0927 runway sdr.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
1/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
2/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
3/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program i 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
MUMBAI INTERNATIONALAIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITEDCSIA EXPANSION & RENOVATION PROGRAM
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27Upgrade Pavement Structural DesignRev B
10 June 2009
Prepared by:
Larsen & Toubro Limited, ECC Division
Regional Office
5th Floor, North Block II, Gate No.1,
Saki Vihar Road, Powai
Mumbai 400072
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
4/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program ii 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
Document Control
Project Title:
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program
Runway 09/27 Upgrade Project No: N044
Document Title: Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design
Document Number: MIAL-LT-O-N044-CV11-SD-001
Revision Date Designed by Checked by Approved by Descripti on
A 13 April 2009 Manoj Tipnis Paul McCullagh Larry Mujaj Issued for MIAL review
B 10 June 2009 Manoj Tipnis Paul McCullagh Larry Mujaj Issued for MIAL review
Document Change History
Revision Reason for Change Date
A Preliminary Issue 13 April 2009
B Revised as per client recommendations 10 June 2009
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
5/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 1-1 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
TABLEOFCONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2 SCHEME DESIGN REPORT OBJECTIVES ............................................................... 1-2
2. AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 2-3
3. AIRCRAFT OPERATING WEIGHTS ................................................................................... 3-4
4. NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING ........................................................................................... 4-5
4.1 DEFLECTION DATA ANALYSIS................................................................................. 4-5
4.2 PAVEMENT STRUCTURE MODELLING ................................................................... 4-5
5. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................. 5-8
5.1
TESTING REGIME ...................................................................................................... 5-8
5.2 SUBGRADE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 5-8
5.3 SUBGRADE STRENGTH............................................................................................ 5-8
5.4 EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE ........................................................................ 5-9
6. PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN ................................................................................... 6-10
6.1 FAARFIELD RESULTS ............................................................................................. 6-10
6.1.1 FAARFIELD Design Methodology ............................................................... 6-10
6.1.2 Runway Elements ........................................................................................ 6-12
6.1.3 Runway Shoulders ...................................................................................... 6-14
6.2
COMFAA CHECK ..................................................................................................... 6-15
6.3 COMPARISON OF DESIGN RESULTS .................................................................... 6-16
6.4 RUNWAY OVERLAY DESIGN AT TAXIWAY LOCATIONS ..................................... 6-18
6.5 DESIGNED PAVEMENT STRUCTURES ................................................................. 6-19
6.6 RUNWAY STRIP & RESA ......................................................................................... 6-21
6.7 PCN ASSIGNMENT .................................................................................................. 6-22
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 7-24
8. LIST OF CODES ................................................................................................................ 8-26
9. APPENDICES & SKETCHES ............................................................................................ 9-27
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
6/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 1-2 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
This report includes the scheme design of pavement structure for Runway 09/27 Upgrade Project
(N044), at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport (CSIA), Mumbai which mainly comprisesasphalt overlay. The asphalt overlay is essentially required for structural strengthening and runway
profile correction, both longitudinal and transverse. The scheme for the structural design is thesubject of this report.
1.2 SCHEME DESIGN REPORT OBJECTIVES
This Scheme Design Report is intended to establish the design of the structural overlay for the
preparation of detailed design construction drawings.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
7/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 2-3 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
2. AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The aircraft traffic analysis for Runway 09/27 is detailed in the document titled Scheme Design
Report Aircraft Traffic for Airport Pavements, which has already been submitted. The same traffic
is being utilised for the Runway re-strengthening design except for Runway chainage -153m to -30m(09 Runway).
The aircraft design traffic for Runway 09/27 as extracted from above report is given in Appendix A.
For design of the section from chainage -153m to -30m (09 Runway), 100% Runway 09 departures
and 20% of Runway 27 arrivals are considered. This is because the majority of Runway 27 arrivals
will have exited on the preceding RETs. Runway 27 departures have been ignored since mostdeparting aircraft would have attained lift off before reaching this section of runway pavement. The
design traffic is presented in Appendix A.
For design of existing inner 7.5m wide shoulder upgrade to runway outer pavement specifications,
the design traffic considered is 1% departures of the total aircraft traffic on Runway 09/27, inaccordance with FAA Advisory Circular 150-5320-6E.
For design of overlay requirement over existing 7.5m wide outer shoulder, design traffic considered
is 10 passes of the critical aircraft, B777-300ER, in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular150-5320-6E.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
8/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 3-4 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
3. AIRCRAFT OPERATING WEIGHTS
The aircraft traffic analysis details the various aircraft arriving and departing on the runway.
Accordingly we have adopted Maximum Take-off Weight (MTOW) in respect of departing aircraft
traffic and Maximum Landing Weight (MLW) in respect of arriving aircraft traffic for the pavementthickness design. The MTOW and MLW figures for each aircraft type are listed in Table 3.1 below:
Table 3.1 Aircraft Operating Mass
Code C D
Aircraft A320 A321 B737-800 A300 B767-400
MTOM
(Tonnes)77 89 79 171 204
MLM
(Tonnes)64.5 75.5 71 140 159
Code E
Aircraft A330 A340-300 A340-600 B747-400 B777-300 B777-300ER MD-11
MTOM(Tonnes)
230 275 368 397 300 353 285
MLM
(Tonnes)185 200 259 274 252 252 200
Code F
Aircraft A380 B747-8
MTOM(Tonnes)
560 441.4
MLM
(Tonnes)386 340
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
9/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 4-5 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
4. NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING
4.1 DEFLECTION DATA ANALYSIS
Non-destructive testing of the runway pavement using Heavy Falling Weight Deflectometer
(HFWD) was undertaken by MIAL (through Mott Mac Donald Ooms Avenhorn Pvt Ltd- EMSUnihorn bv infrastructure consultants Pvt Ltd). The deflection data as presented in report titled
CSI Airport Mumbai Runway Pavement Testing Runway 09-27 dated April 2007, was
re-analysed by L&T using PAVERS software with an aim to identify the pavement structure and
layer strength parameters so as to define the existing pavement structure for overlay design.
The HFWD generated deflection data analysis report is attached atAppendix B.
4.2 PAVEMENT STRUCTURE MODELLING
On basis of the recommendations of the deflection data analysis report, the existing runway
pavement structure as modelled for design is given in Table 4.1 below. The various sections pertain
to the different homogeneous runway pavement sections identified, as elaborated in the report. Thelayer thicknesses have been adopted from borehole data and the E moduli from the back-calculationresults. The E moduli are within the realistic range of material characterisation for each of the
identified pavement layers. The same back-calculated E moduli are assumed in respect of theshoulder pavement layers. The existing runway shoulder pavement structure as modelled for design
is given in Table 4.2.
Table 4.1: Runway Pavement Structure Model
SectionPavementmodel
Layer Thickness(mm) Evalue(MPa)
Chainagefrom09
153to78
PCC 500 16000
subgrade 20.68
Chainagefrom
09
78to30
Surface 600 1091
PCC/Base 300 350
subbase 800 67
subgrade 20.68
LeftofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
30to1000
Surface 600 1653
PCC 300 20000
subbase 850 200
subgrade 20.68
LeftofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
1000to
1785
Surface 600 1111
PCC
300
21000
subbase 950 300
subgrade 20.68
LeftofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
2100to2250
Surface 600 859
PCC 300 20000
subbase 1160 223
subgrade 20.68
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
10/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 4-6 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
SectionPavementmodel
Layer Thickness(mm) Evalue(MPa)
LeftofCentreLine
Chainage
from
09
2250to3222
Surface 600 959
PCC
300
22000
subbase 1400 293
subgrade 20.68
RightofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
30to1785
Surface 600 1025
PCC 300 23000
subbase 1000 266
subgrade 20.68
RightofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
2100to2250
Surface 600 595
PCC 300 20500
subbase 1200 300
subgrade 20.68
RightofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
2250to3222
Surface 600 1091
PCC 300 20500
subbase 1000 266
subgrade 20.68
Chainagefrom09
3222to3297
PCC 420 16400
Base 450 3200
subgrade 20.68
Table 4.2: Runway Shoulder Pavement Structure Model
SectionPavementmodel
Layer Thickness(mm) Evalue(MPa)
Chainagefrom09
78 to30
Surface 300 1091
PCC/base 150 350
subbase 800 67
subgrade 20.68
LeftofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
30to1785
Surface 300 1111
PCC 150 20000
subbase 850 200
subgrade
20.68
LeftofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
2100to3222
Surface 300 859
PCC 150 20000
subbase 1160 223
subgrade 20.68
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
11/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 4-7 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
Section Layer Thickness(mm) Evalue(MPa)
RightofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
30to1785
Surface 300 1025
PCC 150 23000
subbase
1000
266
subgrade 20.68
RightofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
2100to2250
Surface 300 595
PCC 150 20500
subbase 1000 266
subgrade 20.68
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
12/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 5-8 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
5. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
5.1 TESTING REGIME
Geotechnical investigations comprising of Standard Penetration Tests & laboratory testing have been
undertaken for design purposes. The purpose of the Geotechnical investigation was to log thepavement profile, collect pavement cores, undertake laboratory testing and conduct SPT tests
through the bore/core holes for identification of the soil type and estimation of field CBR from N
value. The details of Geotechnical investigation were incorporated in Addendum-I to Technical
Report - Soil Investigations and Geotechnical Recommendations for Airside Work at CSIA,Mumbai.
5.2 SUBGRADE DESCRIPTION
The soil forming the natural subgrade in CSIA, Mumbai predominantly comprises of Black Cotton
soil and on the basis of Particle Size Distribution and Plasticity Index, is classified under the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS) as high plasticity clay (CH). The adjoining bore logs on 09 sideof the runway intersection indicate the presence of weathered/hard rock at a depth of 1.9m and on the27 side of the runway intersection indicate the presence of weathered/hard rock at a depth of 2.1m
under the existing runway surface level. The depth to rock increases further away from the runway
intersection, with the maximum recorded depth to rock being 5.35m.
5.3 SUBGRADE STRENGTH
FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5320-6D - Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation states that thedesign CBR value should be conservatively selected, and that common paving engineering practice
is to select a value which is one standard deviation below the mean (85th percentile).
The soil type and E value is correlated from the N values obtained from SPT tests conducted in field.
Subgrade CBR values are further correlated from the E values in accordance with relation given inMori Chart,1965, 6thinternational conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering Vol. III.
The evaluated subgrade CBR is 2.1% as per SPT values. The soil classification as per USCS derived
from the grain size analysis is CH type (Highly Plastic Clay).
Considering all of the above data, the design subgrade CBR adopted is 2%. However, between
chainage 1785m and chainage 2100m from 09 Runway, presence of weathered/hard rock strata isreported under the existing pavement structure at a depth of 1.9m to 2.1m. Runway 14/32 also
crosses 09/27 Runway in this area and hence it is assumed that here, pavement strengthening is notrequired and that the runway overlay thickness will be determined based on geometric shape
correction of the both runways.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
13/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 5-9 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
5.4 EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE
The existing runway pavement structure was logged during the field investigations on Runway
09/27. The geotechnical sub-surface profile for the pavement structure is attached at Appendix C.
As indicated in the Bore Logs, the runway pavement is essentially a composite construction in whichflexible overlays have been constructed over the original rigid pavement. The present structurecomprises of approximately 600mm of structurally stable Asphalt surface course. The layer under
the surface course is a PCC layer with an approximate thickness of 300 mm. Under the PCC layer is
a subbase course of granular material / WBM with a thickness varying from 800mm to 1400 mm.
From chainage -78m to -30m, the PCC layer was found to be in a disintegrated state. The subgrade
under the subbase course as described in Para 5.3 above, is Black Cotton soil.
The western 75m Runway 27 end and eastern 75m Runway 09 end of the pavement are both rigid
construction. The western 75m pavement comprises of 500mm PCC over 800mm filled up soil. This
pavement has been recently overlaid with approximately 50mm Asphalt Concrete. The eastern
Runway 09 end 75m pavement comprises of 420mm PQC, 450mm DLC / CTB base. A number of
slabs have developed cracks and most of the pavement is old with edge spalls and surfacedeterioration. Asphalt Concrete has been used as filling in some slabs after removal of AGL insetlights.
The section of runway pavement extending approximately 200m ahead of Rapid Exit Taxiway C, is
reported to be under frequent maintenance. This maintainance being undertaken, involves patchrepairs upto a depth of 100mm. The same is attributable to damage of the surface course of the
runway pavement due to shear stresses generated by braking aircraft arriving onto Taxiway C. A
number of slabs on Taxiway C adjoining the runway pavement are also cracked.
There are no bore logs to confirm the existing pavement structure at the runway intersection.
However, the adjoining bore logs on either side of the intersection confirm a composite pavementstructure resting on weathered/hard rock.
As indicated in the Bore Logs, the shoulder pavement structure is also a composite construction inwhich flexible overlays have been constructed over the original rigid pavement. The present
structure comprises of approximately 300mm of structurally stable Asphalt surface course. The layerunder the surface course is a PCC layer of approximate thickness of 150 mm. Under the PCC layer is
the subbase course of granular material / WBM of thickness varying from 800mm to 1100 mm. Thesubgrade under the subbase course as described in Para 5.3 above, is Black Cotton soil.
The identified approximate structure of the existing pavement has been modelled for structuralanalysis on basis of the deflection data as described in Para 4.2 above.
The design of the runway overlay has therefore been progressed based on this pavement model. The
pavement layer moduli, being realistic, are assumed to be representative of the homogeneouspavement sections identified.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
14/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-10 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
6. PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN
The existing pavement structure has been defined on the basis of the Geotechnical investigations and
the analysis of deflection data collected by non-destructive testing. FAARFIELD has been used for
thickness designs of the flexible pavement overlay and PQC over existing base. Design life ofre-strengthened flexible runway pavement is taken as 20 years and for rigid pavement 30 years.
LEDFAA software gives the same results for flexible pavement designs. A gross check of thickness
designs has been performed using COMFAA software. The COMFAA checks are for ascertaining
general correctness of designs.
6.1 FAARFIELD RESULTS
6.1.1 FAARFIELD Design Methodology
The design methodology adopted for the FAARFIELD analysis is as follows:
For Flexible Overlay
Input traffic data, including aircraft type, operating weights and number of annualmovements;
Set design life equal to 20 years;
Define pavement structure (as per Table 4.1 for runway and as per Table 4.2 for runwayshoulder);
Design overlay thickness. For flexible overlay we have adopted P-401 AC Overlay andP-401 Asphalt stabilised base.
For New Rigid Pavement construction over existing subbase. (Chainage 3222 to 3297m)
Input traffic data, including aircraft type, operating weights and number of annualmovements;
Set design life equal to 30 years;
Define pavement structure.
For Design, we have adopted PCC Surface, Existing cementatious base (CTB/DLC) withE modulus = 3200 MPa, and K= 34 MN/m2/m on top of existing subbase.
Define existing pavement base layer thickness = 450mm and design PCC surface thickness.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
15/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-11 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
For New Expedient Pavement (for Existing Runway Shoulder Pavement Upgrade to Outer Runway
Pavement)
Input traffic data, including aircraft type, operating weights and number of annual
movements;
Set design life equal to 20 years;
For Expedient shoulder pavement we have adopted AC Surface, P-306 Econocrete andSubgrade K=11 MN/m
2/m
For Expedient pavements set P401- AC surface thickness to 200mm and design thickness ofEconocrete layer.
FAARFIELD uses properties for pavement materials from FAA construction specifications, detailedin FAA AC 150/5370-10C Standards For Specifying Construction of Airports (Sept 2007). All
pavement materials used for the construction of aircraft pavements for this project will meet the
minimum strength requirements of the FAA standard materials, however the material specificationsfor this project have been written around Indian Standards and local construction methods.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
16/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-12 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
6.1.2 Runway Elements
A summary of the FAARFIELD generated pavement flexible thicknesses are presented in Tables 6.1to 6.3 below. The overlay thicknesses are also shown on Sketch P. Prints of the FAARFIELD
software runs are presented in Appendix D, Annexure I to III.
Table 6.1 FAARFIELD Generated Overlay Thicknesses for Existing Runway Pavement
Upgrade
Design Life 20 years
Section
FlexibleOverlay
P401ACSurface
(mm)
P401AC Stabilized Base
(mm)
TotalDesign Overlay
Thickness
(mm)
LEFT&RIGHT:
153 to7850.8 50
LEFT&RIGHT:
78to30101.6 327.8 430
LEFT:30
to
1000
86.3
85
LEFT:1000to1785 96.7 100
LEFT:2100to2250 120.8 120
LEFT:2250to3222 50.8 50
RIGHT:30to1785 103.6 100
RIGHT:2100to2250 99.7 100
RIGHT:2250to3222 103.3 100
Table 6.2 FAARFIELD Generated Overlay Thicknesses for Existing Runway Shoulder
Pavement Upgrade to Outer Runway Pavement specifications.
Design Life 20 years, Design Traffic 1% of total departure traffic, in accordance with FAA AC150-5320-6E
Section
FlexibleOverlay
P401ACSurface
(mm)
P401AC Stabilized Base
(mm)
TotalDesign Overlay
Thickness
(mm)
LEFT&RIGHT:
153 to7850.8 50
LEFT&RIGHT:
78to30101.6 292.4 395
LEFT:30to1785 101.6 126.5 230
LEFT:2100to3222 146.3 145
RIGHT:30to1785 101.6 53.8 155
RIGHT:2100to3222 101.6 80.4 180
From the FAARFIELD software runs it is observed that B747-400 and A380-800 majorly contribute
to the CDF for the pavement structure. The pavement design thickness would therefore remain
sensitive to the number of passes of these critical design aircraft. Therefore any further increase in
operations of these aircraft will have a corresponding impact on pavement life.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
17/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-13 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
Table 6.3 FAARFIELD Generated New Expedient Pavement Thickness for Existing Runway
Shoulder Pavement Upgrade to Outer Runway Pavement specifications.Design Life 20 years
PavementLayer
RequiredDesign
Thickness
(mm)
AdoptedDesign
Thickness
(mm)
P401ACSurface 200 200
Econocrete 604.6 600
Subgrade(CBR=2%)
For upgradation of the existing shoulder to outer runway specifications of FAA AC 150-5320-6E
ie. 1% of total departure traffic, the adequacy of overlay provided consequent to adopting 1.25%cross slope for the runway vertical profile was checked. The computed pavement life for these
existing shoulder sections after providing the shape correction overlay (not full structural overlay) is
given in Sketch Q. For this purpose the overlay thickness considered was Average 1 SD (ie. the
85thpercentile) over the given chainages. The computed results indicate that the overlay thickness is
inadequate over majority of the existing shoulder sections ie. between chinages 30 to 1785 andbetween 2100 to 3222.
Therefore for upgradation of the existing shoulder to outer runway specifications, the existingrunway shoulder will be divided in sections capable of receiving full structural overlay and those
which cannot accommodate the overlay thickness, on the basis of vertical geometric design /grading. The sections which can accomodate the respective design overlay as per Table 6.2 will be
provided with the same. Sections where the depth between designed and existing levels is not
sufficient to accommodate the respective designed overlay, will be reconstructed as per newexpedient pavement design given in Table 6.3. Alternatively MIAL may seek dispensation from
DGCA to adopt a reduced thickness and accordingly a reduced life in terms of aircraft passes.
A summary of the FAARFIELD generated rigid pavement thickness is presented in Table 6.4 below.Print of the FAARFIELD software run is presented in Appendix D, Annexure IV.
Table 6.4 FAARFIELD Generated Rigid Pavement Thickness over Existing Base (chainage
3222m to 3297m)
Design Life 30 years
Pavement LayerRequired Design
Thickness (mm)
Adopted Design
Thickness (mm)
PQC 471.6 475
Existing Base 450 450
Existing Subbase (K=34MN/m3) - -
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
18/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-14 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
6.1.3 Runway Shoulders
Shoulders to runways are required by ICAO Annex 14 to be structurally capable of accommodatingan occasional pass of an aircraft and to be structurally capable of supporting maintenance vehicles
and emergency vehicles. The shoulders are designed for 10 passes of the critical aircraft
B777-300ER, over a life of 20 years.
The FAARFIELD generated pavement overlay thicknesses are 0mm over the entire stretch of therunway shoulder, except for chainage -78m to -30m where an overlay of 155mm is required. For this
project the existing outer shoulders will be provided with a minimum functional overlay of 50mmAsphalt Concrete after requisite milling for shape correction.
It should be noted that this thickness is often exceeded due to the need to correct transverse slopes to
meet ICAO grading requirements.
Prints of the FAARFIELD software runs are presented in Appendix D, Annexure V.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
19/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-15 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
6.2 COMFAA CHECK
A check of the derived pavement thicknesses has been conducted using COMFAA. The procedure
for calculating pavement thicknesses using COMFAA is as follows:
Annotate with the number of departures of each aircraft;
Determine the critical design aircraft.
Considering the gear factors and weight factors, convert all traffic of various aircraft in thedesign fleet mix to equivalent departures of the design aircraft, individually.
Determine the Pass to Coverage Ratio (PCR) for each aircraft;
Calculate the number of coverages for each aircraft (Coverages = Departures / PCR) interms of equivalent coverages of the critical design aircraft;
Sum the total number of equivalent coverages of the critical aircraft;
Determine the S77-1 pavement thickness required for the total number of equivalentcoverages of the critical aircraft. Alpha factors as per 2006 revision are incorporated in thepavement thickness design in order to account for the coverages of various multiple wheel
gear assemblies. Using published material equivalency factors, convert the existing structure with
FAARFIELD generated overlays into S77-1 pavement thickness.
Compare the COMFAA and FAARFIELD S77-1 derived pavement thicknesses.
The determination of the pavement structure equivalent to the standard S77-1 pavement structurerelies on the use of published material equivalency factors, which are typically expressed within a
range. We have calculated the equivalent pavement thicknesses using appropriate / average values
within the range for comparison with the FAARFIELD derived pavement thicknesses. The detailed
calculations for COMFAA check are included in Appendix E.
As per the COMFAA procedure the critical design aircraft is to be slected based on maximum
pavement thickness requirement for the given aircraft traffic. Therefore, for the flexible overlaydesign, the B777-300ER at 353 Tonnes (MTOW) has been selected as the critical aircraft. However,
FAARFIELD assigns a greater damage factor(CDF) to B747-400 and A380-800, but due to lesserpavement thickness requirement, they do not qualify to be the critical aircraft as per the COMFAA
design procedure. The following is a summary of the COMFAA results presented in Appendix E.
For chainage -153m to -30m, The total number of coverages of the total aircraft fleet mix isequivalent to 41647 coverages of the B777-300ER at 353 Tonne. The S77-1 pavement thickness
required is 2547mm and for chainage -30m to 3222m, The total number of coverages of the aircraft
fleet mix is equivalent to 380964 coverages of the B777-300ER at 353 Tonne. The S77-1 pavement
thickness required is 2663.9mm.
For rigid pavement over existing subbase (chainage 3222m to 3297m), the modulus of subgrade
reaction (k) of the subgrade underneath rigid pavement section is 11 MN/m2
/m, over which a900mm of existing subbase is available which gives an effecive k = 34 MN/m2/m on top of the
existing subbase. Over that, 450mm of existing cementatious base (CTB / DLC) is available. From
ICAO Aerodrome Design Manual Part 3, Figure 4-55 and FAA AC 150/5320-6D, Figure 3-16, aneffective k value on top of the base course layer is derived as 109 MN/m2/m by extrapolation of the
chart.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
20/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-16 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
6.3 COMPARISON OF DESIGN RESULTS
The next step in the design check is the comparison of the equivalent flexible pavement thicknesses
computed using FAARFIELD and COMFAA. To do this, the pavement thickness derived from
FAARFIELD is converted to an equivalent S77-1 structure. Here a constant Asphalt Concrete and
WMM layer thickness is assumed and GSB layer thickness is calculated based on layer equivalencyfactors. Table 6.5 below details the results for comparison:
Table 6.5 Comparison of FAARFIELD and COMFAA computed Flexible Pavement
Thicknesses
FAARFIELD computed Structure
(Converted to Equivalent S77-1 Structure)
COMFAA
computed
StructureChainagefrom 09
(m)
-78to
-30
L: -30to
1000
L: 1000to
1785
L:2100to
2250
L: 2250to
3222
R: -30to
1785
R: 2100to
2250
R: 2250to
3222
-78to
-30
-30to
3222
AC (mm) 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
WMM
(mm)150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
GSB
(mm)2487 2469 2595 2832 2880 2640 2820 2640 2322 2469
Subgrade(CBR 2%)
- - - - - - - - - -
Total
(mm)2712 2694 2820 3057 3105 2865 3045 2865 2547 2664
As can be seen from Table 6.5 above, the COMFAA derived pavement thicknesses for flexible
pavements are comparable with the FAARFIELD generated pavement thickness. Accordingly, the
FAARFIELD design results are considered to be accurate, and the adopted pavement structuresdetailed in Table 6.1 are adequate for construction.
For existing rigid pavements on the western end of the runway, the comparison of FAARFIELD and
COMFAA computed thicknesses is given in Table 6.6 below.
Table 6.6 Comparison of FAARFIELD and COMFAA computed Rigid Pavement
Thicknesses over existing subbase (Chainage 3222 to 3297m)
Design Life- 30years
FAARFIELD COMFAA
PQC (mm) 475 501
From above results for Rigid pavements, it is observed that the FAARFIELD design thicknesses are
not adequate in comparison with the COMFAA design requirement.
The western end existing rigid pavement (chainage 3222 to 3297) , has a remaining life of 15 years
as computed with FAARFIELD, which would be in respect of intact slabs in the pavement extent.As reported in the geotechnical investigations, a number of slabs have developed cracks and most of
the pavement is old with edge spalls and surface deterioration. Based on visual inspection, it is
considered that the existing pavement would probably have a life of at least 5 years subject to urgent
maintenance being undertaken. It is noted from the geometric design that this section is required to
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
21/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-17 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
be regraded. Hence in consideration of the regrading pavement and the poor surface condition andopportunity for renewal, it is recommended that the existing PQC pavement be reconstructed over
the existing subbase. As per FAARFIELD design given in Table 6.4 the required PQC thickness is475mm as against the COMFAA design requirement of 500mm as in Table 6.6. The design as per
FAARFIELD of 475mm PQC is being adopted for construction over the existing subbase .
For the eastern rigid end of the runway (chainage -153m to -78m), the vertical geometry designindicates that the pavement surface will have to be raised by a minimum of 600mm (already
provided with 50mm overlay). Therefore the geometric overlay will satisfy the structural needs of
the pavement. Thus only the Asphalt overlay alternative was evalauated for this runway end. Inconsideration of the same and equivalent S77-1 thicknesses were computed for the existing structure
with overlay. The adopted design section is given below in Table 6.7.
Table 6.7 Adopted Structure for eastern Rigid end (-153m to -78m)
Layer Thickness(mm)
OverlayAC 200
CTB 400 (min)
Existing structurePCC 500
Subgrade (CBR 2%) -
The adequacy of the adopted section was checked with COMFAA. The details are given below in
Table 6.8.
Table 6.8 Comparison of Adopted Structure and COMFAA computed Thicknesses for
Pavement (Chainage -153m to -78m)
Overlay based on
Geometric Requirement
(Converted to EquivalentS77-1 Structure)
COMFAA computed
Structure
AC (mm) 75 75
WMM (mm) 150 150
GSB (mm) 2410 2322
Subgrade (CBR 2%) - -
Total (mm) 2635 2547
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
22/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-18 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
6.4 RUNWAY OVERLAY DESIGN AT TAXIWAY LOCATIONS
The design runway pavement sections based on estimated runway aircraft traffic as detailed in
preceding paragraphs also need to be checked for structural adequacy at the connecting
taxiway/ runway locations. The runway overlay design in these locations is then based on estimated
aircraft traffic on each of the exit taxiways. The higher of the two overlay designs viz; overlaythickness based on runway traffic and overlay based on connecting taxiway traffic, then becomes the
ruling overlay requirement for the particular location on the runway. For the present case, the
structural overlay required for runway traffic is analysed as the ruling overlay for the central 20m
full strength width of the runway. Beyond the middle third runway width, a reduced strength keelsection (as per ICAO Aerodrome Design Manual Part 3 Clause 4.4.14 and FAA AC 150/5320-6E
clause 305) is to be provided. The structural thickness is designed for 1% of the total runway
departure traffic, for the outer section of the runway for upgradation of existing shoulders. However,the reduced thickness over the outer section will not be provided at Taxiway connections. Instead,
full strength taxiway pavement sections will be provided here.
Further, the runway design thickness is checked for adequacy at taxiway connection locations. The
structural adequacy is checked by comparing the computed structural runway overlay with that
required for connecting taxiway traffic. In case the CDF is lesser than 1, the designed structuralsection is adequate for Life of minimum 20 years. At sections where the existing structure is
computed as adequate, a minimum 50mm functional overlay will still be provided, incorporating aminimum 15mm milling of the existing runway surface.
A summary of the FAARFIELD generated runway pavement overlay thicknesses for 20 year designlife at connecting taxiway locations are presented in Table 6.9. It can be seen that no overlay is
required on the runway when considering the connecting taxiway traffic, except for connection toTaxiway N where a minimum 50mm overlay is required, where a 600mm (minimum) overlay is
being provided due to grading requirements. Prints of the FAARFIELD software runs are presented
in Appendix D, Annexure VI.
Table 6.9 FAARFIELD Generated Overlay Thicknesses at Taxiway Connection Locations
Taxiway
Connection
Chainage
from09
FlexibleOverlay
P401ACSurface
(mm)
P401AC Stabilized
Base(mm)
TotalOverlayThickness
(mm)
TWYN L:92 50.8 50
TWYW1 L:1676 0 0
RETN5 L:2133 0 0
TWYN4 L:2649 0 0
TWYN3 L:3023 0 0
TWYN1 L:3243 NotApplicable* NotApplicable*
TWYS R:0 0 0
RETS8
R:609
0
0
RETS7 R:1112 0 0
TWYW1 R:1676 0 0
TWYS4 R:2649 0 0
TWYS3 R:3023 0 0
*NOTE: Taxiway N1 (A4) is an existing rigid pavement and the runway connection is also rigid, sono overlay is required. The recommended structure of 475mm PQC on existing subbase is adequate
for the taxiway N1 traffic.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
23/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-19 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
6.5 DESIGNED PAVEMENT STRUCTURES
A summary of the thicknesses adopted for flexible overlay, New Expedient pavement and Rigid
Pavement over existing subbase are presented in Tables 6.10 to 6.13.
Table 6.10 Designed Flexible Overlay Thicknesses for Existing Runway Pavement UpgradeDesign Life 20years
Section(m)
Designed Structural
OverlayThickness
(mm)
LEFT&RIGHT: 153to78 200Asphalt+400CTB
LEFT&RIGHT: 78to30 430Asphalt
LEFT:30to1000 85 Asphalt
LEFT:1000to1785 100Asphalt
LEFT:2100to2250 120Asphalt
LEFT:2250to3222 50 Asphalt
RIGHT:30to1785 100Asphalt
RIGHT:2100to2250 100Asphalt
RIGHT:2250to3222 100Asphalt
Table 6.11 Designed Flexible Overlay Thicknesses for Existing Runway Shoulder Pavement
Upgrade to Outer Runway Pavement specifications.
Design Life 20years
Section(m)
DesignedStructural
OverlayThickness
(mm)
LEFT&RIGHT: 153to78 200Asphalt+120CTB
LEFT&RIGHT: 78to30 395Asphalt
LEFT:30to1785 230Asphalt
LEFT:2100to3222 145Asphalt
RIGHT:30to1785 155Asphalt
RIGHT:2100to3222 180Asphalt
Table 6.12 Designed Structure of New Expedient Pavement Thickness for Outer Runway
Pavement specifications.
Design Life 20years
PavementLayerDesignedThickness
(mm)
P401ACSurface 200
Econocrete 600
Subgrade(CBR=2%)
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
24/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-20 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
Table 6.13 Designed Rigid Pavement Thickness over Existing Base (chainage 3222 to 3297m)
Design Life 30years
Pavement LayerDesigned
Thickness (mm)
PQC 475
Existing Base 450
Existing Subbase (K=34MN/m2/m) -
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
25/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-21 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
6.6 RUNWAY STRIP & RESA
Clause 3.4.16 of the DGCA CARS statesthat:
The portion of a strip of an instrument runway within a distance of at least:
75 m where the code number is 3 or 4; and
40 m where the code number is 1 or 2;
From the centre line of the runway and its extended centre line shall be so prepared or constructed
as to minimize hazards arising from differences in load bearing capacity to aeroplanes which the
runway is intended to serve in the event of an aeroplane running off the runway.
Clause 3.5.11 of the DGCA CARs states that:
A runway end safety area shall be so prepared or constructed as to reduce the risk of damage to an
aeroplane undershooting or overrunning the runway, enhance aeroplane deceleration and facilitate
the movement of rescue and fire fighting vehicles.
In order to comply with the above clause, the bearing capacity of Runway strip area and RESA willbe improved if required in specific areas as identified by MIAL.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
26/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-22 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
6.7 PCN ASSIGNMENT
The ICAO ACN/PCN system is used by airport operators as a pavement management tool, whereby
aircraft that operate at Aircraft Classification Numbers (ACN) less than the Pavement Classification
Number (PCN) for a particular pavement can do so without weight restriction without undue damage
occurring to the pavement. Aircraft that wish to operate with an ACN greater than the publishedPCN must apply to the airport operator for a Pavement Concession.
FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5335-5A, Standardized Method of Reporting Airport Pavement
Strength PCN, Paragraph 6 states The ACN-PCN system is only intended as a method ofreporting relative pavement strength so airport operators can evaluate acceptable operations of
airplanes. It is not intended as a pavement design or pavement evaluation procedure, nor does it
restrict the methodology used to design or evaluate a pavement structure. A similar philosophy isalso expressed in ICAO Aerodrome Design Manual Part 3, Clause 1.1.2.1.
The airport operator is free to select any value of PCN, and the decision as to which value to select is
often a balance between commercial considerations and the actual strength of the pavement. An
airport operator may choose to increase the PCN without strengthening a pavement, in order to
attract larger aircraft and thereby gaining increased revenue. The airport operator would make thisdecision consciously knowing that the overloaded operations of the larger aircraft would reduce the
life of the pavement, and would result in the need for early maintenance of the pavement.
The aircraft pavements for this project have been designed based on a rigorous analysis of the actual
number of aircraft that are likely to utilise the runway pavement within the design period. The PCN
analysis is attached at Appendix F.
Since the basis of design for the aircraft pavements are published in this report, it is anticipated that
the airport operator will track usage of the airport pavements throughout the design period, and will
use the aircraft traffic included in Appendix A (analysis submitted separately as SDR-Aircraft
Traffic for Aircraft Pavements), as a baseline in which to manage aircraft operations at the airport.
L&T therefore recommend that highest ACN value of all aircraft in the fleet mix be adopted as thePCN for the airport. ACNs for various aircraft in the fleet mix, based on a flexible pavement and
subgrade category C, are summarised in Table 6.14.
From Table 6.14, the highest ACN is 89, corresponding to B777-300ER operating at a MTOW of
353 Tonne.
The minimum ACN computed for various design sections, corresponding to B777-300ER operatingweight of 359 T is 92.
The recommended PCN assignment of the Runway 09/27 for publication is 89/F/C/W/T.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
27/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-23 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
Table 6.14 Aircraft Classification Number for Various Aircraft
(Using 2006 Alpha factors)
Code C D
Aircraft A320 A321 B737-800 A300 B767-400
MTOM
(Tonnes)77 89 79 171 204
ACN 46.8 57.3 50.1 65.6 78.3
Code E
Aircraft A330 A340-300 A340-600 B747-400 B777-300 B777-300ER MD-11
MTOM
(Tonnes)230 275 368 397 300 353 285
ACN 71.2 71.5 83.2 72.4 72.4 89 80.5
Code F
Aircraft A380 B747-8
MTOM(Tonnes)
560 441.4
ACN 75 85.8
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
28/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 7-24 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Runway 09/27 is required to be strengthened in order to cater for the projected aircraft traffic. For
the purpose of design of the structural overlay, the existing runway pavement structure was analysed
based on geotechnical investigations and non-destructive testing.
The major length of the runway comprises of an intact asphalt thickness of 600mm, over a PCC
layer of 300mm thickness. Under the PCC layer exists a granular subbase layer of average thickness
800mm.
The flexible overlay design has been carried out with software FAARFIELD, which provides for
identical design thicknesses as LEDFAA. A gross check has been carried out with COMFAA.
Overlay design solutions have been provided for a design life of 20 years.
For the overlay design, the runway has been divided in ten sections based on the deflectionprofiles obtained by non-destructive testing with HFWD. The E moduli of the existing pavement
layers have been back-calculated from the deflection data. The values have been found to be within a
realistic range and hence adopted for the overlay design. The asphalt structural overlay design
thickness varies from 50mm to 120mm, for a design life of 20 years. However, the overlay thicknesswill be increased over respective sections in keeping with the designed vertical geometry of the
runway. In case, the vertical geometry design dictates adoption of a lesser overlay thickness over a
particular section, the pavement over this runway section will require regular / periodic maintenance.Between chainage -78m and -30m Asphalt overlay requirement of 430mm is computed. Providing
for 200mm Asphalt overlay the CTB requirement is computed as 220mm totalling to 420mm
overlay. As the geometric profiling of the runway to meet the ICAO requirement already results in a
thickness of 430mm, no additional strengthening is required. Similarly, over the existing rigidpavement between chainage -153m to -78m overlay of 200mm Asphalt and minimum 400mm CTB
is being provided in consideration of the vertical profiling of the runway at that location against
minimum overlay requirement of 50mm.
The overlay adequacy has also been confirmed for taxiway traffic at locations where the runway
connects to taxiways. The geo-technical data as interpreted for the cross runway design assumes thatthe runway intersection from chainage 1785m to 2100m has weathered/hard rock strata under the
pavement structure. Based on the same, only a minimum functional overlay of 50mm is necessary
for this section from chainage 1785m to 2100m. Thicker layers however result from the need to meet
the ICAO geometric requirements.
The existing flexible pavement between chainage 537m and 1017m is reported to be requiringfrequent patch repairs. The same is attributed to accentuated braking of the arriving aircraft at this
location. At this location it is recommended to provide a deep lift patch extending 150mm deep into
the existing pavement so as to provide for an average 350mm of new pavement (considering also,the vertical profile design). Also, existing cracked slabs on Rapid Exit Taxiway C adjoining the
runway are recommended to be replaced.
The existing rigid pavement between chainage 3222m and 3297m has a low design life and also
since regrading is required in this area, it is recommended to reconstruct the PQC pavement to a
thickness of 475mm on top of the existing base course.
The inner existing runway shoulder of 7.5m width is being upgraded to outer runway specifications.The shoulder upgradation will be achieved by overlaying existing asphalt shoulder surface, where
possible in consideration of the runway cross profile, or else, will be reconstructed with expedient
paving. The design overlay and new expedient pavement are computed to satisfy strength
requirements of outer runway as per FAA AC 150-5320-6E.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
29/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 7-25 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
The outer existing shoulder satisfies the structural requirement of runway shoulder specified in thesame advisory circular. The existing outer shoulder will hence be provided with only 50mm of
Functional overlay.
The existing shoulder pavements will be reconstructed with taxiway design pavement sections at all
new taxiway connections.
As reported by MIAL a subsurface drainage system had been incorporated in the existing runway
pavement structure. The longitudinal drains along both sides of the runway pavement are considered
integral to the subsurface drainage system and are therefore recommended to be retained.
The PCN assignment of the Runway 09-27 after overlay is recommended as 89/F/C/W/T,
corresponding to the highest ACN of aircraft included in the projected traffic levels (B777-300ER).
The design also indicates that B747-400 and A380-800 aircraft contribute significantly to pavementdamage. It is therefore recommended that operations of these three aircraft be restricted to within the
projected traffic level as considered for design.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
30/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 8-26 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
8. LIST OF CODES
1. ICAO, Doc 9157-AN/901, Aerodrome Design Manual Part 3, Second Edition, 1983.
2. ICAO Annex 14 Aerodromes , Vol. 1, Aerodrome Design and Operations, Fouth Edition,2004.
3. FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5335-5A Standardized Method of Reporting AirportPavement Strength PCN
4. FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5320-6D Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation.
5. FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5320-6E Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation.
6. FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5370-10B Standards For Specifying Construction of Airports(April 2005).
7. DGCA Civil Aviation Regulations
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
31/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 9-27 10/06/2009
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design Rev B
9. APPENDICES & SKETCHES
APPENDICES
A. Runway 09/27 Design Aircraft Traffic
B. Report - Analysis of HFWD Deflection Data
C. Geotechnical subsurface profile
D. FAARFIELD Software Runs
E. COMFAA Results
F. PCN Analysis
SKECTHES
P. 09/27 Runway Structural Overlay Thicknesses
Q. Runway 09/27 Life calculation for outer Runway with overlay provided by adoptingcross slope of 1. 25%
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
32/175
Appendix A
RUNWAY 09/27 DESIGN AIRCRAFTTRAFFIC
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
33/175
Annual
Arrivals
Annual
Departures
Annual
Arrivals
Annual
Departures
A320 4803 3431 27448 34310
A321 613 475 3504 4745
A300 1840 1314 10512 13140
A330 1840 1314 10512 13140
A340-300 715 511 4088 5110
A340-600 715 511 4088 5110
A380 51 37 292 365
B737-800 7256 5293 41464 52925
B767-400 1022 694 5840 6935
B747-400 971 730 5548 7300
B747-8 51 37 292 365
B777-300 1446 1007 8264 10074
B777-300ER 598 416 3416 4161
MD11 358 219 2044 2190
Annual
Arrivals
Annual
Departures
Annual
Arrivals
Annual
Departures
A320 4803 34 27448 343
A321 613 5 3504 47
A300 1840 13 10512 131
A330 1840 13 10512 131
A340-300 715 5 4088 51
A340-600 715 5 4088 51
A380 51 1 292 4
B737-800 7256 53 41464 529
B767-400 1022 7 5840 69
B747-400 971 7.3 5548 73
B747-8 51 1 292 4
B777-300 1446 10 8264 101
B777-300ER 598 4 3416 42
MD11 358 2 2044 22
09/27RUNWAYDESIGNAIRCRAFTTRAFFIC
APPENDIXA
09/27RUNWAYOUTERPAVEMENTDESIGNAIRCRAFTTRAFFIC
Aircraft
Chainage:153mTO30m Chainage:30mTO3297m
Aircraft
Chainage:153mTO30m Chainage:30mTO3297m
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
34/175
Appendix B
ANNEXURE I: ANALYSIS OF HFWD DEFLECTION
DATA
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
35/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program i 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
APPENDIX B
ANNEXURE I
Analysis of FWD Deflection
Data for Runway 09-27
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
36/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program ii 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 DEFLECTION DATA RECORDING ............................................................................ 1-1
2.
DEFLECTION DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 2-2
3.
FLEXIBLE AIRFIELD PAVEMENT ANALYSIS ................................................................... 3-3
3.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.2 EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE ........................................................................ 3-4
3.2.1 Reported Structure ........................................................................................ 3-4
3.2.2 Identified Structure ........................................................................................ 3-4
3.3 PAVEMENT STRUCTURE MODELLING ................................................................... 3-5
4.
RIGID AIRFIELD PAVEMENT ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 4-6
5.
RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 5-7
5.1 SECTION: -153 TO -78 ............................................................................................... 5-7
5.2 SECTION: -78 TO -30 ................................................................................................. 5-8
5.3 SECTION: LEFT (-30 TO 1000) ................................................................................ 5-10
5.4 SECTION: LEFT (1000 TO 1785) ............................................................................. 5-11
5.5 SECTION: LEFT (2100 TO 2250) ............................................................................. 5-12
5.6
SECTION: LEFT (2250 TO 3222) ............................................................................. 5-13
5.7 SECTION: RIGHT (-30 TO 1785) .............................................................................. 5-14
5.8
SECTION: RIGHT (2100 TO 2250) ........................................................................... 5-15
5.9
SECTION: RIGHT (2250 TO 3222) ........................................................................... 5-16
5.10
SECTION: 3222 TO 3297 ......................................................................................... 5-17
6. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 6-18
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
37/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 1-1 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
For determination of PCN values of existing runways at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport,Mumbai Mott MacDonald had carried out non-destructive testing through Ooms Avenhorn
Holding India Private Limited. A Heavy Falling Weight Deflectometer (HFWD) was used by
Ooms Avenhorn for collection of deflection data from 09-27 Runway of CSI Airport, Mumbai. The
data had been analysed by Ooms using PAVERS software for reporting the PCN value.Accordingly the pavement structure had been modeled as suitable for PCN evaluation. However,
the report did not explain the basis for adopting the specific structural model and E values asreported could not be correlated with the pavement layer materials. Therefore it is not practical to
assess the overlay design section on basis of the reported analysis. The deflection data collected by
Ooms has hence been re-analyzed by L&T using PAVERS software for arriving at realisticmodeling of the existing pavement to be utilised for overlay design by FAARFIELD software.
1.2 DEFLECTION DATA RECORDING
The HFWD generated deflection measurements were recorded in period 24 to 26 Nov 2006. Theload level was kept at approximately 200KN for recording the pavement deflections using 06
geophones at varied distances from the load centre. The deflection data has been recorded along 5
longitudinal lines along either side of the runway centreline at lateral spacing of 3m, 4m, 6m, 7m
and 8m from centreline and longitudinal spacing of 100m along each run (staggered by 25mbetween the runs). The deflections have been recorded at average pavement surface temperature of
37C. The deflections have been recorded for 2000m from Runway 09 end and for 1200m from
Runway 27 end. Approximately 300 m of runway intersection section has not been in recorded,possibly due to operational constraints.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
38/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 2-2 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
2. DEFLECTION DATA ANALYSIS
The deflection data recorded at varying loads in range of 154 KN to 234 KN was normalized touniform load of 272 KN, simulating dynamic A330 aircraft wheel loading. The normalized
deflection data was then utilized for identification of pavement sections with similar deflectionprofiles, termed as homogeneous sections for analysis. Since deflection data had been collected for
longitudinal pavement sections left and right of runway centreline separately, the pavementbehaviour patterns based on the deflection profiles could also be established separately for
longitudinal runway sections on left and right of runway centreline. Accordingly the sections withsimilar deflection pattern were identified on either side of runway centreline. Once the pavement
sections were identified the deflection bowl representing the homogeneous sections were selected
on basis of rigorous statistical analysis for further analysis of the pavement structural parameters by
PAVERS software. The bowl nearest to 85th percentile of individual deflections was selected as
representative for each pavement section for further analysis. The sections identified based on the
deflection profiles are tabulated below.
Table 1: Pavement Sections (East to West 09-27)
SECTION ChainageLEFT of Centre Line
1 -153 to -78
2 -78 to -30
3 -30 to 1000
4 1000 to 1785
5 2100 to 2250
6 2250 to 3222
7 3222 to 3297
RIGHT of Centre Line1 -153 to -78
2 -78 to -30
3 -30 to 1785
4 2100 to 2250
5 2250 to 3222
6 3222 to 3297
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
39/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 3-3 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
3. FLEXIBLE AIRFIELD PAVEMENT ANALYSIS
3.1 GENERAL
The deflection data along with pavement cross-sectional details were utilized as input for thePAVERS analysis. The pavement is modelled as linear elastic multilayered structure with the
assumptions that the layers are infinitely long in horizontal direction, layers are of uniform
thickness and that the layer materials are homogeneous, isotropic and linear elastic in nature. These
assumptions are made in all softwares using layered elastic theory. For back-calculation of materialproperties of pavement layers, following input parameters were required by the program for
analysis:-
(i) Range of Elastic Moduli Values for each pavement layer Realistic range of ElasticModuli comparable with characteristic values was adopted.
(ii) Poissons ratio values for each pavement layer - Characteristic value of 0.35 adopted
for the asphalt layer, the granular base/subbase course and the subgrade.
(iii) Pavement Layer thickness Layer thickness were adopted as per pavementstructural models explained subsequently.
(iv) Friction between the layers Full friction mobilization between pavement layerswas adopted.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
40/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 3-4 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
3.2 EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE
3.2.1 Reported Structure
The existing pavement structure reported in PCN evaluation report by Ooms is as under:-
50mm DAC
75mm SDAC
50mm DAC
50mm SDAC
40mm DAC50mm SDAC
60mm Crack Relief Layer50mm DAC
50mm SDAC
100mm AC
200mm Murrum230mm Murrum
300mm Lime Stabilized soil
3.2.2 Identified Structure
The existing structure indentified as per geotechnical investigations conducted by L&T is as under:
Chainage -153 to -78m from 09: 500mm PCC
800mm WBM
Chainage -78 to -30m from 09: 600mm AC+DBM/BM
300mm Disintegrated PCC800mm WBM/GSB Fill
Chainage -30 to 3222m from 09: 600mm AC+DBM/BM300mm PCC
850-1400mm WBM/GSB Fill
Chainage 3222 to 3297m from 09: 420mm PCC
150mm CTB
300mm PCC
930mm WBM
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
41/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 3-5 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
3.3 PAVEMENT STRUCTURE MODELLING
For analysis purpose the pavement modelling was based on the actual pavement structure
identified through geotechnical investigations.
Accordingly the flexible pavement sections are modelled as under:-
Pavement
Section (m)Asphalt Layer PCC Layer Subbase Layer Subgrade
-78 to -30
600 mm
(All top 600mm
Asphalt layers)
300mm
(Disintegrated
Existing PCC)
800mm (ExistingWBM/GSB Fill)
As existing
Left :
-30 to 1000
600 mm
(All top 600mm
Asphalt layers)
300mm
(Existing PCC)
850mm (Existing
WBM/GSB Fill)
As existing
Left :
1000 to 1785
600 mm
(All top 600mm
Asphalt layers)
300mm
(Existing PCC)
950mm (Existing
WBM/GSB Fill)As existing
Left :2100 to 2250
600 mm
(All top 600mmAsphalt layers)
300mm(Existing PCC)
1160mm (ExistingWBM/GSB Fill)
As existing
Left :
2250 to 3222
600 mm(All top 600mm
Asphalt layers)
300mm
(Existing PCC)
1400mm (Existing
WBM/GSB Fill)As existing
Right :-30 to 1785
600 mm
(All top 600mm
Asphalt layers)
300mm(Existing PCC)
1000mm (ExistingWBM/GSB Fill)
As existing
Right :
2100 to 2250
600 mm
(All top 600mm
Asphalt layers)
300mm
(Existing PCC)
1200mm (Existing
WBM/GSB Fill)As existing
Right :
2250 to 3222
600 mm
(All top 600mm
Asphalt layers)
300mm
(Existing PCC)
1000mm (Existing
WBM/GSB Fill)As existing
The back-calculation process for modelling the pavement layers was continued till the deflectionsmeasured with FWD equipment matched closely with the theoretically calculated deflections within
an acceptable range of error ( 10% Lack of Fit). The elastic modulus values of the pavement layerswere re-adjusted so as to obtain a computed deflection bowl matching with the normalized
deflection bowl.
The deflections were measured at a certain ambient pavement temperature with the weighed mean
temperature of 37 C. The PAVERS version 2.50 however limits the same to a maximum of 30 C.The back-calculated elastic moduli of the asphalt layers were therefore corrected to 33 C, utilising
the temperature correction suite of the software.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
42/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 4-6 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
4. RIGID AIRFIELD PAVEMENT ANALYSIS
The deflection data along with following input parameters required for back-calculation of elasticmodulus of the slab were input in PAVERS software.
(i) Range of Elastic Moduli values for the slab Realistic range of Elastic Modulicomparable with characteristic values was adopted.
(ii) Poissons Ratio value Characteristic value of 0.15 was adopted for PCC layer and0.35 for the asphalt layer, the granular base/subbase course and the subgrade. Forcombined PCC and CTB layer a characteristic value of 0.18 was adopted.
Since the PCN evaluation report by Ooms did not report a Rigid structure. The identified rigid slabthickness over subbase-subgrade combine of infinite thickness was modelled for the Rigid end
sections of the runway pavement for purpose of analysis.
Accordingly the Rigid pavement sections are modelled as under:-
Pavement
Section (m)PCC Layer Base Layer Subgrade
-153 to -78500 mm
(Existing PCC)-
Existing WBM/ GSBFill/clay soil considered
as part of subgrade
3222 to 3297420 mm
(Existing PCC)
150 mm (ExistingCTB) and 300 mm
(Existing PCC)
Existing WBM/ GSBFill/clay soil considered
as part of subgrade
The Back-calculation process was continued till the deflections measured with HWD equipment
matched with the theoretically calculated deflections within an acceptable range of error(10% Lack of Fit).
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
43/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 5-7 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
5. RESULTS
5.1 SECTION: -153 TO -78
Rigid Pavement Composition
Layer
NoMaterial Type
Elastic Modulus
MPa
(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
Thickness
(mm)
1 PCC Layer 26000 0.15 500
2Modulus of Subgrade
Reaction (K)0.044N/mm
2
Lack of Fit - 42.3%
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
44/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 5-8 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
5.2 SECTION: -78 TO -30
Pavement Composition (Option-1)
LayerNo Material Type
Elastic Modulus
MPa(Back-calculated)
PoissonsRatio Thickness(mm)
1 Bituminous Layer 1091 0.35 600
2 PCC/Base Layer 300 0.15 300
3 Subbase Layer 200 0.35 800
4 Sub grade 350 0.35
Lack of Fit 9.8% Back calculated E=1650=>1091MPa corrected to 33o
C
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
45/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 5-9 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
Pavement Composition (Option-2)
Layer
NoMaterial Type
Elastic Modulus
MPa
(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
Thickness
(mm)
1 Bituminous Layer 1091 0.35 600
2 PCC/Base Layer 350 0.35 300
3 Subbase Layer 200 0.35 800
4 Sub grade 350 0.35
Lack of Fit 9.8% Back calculated E=1650=>1091MPa corrected to 33o
C
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
46/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 5-10 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
5.3 SECTION: LEFT (-30 TO 1000)
Pavement Composition
Layer
NoMaterial Type
Elastic ModulusMPa
(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
Thickness
(mm)
1 Bituminous Layer 1653 0.35 600
2 PCC Layer 20000 0.15 300
3 Subbase Layer 600 0.35 850
4 Sub grade 540 0.35
Lack of Fit 8.3% Back calculated E=2500=>1653MPa corrected to 33o
C
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
47/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 5-11 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
5.4 SECTION: LEFT (1000 TO 1785)
Pavement Composition
LayerNo Material Type
Elastic Modulus
MPa(Back-calculated)
PoissonsRatio Thickness(mm)
1 Bituminous Layer 1111 0.35 600
2 PCC Layer 21000 0.15 300
3 Subbase Layer 900 0.35 950
4 Sub grade 580 0.35
Lack of Fit 9.5% Back calculated E= 1680=>1111MPa corrected to 33oC
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
48/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 5-12 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
5.5 SECTION: LEFT (2100 TO 2250)
Pavement Composition
LayerNo Material Type
Elastic Modulus
MPa(Back-calculated)
PoissonsRatio Thickness(mm)
1 Bituminous Layer 859 0.35 600
2 PCC Layer 20000 0.15 300
3 Subbase Layer 670 0.35 1160
4 Sub grade 500 0.35
Lack of Fit 9.2% Back calculated E= 1300=>859MPa corrected to 33o
C
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
49/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 5-13 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
5.6 SECTION: LEFT (2250 TO 3222)
Pavement Composition
Layer
No Material TypeElastic Modulus MPa
(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
Thickness
(mm)
1 Bituminous Layer 959 0.35 600
2 PCC Layer 22000 0.15 300
3 Subbase Layer 880 0.35 1400
4 Sub grade 750 0.35
Lack of Fit 14.5%Back calculated E= 1450=>959MPa corrected to 33o
C
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
50/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 5-14 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
5.7 SECTION: RIGHT (-30 TO 1785)
Pavement Composition
LayerNo Material Type
Elastic Modulus
MPa(Back-calculated)
PoissonsRatio Thickness(mm)
1 Bituminous Layer 1025 0.35 600
2 PCC Layer 23000 0.15 300
3 Subbase Layer 800 0.35 1000
4 Sub grade 480 0.35
Lack of Fit 6.3% Back calculated E= 1550=>1025MPa corrected to 33oC
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
51/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 5-15 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
5.8 SECTION: RIGHT (2100 TO 2250)
Pavement Composition
Layer
No Material TypeElastic Modulus MPa
(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
Thickness
(mm)
1 Bituminous Layer 595 0.35 600
2 PCC Layer 20500 0.15 300
3 Subbase Layer 900 0.35 1200
4 Sub grade 450 0.35
Lack of Fit 7.8% Back calculated E=900 =>595MPa corrected to 33o
C
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
52/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 5-16 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
5.9 SECTION: RIGHT (2250 TO 3222)
Pavement Composition
LayerNo Material Type
Elastic Modulus
MPa(Back-calculated)
PoissonsRatio Thickness(mm)
1 Bituminous Layer 1091 0.35 600
2 PCC Layer 20500 0.15 300
3 Subbase Layer 800 0.35 1000
4 Sub grade 700 0.35
Lack of Fit 10.0% Back calculated E=1650=>1091MPa corrected to 37o
C
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
53/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 5-17 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
5.10 SECTION: 3222 TO 3297
Rigid Pavement Composition
Layer
No Material Type
Elastic Modulus MPa
(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
Thickness
(mm)
1 PCC Layer 16400 0.15 420
2 Base Layer 3200 0.18 450
2 Sub grade 0.0490 N/mm2
Lack of Fit 10.1 %
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
54/175
Larsen & Toubro Limited
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program 6-18 10/06/2009
Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the analysis of deflection data by PAVERS software, following recommendations are
made:-
(a) The rigid pavement from chainage 3222 to 3297m is rigid and exhibits a low deflectionprofile. However, visual inspection has revealed that a number of slabs are distressed and
cracked. It is assumed therefore that the deflection measurements for the rigid pavement
section would have been recorded for intact slabs. Therefore an assessment of the overallcondition with respect to percentage cracking would dictate adoption of rehabilitation
strategy.
(b) Save the above discussed pavement sections, the runway pavement is structurally amenablefor an overlay construction for re-strengthening or up-gradation.
(c) The back calculation results based on the pavement model are found to be quite realistic andthus can be adopted for overlay design.
(d) The rigid pavement from chainage -153 to -78m exhibits a low deflection profile. The backcalculated E value for PQC is 26000 MPa. The error in back calculation results is high.
However, the lab evaluated E value is 16000 MPa, which is considered realistic when
compared to other back-calculated PCC values. The same is therefore recommended to be
adopted for overlay design.
(e) The pavement from chainage -78 to -30m exhibits high deflection values due to the reporteddisintegrated PCC layer instead of sound PCC. The layer Modulus is very low and
comparable to granular layer Modulus. The analysis has therefore been re-done based on
flexible layer properties. The pavement section would require a thick overlay or alternatively
the pavement may be re-constructed.
(f) Further, for overlay design, the elastic modulus values for the subbase / fill materialcombined should be reduced to a maximum of 30% of the back calculated values as isrecommended by AASHTO, to cater for dry season deflection measurements and assumed
linear elasticity & isotropic properties of the granular materials. The corrected value shouldbe adopted as design modulus for the granular subbase course.
(g) The design subgrade strength should be as per the geotechnical investigations.
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
55/175
Appendix B
ANNEXURE II: HFWD RESULTS
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
56/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
57/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
58/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
59/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
60/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
61/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
62/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
63/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
64/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
65/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
66/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
67/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
68/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
69/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
70/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
71/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
72/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
73/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
74/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
75/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
76/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
77/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
78/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
79/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
80/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
81/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
82/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
83/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
84/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
85/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
86/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
87/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
88/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
89/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
90/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
91/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
92/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
93/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
94/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
95/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
96/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
97/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
98/175
Appendix C
GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE PROFILE
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
99/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
100/175
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
101/175
Appendix D
ANNEXURE I: FAARFIELD SOFTWARE RUNS
FOR RUNWAY FLEXIBLE OVERLAY
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
102/175
AppendixD
AnnexureI
DesignLife 20years
Section:153to78m
The structure is AC Overlay on Flexible.
Design Life = 20 years.
A design has not been completed for this section.
Pavement Structure Information by Layer, Top First
Thickness Modulus Poisson's Strength
mm MPa Ratio R,MPa
1
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay 50.8 1,378.95 0.35 0
2 Undefined 500 16,000.00 0.35 0
3 Subgrade 0 20.68 0.35 0
Total thickness to the top of the subgrade = 550.8 mm
Airp lane In for mati on
Gross Wt. Annual % Annual
tonnes Departures Growth
1 A320-200 Twin std 77 3,431 0
2 A320-200 Twin std 64.5 4,803 0
3 A321-200 std 89 475 0
4 A321-200 std 75.5 613 0
5 A300-B4 std 171 1,314 0
6 A300-B4 std 140 1,840 0
7 A330-200 std 230 1,314 0
8 A330-200 std 185 1,840 0
9 A340-300 std 275 511 0
10 A340-300 std Belly 275 511 0
11 A340-300 std 200 715 0
12 A340-300 std Belly 200 715 013 A340-600 std 368 511 0
14 A340-600 std Belly 368 511 0
15 A340-600 std 259 715 0
16 A340-600 std Belly 259 715 0
17 A380-800 560 37 0
18 A380-800 386 51 0
19 B737-800 79 5,293 0
20 B737-800 71 7,256 0
21 B767-400 ER 204 694 0
22 B767-400 ER 159 1,022 0
23 B747-400 397 730 0
24 B747-400 274 971 0
25 B747-400ER 441.4 37 0
26 B747-400ER 340 51 0
27 B777-300 Baseline 300 1,007 0
28 B777-300 Baseline 252 1,446 0
29 B777-300 ER 353 416 0
30 B777-300 ER 252 598 0
31 MD11ER 285 219 0
32 MD11ER Belly 285 219 0
33 MD11ER 200 358 0
34 MD11ER Belly 200 358 0
FAARFIELDSOFTWARERUNSFORRUNWAYFLEXIBLEOVERLAY
No. Type
No. Name
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
103/175
Add iti onal Air plane Info rmat ion
CDF CDF Max P/C
Contribution for Airplane Ratio
1 A320-200 Twin std 0 0 1.38
2 A320-200 Twin std 0 0 1.38
3 A321-200 std 0 0 1.35
4 A321-200 std 0 0 1.35
5 A300-B4 std 0 0 0.69
6 A300-B4 std 0 0 0.69
7 A330-200 std 0 0 0.79
8 A330-200 std 0 0 0.79
9 A340-300 std 0 0 0.79
10 A340-300 std Belly 0 0 1.27
11 A340-300 std 0 0 0.79
12 A340-300 std Belly 0 0 1.27
13 A340-600 std 0 0 0.79
14 A340-600 std Belly 0 0 0.81
15 A340-600 std 0 0 0.81
16 A340-600 std Belly 0 0 0.78
17 A380-800 0.22 0.23 0.56
18 A380-800 0 0 0.56
19 B737-800 0 0 1.35
20 B737-800 0 0 1.35
21 B767-400 ER 0 0 0.73
22 B767-400 ER 0 0 0.73
23 B747-400 0.52 0.52 0.71
24 B747-400 0 0 0.71
25 B747-400ER 0.1 0.1 0.72
26 B747-400ER 0 0 0.72
27 B777-300 Baseline 0 0.11 0.54
28 B777-300 Baseline 0 0.01 0.54
29 B777-300 ER 0 0.43 0.53
30 B777-300 ER 0 0.01 0.53
31 MD11ER 0 0 0.77
32 MD11ER Belly 0 0 1.29
33 MD11ER 0 0 0.77
34 MD11ER Belly 0 0 1.29
No. Name
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
104/175
Section:78to30m(200mmAsphaltoverCTB)
The structure is New Flexible. Asphalt CDF was not computed.
Design Life = 20 years.
A design for this section was completed on 04/13/09 at 17:49:14.
Pavement Structure Information by Layer, Top First
Thickness Modulus Poisson's Strength
mm MPa Ratio R,MPa
1
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Surface 101.6 1,378.95 0.35 0
2 Undefined 100 2,500.00 0.35 0
3 P-304 CTB 219.9 3,447.38 0.2 0
4 Undefined 600 1,091.00 0.35 0
5 Undefined 300 350 0.35 0
6 Undefined 800 67 0.35 0
7 Subgrade 0 20.68 0.35 0
Total thickness to the top of the subgrade = 2,121.5 mm
Airp lane In for mati on
Gross Wt. Annual % Annual
tonnes Departures Growth
1 A320-200 Twin std 77 3,431 0
2 A320-200 Twin std 64.5 4,803 0
3 A321-200 std 89 475 0
4 A321-200 std 75.5 613 0
5 A300-B4 std 171 1,314 0
6 A300-B4 std 140 1,840 0
7 A330-200 std 230 1,314 0
8 A330-200 std 185 1,840 0
9 A340-300 std 275 511 0
10 A340-300 std Belly 275 511 0
11 A340-300 std 200 715 0
12 A340-300 std Belly 200 715 0
13 A340-600 std 368 511 0
14 A340-600 std Belly 368 511 015 A340-600 std 259 715 0
16 A340-600 std Belly 259 715 0
17 A380-800 560 37 0
18 A380-800 386 51 0
19 B737-800 79 5,293 0
20 B737-800 71 7,256 0
21 B767-400 ER 204 694 0
22 B767-400 ER 159 1,022 0
23 B747-400 397 730 0
24 B747-400 274 971 0
25 B747-400ER 441.4 37 0
26 B747-400ER 340 51 0
27 B777-300 Baseline 300 1,007 0
28 B777-300 Baseline 252 1,446 0
29 B777-300 ER 353 416 0
30 B777-300 ER 252 598 0
31 MD11ER 285 219 0
32 MD11ER Belly 285 219 0
33 MD11ER 200 358 0
34 MD11ER Belly 200 358 0
No. Type
No. Name
-
7/25/2019 0927 Runway SDR.pdf
105/175
Add iti onal Air plane Info rmat ion
CDF CDF Max P/C
Contribution for Airplane Ratio
1 A320-200 Twin std 0 0 1.03
2 A320-200 Twin std 0 0 1.03
3 A321-200 std 0 0 1.03
4 A321-200 std 0 0 1.03
5 A300-B4 std 0 0 1.03
6 A300-B4 std 0 0 1.03
7 A330-200 std 0 0.01 0.7
8 A330-200 std 0 0 0.7
9 A340-300 std 0 0 0.7
10 A340-300 std Belly 0 0 1.02
11 A340-300 std 0 0 0.7
12 A340-300 std Belly 0 0 1.02
13 A340-600 std 0 0.02 0.7
14 A340-600 std Belly 0 0 0.62