Rigid Airfield Pavements

Design and Evaluation Methods

2 GUIDANCE

NOTES

Rigid Airfield Pavements

P.1 Design & Evaluation Methods Guidance Notes

Summary
This guidance note is intended to give advice on the selection and use of Rigid Pavement design methods for airfield pavements for:
Those interested in specifying or selecting a design method suitable for their circumstances Sections 1 Introduction and 2 Selecting a design method only. Those interested in using the principal UK design methods Section 3 Using a design method. Those interested in the background to the principal UK design methods Section 4 Derivation of design methods.

1. Introduction
PSA1, BAA2, FAA3 or LEDFAA4; four major design methods (two British and the two major American) for airfield pavements, including rigid pavements which is correct, which represents best practice, which should you use? In practice there are numerous other design methods (important methods have been published in French, Japanese and Russian), and no major published method is wrong. Differences between design methods are caused by a number of factors, including: the condition of the pavement at the end of the design life, construction practice and material specification, analysis methods. There are also important differences in the scope of design methods, e.g.: they may cater for the evaluation of the strength of existing pavements and the design of rehabilitation and strengthening requirements. they may be restricted in the range of aircraft or subgrade strengths covered. Finally a design method is often linked to a particular material and construction specification; for instance the PSA design guide was linked to the PSA specification. Informed selection of a design method requires some knowledge of these factors and an understanding of how they may affect the capital and whole-life costs of the pavement design. This guidance note provides advice on: The selection of a design method for Clients and Project Managers (Section 2). The use of UK design methods for Designers (Section 3). Section 4 gives some general background to the derivation of design methods

2. Selecting a Design Method

Selection of a design method will usually depend on three factors: Construction practice and material specifications. For instance it would not usually be practicable to choose an American design method, linked to American specifications and standards, in the UK; when British design methods are closely linked to British construction practice, specifications and standards. The pavement condition expected at the end of the design life (known as the failure criterion), which governs likely maintenance requirements. In areas where low downtime for maintenance is vital a design method with a combination of a conservative failure criterion and a high design reliability (the probability of the pavement life equalling or exceeding the design life) may be appropriate. However, the pavement thickness and capital cost will be higher, and in most circumstances a less onerous design method will be suitable. Whether an evaluation of an existing pavement and rehabilitation / overlay design is required. The failure criterion is usually defined by the proportion of the pavement area that has failed structurally at the end of the design life, e.g. structural cracking of 30% to 50% of bays in the trafficked areas. The capabilities and limitations of the four major design systems in use in either the UK or USA is shown in Table 2.1.

1.

2.

Property Services Agency (PSA) A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design & Evaluation (1989)

BAA plc Pavement Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Loading (1993)

Rigid Airfield Pavements

Design & Evaluation Methods Guidance Notes
Table 2.1 Comparison of design methods
Design Method
A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation (PSA, 1989)

P.2

Construction Practice
Covers a wide range of pavement types including the preferred new rigid pavement option (Fig 1 (i)) and alternatives generally used for evaluation and rehabilitation / strengthening design (Fig 1 (ii) and (iii)). Generally based on common UK construction practice, but allows alternative details, such as doweled joints, reinforced / continuously reinforced pavements, cementbound soils in lieu of drylean concrete and unbound bases / capping layers. Linked to the PSA specification7, now partially embodied in Defence Estates Functional Standards9. Limited to jointed unreinforced concrete pavements on a cementbound base (Fig 2).

Failure Condition
Developed for UK military airports. Intended to give minimum whole-life cost for pavements where the cost of disruption due to maintenance is low.

Evaluation & rehabilitation /strengthening design

Comprehensive ability to evaluate existing pavements and design rigid overlays.

Limitations
Covers a limited range of concrete strengths. May under-design some joints on very heavily trafficked pavements.

The BAA Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Pavements (BAA, 1993)

Developed for BAA airports. Highly conservative, intended to give minimal pavement downtime for structural maintenance on very heavily used pavements. Intended to give minimum whole-life cost for pavements where the cost of disruption due to maintenance is high.

Very limited capability for evaluating the strength of existing pavements. No capability for the design of rigid overlays to existing pavements.

Has graphs for limited ranges of aircraft and subgrade strengths, and considers only one concrete strength (concrete strengths may be accounted for by the use of a separate chart providing an approximate modification to the basic design, or by the use of the associated design spreadsheets - see Section 3.2). May not design joints correctly if the pavement construction falls outside common ranges. Requires new graphs for new aircraft. Has not been extended to cover aircraft such as the Boeing 777 and Airbus A340.

Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation (FAA, 1995)

Linked to American construction practice, with little scope for variation of, for instance, joint details. Covers a wide range of pavement types. Linked to the FAA specification8. Linked to the FAA specification8.

Developed for American civil airports. Intended to give minimum whole-life cost for pavements where the cost of disruption due to maintenance is low.

Comprehensive ability to evaluate existing pavements and design rigid overlays.

LEDFAA (1995) (NB Must be used in conjunction with the FAA design guide3.

Developed for American civil airports. Intended to give minimum whole-life cost for pavements where the cost of disruption due to maintenance is low.

Very limited capability for evaluating the strength of existing pavements. Has a capability for the design of concrete overslabs to existing concrete pavements.

FAA only recommend the use of LEDFAA where the aircraft traffic mix includes Boeing 777 aircraft. Based on a computer programme covering fixed aircraft. May not design joints correctly if the pavement construction falls outside common ranges.

Rigid Airfield Pavements

P.3 Design & Evaluation Methods Guidance Notes

Figure 1. i. Preferred New Rigid Pavement

With a cement-bound base to: to provide a uniform and substantially improved support, particularly at joints, to preserve aggregate interlock and therefore load transfer at joints by reducing deflections, to protect moisture sensitive subgrades and act as a working platform during construction, to prevent mud-pumping to reduce the rate of deterioration if cracking of the PQC slab occurs, to reduce the required PQC thickness for heavy loadings.
Jointed Unreinforced Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC)

ii. Traditional Rigid Pavement

On the subgrade or an unbound sub-base (for evaluation)

Jointed Unreinforced Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC)

Induced transverse joints without mechanical load transfer devices

Drylean Concrete

iii. Multiple Slab Rigid Pavements

(for evaluation, rehabilitation and strengthening design)

Pavement Quality Concrete

Pavement Quality Concrete

Drylean Concrete Concrete Concrete

Figure 1: Rigid pavement constructions included in A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation.

Rigid Airfield Pavements

Design & Evaluation Methods Guidance Notes P.4

3. Using a Design Method

This section provides advice for designers on using the two UK design methods, A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation1 and The BAA Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Pavements2, lists the known limitations of the two methods and describes the dangers of mixing design methods. Lockheed C5, Antonov 124 and Antonov 225. Designs can be obtained by using the Dual-Tandem charts, although it is currently uncertain as to whether the results are conservative or not. (NB if designs are unconservative the result is a reduction in the design reliability). When using A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation it is very important to understand the relationship between the design flexural strength of concrete and the specified strength, and the design guide should be read in conjunction with Pavement quality concrete for airfields9.

3.1. A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation

The standard design methods of A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation cover: Rigid pavements comprising jointed, unreinforced, concrete slabs on a cement-bound or bituminous-bound base course, without mechanical load transfer devices at joints. The design methods can also be used for: Jointed, reinforced, concrete pavements. Doweled concrete pavements. Concrete pavements on an unbound base or directly on the subgrade. Evaluation of all of these pavement types is described, together with: Multiple slab pavements (bonded, partially bonded or unbonded concrete overlays on concrete). Composite pavements (bituminous surfacing on concrete). Problems with the guide include: Concrete strengths. Aircraft Classification Numbers. Design Charts for new or unusual main wheel gears. The design charts cover a limited range of concrete strengths. The low end of the range is rarely a problem; but the high end can be, particularly when evaluating older pavements. Limited extrapolation is possible, but otherwise higher strengths cannot be accommodated. The ACNs given in Appendix B are out of date and need to be supplemented by manufacturers data for recent aircraft. The Design Charts do not cover modern 6 wheel main wheel gears (e.g. Boeing 777 and Airbus A380), or unusual main wheel gears such as the

3.2. The BAA Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Pavements

The principal problem with The BAA Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Pavements is the limited range of aircraft, subgrade strengths and concrete strengths covered by the design charts. In particular the aircraft mix considered typical in 1990 is no longer adequate. The design guide is accompanied by a spreadsheet for rigid pavement design (Fig 3) which allows the concrete strength to be varied and also allows mixed aircraft use to be easily dealt with. However, the spreadsheet holds the standard range of aircraft and requires modification for an alternative aircraft mix. For aircraft other than those in the standard mix, it is necessary to calculate the maximum flexural stress in the concrete slab for the standard pavements shown in (Fig 2), and the range of concrete slab thicknesses included in the spreadsheet, and then transfer the stresses to the spreadsheet. The aircraft data, including the Pass-to-Coverage Ratio must also be entered in the spreadsheet. The stresses should be calculated using the multi-layer elastic analysis program JULEA, using the pavement model shown in (Fig 6). Subgrade strengths other than the standard values, and between the minimum and maximum standard values can be dealt with by using interpolation, giving a reasonably accurate result. For values outside the standard range, or accurate results, the stresses should be re-calculated as described above. The design guide includes a chart that gives an approximate modification to the design thickness for alternative concrete strengths. For an accurate design the spreadsheet should be used.

Jointed Unreinforced Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC)

Induced transverse joints without mechanical load transfer devices

Jointed Unreinforced Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC)

Induced transverse joints without mechanical load transfer devices

150mm Drylean Concrete

150mm Drylean Concrete

300mm Unbound Sub-Base

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) 20MN/m2/m

Figure 2: BAA Standard Constructive Practice.

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) 40, 80, 150 MN/m2/m

Rigid Airfield Pavements

P.5 Design & Evaluation Methods Guidance Notes

It is possible to use the BAA design method for pavement constructions other than those shown in (Fig 2), as long as the following parameters are not altered (see Section 4.1): Elastic stiffness and Poissons Ratio of concrete.

Interface Friction. CBR or k to Elastic Stiffness relationships and Poissons Ratio of the subgrade.

BAA plc Rigid Pavement Design Charts PQ Concrete Flexural Strength N/mm2 Design Factor (DF) = a+b LOG C Design Factor (DF) = MR/STRESS Design Life Years Annual Growth Rate %

File RIGCDF2.xls (Originator: John Barling) v.2 issued 10/10/97. k80 stresses corrected to agree with a= 6 0.48 30 0 b= 0.39

Aircraft B777-200 B747-940 B747-400 MD11 Wing B767-300 B757-200 B737-400 BAel 146-300 B747-600X A3XX 20W A3XX24W AN Depart 0 0 3700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gross WT lb 592000 % Gross WT 100 940000 100 851000 100 621000 100 Low 390 405125 100 Medium 330 256000 100 High 295 150500 100 98000 100 1250000 100 1700000 1254000 100 100

Subgrade Ult. Low PQC mm 440

Cumulative Damage Factor 1000 Ultra-Low 100 Low CDF Medium 10

x

High

1 250 0.1 Slab Thickness (mm) 300 x 350 400 450 500 550 600

Figure 3: Output example from BAA design spreadsheet

Rigid Airfield Pavements

Design & Evaluation Methods Guidance Notes
3.3. Known limitations
In addition to any described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 there are some other limitations with both the principal UK design methods, described in Table 3.1. with sub-bases using the BAA design guide is to model them by multi-layer elastic analysis. Mixing material equivalency factors. If a design method includes equivalency factors to convert one material to an equivalent thickness of another material, they should not be altered. Using entirely different techniques from other design methodologies, e.g. using the Method of Equivalent Thicknesses to combine pavement layers. The use of information from road design methods. There is rarely any justification to show that design information suitable for roads are correct for airfield pavements where the magnitude of the loading may be an order of magnitude higher, and the frequency of trafficking several orders of magnitude lower. There are some parts of design methods that are external to major assumptions used in the derivation of the method, and they can be exceptions to the rule. An example is the statistical method used to calculate the Pass-to-Coverage ratio.

P.6

3.4. Mixing design methods

Design methods should not be mixed! A good design method, such as the four described in this document, is a coherent system with components that are logically dependant on each other. Used out of context the results can be misleading or completely wrong. Typical examples are: The use of the PSA graph for the effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction on an unbound sub-base under a rigid pavement in conjunction with the BAA design guide. In practice one of the reasons for the production of the BAA design guide was a concern that the PSA graph overestimates the effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction under heavily loaded, thick concrete slabs, so using the PSA graph removes one of the drivers for higher reliability in the BAA design guide. The correct method for dealing

Table 3.1 Limitations of UK design methods

Design Method
A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation

Limitation
Longitudinal joints in pavements for heavy aircraft, when subjected to regular trafficking normal to the joint

Comments
Standard longitudinal joints are butt joints without mechanical load transfer devices. In the majority of cases they perform well. However, there is some evidence that regular trafficking normal to the joints by heavy aircraft such as the Boeing 747, e.g. on some aprons, can cause premature failure. The formula given in Section A of Pavement Design Charts and Computer Programs is incorrect for the common case of traffic normally distributed about a centreline. The correct formula is given in Appendix E of A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation1. The relationships between flexural and compressive strength given in Equations 10 and 11 in Performance of Base Slabs (Flexible Overlays on Rigid Pavements) are very optimistic and likely to overpredict the actual flexural strength of the concrete. Alternative methods are given in A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation1 or paragraph 684 of Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation3.

The BAA Design Guide

Pass-to-Coverage Ratio

Flexural strength of concrete

Rigid Airfield Pavements

P.7 Design & Evaluation Methods Guidance Notes

4. Derivation of Design Methods

This section describes the background to the derivation of rigid pavement design methods, and particular details of the two UK design methods, A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation1 and The BAA Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Pavements2. Westergaard solutions for stresses at the centre, edge of corner of a finite plate on a dense liquid (Winkler) subgrade (A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation1 and Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation3). Burmeister solutions for stresses in a multi-layered semi-infinite pavement on an elastic half-space (The BAA Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Pavements2 and LEDFAA4), often known as Multi-Layer Elastic Analysis. Each method has advantages and disadvantages. Multi-Layer Elastic Analysis allows better account to be taken of bases and sub-bases, and may have a more accurate subgrade model, but cannot deal with edge or corner loading. The adequacy of the slab edges and corners has to be dealt with by theoretical relationships to the stress at the slab centre, which may not be accurate outside a relatively limited range. Westergaard solutions can deal with edge and corner loading, but cannot take accurate account of the effect of bases and sub-bases. More accurate analysis methods using 2D plate theory or 3D FiniteElement Analysis are in use in research and development but have not yet been incorporated into routine design methods for various reasons, including the requirement for re-calibration against performance data.

4.1 The challenge

A rigid pavement design method has to determine a pavement thickness that will provide the required pavement performance, i.e. an amount of cracking equal to the failure criterion after the design movements by the aircraft mix. Unfortunately, it is not possible to directly predict performance. Design methods work by relating pavement behaviour (deflections, stresses and strains), which can be approximately calculated, to performance by a black box function (Fig 4). The black box has to be obtained by relating measured performance from full-scale testing, or longterm loading, to calculated behaviour for the actual pavements (Fig 5). The result for a rigid pavement is an approximate relationship between something that can be calculated (concrete stress) and performance in terms of allowable load repetitions.

4.2 Empirical and analytical design methods

A differentiation is often made between so-called empirical and semi-empirical design methods, and analytical or mechanistic design methods. Empirical design methods combine the behaviour calculations and the black-box, into a single empirical (i.e. derived from testing) relationship between the required pavement thickness and the loading and subgrade strength. The term semi-empirical is used when the original empirical relationship has been extended to other situations by the use of theory. Analytical or mechanistic design methods use a theoretical method to calculate the pavement behaviour, before applying the black box to obtain performance. All of the design methods descried in Section 2 are basically analytical, although both A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design1 and Evaluation and Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation3 use empirical relationships to deal with multiple slab pavements.

4.4. A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation

Rigid pavement design in A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation is based on an analysis of stresses in the concrete using solutions of the Westergaard equations, together with an Allowable Live Load Stress criterion derived from measured long-term performance of a set of pavements.

4.5. The BAA Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Pavements

Rigid pavement design in The BAA Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Pavements is based on an analysis of stresses in the concrete using Multi-Layer Elastic Analysis, together with an Allowable Live Load Stress criterion derived from US Army Corp of Engineers full-scale testing. Analysis is based on the pavement model shown in (Fig 6), using the program JULEA.

4.3. Analysis methods

Two methods of analysing the behaviour of a rigid pavement are used:

Concrete Slab
E = 27586 N/mm2, = 0.15 h = variable

0% Horizontal Shear Transfer

Drylean Concrete
E = 5171 N/mm2, = 0.2 h = 150 mm 100% Horizontal Shear Transfer

Subgrade
E = 4.970 x k0.7741, = 0.4 h=

Figure 6: BAA Pavement Model

Rigid Pavement

Rigid Airfield Pavements

Design & Evaluation Methods Guidance Notes P.8

Figure 4. Pavement Behaviour and Performance

Developed by correlation with full-scale testing or long-term performance. Concrete Slab Concrete Stress
Bound / Unbound Base Aircraft Coverages Deflection

Cracking "Black Box"

Concrete Flexural Strength Inputs Failure Criteria

Subgrade

Pavement Behaviour
(an approximation is calculated by analysis)

Pavement Behaviour
(cannot be directly calculated or practicably directly measured)

Loading parameters:
Wheel load Tyre pressure

Pavement Parameters:
Layer thicknesses Material properties Subgrade strength

Rigid Airfield Pavements

P.9 Design & Evaluation Methods Guidance Notes

Figure 5. Derivation of Failure Criteria

Test Aircraft
(measured Coverages to Failure)

Test Aircraft

Pavement Quality Concrete known thickness

Pavement Quality Concrete known thickness Calculated stress

Subgrade known strength

Subgrade known strength

Test Aircraft
(measured Coverages to Failure)

Stress

Pavement Quality Concrete known thickness

Pavement Quality Concrete known thickness Calculated stress

Coverages

Subgrade known strength

Subgrade known strength

Test Pavements with measured performance

Calculated Behaviour

Relate calculated behaviour to measured performance

Rigid Airfield Pavements

Design & Evaluation Methods Guidance Notes P.10

5. References
1. PSA. A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation. HMSO. 1989. 2. BAA. Pavement Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Loadings. BAA. 1993. 3. FAA. Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation. Advisory Circular 150/5370-6DD, Federal Aviation Administration. Washington DC. 7 July 1995. 4. FAA.Airport Pavement Design for the Boeing 777 Airplane. Advisory Circular 150/5320-16. Federal Aviation Administration. Washington DC. 22 October 1995. 5. WOODMAN G.R. A commentary on A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation. Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs, Transp. 1992. 95. Aug. 167-172. 6. LANE R. WOODMAN G.R. and BARENBERG E.J. Pavement Design Considerations for Heavy Aircraft Loading at BAA Airports. Proc. ASCE Speciality Conf. Airport Pavement Innovations Theory to Practice. Vicksburg, MS. September 1993 7. PSA. Standard Specification Clauses for Airfield Pavement Works. PSA Airfields Branch, 1989. 8. FAA. Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports. Advisory Circular 150/537-10A. Federal Aviation Administration. Washington DC. 1 September 1991. 9. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE. Pavement Quality Concrete for Airfields. Specification 33. Ministry of Defence. 1996.

1.

2.

6. Acknowledgements
The Britpave Technical Committee would like to thank Graham Woodman (WSP Group) for assistance in the preparation of this Guidance Note, and John Cairns, Richard Moore and Glyn Davies of TPS Consult, Bob Lane of BAA and John Cook of Defence Estates for their contribution to its preparation. Further details on Britpave are available at All advice or information from Britpave is intended for those who will evaluate the significance and limitations of its contents and take responsibility for its use and application. No liability (including that for negligence) for any loss resulting from such advice or information is accepted.

www.britpave.org.uk

Century House, Telford Avenue, Crowthorne, Berkshire RG45 6YS Tel. 01344 725731 Fax. 01344 761214

www.britpave.org.uk