFAA departures, and percent annual growth FAA Subgrade strength (MNm’, pci, aircraft traffic mix, goss taxi weight (Ibs, tns) annual FEDFAA departures, and percent annual growth ACPA Design aircraft: gross weight (Ib, kg), wheel coordinates (in, cm), tite contact area (in, em), AIRPAVE _ tire pressure (psi, KPa); modulus of elasticity (million psi, MPa); modulus of rupture (psi, KPa); 2000 ‘modulus of subgrade react 3.2.2 Sources of Data In order to obtain the necessary data, an Airport Data Form was produced and sent to more than twenty airports across Canada. The original Airport Data Form can be seen in Appendix A. The form requests for general information, climate data, pavement structure data, and traffic data. The general information includes the name and location of the airport, as well as, the contact information. The climate data includes average annual air freezing index, mean average air temperature and frost depth. ‘The pavement structure information includes layer material, material thickness and subgrade strength for taxiways, runways, and aprons. Finally, the traffic information includes a list of significant aircraft based on gross weight or movements, movements in 2004, and projected movements for 2024. In total, there were fifteen airports that agreed to participate in the research activity. These airports, including airport name, airport code, airport location, and airport types are shown in Table 3.3. ‘The airports participating in this research are from different airports types and airport regions across Canada. The distribution of the participating airports, in terms of airport types and airport regions, are shown in Figure 3.2. ‘There is a representation of all airport regions across Canada with the exception of Quebec. There are a number of airports within the National Airport System included in this research, as we all as, airports representing regional/local, remote, and aretic across Canada, There are two airports that are unclassified because they are not certified airports within Canada, However, they have been included to provide a better representation of Canadian airports. Overall the intent is to provide a good representation and thus better understanding of the airports that are in the Canadian airport system. 50