0927 Runway SDR PDF

Larsen & Toubro Limited
MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED
CSIA EXPANSION & RENOVATION PROGRAM
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27

Upgrade Pavement Structural Design
Rev 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
CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

i
Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design
10/06/2009
Rev B
Document Control
Project Title:
Project No:
Runway 09/27 Upgrade
N044
Document Title:
Document Number:
MIAL-LT-O-N044-CV11-SD-001
Revision
Date
Designed by
Checked by
Approved by
Description
13 April 2009
Manoj Tipnis
Paul McCullagh
Larry Mujaj
Issued for MIAL review
10 June 2009
Manoj Tipnis
Paul McCullagh
Larry Mujaj
Issued for MIAL review
Document Change History

Revision
Reason for Change
Date
Preliminary Issue
13 April 2009
Revised as per client recommendations
10 June 2009

ii
10/06/2009
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

1-1
10/06/2009
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 comprises
asphalt 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 the
subject 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.

1-2
10/06/2009
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 most
departing 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, in
accordance 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 Circular
150-5320-6E.

2-3
10/06/2009
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 pavement
thickness design. The MTOW and MLW figures for each aircraft type are listed in Table 3.1 below:
Table 3.1 Aircraft Operating Mass
Code
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
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
Aircraft
A380
B747-8
MTOM
(Tonnes)
560
441.4
MLM
(Tonnes)
386
340

3-4
10/06/2009
Rev B
4.
4.1
NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING
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- EMS
Unihorn 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 at Appendix 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. The
layer thicknesses have been adopted from borehole data and the E moduli from the back-calculation
results. 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 the
shoulder 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
Pavementmodel
Section
Layer
Chainagefrom09 PCC
153to78
subgrade
Chainagefrom09 Surface
78to30
PCC/Base
Thickness(mm)
Evalue(MPa)
500
16000
20.68
600
1091
300
350
subbase
800
67
subgrade
20.68
600
1653
300
20000
850
200
20.68
Surface
600
1111
PCC
300
21000
subbase
950
300
subgrade
20.68
Surface
600
859
PCC
300
20000
subbase
1160
223
subgrade
20.68
LeftofCentreLine
Surface
Chainagefrom09
PCC
30to1000
subbase
subgrade
LeftofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
1000to1785
LeftofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
2100to2250

4-5
10/06/2009
Rev B
Section
LeftofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
2250to3222
RightofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
30to1785
RightofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
2100to2250
RightofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
2250to3222
Chainagefrom09
3222to3297
Pavementmodel
Layer
Thickness(mm)
Evalue(MPa)
Surface
600
959
PCC
300
22000
subbase
1400
293
subgrade
20.68
Surface
600
1025
PCC
300
23000
subbase
1000
266
subgrade
20.68
Surface
600
595
PCC
300
20500
subbase
1200
300
subgrade
20.68
Surface
600
1091
PCC
300
20500
subbase
1000
266
subgrade
20.68
PCC
420
16400
Base
450
3200
20.68
subgrade
Table 4.2: Runway Shoulder Pavement Structure Model

Pavementmodel
Section
Layer
Chainagefrom09 Surface
78to30
PCC/base
Evalue(MPa)
1091
150
350
subbase
800
67
subgrade
20.68
300
1111
150
20000
850
200
20.68
Surface
300
859
PCC
150
20000
subbase
1160
223
subgrade
20.68
LeftofCentreLine
Surface
Chainagefrom09
PCC
30to1785
subbase
subgrade
LeftofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
2100to3222
Thickness(mm)
300

4-6
10/06/2009
Rev B
Section
RightofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
30to1785
RightofCentreLine
Chainagefrom09
2100to2250
Layer
Surface
Thickness(mm)
300
Evalue(MPa)
1025
PCC
150
23000
subbase
1000
266
subgrade
20.68
Surface
300
595
PCC
150
20500
subbase
1000
266
subgrade
20.68

4-7
10/06/2009
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 the
pavement 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 side
of the runway intersection indicate the presence of weathered/hard rock at a depth of 1.9m and on the
27 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 the
design 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 in
Mori Chart,1965, 6th international 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 is
reported 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 not
required and that the runway overlay thickness will be determined based on geometric shape
correction of the both runways.

5-8
10/06/2009
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 which
flexible overlays have been constructed over the original rigid pavement. The present structure
comprises 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 surface
deterioration. Asphalt Concrete has been used as filling in some slabs after removal of AGL inset
lights.
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 patch
repairs 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 pavement
structure resting on weathered/hard rock.
As indicated in the Bore Logs, the shoulder pavement structure is also a composite construction in
which flexible overlays have been constructed over the original rigid pavement. The present
structure comprises of approximately 300mm of structurally stable Asphalt surface course. The layer
under 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. The
subgrade 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 structural
analysis 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 homogeneous
pavement sections identified.

5-9
10/06/2009
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 of
re-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 annual
movements;
Set design life equal to 20 years;
Define pavement structure (as per Table 4.1 for runway and as per Table 4.2 for runway
shoulder);
Design overlay thickness. For flexible overlay we have adopted P-401 AC Overlay and
P-401 Asphalt stabilised base.
For New Rigid Pavement construction over existing subbase. (Chainage 3222 to 3297m)
movements;
Define pavement structure.

For Design, we have adopted PCC Surface, Existing cementatious base (CTB/DLC) with
E 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.

6-10
10/06/2009
Rev B
For New Expedient Pavement (for Existing Runway Shoulder Pavement Upgrade to Outer Runway
Pavement)
movements;
For Expedient shoulder pavement we have adopted AC Surface, P-306 Econocrete and
Subgrade K=11 MN/m2/m
For Expedient pavements set P401- AC surface thickness to 200mm and design thickness of
Econocrete layer.
FAARFIELD uses properties for pavement materials from FAA construction specifications, detailed
in 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 specifications
for this project have been written around Indian Standards and local construction methods.

6-11
10/06/2009
Rev B
6.1.2
Runway Elements
A summary of the FAARFIELD generated pavement flexible thicknesses are presented in Tables 6.1
to 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
FlexibleOverlay
TotalDesignOverlay
Section
P401ACSurface
P401ACStabilizedBase
Thickness
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
LEFT&RIGHT:
153to78
LEFT&RIGHT:
78to30
50.8
50
101.6
327.8
430
LEFT:30to1000
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 AC
150-5320-6E
FlexibleOverlay
TotalDesignOverlay
Section
P401ACSurface
P401ACStabilizedBase
Thickness
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
LEFT&RIGHT:
153to78
LEFT&RIGHT:
78to30
50.8
50
101.6
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.

6-12
10/06/2009
Rev B
Table 6.3 FAARFIELD Generated New Expedient Pavement Thickness for Existing Runway
Shoulder Pavement Upgrade to Outer Runway Pavement specifications.
RequiredDesign
AdoptedDesign
PavementLayer
Thickness
Thickness
(mm)
(mm)
P401ACSurface
Econocrete
Subgrade(CBR=2%)
200
200
604.6
600
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
85th percentile) 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 and
between 2100 to 3222.
Therefore for upgradation of the existing shoulder to outer runway specifications, the existing
runway 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 new
expedient 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)
Required Design
Adopted Design
Pavement Layer
Thickness (mm)
Thickness (mm)
471.6
475
PQC
Existing Base
Existing Subbase (K=34MN/m3)

6-13
450
450
10/06/2009
Rev B
6.1.3
Runway Shoulders
Shoulders to runways are required by ICAO Annex 14 to be structurally capable of accommodating
an 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 the
runway 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 50mm
Asphalt 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.

6-14
10/06/2009
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 the
design 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) in
terms 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 equivalent
coverages of the critical aircraft. Alpha factors as per 2006 revision are incorporated in the
pavement 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 structure
relies 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 overlay
design, 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 lesser
pavement 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 is
equivalent 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 a
900mm 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, an
effective k value on top of the base course layer is derived as 109 MN/m2/m by extrapolation of the
chart.

6-15
10/06/2009
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 equivalency
factors. Table 6.5 below details the results for comparison:
Table 6.5 Comparison of FAARFIELD and COMFAA computed Flexible Pavement
Thicknesses
COMFAA
FAARFIELD computed Structure
computed
(Converted to Equivalent S77-1 Structure)
Structure
Chainage
from 09
(m)
-78
to
-30
L: -30
to
1000
L: 1000
to
1785
L:2100
to
2250
L: 2250
to
3222
R: -30
to
1785
R: 2100
to
2250
R: 2250
to
3222
-78
to
-30
-30
to
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 structures
detailed 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
Thicknesses over existing subbase (Chainage 3222 to 3297m)
Design Life- 30years
PQC (mm)
FAARFIELD
COMFAA
475
501
Pavement
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
6-16
10/06/2009
Rev B
be regraded. Hence in consideration of the regrading pavement and the poor surface condition and
opportunity 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 is
475mm 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 design
indicates 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. In
consideration 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)
Overlay
Existing structure
AC
200
CTB
400 (min)
PCC
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
COMFAA computed
(Converted to Equivalent
Structure
S77-1 Structure)
AC (mm)
75
75
WMM (mm)
150
150
GSB (mm)
2410
2322
Subgrade (CBR 2%)
Total (mm)
2635
2547

6-17
10/06/2009
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; overlay
thickness 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 keel
section (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 structural
section 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 a
minimum 15mm milling of the existing runway surface.
A summary of the FAARFIELD generated runway pavement overlay thicknesses for 20 year design
life 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 to
Taxiway 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
FlexibleOverlay
Taxiway
Chainage
P401ACSurface P401ACStabilized TotalOverlayThickness
Connection
from09
(mm)
Base(mm)
(mm)
TWYN
TWYW1
RETN5
TWYN4
TWYN3
TWYN1
TWYS
RETS8
RETS7
TWYW1
TWYS4
TWYS3
L:92
L:1676
L:2133
L:2649
L:3023
L:3243
R:0
R:609
R:1112
R:1676
R:2649
R:3023
50.8
0
0
0
0
NotApplicable*
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
NotApplicable*
0
0
0
0
0
0
*NOTE: Taxiway N1 (A4) is an existing rigid pavement and the runway connection is also rigid, so
no overlay is required. The recommended structure of 475mm PQC on existing subbase is adequate
for the taxiway N1 traffic.
6-18
10/06/2009
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 Upgrade
Design Life 20years
DesignedStructural
Section(m)
OverlayThickness
(mm)
LEFT&RIGHT:153to78
200Asphalt+400CTB
LEFT&RIGHT:78to30
430Asphalt
LEFT:30to1000
85Asphalt
LEFT:1000to1785
100Asphalt
LEFT:2100to2250
120Asphalt
LEFT:2250to3222
50Asphalt
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
DesignedStructural
Section(m)
OverlayThickness
(mm)
200Asphalt+120CTB
LEFT&RIGHT:153to78
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
DesignedThickness
PavementLayer
(mm)
P401ACSurface
200
Econocrete
600
Subgrade(CBR=2%)

6-19
10/06/2009
Rev B
Table 6.13 Designed Rigid Pavement Thickness over Existing Base (chainage 3222 to 3297m)
Design Life 30years
Pavement Layer
Designed
Thickness (mm)
PQC
475
Existing Base
450
Existing Subbase (K=34MN/m2/m)

6-20
10/06/2009
Rev B
6.6
RUNWAY STRIP & RESA

Clause 3.4.16 of the DGCA CARS states that:
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 will
be improved if required in specific areas as identified by MIAL.

6-21
10/06/2009
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 published
PCN 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 of
reporting 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 is
also 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 this
decision 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 the
PCN 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 operating
weight of 359 T is 92.
The recommended PCN assignment of the Runway 09/27 for publication is 89/F/C/W/T.

6-22
10/06/2009
Rev B
Table 6.14 Aircraft Classification Number for Various Aircraft

(Using 2006 Alpha factors)
Code
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
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
Aircraft
A380
B747-8
MTOM
(Tonnes)
560
441.4
ACN
75
85.8

6-23
10/06/2009
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 deflection
profiles 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 thickness
will 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 rigid
pavement 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 that
the 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 requiring
frequent 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.

7-24
10/06/2009
Rev B
The outer existing shoulder satisfies the structural requirement of runway shoulder specified in the
same 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 pavement
damage. It is therefore recommended that operations of these three aircraft be restricted to within the
projected traffic level as considered for design.

7-25
10/06/2009
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 Airport

Pavement 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

8-26
10/06/2009
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 adopting
cross slope of 1. 25%

9-27
10/06/2009
Rev B
Appendix A
RUNWAY 09/27 DESIGN AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC
APPENDIXA
09/27RUNWAYDESIGNAIRCRAFTTRAFFIC
Aircraft
A320
A321
A300
A330
A340-300
A340-600
A380
B737-800
B767-400
B747-400
B747-8
B777-300
B777-300ER
MD11
Chainage:153mTO30m
Annual
Annual
Arrivals
Departures
4803
3431
613
475
1840
1314
1840
1314
715
511
715
511
51
37
7256
5293
1022
694
971
730
51
37
1446
1007
598
416
358
219
Chainage:30mTO3297m
Annual
Annual
Arrivals
Departures
27448
34310
3504
4745
10512
13140
10512
13140
4088
5110
4088
5110
292
365
41464
52925
5840
6935
5548
7300
292
365
8264
10074
3416
4161
2044
2190
09/27RUNWAYOUTERPAVEMENTDESIGNAIRCRAFTTRAFFIC
Aircraft
A320
A321
A300
A330
A340-300
A340-600
A380
B737-800
B767-400
B747-400
B747-8
B777-300
B777-300ER
MD11
Chainage:153mTO30m
Annual
Annual
Arrivals
Departures
4803
34
613
5
1840
13
1840
13
715
5
715
5
51
1
7256
53
1022
7
971
7.3
51
1
1446
10
598
4
358
2
Chainage:30mTO3297m
Annual
Annual
Arrivals
Departures
27448
343
3504
47
10512
131
10512
131
4088
51
4088
51
292
4
41464
529
5840
69
5548
73
292
4
8264
101
3416
42
2044
22
Appendix B
ANNEXURE I: ANALYSIS OF HFWD DEFLECTION
DATA
APPENDIX B
ANNEXURE I
Analysis of FWD Deflection

Data for Runway 09-27

Analysis of FWD Deflection Data for Runway 09-27
10/06/2009
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

ii
10/06/2009
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 as
reported 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 realistic
modeling 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. The
load 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 25m
between 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.

1-1
10/06/2009
2.
DEFLECTION DATA ANALYSIS

The deflection data recorded at varying loads in range of 154 KN to 234 KN was normalized to
uniform load of 272 KN, simulating dynamic A330 aircraft wheel loading. The normalized
deflection data was then utilized for identification of pavement sections with similar deflection
profiles, termed as homogeneous sections for analysis. Since deflection data had been collected for
longitudinal pavement sections left and right of runway centreline separately, the pavement
behaviour 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 with
similar 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
1
2
3
4
Chainage
LEFT of Centre Line
-153 to -78
-78 to -30
-30 to 1000
1000 to 1785
5
6
7
2100 to 2250
2250 to 3222
3222 to 3297
1
2
3
4
RIGHT of Centre Line

-153 to -78
-78 to -30
-30 to 1785
2100 to 2250
5
6
2250 to 3222
3222 to 3297

2-2
10/06/2009
3.
FLEXIBLE AIRFIELD PAVEMENT ANALYSIS
3.1
GENERAL
The deflection data along with pavement cross-sectional details were utilized as input for the
PAVERS 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 material
properties 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 Elastic
Moduli 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 pavement

structural models explained subsequently.
(iv)
Friction between the layers Full friction mobilization between pavement layers
was adopted.

3-3
10/06/2009
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 DAC
50mm SDAC
60mm Crack Relief Layer
50mm DAC
50mm SDAC
100mm AC
200mm Murrum
230mm 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 PCC
800mm WBM/GSB Fill
Chainage -30 to 3222m from 09:
600mm AC+DBM/BM
300mm PCC
850-1400mm WBM/GSB Fill
Chainage 3222 to 3297m from 09:
420mm PCC
150mm CTB
300mm PCC
930mm WBM

3-4
10/06/2009
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 (Existing
WBM/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 600mm
Asphalt layers)
300mm
(Existing PCC)
1160mm (Existing
WBM/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 (Existing
WBM/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 deflections
measured 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 layers
were 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 37C. The PAVERS version 2.50 however limits the same to a maximum of 30C.
The back-calculated elastic moduli of the asphalt layers were therefore corrected to 33C, utilising
the temperature correction suite of the software.
3-5
10/06/2009
4.
RIGID AIRFIELD PAVEMENT ANALYSIS

The deflection data along with following input parameters required for back-calculation of elastic
modulus of the slab were input in PAVERS software.
(i)
Range of Elastic Moduli values for the slab Realistic range of Elastic Moduli
comparable with characteristic values was adopted.
(ii)
Poissons Ratio value Characteristic value of 0.15 was adopted for PCC layer and
0.35 for the asphalt layer, the granular base/subbase course and the subgrade. For
combined 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 slab
thickness 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 -78
500 mm
(Existing PCC)
Existing WBM/ GSB

Fill/clay soil considered
as part of subgrade
3222 to 3297
420 mm
(Existing PCC)
150 mm (Existing
CTB) and 300 mm
(Existing PCC)
Existing WBM/ GSB

Fill/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).

4-6
10/06/2009
5.
RESULTS
5.1
SECTION: -153 TO -78

Rigid Pavement Composition
Layer
No
Material Type
PCC Layer
Modulus of Subgrade
Reaction (K)
Elastic Modulus
MPa
(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
Thickness
(mm)
26000
0.15
500
0.044N/mm2
Lack of Fit - 42.3%

5-7
10/06/2009
5.2
SECTION: -78 TO -30

Pavement Composition (Option-1)
Layer
No
Material Type
Elastic Modulus
MPa
(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
1
Bituminous Layer
0.35
1091
2
PCC/Base Layer
300
0.15
3
Subbase Layer
200
0.35
4
Sub grade
350
0.35
Lack of Fit 9.8% Back calculated E=1650=>1091 MPa corrected to 33 o C

5-8
Thickness
(mm)
600
300
800
10/06/2009
Pavement Composition (Option-2)
Layer
No
Material Type
Elastic Modulus
MPa
(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
1
Bituminous Layer
0.35
1091
2
PCC/Base Layer
350
0.35
3
Subbase Layer
200
0.35
4
Sub grade
350
0.35

5-9
Thickness
(mm)
600
300
800
10/06/2009
5.3
SECTION: LEFT (-30 TO 1000)

Pavement Composition
Layer
No
Material Type
Elastic Modulus
MPa
(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
1
Bituminous Layer
0.35
1653
2
PCC Layer
20000
0.15
3
Subbase Layer
600
0.35
4
Sub grade
540
0.35

5-10
Thickness
(mm)
600
300
850
10/06/2009
5.4
SECTION: LEFT (1000 TO 1785)

Layer
No
Material Type
Elastic Modulus
MPa
(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
1
Bituminous Layer
0.35
1111
2
PCC Layer
21000
0.15
3
Subbase Layer
900
0.35
4
Sub grade
580
0.35
Lack of Fit 9.5% Back calculated E= 1680=>1111 MPa corrected to 33 o C

5-11
Thickness
(mm)
600
300
950
10/06/2009
5.5

Layer
No
Material Type
Elastic Modulus
MPa
(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
1
Bituminous Layer
0.35
859
2
PCC Layer
20000
0.15
3
Subbase Layer
670
0.35
4
Sub grade
500
0.35
Lack of Fit 9.2% Back calculated E= 1300=>859 MPa corrected to 33 o C

5-12
Thickness
(mm)
600
300
1160
10/06/2009
5.6

Layer
No
Material Type
Elastic Modulus MPa

(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
1
Bituminous Layer
0.35
959
2
PCC Layer
22000
0.15
3
Subbase Layer
880
0.35
4
Sub grade
750
0.35
Lack of Fit 14.5%Back calculated E= 1450=> 959MPa corrected to 33 o C

5-13
Thickness
(mm)
600
300
1400
10/06/2009
5.7
SECTION: RIGHT (-30 TO 1785)

Layer
No
Material Type
Elastic Modulus
MPa
(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
1
Bituminous Layer
0.35
1025
2
PCC Layer
23000
0.15
3
Subbase Layer
800
0.35
4
Sub grade
480
0.35
Lack of Fit 6.3% Back calculated E= 1550=> 1025 MPa corrected to 33 o C

5-14
Thickness
(mm)
600
300
1000
10/06/2009
5.8
SECTION: RIGHT (2100 TO 2250)

Layer
No
Material Type
Elastic Modulus MPa

(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
1
Bituminous Layer
0.35
595
2
PCC Layer
20500
0.15
3
Subbase Layer
900
0.35
4
Sub grade
450
0.35
o
Lack of Fit 7.8% Back calculated E=900 =>595 MPa corrected to 33 C

5-15
Thickness
(mm)
600
300
1200
10/06/2009
5.9
SECTION: RIGHT (2250 TO 3222)

Layer
No
Material Type
Elastic Modulus
MPa
(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
1
Bituminous Layer
0.35
1091
2
PCC Layer
20500
0.15
3
Subbase Layer
800
0.35
4
Sub grade
700
0.35
Lack of Fit 10.0% Back calculated E=1650=> 1091MPa corrected to 37 o C

5-16
Thickness
(mm)
600
300
1000
10/06/2009
5.10
SECTION: 3222 TO 3297

Rigid Pavement Composition
Layer
No
Material Type
Elastic Modulus MPa

(Back-calculated)
Poissons
Ratio
Thickness
(mm)
0.15
420
0.18
450
PCC Layer
16400
Base Layer
3200
Sub grade
0.0490 N/mm
Lack of Fit 10.1 %

5-17
10/06/2009
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 deflection
profile. 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 overall
condition with respect to percentage cracking would dictate adoption of rehabilitation
strategy.
(b) Save the above discussed pavement sections, the runway pavement is structurally amenable
for 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 and
thus can be adopted for overlay design.
(d) The rigid pavement from chainage -153 to -78m exhibits a low deflection profile. The back
calculated 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 reported
disintegrated 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 material
combined should be reduced to a maximum of 30% of the back calculated values as is
recommended by AASHTO, to cater for dry season deflection measurements and assumed
linear elasticity & isotropic properties of the granular materials. The corrected value should
be adopted as design modulus for the granular subbase course.
(g) The design subgrade strength should be as per the geotechnical investigations.

6-18
10/06/2009
Appendix B
ANNEXURE II: HFWD RESULTS
Appendix C
GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Appendix D
ANNEXURE I: FAARFIELD SOFTWARE RUNS
FOR RUNWAY FLEXIBLE OVERLAY
AppendixD
AnnexureI
FAARFIELDSOFTWARERUNSFORRUNWAYFLEXIBLEOVERLAY
DesignLife20years
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
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
50.8
1,378.95
0.35
Undefined
500
16,000.00
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Total thickness to the top of the subgrade = 550.8 mm
Airplane Information
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
3,431
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
4,803
A321-200 std
89
475
A321-200 std
75.5
613
A300-B4 std
171
1,314
A300-B4 std
140
1,840
A330-200 std
230
1,314
A330-200 std
185
1,840
A340-300 std
275
511
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
511
11
A340-300 std
200
715
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
715
13
A340-600 std
368
511
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
511
15
A340-600 std
259
715
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
715
17
A380-800
560
37
18
A380-800
386
51
19
B737-800
79
5,293
20
B737-800
71
7,256
21
B767-400 ER
204
694
22
B767-400 ER
159
1,022
23
B747-400
397
730
24
B747-400
274
971
25
B747-400ER
441.4
37
26
B747-400ER
340
51
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
1,007
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
1,446
29
B777-300 ER
353
416
30
B777-300 ER
252
598
31
MD11ER
285
219
32
MD11ER Belly
285
219
33
MD11ER
200
358
34
MD11ER Belly
200
358
Additional Airplane Information
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.38
A320-200 Twin std
1.38
A321-200 std
1.35
A321-200 std
1.35
A300-B4 std
0.69
A300-B4 std
0.69
A330-200 std
0.79
A330-200 std
0.79
A340-300 std
0.79
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.27
11
A340-300 std
0.79
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.27
13
A340-600 std
0.79
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.81
15
A340-600 std
0.81
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.78
17
A380-800
0.22
0.23
0.56
18
A380-800
0.56
19
B737-800
1.35
20
B737-800
1.35
21
B767-400 ER
0.73
22
B767-400 ER
0.73
23
B747-400
0.52
0.52
0.71
24
B747-400
0.71
25
B747-400ER
0.1
0.1
0.72
26
B747-400ER
0.72
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.11
0.54
28
B777-300 Baseline
0.01
0.54
29
B777-300 ER
0.43
0.53
30
B777-300 ER
0.01
0.53
31
MD11ER
0.77
32
MD11ER Belly
1.29
33
MD11ER
0.77
34
MD11ER Belly
1.29
Section:78to30m(200mmAsphaltoverCTB)
The structure is New Flexible. Asphalt CDF was not computed.
A design for this section was completed on 04/13/09 at 17:49:14.
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Surface
101.6
1,378.95
0.35
Undefined
100
2,500.00
0.35
P-304 CTB
219.9
3,447.38
0.2
Undefined
600
1,091.00
0.35
Undefined
300
350
0.35
Undefined
800
67
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Total thickness to the top of the subgrade = 2,121.5 mm
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
3,431
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
4,803
A321-200 std
89
475
A321-200 std
75.5
613
A300-B4 std
171
1,314
A300-B4 std
140
1,840
A330-200 std
230
1,314
A330-200 std
185
1,840
A340-300 std
275
511
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
511
11
A340-300 std
200
715
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
715
13
A340-600 std
368
511
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
511
15
A340-600 std
259
715
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
715
17
A380-800
560
37
18
A380-800
386
51
19
B737-800
79
5,293
20
B737-800
71
7,256
21
B767-400 ER
204
694
22
B767-400 ER
159
1,022
23
B747-400
397
730
24
B747-400
274
971
25
B747-400ER
441.4
37
26
B747-400ER
340
51
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
1,007
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
1,446
29
B777-300 ER
353
416
30
B777-300 ER
252
598
31
MD11ER
285
219
32
MD11ER Belly
285
219
33
MD11ER
200
358
34
MD11ER Belly
200
358
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.03
A320-200 Twin std
1.03
A321-200 std
1.03
A321-200 std
1.03
A300-B4 std
1.03
A300-B4 std
1.03
A330-200 std
0.01
0.7
A330-200 std
0.7
A340-300 std
0.7
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.02
11
A340-300 std
0.7
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.02
13
A340-600 std
0.02
0.7
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.62
15
A340-600 std
0.68
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.64
17
A380-800
0.19
0.2
0.98
18
A380-800
0.98
19
B737-800
1.03
20
B737-800
1.03
21
B767-400 ER
1.02
22
B767-400 ER
1.02
23
B747-400
0.67
0.69
1.01
24
B747-400
1.01
25
B747-400ER
0.1
0.1
1.02
26
B747-400ER
0.01
0.01
1.02
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.14
1.01
28
B777-300 Baseline
0.02
1.01
29
B777-300 ER
0.01
0.56
1.01
30
B777-300 ER
0.01
1.01
31
MD11ER
1.01
32
MD11ER Belly
1.03
33
MD11ER
1.01
34
MD11ER Belly
1.03
Section:78to30m
The structure is New Flexible.
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
101.6
1,378.95
0.35
Undefined
327.8
2,500.00
0.35
Undefined
600
1,091.00
0.35
Undefined
300
350
0.35
Undefined
800
67
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
3,431
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
4,803
A321-200 std
89
475
A321-200 std
75.5
613
A300-B4 std
171
1,314
A300-B4 std
140
1,840
A330-200 std
230
1,314
A330-200 std
185
1,840
A340-300 std
275
511
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
511
11
A340-300 std
200
715
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
715
13
A340-600 std
368
511
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
511
15
A340-600 std
259
715
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
715
17
A380-800
560
37
18
A380-800
386
51
19
B737-800
79
5,293
20
B737-800
71
7,256
21
B767-400 ER
204
694
22
B767-400 ER
159
1,022
23
B747-400
397
730
24
B747-400
274
971
25
B747-400ER
441.4
37
26
B747-400ER
340
51
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
1,007
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
1,446
29
B777-300 ER
353
416
30
B777-300 ER
252
598
31
MD11ER
285
219
32
MD11ER Belly
285
219
33
MD11ER
200
358
34
MD11ER Belly
200
358
Subgrade CDF
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.03
A320-200 Twin std
1.03
A321-200 std
1.03
A321-200 std
1.03
A300-B4 std
1.03
A300-B4 std
1.03
A330-200 std
0.01
0.71
A330-200 std
0.71
A340-300 std
0.7
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.02
11
A340-300 std
0.7
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.02
13
A340-600 std
0.02
0.7
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.01
0.62
15
A340-600 std
0.68
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.64
17
A380-800
0.19
0.19
18
A380-800
19
B737-800
1.03
20
B737-800
1.03
21
B767-400 ER
1.02
22
B767-400 ER
1.02
23
B747-400
0.67
0.69
1.01
24
B747-400
1.01
25
B747-400ER
0.1
0.1
1.01
26
B747-400ER
0.01
0.01
1.01
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.14
1.01
28
B777-300 Baseline
0.02
1.01
29
B777-300 ER
0.01
0.57
1.01
30
B777-300 ER
0.01
1.01
31
MD11ER
1.01
32
MD11ER Belly
1.03
33
MD11ER
1.01
34
MD11ER Belly
1.03
Section:L30to1000m
The structure is AC Overlay on Flexible. Asphalt CDF was not computed.
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
86.3
1,378.95
0.35
Undefined
600
1,653.00
0.35
Undefined
300
20,000.00
0.35
Undefined
850
200
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
34,310
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
27,448
A321-200 std
89
4,745
A321-200 std
75.5
3,504
A300-B4 std
171
13,140
A300-B4 std
140
10,512
A330-200 std
230
13,140
A330-200 std
185
10,512
A340-300 std
275
5,110
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
5,110
11
A340-300 std
200
4,088
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
4,088
13
A340-600 std
368
5,110
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
5,110
15
A340-600 std
259
4,088
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
4,088
17
A380-800
560
365
18
A380-800
386
292
19
B737-800
79
52,925
20
B737-800
71
41,464
21
B767-400 ER
204
6,935
22
B767-400 ER
159
5,840
23
B747-400
397
7,300
24
B747-400
274
5,548
25
B747-400ER
441.4
365
26
B747-400ER
340
292
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
10,074
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
8,264
29
B777-300 ER
353
4,161
30
B777-300 ER
252
3,416
31
MD11ER
285
2,190
32
MD11ER Belly
285
2,190
33
MD11ER
200
2,044
34
MD11ER Belly
200
2,044
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.05
A320-200 Twin std
1.05
A321-200 std
1.05
A321-200 std
1.05
A300-B4 std
1.05
A300-B4 std
1.05
A330-200 std
0.62
A330-200 std
0.62
A340-300 std
0.62
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
11
A340-300 std
0.62
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
13
A340-600 std
0.61
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.57
15
A340-600 std
0.6
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.58
17
A380-800
0.49
0.5
0.65
18
A380-800
0.65
19
B737-800
1.05
20
B737-800
1.05
21
B767-400 ER
1.03
22
B767-400 ER
1.03
23
B747-400
0.41
0.42
1.03
24
B747-400
1.03
25
B747-400ER
0.09
0.09
1.03
26
B747-400ER
1.03
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.03
1.02
28
B777-300 Baseline
1.02
29
B777-300 ER
0.11
1.02
30
B777-300 ER
1.02
31
MD11ER
0.88
32
MD11ER Belly
1.04
33
MD11ER
0.88
34
MD11ER Belly
1.04
Section:L1000to1785m
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
96.7
1,378.95
0.35
Undefined
600
1,111.00
0.35
Undefined
300
21,000.00
0.35
Undefined
950
300
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
34,310
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
27,448
A321-200 std
89
4,745
A321-200 std
75.5
3,504
A300-B4 std
171
13,140
A300-B4 std
140
10,512
A330-200 std
230
13,140
A330-200 std
185
10,512
A340-300 std
275
5,110
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
5,110
11
A340-300 std
200
4,088
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
4,088
13
A340-600 std
368
5,110
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
5,110
15
A340-600 std
259
4,088
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
4,088
17
A380-800
560
365
18
A380-800
386
292
19
B737-800
79
52,925
20
B737-800
71
41,464
21
B767-400 ER
204
6,935
22
B767-400 ER
159
5,840
23
B747-400
397
7,300
24
B747-400
274
5,548
25
B747-400ER
441.4
365
26
B747-400ER
340
292
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
10,074
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
8,264
29
B777-300 ER
353
4,161
30
B777-300 ER
252
3,416
31
MD11ER
285
2,190
32
MD11ER Belly
285
2,190
33
MD11ER
200
2,044
34
MD11ER Belly
200
2,044
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A330-200 std
0.65
A330-200 std
0.65
A340-300 std
0.65
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.03
11
A340-300 std
0.65
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.03
13
A340-600 std
0.64
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.59
0.63
15
A340-600 std
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.6
17
A380-800
0.45
0.46
0.75
18
A380-800
0.75
19
B737-800
1.04
20
B737-800
1.04
21
B767-400 ER
1.03
22
B767-400 ER
1.03
23
B747-400
0.44
0.45
1.02
24
B747-400
1.02
25
B747-400ER
0.1
0.1
1.02
26
B747-400ER
1.02
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.03
1.02
28
B777-300 Baseline
1.02
29
B777-300 ER
0.13
1.02
30
B777-300 ER
1.02
31
MD11ER
0.97
32
MD11ER Belly
1.03
33
MD11ER
0.97
34
MD11ER Belly
1.03
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
120.8
1,378.95
0.35
600
859
0.35
Undefined
300
20,000.00
0.35
Undefined
1,160.00
223
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
Undefined
3
4
5
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
34,310
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
27,448
A321-200 std
89
4,745
A321-200 std
75.5
3,504
A300-B4 std
171
13,140
A300-B4 std
140
10,512
A330-200 std
230
13,140
A330-200 std
185
10,512
A340-300 std
275
5,110
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
5,110
11
A340-300 std
200
4,088
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
4,088
13
A340-600 std
368
5,110
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
5,110
15
A340-600 std
259
4,088
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
4,088
17
A380-800
560
365
18
A380-800
386
292
19
B737-800
79
52,925
20
B737-800
71
41,464
21
B767-400 ER
204
6,935
22
B767-400 ER
159
5,840
23
B747-400
397
7,300
24
B747-400
274
5,548
25
B747-400ER
441.4
365
26
B747-400ER
340
292
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
10,074
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
8,264
29
B777-300 ER
353
4,161
30
B777-300 ER
252
3,416
31
MD11ER
285
2,190
32
MD11ER Belly
285
2,190
33
MD11ER
200
2,044
34
MD11ER Belly
200
2,044
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.03
A320-200 Twin std
1.03
A321-200 std
1.03
A321-200 std
1.03
A300-B4 std
1.03
A300-B4 std
1.03
A330-200 std
0.72
A330-200 std
0.72
A340-300 std
0.72
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.02
11
A340-300 std
0.72
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.02
13
A340-600 std
0.72
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.64
15
A340-600 std
0.7
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.65
17
A380-800
0.38
0.39
1.01
18
A380-800
1.01
19
B737-800
1.03
20
B737-800
1.03
21
B767-400 ER
1.02
22
B767-400 ER
1.02
23
B747-400
0.5
0.5
1.01
24
B747-400
1.01
25
B747-400ER
0.11
0.11
1.01
26
B747-400ER
1.01
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.04
1.01
28
B777-300 Baseline
1.01
29
B777-300 ER
0.15
1.01
30
B777-300 ER
1.01
31
MD11ER
1.01
32
MD11ER Belly
1.02
33
MD11ER
1.01
34
MD11ER Belly
1.02
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
50.8
1,378.95
0.35
600
959
0.35
Undefined
300
22,000.00
0.35
Undefined
1,400.00
293
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
Undefined
3
4
5
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
34,310
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
27,448
A321-200 std
89
4,745
A321-200 std
75.5
3,504
A300-B4 std
171
13,140
A300-B4 std
140
10,512
A330-200 std
230
13,140
A330-200 std
185
10,512
A340-300 std
275
5,110
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
5,110
11
A340-300 std
200
4,088
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
4,088
13
A340-600 std
368
5,110
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
5,110
15
A340-600 std
259
4,088
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
4,088
17
A380-800
560
365
18
A380-800
386
292
19
B737-800
79
52,925
20
B737-800
71
41,464
21
B767-400 ER
204
6,935
22
B767-400 ER
159
5,840
23
B747-400
397
7,300
24
B747-400
274
5,548
25
B747-400ER
441.4
365
26
B747-400ER
340
292
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
10,074
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
8,264
29
B777-300 ER
353
4,161
30
B777-300 ER
252
3,416
31
MD11ER
285
2,190
32
MD11ER Belly
285
2,190
33
MD11ER
200
2,044
34
MD11ER Belly
200
2,044
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.02
A320-200 Twin std
1.02
A321-200 std
1.02
A321-200 std
1.02
A300-B4 std
1.02
A300-B4 std
1.02
A330-200 std
0.79
A330-200 std
0.79
A340-300 std
0.79
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.02
11
A340-300 std
0.79
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.02
13
A340-600 std
0.78
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.68
0.76
15
A340-600 std
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.7
17
A380-800
0.15
0.15
1.01
18
A380-800
1.01
19
B737-800
1.02
20
B737-800
1.02
21
B767-400 ER
1.01
22
B767-400 ER
1.01
23
B747-400
0.17
0.18
24
B747-400
25
B747-400ER
0.04
0.04
26
B747-400ER
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.01
1.01
28
B777-300 Baseline
1.01
29
B777-300 ER
0.04
1.01
30
B777-300 ER
1.01
31
MD11ER
1.01
32
MD11ER Belly
1.02
33
MD11ER
1.01
34
MD11ER Belly
1.02
Section:R30to1785
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
103.6
1,378.95
0.35
Undefined
600
1,025.00
0.35
Undefined
300
23,000.00
0.35
Undefined
1,000.00
266
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
34,310
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
27,448
A321-200 std
89
4,745
A321-200 std
75.5
3,504
A300-B4 std
171
13,140
A300-B4 std
140
10,512
A330-200 std
230
13,140
A330-200 std
185
10,512
A340-300 std
275
5,110
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
5,110
11
A340-300 std
200
4,088
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
4,088
13
A340-600 std
368
5,110
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
5,110
15
A340-600 std
259
4,088
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
4,088
17
A380-800
560
365
18
A380-800
386
292
19
B737-800
79
52,925
20
B737-800
71
41,464
21
B767-400 ER
204
6,935
22
B767-400 ER
159
5,840
23
B747-400
397
7,300
24
B747-400
274
5,548
25
B747-400ER
441.4
365
26
B747-400ER
340
292
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
10,074
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
8,264
29
B777-300 ER
353
4,161
30
B777-300 ER
252
3,416
31
MD11ER
285
2,190
32
MD11ER Belly
285
2,190
33
MD11ER
200
2,044
34
MD11ER Belly
200
2,044
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A330-200 std
0.66
A330-200 std
0.66
A340-300 std
0.66
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.03
11
A340-300 std
0.66
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.03
0.66
13
A340-600 std
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.6
15
A340-600 std
0.65
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.61
17
A380-800
0.44
0.44
0.81
18
A380-800
0.81
19
B737-800
1.04
20
B737-800
1.04
21
B767-400 ER
1.02
22
B767-400 ER
1.02
23
B747-400
0.45
0.46
1.02
24
B747-400
1.02
25
B747-400ER
0.1
0.1
1.02
26
B747-400ER
1.02
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.03
1.02
28
B777-300 Baseline
1.02
29
B777-300 ER
0.14
1.01
30
B777-300 ER
1.01
31
MD11ER
1.02
32
MD11ER Belly
1.03
33
MD11ER
1.02
34
MD11ER Belly
1.03
Section:R2210to2250m
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
99.7
1,378.95
0.35
600
595
0.35
Undefined
300
20,500.00
0.35
Undefined
1,200.00
300
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
Undefined
3
4
5
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
34,310
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
27,448
A321-200 std
89
4,745
A321-200 std
75.5
3,504
A300-B4 std
171
13,140
A300-B4 std
140
10,512
A330-200 std
230
13,140
A330-200 std
185
10,512
A340-300 std
275
5,110
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
5,110
11
A340-300 std
200
4,088
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
4,088
13
A340-600 std
368
5,110
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
5,110
15
A340-600 std
259
4,088
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
4,088
17
A380-800
560
365
18
A380-800
386
292
19
B737-800
79
52,925
20
B737-800
71
41,464
21
B767-400 ER
204
6,935
22
B767-400 ER
159
5,840
23
B747-400
397
7,300
24
B747-400
274
5,548
25
B747-400ER
441.4
365
26
B747-400ER
340
292
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
10,074
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
8,264
29
B777-300 ER
353
4,161
30
B777-300 ER
252
3,416
31
MD11ER
285
2,190
32
MD11ER Belly
285
2,190
33
MD11ER
200
2,044
34
MD11ER Belly
200
2,044
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.03
A320-200 Twin std
1.03
A321-200 std
1.03
A321-200 std
1.03
A300-B4 std
1.03
A300-B4 std
1.03
A330-200 std
0.73
A330-200 std
0.73
A340-300 std
0.73
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.02
11
A340-300 std
0.73
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.02
13
A340-600 std
0.72
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.64
15
A340-600 std
0.7
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.66
17
A380-800
0.38
0.38
1.01
18
A380-800
1.01
19
B737-800
1.03
20
B737-800
1.03
21
B767-400 ER
1.02
22
B767-400 ER
1.02
23
B747-400
0.5
0.51
1.01
24
B747-400
1.01
25
B747-400ER
0.11
0.11
1.01
26
B747-400ER
1.01
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.04
1.01
28
B777-300 Baseline
1.01
29
B777-300 ER
0.17
1.01
30
B777-300 ER
1.01
31
MD11ER
1.01
32
MD11ER Belly
1.02
33
MD11ER
1.01
34
MD11ER Belly
1.02
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
103.3
1,378.95
0.35
Undefined
600
1,091.00
0.35
Undefined
300
20,500.00
0.35
Undefined
1,000.00
266
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
34,310
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
27,448
A321-200 std
89
4,745
A321-200 std
75.5
3,504
A300-B4 std
171
13,140
A300-B4 std
140
10,512
A330-200 std
230
13,140
A330-200 std
185
10,512
A340-300 std
275
5,110
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
5,110
11
A340-300 std
200
4,088
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
4,088
13
A340-600 std
368
5,110
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
5,110
15
A340-600 std
259
4,088
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
4,088
17
A380-800
560
365
18
A380-800
386
292
19
B737-800
79
52,925
20
B737-800
71
41,464
21
B767-400 ER
204
6,935
22
B767-400 ER
159
5,840
23
B747-400
397
7,300
24
B747-400
274
5,548
25
B747-400ER
441.4
365
26
B747-400ER
340
292
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
10,074
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
8,264
29
B777-300 ER
353
4,161
30
B777-300 ER
252
3,416
31
MD11ER
285
2,190
32
MD11ER Belly
285
2,190
33
MD11ER
200
2,044
34
MD11ER Belly
200
2,044
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A330-200 std
0.66
A330-200 std
0.66
A340-300 std
0.66
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.03
11
A340-300 std
0.66
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.03
0.66
13
A340-600 std
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.6
15
A340-600 std
0.65
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.61
17
A380-800
0.43
0.44
0.81
18
A380-800
0.81
19
B737-800
1.04
20
B737-800
1.04
21
B767-400 ER
1.02
22
B767-400 ER
1.02
23
B747-400
0.45
0.46
1.02
24
B747-400
1.02
25
B747-400ER
0.1
0.1
1.02
26
B747-400ER
1.02
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.03
1.02
28
B777-300 Baseline
1.02
29
B777-300 ER
0.14
1.01
30
B777-300 ER
1.01
31
MD11ER
1.02
32
MD11ER Belly
1.03
33
MD11ER
1.02
34
MD11ER Belly
1.03
Appendix D
ANNEXURE II: FAARFIELD SOFTWARE RUNS FOR
FLEXIBLE OVERLAY OVER
RUNWAY OUTER PAVEMENT
AppendixD
AnnexureII
FAARFIELDSOFTWARERUNSFORFLEXIBLEOVERLAYOVEROUTERRUNWAYPAVEMENT
DesignLife20years
Section:153to78m
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
50.8
1,378.95
0.35
Undefined
500
16,000.00
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
34
A321-200 std
89
A300-B4 std
171
13
A330-200 std
230
13
A340-300 std
275
A340-300 std Belly
275
A340-600 std
368
A340-600 std Belly
368
A380-800
560
10
B737-800
79
53
11
B767-400 ER
204
12
B747-400
397
13
B747-400ER
441.4
14
B777-300 Baseline
300
10
15
B777-300 ER
353
16
MD11ER
285
17
MD11ER Belly
285
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.38
A321-200 std
1.35
A300-B4 std
0.69
A330-200 std
0.79
A340-300 std
0.79
A340-300 std Belly
1.27
A340-600 std
0.79
A340-600 std Belly
0.81
0.56
A380-800
0.01
0.01
10
B737-800
1.35
11
B767-400 ER
0.73
12
B747-400
0.71
13
B747-400ER
0.72
14
B777-300 Baseline
0.54
15
B777-300 ER
0.53
16
MD11ER
0.77
17
MD11ER Belly
1.29
Section:78to30m
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Surface
101.6
1,378.95
0.35
Undefined
292.5
2,500.00
0.35
Undefined
300
1,091.00
0.35
Undefined
150
350
0.35
Undefined
800
67
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
34
A321-200 std
89
A300-B4 std
171
13
A330-200 std
230
13
A340-300 std
275
A340-300 std Belly
275
A340-600 std
368
A340-600 std Belly
368
A380-800
560
10
B737-800
79
53
11
B767-400 ER
204
12
B747-400
397
13
B747-400ER
441.4
14
B777-300 Baseline
300
10
15
B777-300 ER
353
16
MD11ER
285
17
MD11ER Belly
285
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.07
A321-200 std
1.06
A300-B4 std
0.02
0.02
0.94
A330-200 std
0.08
0.08
0.57
A340-300 std
0.03
0.03
0.57
A340-300 std Belly
1.05
A340-600 std
0.07
0.07
0.57
A340-600 std Belly
0.04
0.54
A380-800
0.03
0.11
0.53
10
B737-800
1.07
11
B767-400 ER
0.03
0.04
1.04
12
B747-400
0.05
0.16
0.91
13
B747-400ER
0.02
0.06
0.87
14
B777-300 Baseline
0.28
0.28
0.81
15
B777-300 ER
0.37
0.37
0.88
16
MD11ER
0.02
0.02
0.76
17
MD11ER Belly
1.06
Section:L30to1785m
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
101.6
1,378.95
0.35
Undefined
126.5
2,500.00
0.35
Undefined
300
1,111.00
0.35
Undefined
150
20,000.00
0.35
Undefined
850
200
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
343
A321-200 std
89
47
A300-B4 std
171
131
A330-200 std
230
131
A340-300 std
275
51
A340-300 std Belly
275
51
A340-600 std
368
51
A340-600 std Belly
368
51
A380-800
560
10
B737-800
79
529
11
B767-400 ER
204
69
12
B747-400
397
73
13
B747-400ER
441.4
14
B777-300 Baseline
300
101
15
B777-300 ER
353
42
16
MD11ER
285
22
17
MD11ER Belly
285
22
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.08
A321-200 std
1.08
A300-B4 std
0.85
A330-200 std
0.02
0.02
0.55
A340-300 std
0.01
0.01
0.55
A340-300 std Belly
1.06
A340-600 std
0.04
0.04
0.55
A340-600 std Belly
0.01
0.53
A380-800
0.02
0.11
0.48
10
B737-800
1.09
11
B767-400 ER
0.01
0.02
0.97
12
B747-400
0.08
0.37
0.82
13
B747-400ER
0.01
0.05
0.79
14
B777-300 Baseline
0.33
0.33
0.67
15
B777-300 ER
0.46
0.47
0.72
16
MD11ER
0.01
0.01
0.71
17
MD11ER Belly
1.07
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
146.3
1,378.95
0.35
300
859
0.35
Undefined
150
20,000.00
0.35
Undefined
1,160.00
223
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
Undefined
3
4
5
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
343
A321-200 std
89
47
A300-B4 std
171
131
A330-200 std
230
131
A340-300 std
275
51
A340-300 std Belly
275
51
A340-600 std
368
51
A340-600 std Belly
368
51
A380-800
560
10
B737-800
79
529
11
B767-400 ER
204
69
12
B747-400
397
73
13
B747-400ER
441.4
14
B777-300 Baseline
300
101
15
B777-300 ER
353
42
16
MD11ER
285
22
17
MD11ER Belly
285
22
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.06
A321-200 std
1.05
A300-B4 std
0.01
0.01
1.04
A330-200 std
0.03
0.04
0.6
A340-300 std
0.01
0.01
0.6
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
A340-600 std
0.06
0.06
0.6
A340-600 std Belly
0.02
0.55
A380-800
0.03
0.11
0.6
10
B737-800
1.06
11
B767-400 ER
0.02
0.03
1.04
12
B747-400
0.09
0.37
1.01
13
B747-400ER
0.01
0.05
0.96
14
B777-300 Baseline
0.29
0.29
1.01
15
B777-300 ER
0.42
0.43
1.02
16
MD11ER
0.02
0.02
0.83
17
MD11ER Belly
1.05
Section:R30to1785
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
101.6
1,378.95
0.35
Undefined
53.8
2,500.00
0.35
Undefined
300
1,025.00
0.35
Undefined
150
23,000.00
0.35
Undefined
1,000.00
266
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
343
A321-200 std
89
47
A300-B4 std
171
131
A330-200 std
230
131
A340-300 std
275
51
A340-300 std Belly
275
51
A340-600 std
368
51
A340-600 std Belly
368
51
A380-800
560
10
B737-800
79
529
11
B767-400 ER
204
69
12
B747-400
397
73
13
B747-400ER
441.4
14
B777-300 Baseline
300
101
15
B777-300 ER
353
42
16
MD11ER
285
22
17
MD11ER Belly
285
22
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.07
A321-200 std
1.07
A300-B4 std
0.01
0.91
A330-200 std
0.03
0.03
0.57
A340-300 std
0.01
0.01
0.56
A340-300 std Belly
1.06
A340-600 std
0.04
0.04
0.56
A340-600 std Belly
0.02
0.53
A380-800
0.03
0.11
0.51
10
B737-800
1.08
11
B767-400 ER
0.02
0.02
1.05
12
B747-400
0.08
0.38
0.88
13
B747-400ER
0.01
0.05
0.84
14
B777-300 Baseline
0.32
0.32
0.76
15
B777-300 ER
0.45
0.45
0.82
16
MD11ER
0.01
0.01
0.74
17
MD11ER Belly
1.06
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
101.6
1,378.95
0.35
Undefined
80.4
2,500.00
0.35
Undefined
300
595
0.35
Undefined
150
20,500.00
0.35
Undefined
1,000.00
266
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
343
A321-200 std
89
47
A300-B4 std
171
131
A330-200 std
230
131
A340-300 std
275
51
A340-300 std Belly
275
51
A340-600 std
368
51
A340-600 std Belly
368
51
A380-800
560
10
B737-800
79
529
11
B767-400 ER
204
69
12
B747-400
397
73
13
B747-400ER
441.4
14
B777-300 Baseline
300
101
15
B777-300 ER
353
42
16
MD11ER
285
22
17
MD11ER Belly
285
22
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.07
A321-200 std
1.07
A300-B4 std
0.01
0.01
0.93
A330-200 std
0.03
0.03
0.57
A340-300 std
0.01
0.01
0.57
A340-300 std Belly
1.05
A340-600 std
0.04
0.04
0.57
A340-600 std Belly
0.02
0.54
A380-800
0.03
0.11
0.53
10
B737-800
1.07
11
B767-400 ER
0.02
0.02
1.05
12
B747-400
0.1
0.4
0.9
13
B747-400ER
0.02
0.05
0.86
14
B777-300 Baseline
0.31
0.32
0.79
15
B777-300 ER
0.43
0.43
0.86
16
MD11ER
0.02
0.02
0.75
17
MD11ER Belly
1.06
Appendix D
ANNEXURE III: FAARFIELD SOFTWARE RUNS FOR
NEW RUNWAY OUTER PAVEMENT
AppendixD
AnnexureIII
FAARFIELDSOFTWARERUNSFORNEWRUNWAYOUTERPAVEMENT
DesignLife20years
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Surface
200
1,378.95
0.35
P-306 Econocrete
604.6
4,826.33
0.2
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
No.
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
343
A321-200 std
89
47
A300-B4 std
171
131
A330-200 std
230
131
A340-300 std
275
51
A340-300 std Belly
275
51
A340-600 std
368
51
A340-600 std Belly
368
51
A380-800
560
10
B737-800
79
529
11
B767-400 ER
204
69
12
B747-400
397
73
13
B747-400ER
441.4
14
B777-300 Baseline
300
101
15
B777-300 ER
353
42
16
MD11ER
285
22
17
MD11ER Belly
285
22
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.23
A321-200 std
1.22
A300-B4 std
0.61
A330-200 std
0.01
0.01
0.62
A340-300 std
0.63
A340-300 std Belly
1.19
A340-600 std
0.01
0.02
0.63
A340-600 std Belly
0.01
0.63
0.44
A380-800
0.02
0.1
10
B737-800
1.25
11
B767-400 ER
0.01
0.01
0.58
12
B747-400
0.07
0.37
0.58
13
B747-400ER
0.01
0.05
0.58
14
B777-300 Baseline
0.33
0.33
0.43
15
B777-300 ER
0.54
0.54
0.42
16
MD11ER
0.62
17
MD11ER Belly
1.2
Appendix D
ANNEXURE IV: FAARFIELD SOFTWARE RUNS FOR
RIGID PAVEMENT OVER EXISTING BASE
AppendixD
AnnexureIV
FAARFIELDSOFTWARERUNSFORRIGIDPAVEMENTOVEREXISTINGBASE
DesignLife30years
Section:3222to3297m
The section does not have a design life of 20 years. This constitutes a deviation from standards and requires FAA approval.
The structure is New Rigid.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
No.
Type
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
PCC Surface
471.6
27,579.03
0.15
4.5
Undefined
450
3,200.00
0.35
Subgrade
88.42
0.4
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
34,310
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
27,448
A321-200 std
89
4,745
A321-200 std
75.5
3,504
A300-B4 std
171
13,140
A300-B4 std
140
10,512
A330-200 std
230
13,140
A330-200 std
185
10,512
A340-300 std
275
5,110
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
5,110
11
A340-300 std
200
4,088
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
4,088
13
A340-600 std
368
5,110
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
5,110
15
A340-600 std
259
4,088
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
4,088
17
A380-800
560
365
18
A380-800
386
292
19
B737-800
79
52,925
20
B737-800
71
41,464
21
B767-400 ER
204
6,935
22
B767-400 ER
159
5,840
23
B747-400
397
7,300
24
B747-400
274
5,548
25
B747-400ER
441.4
365
26
B747-400ER
340
292
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
10,074
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
8,264
29
B777-300 ER
353
4,161
30
B777-300 ER
252
3,416
31
MD11ER
285
2,190
32
MD11ER Belly
285
2,190
33
MD11ER
200
2,044
34
MD11ER Belly
200
2,044
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
0.01
3.7
A320-200 Twin std
3.7
A321-200 std
0.02
3.46
A321-200 std
3.46
A300-B4 std
0.02
0.04
3.63
A300-B4 std
3.63
A330-200 std
0.06
0.06
1.88
A330-200 std
1.88
A340-300 std
0.02
0.02
1.9
10
A340-300 std Belly
0.02
2.89
11
A340-300 std
1.9
12
A340-300 std Belly
2.89
13
A340-600 std
0.22
0.22
1.91
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.09
2.47
15
A340-600 std
2.03
16
A340-600 std Belly
2.22
17
A380-800
3.61
18
A380-800
3.61
19
B737-800
0.03
3.53
20
B737-800
3.53
21
B767-400 ER
0.05
0.06
3.63
22
B767-400 ER
3.63
23
B747-400
0.04
0.04
3.46
24
B747-400
3.46
25
B747-400ER
0.02
0.02
3.64
26
B747-400ER
3.64
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.09
0.09
4.13
28
B777-300 Baseline
4.13
29
B777-300 ER
0.45
0.45
3.86
30
B777-300 ER
3.86
31
MD11ER
0.02
0.02
3.68
32
MD11ER Belly
0.03
3.01
33
MD11ER
3.68
34
MD11ER Belly
3.01
Appendix D
ANNEXURE V: FAARFIELD SOFTWARE RUNS FOR
RUNWAY SHOULDER
AppendixD
AnnexureV
FAARFIELDSOFTWARERUNSFORSHOULDER
DesignLife10years
Section:153to78m
The aircraft list contains only one aircraft. Please see the introduction to the Help File for a discussion on using FAArfield to make single
aircraft comparisons.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
No.
Type
mm
Undefined
500
16,000.00
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
B777-300 ER
353
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
Subgrade CDF
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
B777-300 ER
0.56
Section:78to30m
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Surface
101.6
1,378.95
0.35
Undefined
52.5
2,500.00
0.35
Undefined
300
1,091.00
0.35
Undefined
150
350
0.35
Undefined
800
67
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
No.
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
Departures
Growth
No.
Name
tonnes
B777-300 ER
353
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
B777-300 ER
0.6
Section:L30to1785m
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
No.
Type
mm
Undefined
300
1,111.00
0.35
Undefined
150
20,000.00
0.35
Undefined
850
200
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
B777-300 ER
353
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
for Airplane
Ratio
0.2
0.53
No.
Name
Contribution
B777-300 ER
0.2
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
No.
Type
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Undefined
300
859
0.35
Undefined
150
20,000.00
0.35
Undefined
1,160.00
223
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
B777-300 ER
353
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
B777-300 ER
0.03
0.03
0.83
Section:R30to1785
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
No.
Type
mm
Undefined
300
1,025.00
0.35
Undefined
150
23,000.00
0.35
Undefined
1,000.00
266
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
B777-300 ER
353
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
for Airplane
Ratio
0.04
0.64
No.
Name
Contribution
B777-300 ER
0.04
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
No.
Type
mm
Undefined
300
595
0.35
Undefined
150
20,500.00
0.35
Undefined
1,000.00
266
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
Departures
Growth
No.
Name
tonnes
B777-300 ER
353
CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
B777-300 ER
0.06
0.06
0.64
Appendix D
ANNEXURE VI: FAARFIELD SOFTWARE RUNS FOR
TAXIWAY CONNECTIONS WITH RUNWAY
AppendixD
AnnexureVI
FAARFIELDSOFTWARERUNSFORTAXIWAYCONNECTIONSWITHRUNWAY
DesignLife20years
TaxiwayN
No.
Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Type
P-401/ P-403 HMA
Overlay
50.8
1,378.95
0.35
Undefined
500
16,000.00
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
17,155
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
37,741
A321-200 std
89
2,373
A321-200 std
75.5
4,818
A300-B4 std
171
1,314
A300-B4 std
140
9,198
A330-200 std
230
1,314
A330-200 std
185
9,198
A340-300 std
275
511
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
511
11
A340-300 std
200
3,577
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
3,577
13
A340-600 std
368
511
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
511
15
A340-600 std
259
3,577
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
3,577
17
A380-800
560
37
18
A380-800
386
256
19
B737-800
79
26,171
20
B737-800
71
56,721
21
B767-400 ER
204
694
22
B767-400 ER
159
5,110
23
B747-400
397
730
24
B747-400
274
4,855
25
B747-400ER
441.4
37
26
B747-400ER
340
256
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
1,007
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
7,231
29
B777-300 ER
353
416
30
B777-300 ER
252
2,989
31
MD11ER
285
219
32
MD11ER Belly
285
219
33
MD11ER
200
1,789
34
MD11ER Belly
200
1,789

CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.38
A320-200 Twin std
1.38
A321-200 std
1.35
A321-200 std
1.35
A300-B4 std
0.69
A300-B4 std
0.69
A330-200 std
0.79
A330-200 std
0.79
A340-300 std
0.79
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.27
11
A340-300 std
0.79
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.27
13
A340-600 std
0.79
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.81
15
A340-600 std
0.81
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.78
17
A380-800
0.22
0.23
0.56
18
A380-800
0.01
0.01
0.56
19
B737-800
1.35
20
B737-800
1.35
21
B767-400 ER
0.73
22
B767-400 ER
0.73
23
B747-400
0.52
0.52
0.71
24
B747-400
0.02
0.02
0.71
25
B747-400ER
0.1
0.1
0.72
26
B747-400ER
0.02
0.02
0.72
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.11
0.54
28
B777-300 Baseline
0.07
0.54
29
B777-300 ER
0.43
0.53
30
B777-300 ER
0.03
0.53
31
MD11ER
0.77
32
MD11ER Belly
1.29
33
MD11ER
0.77
34
MD11ER Belly
1.29
TaxiwayW1

Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
No.
Type
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Undefined
600
1,111.00
0.35
Undefined
300
21,000.00
0.35
Undefined
950
300
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
1,029
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
3,088
A321-200 std
89
142
A321-200 std
75.5
394
A300-B4 std
171
131
A300-B4 std
140
394
A330-200 std
230
131
A330-200 std
185
394
A340-300 std
275
51
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
51
11
A340-300 std
200
153
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
153
13
A340-600 std
368
51
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
51
15
A340-600 std
259
153
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
153
17
A380-800
560
18
A380-800
386
11
19
B737-800
79
1,573
20
B737-800
71
4,621
21
B767-400 ER
204
69
22
B767-400 ER
159
219
23
B747-400
397
73
24
B747-400
274
208
25
B747-400ER
441.4
26
B747-400ER
340
11
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
101
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
310
29
B777-300 ER
353
42
30
B777-300 ER
252
128
31
MD11ER
285
22
32
MD11ER Belly
285
22
33
MD11ER
200
77
34
MD11ER Belly
200
77

CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.05
A320-200 Twin std
1.05
A321-200 std
1.05
A321-200 std
1.05
A300-B4 std
1.05
A300-B4 std
1.05
A330-200 std
0.62
A330-200 std
0.62
A340-300 std
0.62
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
11
A340-300 std
0.62
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
13
A340-600 std
0.62
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.57
15
A340-600 std
0.61
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.58
17
A380-800
0.01
0.01
0.66
18
A380-800
0.66
19
B737-800
1.05
20
B737-800
1.05
21
B767-400 ER
1.03
22
B767-400 ER
1.03
23
B747-400
0.01
0.01
1.03
24
B747-400
1.03
25
B747-400ER
1.03
26
B747-400ER
1.03
27
B777-300 Baseline
1.02
28
B777-300 Baseline
1.02
29
B777-300 ER
0.01
1.02
30
B777-300 ER
1.02
31
MD11ER
0.89
32
MD11ER Belly
1.04
33
MD11ER
0.89
34
MD11ER Belly
1.04
TaxiwayN5

Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
No.
Type
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Undefined
600
859
0.35
Undefined
300
20,000.00
0.35
Undefined
1,160.00
223
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
4,803
A321-200 std
75.5
613
A300-B4 std
140
1,314
A330-200 std
185
1,314
A340-300 std
200
511
A340-300 std Belly
200
511
A340-600 std
259
511
A340-600 std Belly
259
511
A380-800
386
37
10
B737-800
71
7,227
11
B767-400 ER
159
730
12
B747-400
274
694
13
B747-400ER
340
37
14
B777-300 Baseline
252
1,033
15
B777-300 ER
252
427
16
MD11ER
200
256
17
MD11ER Belly
200
256

CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.03
A321-200 std
1.03
A300-B4 std
1.03
A330-200 std
0.68
A340-300 std
0.68
A340-300 std Belly
1.03
A340-600 std
0.66
A340-600 std Belly
0.62
A380-800
0.89
10
B737-800
1.04
11
B767-400 ER
1.02
12
B747-400
1.02
13
B747-400ER
1.02
14
B777-300 Baseline
1.01
15
B777-300 ER
1.01
16
MD11ER
1.01
17
MD11ER Belly
1.03
TaxiwayN4

Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
No.
Type
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Undefined
600
959
0.35
Undefined
300
22,000.00
0.35
Undefined
1,400.00
293
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
48,034
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
33,452
A321-200 std
89
6,643
A321-200 std
75.5
4,271
A300-B4 std
171
13,140
A300-B4 std
140
12,286
A330-200 std
230
13,140
A330-200 std
185
12,286
A340-300 std
275
5,110
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
5,110
11
A340-300 std
200
4,778
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
4,778
13
A340-600 std
368
5,110
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
5,110
15
A340-600 std
259
4,778
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
4,778
17
A380-800
560
365
18
A380-800
386
341
19
B737-800
79
73,803
20
B737-800
71
49,896
21
B767-400 ER
204
6,935
22
B767-400 ER
159
6,826
23
B747-400
397
7,300
24
B747-400
274
5,265
25
B747-400ER
441.4
365
26
B747-400ER
340
341
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
10,074
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
9,353
29
B777-300 ER
353
4,161
30
B777-300 ER
252
3,993
31
MD11ER
285
2,190
32
MD11ER Belly
285
2,190
33
MD11ER
200
256
34
MD11ER Belly
200
256

CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.02
A320-200 Twin std
1.02
A321-200 std
1.02
A321-200 std
1.02
A300-B4 std
1.02
A300-B4 std
1.02
A330-200 std
0.77
A330-200 std
0.77
A340-300 std
0.77
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.02
11
A340-300 std
0.77
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.02
13
A340-600 std
0.76
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.66
15
A340-600 std
0.74
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.69
17
A380-800
0.24
0.24
1.01
18
A380-800
1.01
19
B737-800
1.02
20
B737-800
1.02
21
B767-400 ER
1.01
22
B767-400 ER
1.01
23
B747-400
0.29
0.3
24
B747-400
25
B747-400ER
0.07
0.07
1.01
26
B747-400ER
1.01
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.02
1.01
28
B777-300 Baseline
1.01
29
B777-300 ER
0.08
1.01
30
B777-300 ER
1.01
31
MD11ER
1.01
32
MD11ER Belly
1.02
33
MD11ER
1.01
34
MD11ER Belly
1.02
TaxiwayN3

Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
No.
Type
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Undefined
600
959
0.35
Undefined
300
22,000.00
0.35
Undefined
1,400.00
293
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
48,034
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
33,452
A321-200 std
89
6,643
A321-200 std
75.5
4,271
A300-B4 std
171
13,140
A300-B4 std
140
12,286
A330-200 std
230
13,140
A330-200 std
185
12,286
A340-300 std
275
5,110
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
5,110
11
A340-300 std
200
4,778
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
4,778
13
A340-600 std
368
5,110
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
5,110
15
A340-600 std
259
4,778
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
4,778
17
A380-800
560
365
18
A380-800
386
341
19
B737-800
79
73,803
20
B737-800
71
49,896
21
B767-400 ER
204
6,935
22
B767-400 ER
159
6,826
23
B747-400
397
7,300
24
B747-400
274
5,265
25
B747-400ER
441.4
365
26
B747-400ER
340
341
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
10,074
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
9,353
29
B777-300 ER
353
4,161
30
B777-300 ER
252
3,993
31
MD11ER
285
2,190
32
MD11ER Belly
285
2,190
33
MD11ER
200
256
34
MD11ER Belly
200
256

CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.02
A320-200 Twin std
1.02
A321-200 std
1.02
A321-200 std
1.02
A300-B4 std
1.02
A300-B4 std
1.02
A330-200 std
0.77
A330-200 std
0.77
A340-300 std
0.77
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.02
11
A340-300 std
0.77
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.02
13
A340-600 std
0.76
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.66
15
A340-600 std
0.74
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.69
17
A380-800
0.24
0.24
1.01
18
A380-800
1.01
19
B737-800
1.02
20
B737-800
1.02
21
B767-400 ER
1.01
22
B767-400 ER
1.01
23
B747-400
0.29
0.3
24
B747-400
25
B747-400ER
0.07
0.07
1.01
26
B747-400ER
1.01
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.02
1.01
28
B777-300 Baseline
1.01
29
B777-300 ER
0.08
1.01
30
B777-300 ER
1.01
31
MD11ER
1.01
32
MD11ER Belly
1.02
33
MD11ER
1.01
34
MD11ER Belly
1.02
TaxiwayN1
The structure is New Rigid.

Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
No.
Type
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
PCC Surface
475
27,579.03
0.15
4.5
Undefined
450
3,200.00
0.35
Undefined
900
200
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.4
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
48,034
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
33,452
A321-200 std
89
6,643
A321-200 std
75.5
4,271
A300-B4 std
171
13,140
A300-B4 std
140
12,286
A330-200 std
230
13,140
A330-200 std
185
12,286
A340-300 std
275
5,110
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
5,110
11
A340-300 std
200
4,778
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
4,778
13
A340-600 std
368
5,110
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
5,110
15
A340-600 std
259
4,778
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
4,778
17
A380-800
560
365
18
A380-800
386
341
19
B737-800
79
73,803
20
B737-800
71
49,896
21
B767-400 ER
204
6,935
22
B767-400 ER
159
6,826
23
B747-400
397
7,300
24
B747-400
274
5,265
25
B747-400ER
441.4
365
26
B747-400ER
340
341
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
10,074
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
9,353
29
B777-300 ER
353
4,161
30
B777-300 ER
252
3,993
31
MD11ER
285
2,190
32
MD11ER Belly
285
2,190
33
MD11ER
200
256
34
MD11ER Belly
200
256

CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
3.7
A320-200 Twin std
3.7
A321-200 std
3.46
A321-200 std
3.46
A300-B4 std
3.63
A300-B4 std
3.63
A330-200 std
1.88
A330-200 std
1.88
A340-300 std
1.9
10
A340-300 std Belly
2.89
11
A340-300 std
1.9
12
A340-300 std Belly
2.89
13
A340-600 std
1.91
14
A340-600 std Belly
2.47
15
A340-600 std
2.03
16
A340-600 std Belly
2.22
17
A380-800
3.61
18
A380-800
3.61
19
B737-800
3.53
20
B737-800
3.53
21
B767-400 ER
3.63
22
B767-400 ER
3.63
23
B747-400
3.46
24
B747-400
3.46
25
B747-400ER
3.64
26
B747-400ER
3.64
27
B777-300 Baseline
4.13
28
B777-300 Baseline
4.13
29
B777-300 ER
3.86
30
B777-300 ER
3.86
31
MD11ER
3.68
32
MD11ER Belly
3.01
33
MD11ER
3.68
34
MD11ER Belly
3.01
TaxiwayS

Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
No.
Type
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Undefined
600
1,025.00
0.35
Undefined
300
23,000.00
0.35
Undefined
1,000.00
266
0.35
Subgrade
20.79
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
3,637
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
5,695
A321-200 std
89
503
A321-200 std
75.5
727
A300-B4 std
171
263
A300-B4 std
140
1,840
A330-200 std
230
263
A330-200 std
185
1,840
A340-300 std
275
102
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
102
11
A340-300 std
200
715
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
715
13
A340-600 std
368
102
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
102
15
A340-600 std
259
715
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
715
17
A380-800
560
18
A380-800
386
51
19
B737-800
79
5,533
20
B737-800
71
8,636
21
B767-400 ER
204
139
22
B767-400 ER
159
1,022
23
B747-400
397
110
24
B747-400
274
1,073
25
B747-400ER
441.4
26
B747-400ER
340
51
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
194
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
1,472
29
B777-300 ER
353
83
30
B777-300 ER
252
598
31
MD11ER
285
32
MD11ER Belly
285
33
MD11ER
200
537
34
MD11ER Belly
200
537

CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A330-200 std
0.63
A330-200 std
0.63
A340-300 std
0.63
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
11
A340-300 std
0.63
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
13
A340-600 std
0.63
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.58
15
A340-600 std
0.62
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.59
17
A380-800
0.02
0.02
0.7
18
A380-800
0.7
19
B737-800
1.05
20
B737-800
1.05
21
B767-400 ER
1.03
22
B767-400 ER
1.03
23
B747-400
0.02
0.02
1.03
24
B747-400
1.03
25
B747-400ER
0.01
0.01
1.03
26
B747-400ER
1.03
27
B777-300 Baseline
1.02
28
B777-300 Baseline
1.02
29
B777-300 ER
0.02
1.02
30
B777-300 ER
1.02
31
MD11ER
0.93
32
MD11ER Belly
1.04
33
MD11ER
0.93
34
MD11ER Belly
1.04
TaxiwayS8

Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
No.
Type
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Undefined
600
1,025.00
0.35
Undefined
300
23,000.00
0.35
Undefined
1,000.00
266
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
4,803
A321-200 std
75.5
613
A300-B4 std
140
1,840
A330-200 std
185
1,840
A340-300 std
200
715
A340-300 std Belly
200
715
A340-600 std
259
715
A340-600 std Belly
259
715
A380-800
386
51
10
B737-800
71
7,307
11
B767-400 ER
159
1,022
12
B747-400
274
1,073
13
B747-400ER
340
51
14
B777-300 Baseline
252
1,472
15
B777-300 ER
252
598
16
MD11ER
200
537
17
MD11ER Belly
200
537

CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A330-200 std
0.63
A340-300 std
0.63
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
A340-600 std
0.62
A340-600 std Belly
0.59
A380-800
0.7
10
B737-800
1.05
11
B767-400 ER
1.03
12
B747-400
1.03
13
B747-400ER
1.03
14
B777-300 Baseline
1.02
15
B777-300 ER
1.02
16
MD11ER
0.93
17
MD11ER Belly
1.04
TaxiwayS7

Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
No.
Type
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Undefined
600
1,025.00
0.35
Undefined
300
23,000.00
0.35
Undefined
1,000.00
266
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
4,803
A321-200 std
75.5
613
A300-B4 std
140
1,840
A330-200 std
185
1,840
A340-300 std
200
715
A340-300 std Belly
200
715
A340-600 std
259
715
A340-600 std Belly
259
715
A380-800
386
51
10
B737-800
71
7,307
11
B767-400 ER
159
1,022
12
B747-400
274
1,073
13
B747-400ER
340
51
14
B777-300 Baseline
252
1,472
15
B777-300 ER
252
598
16
MD11ER
200
537
17
MD11ER Belly
200
537

CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A330-200 std
0.63
A340-300 std
0.63
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
A340-600 std
0.62
A340-600 std Belly
0.59
A380-800
0.7
10
B737-800
1.05
11
B767-400 ER
1.03
12
B747-400
1.03
13
B747-400ER
1.03
14
B777-300 Baseline
1.02
15
B777-300 ER
1.02
16
MD11ER
0.93
17
MD11ER Belly
1.04
TaxiwayW1

Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
No.
Type
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Undefined
600
1,025.00
0.35
Undefined
300
23,000.00
0.35
Undefined
1,000.00
266
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
1,029
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
3,088
A321-200 std
89
142
A321-200 std
75.5
394
A300-B4 std
171
131
A300-B4 std
140
394
A330-200 std
230
131
A330-200 std
185
394
A340-300 std
275
51
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
51
11
A340-300 std
200
153
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
153
13
A340-600 std
368
51
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
51
15
A340-600 std
259
153
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
153
17
A380-800
560
18
A380-800
386
11
19
B737-800
79
1,573
20
B737-800
71
4,621
21
B767-400 ER
204
69
22
B767-400 ER
159
219
23
B747-400
397
73
24
B747-400
274
208
25
B747-400ER
441.4
26
B747-400ER
340
11
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
101
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
310
29
B777-300 ER
353
42
30
B777-300 ER
252
128
31
MD11ER
285
22
32
MD11ER Belly
285
22
33
MD11ER
200
77
34
MD11ER Belly
200
77

CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A330-200 std
0.63
A330-200 std
0.63
A340-300 std
0.63
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
11
A340-300 std
0.63
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
13
A340-600 std
0.63
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.58
15
A340-600 std
0.62
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.59
17
A380-800
0.01
0.01
0.7
18
A380-800
0.7
19
B737-800
1.05
20
B737-800
1.05
21
B767-400 ER
1.03
22
B767-400 ER
1.03
23
B747-400
0.02
0.02
1.03
24
B747-400
1.03
25
B747-400ER
1.03
26
B747-400ER
1.03
27
B777-300 Baseline
1.02
28
B777-300 Baseline
1.02
29
B777-300 ER
0.01
1.02
30
B777-300 ER
1.02
31
MD11ER
0.93
32
MD11ER Belly
1.04
33
MD11ER
0.93
34
MD11ER Belly
1.04
TaxiwayS4

Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
No.
Type
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Undefined
600
1,091.00
0.35
Undefined
300
20,500.00
0.35
Undefined
1,000.00
266
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
4,803
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
8,166
A321-200 std
89
664
A321-200 std
75.5
1,042
A300-B4 std
171
788
A300-B4 std
140
3,022
A330-200 std
230
788
A330-200 std
185
3,022
A340-300 std
275
307
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
307
11
A340-300 std
200
1,175
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
1,175
13
A340-600 std
368
307
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
307
15
A340-600 std
259
1,175
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
1,175
17
A380-800
560
22
18
A380-800
386
84
19
B737-800
79
7,453
20
B737-800
71
12,162
21
B767-400 ER
204
416
22
B767-400 ER
159
1,679
23
B747-400
397
694
24
B747-400
274
1,259
25
B747-400ER
441.4
22
26
B747-400ER
340
84
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
656
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
2,292
29
B777-300 ER
353
250
30
B777-300 ER
252
982
31
MD11ER
285
438
32
MD11ER Belly
285
438
33
MD11ER
200
34
MD11ER Belly
200

CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A330-200 std
0.63
A330-200 std
0.63
A340-300 std
0.63
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
11
A340-300 std
0.63
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
13
A340-600 std
0.63
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.58
15
A340-600 std
0.62
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.59
17
A380-800
0.07
0.07
0.7
18
A380-800
0.7
19
B737-800
1.05
20
B737-800
1.05
21
B767-400 ER
1.03
22
B767-400 ER
1.03
23
B747-400
0.15
0.15
1.03
24
B747-400
1.03
25
B747-400ER
0.02
0.02
1.03
26
B747-400ER
1.03
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.01
1.02
28
B777-300 Baseline
1.02
29
B777-300 ER
0.05
1.02
30
B777-300 ER
1.02
31
MD11ER
0.93
32
MD11ER Belly
1.04
33
MD11ER
0.93
34
MD11ER Belly
1.04
TaxiwayS3

Thickness
Modulus
Poisson's
Strength
No.
Type
mm
MPa
Ratio
R,MPa
Undefined
600
1,091.00
0.35
Undefined
300
20,500.00
0.35
Undefined
1,000.00
266
0.35
Subgrade
20.68
0.35
Gross Wt.
Annual
% Annual
No.
Name
tonnes
Departures
Growth
A320-200 Twin std
77
4,803
A320-200 Twin std
64.5
8,166
A321-200 std
89
664
A321-200 std
75.5
1,042
A300-B4 std
171
788
A300-B4 std
140
3,022
A330-200 std
230
788
A330-200 std
185
3,022
A340-300 std
275
307
10
A340-300 std Belly
275
307
11
A340-300 std
200
1,175
12
A340-300 std Belly
200
1,175
13
A340-600 std
368
307
14
A340-600 std Belly
368
307
15
A340-600 std
259
1,175
16
A340-600 std Belly
259
1,175
17
A380-800
560
22
18
A380-800
386
84
19
B737-800
79
7,453
20
B737-800
71
12,162
21
B767-400 ER
204
416
22
B767-400 ER
159
1,679
23
B747-400
397
694
24
B747-400
274
1,259
25
B747-400ER
441.4
22
26
B747-400ER
340
84
27
B777-300 Baseline
300
656
28
B777-300 Baseline
252
2,292
29
B777-300 ER
353
250
30
B777-300 ER
252
982
31
MD11ER
285
438
32
MD11ER Belly
285
438
33
MD11ER
200
34
MD11ER Belly
200

CDF
CDF Max
P/C
No.
Name
Contribution
for Airplane
Ratio
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A320-200 Twin std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A321-200 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A300-B4 std
1.04
A330-200 std
0.63
A330-200 std
0.63
A340-300 std
0.63
10
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
11
A340-300 std
0.63
12
A340-300 std Belly
1.04
13
A340-600 std
0.63
14
A340-600 std Belly
0.58
15
A340-600 std
0.62
16
A340-600 std Belly
0.59
17
A380-800
0.07
0.07
0.7
18
A380-800
0.7
19
B737-800
1.05
20
B737-800
1.05
21
B767-400 ER
1.03
22
B767-400 ER
1.03
23
B747-400
0.15
0.15
1.03
24
B747-400
1.03
25
B747-400ER
0.02
0.02
1.03
26
B747-400ER
1.03
27
B777-300 Baseline
0.01
1.02
28
B777-300 Baseline
1.02
29
B777-300 ER
0.05
1.02
30
B777-300 ER
1.02
31
MD11ER
0.93
32
MD11ER Belly
1.04
33
MD11ER
0.93
34
MD11ER Belly
1.04
Appendix E
ANNEXURE I: COMFAA CHECK FOR
FLEXIBLE SECTIONS
Appendix E
Annexure I
COMFAA DESIGN CHECK - FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION (Chainage: -153 to -30m)

Aircraft
MTOW
Annual Departures
20 yr Departures
Gear Type
A320
77
3431
68620
D
A321
89
475
9490
D
A300-B4
171
1314
26280
2D
A330
230
1314
26280
2D
A340-200/300 A340-500/600 A380-800 B737-800 B767-400ER B747-400 B747-400ER B777-300 B777-300ER

275
368
560
79
204
397
441.4
300
353
511
511
37
5293
694
730
37
1007
416
10220
10220
730
105850
13870
14600
730
20148
8322
2D
2D
3D
D
2D
2D
2D
3D
3D
MD11
285
219
4380
2D
Thickness computation
P/C
Coverages
Thickness COMFAA
3.72
18446
1592.3
3.46
2743
1523.1
1.82
14440
1967.3
1.88
13979
2207.6
1.88
5436
2071.7
1.90
5379
2240.1
1.42
514
1900.8
3.56
29733
1664.2
1.81
7663
2127
1.74
8391
2089.6
1.83
399
1782.9
1.38
14600
2233.6
1.31
6353
2392.6
1.84
2380
2080.4
Gear Conversion Factor

3D
2D
D
S
0.41
0.64
1
1.25
0.41
0.64
1
1.25
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
1
1.56
2.44
3.05
0.41
0.64
1
1.25
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
1
1.56
2.44
3.05
1
1.56
2.44
3.05
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
Equivalent Departures Computation

Percentage weight on Main Gear
Number of wheels on Main Gear
Number of Main Gears
Weight on Single Main Gear wheel
0.95
2
2
18.29
0.95
2
2
21.14
0.95
4
2
20.31
0.95
4
2
27.31
0.78
4
2
26.81
0.658
4
2
30.27
0.57
6
2
26.60
0.95
2
2
18.76
0.95
4
2
24.23
0.95
4
4
23.57
0.95
4
4
26.21
0.95
6
2
23.75
0.95
6
2
27.95
0.78
4
2
27.79
Weight Conversion Factor

Equivalent Deaprtures in Terms of B777-300ER
Equivalent Coverages in Terms of B777-300ER
0.81
3974
1068
0.87
1325
383
0.85
4001
2198
0.99
15054
8007
0.98
5463
2906
1.04
9354
4923
0.98
622
438
0.82
6308
1772
0.93
4743
2620
0.92
4432
2547
0.97
385
210
0.92
9289
6731
1.00
8322
6353
1.00
2741
1490
Total Equivalent Coverages of Design Aicraft

B777-300ER
41647
Design S77-1 Thickness by COMFAA
2547
COMFAA DESIGN CHECK - FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION (Chainage: -30 to 3222m)

Aircraft
MTOW
Annual Departures
20 yr Departures
Gear Type
A320
77
34310
686200
D
A321
89
4745
94900
D
A300-B4
171
13140
262800
2D
A330
230
13140
262800
2D

275
368
560
79
204
397
441.4
300
353
5110
5110
365
52925
6935
7300
365
10074
4161
102200
102200
7300
1058500
138700
146000
7300
201480
83220
2D
2D
3D
D
2D
2D
2D
3D
3D
MD11
285
2190
43800
2D
P/C
Coverages
Thickness COMFAA
3.72
184462
1770.1
3.46
27428
1757.4
1.82
144396
2172.6
1.88
139787
2420.8
1.88
54362
2313.3
1.90
53789
2495.1
1.42
5141
2117.7
3.56
297331
1833.6
1.81
76630
2334.8
1.74
83908
2293.8
1.83
3989
2139.5
1.38
146000
2372.4
1.31
63527
2573.8
1.84
23804
2355.8

3D
2D
D
S
0.41
0.64
1
1.25
0.41
0.64
1
1.25
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
1
1.56
2.44
3.05
0.41
0.64
1
1.25
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
1
1.56
2.44
3.05
1
1.56
2.44
3.05
0.64
1
1.56
1.95

0.95
2
2
18.29
0.95
2
2
21.14
0.95
4
2
20.31
0.95
4
2
27.31
0.78
4
2
26.81
0.658
4
2
30.27
0.57
6
2
26.60
0.95
2
2
18.76
0.95
4
2
24.23
0.95
4
4
23.57
0.95
4
4
26.21
0.95
6
2
23.75
0.95
6
2
27.95
0.78
4
2
27.79

Equivalent Deaprtures in Terms of B777-300ER
Equivalent Coverages in Terms of B777-300ER
0.81
25593
6880
0.87
9816
2837
0.85
28485
15651
0.99
146639
78000
0.98
52116
27721
1.04
102735
54071
0.98
5877
4139
0.82
41615
11690
0.93
40465
22356
0.92
36729
21109
0.97
3578
1955
0.92
77598
56231
1.00
83220
63527
1.00
27229
14799

B777-300ER
380964
Design S77-1 Thickness by COMFAA
2663.9
COMFAA DESIGN CHECK - FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION (-78m to 3222m)

Equivalency Factors
Converion to P-154 (GSB)
P-209
Crushed Aggregate Base

(WMM, FCR)
Lower Limit
Upper limit
Average
Adopted
Remarks
1.20
1.80
1.50
1.5
MediumQualityMaterial
2.75
HighEvalues
Chainage: -78 to -30m
0.6
Chainage: -30 to 3222m
0.9
Inchainage:78mto30m,thesubabse
hasverylowmodulus
Adopted
1.6and1.2
Remarks
HighQualityMaterial
Existing Concrete
Existing Subbase
Converion to P-209
P-401
Existing Base
AC, SDAC, DBM
Lower Limit
1.20
Upper limit
1.60
Average
1.40
1.00
FAARFIELD Thickness
Overlay AC surface
Overaly AC Base
Surface (AC)
PCC
base
Subbase
COMFAA Thickness (Chainage: -30 to 3222m)
-78 to -30
L: -30 to 1000
L: 1000 to 1785
L: 2100 to 2250
L: 2250 to 3222
R: -30 to 1785
R: 2100 to 2250
R: 2250 to 3222
100
330
600
0
300
800
85
0
600
300
0
850
100
0
600
300
0
950
120
0
600
300
0
1160
50
0
600
300
0
1400
100
0
600
300
0
1000
100
0
600
300
0
1200
100
0
600
300
0
1000
S77-1
Structure
AC P-401
WMM P-209
GSB P-154
75
150
2439
2664
COMFAA Thickness (Chainage: -153 to -30m)

Equivalent S-77 1 Structure
AC
P209
P154
Total
75
150
2487
2712
75
150
2469
2694
75
150
2595
2820
75
150
2832
3057
75
150
2880
3105
75
150
2640
2865
75
150
2820
3045
75
150
2640
2865
S77-1
Structure
AC P-401
WMM P-209
GSB P-154
75
150
2322
2547
COMFAA DESIGN CHECK - EASTERN RIGID END (-153m to -78m)

Equivalency Factors
Converion to P-154 (GSB)
Lower Limit Upper limit
Crushed Aggregate Base
(WMM, FCR)
P-209
1.20
1.80
Average
Adopted
Remarks
1.50
1.5
MediumQualityMaterial
2.75
HighEvalues
Existing Concrete
Converion to P-209
P-401
AC, SDAC, DBM
Lower Limit Upper limit Average

1.20
1.60
1.40
Adopted
1.6
Remarks
HighQualityMaterial
Thickness
-153 to -78
Overlay Asphalt surface
200
Overaly CTB Base
400
PCC
Subgrade (CBR 2%)
500
-
COMFAA Thickness (Chainage: -153 to -30m)

S77-1
Structure
AC P-401
WMM P-209
GSB P-154
75
150
2322
2547
AC
P209
P154
Total
Equivalent S-77 1 Structure

75
150
2410
2635
Appendix E
ANNEXURE II: COMFAA CHECK FOR
RIGID SECTIONS
Appendix E
Annexure II
COMFAA DESIGN CHECK - RIGID OVER EXISTING SUBBASE (Chainage: 3222 to 3297m)
Aircraft
MTOW
Annual Departures
20 yr Departures
Gear Type
A320
77
34310
686200
D
A321
89
4745
94900
D
A300-B4
171
13140
262800
2D
A330
230
13140
262800
2D
P/C
Coverages
Thickness COMFAA
3.7
185459
403.9
3.46
27428
391.5
3.63
72397
365.4
1.88
139787
389.4
1.9
53789
365.6
1.91
53508
401.4
3.82
1911
313.7
3.53
299858
424.6
3.61
38421
373.8
3.46
42197
358.6
3.63
2011
341.6
4.13
48785
333.1
3.86
21560
352.2
3.67
11935
345.7

3D
2D
D
S
0.41
0.64
1
1.25
0.41
0.64
1
1.25
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.41
0.64
1
1.25
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
0.64
1
1.56
1.95
1
1.56
2.44
3.05
1
1.56
2.44
3.05
0.64
1
1.56
1.95

0.95
2
2
18.29
0.95
2
2
21.14
0.95
4
2
20.31
0.95
4
2
27.31
0.78
4
2
26.81
0.658
4
2
30.27
0.38
4
2
26.60
0.95
2
2
18.76
0.95
4
2
24.23
0.95
4
4
23.57
0.95
4
4
26.21
0.95
6
2
23.75
0.95
6
2
27.95
0.78
4
2
27.79

Equivalent Deaprtures in Terms of B737-800
Equivalent Coverages in Terms of B737-800
0.99
578226
156277
1.06
191822
55440
1.04
690384
190188
1.21
5914368
3145940
1.20
1656924
872065
1.27
4054356
2122700
1.19
67598
17696
1.00
1058500
299858
1.14
1154247
319736
1.12
1011549
292355
1.18
62262
17152
1.13
2532648
613232
1.22
3003172
778024
1.22
764813
208396

B737-800
9089060 COMFAA PQC thickness for coverages more than 1 million derived from extrapolation; chart on next page
Design PQC Thickness by COMFAA
501.42

275
368
560
79
204
397
441.4
300
353
5110
5110
365
52925
6935
7300
365
10074
4161
102200
102200
7300
1058500
138700
146000
7300
201480
83220
2D
2D
2D
D
2D
2D
2D
3D
3D
MD11
285
2190
43800
2D
EXTRAPOLATION FOR COMFAA THICKNESS FOR B-737-800
490
k = 109 MN/m /m
COVERAGES
10000
50000
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
THICKNESS
348
384.2
399.9
415.5
424.6
431.1
436.1
440.2
443.7
446.7
449.3
451.7
9089060
501 42
501.42
y = 22.521ln(x) + 140.58
470
450
430
410
390
370
350
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
Appendix F
PCN ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F
PCN ANALYSIS
Total Equivalent Coverages of Design Aircraft (B777-300ER)
Design AC S-77 1 Thickness by COMFAA
ACN at MTOM = 353ton
380964
From Appendix E, Annexure I
2664
From Appendix E, Annexure I
89
Subgrade
Category C
Runway Section
-78 to -30
L: -30 to 1000
L: 1000 to 1785
L: 2100 to 2250
L: 2250 to 3222
R: -30 to 1785
R: 2100 to 2250
R: 2250 to 3222
Weight Corresponding to FAARFIELD Thickness (2664mm)
75
150
2487
2712
363
75
150
2469
2694
359
75
150
2595
2820
388
75
150
2832
3057
443
75
150
2880
3105
455
75
150
2640
2865
398
75
150
2820
3045
441
75
150
2640
2865
398
ACN value Corresponding to weight for Subgrade Cateogry C
93.7
92
104.4
128.2
133.5
108.7
127.3
108.7
Design Section
AC
P-209
P-154
Total
Sketches
SketchP
09/27RunwaystructuralOverlayThicknesses(Minimum)
OuterRunwayStructure
ShoulderStructure
RunwayStructure
OuterRunwayStructure
RunwayStructure
ShoulderStructure
27
Outer
Shoulder Runway
3297
7.5m
7.5m
Runway
60m
ExistingRunway
45m
Outer
Runway Shoulder
7.5m
7.5m
NewPQCconstructionoverexistingBase
E(Mpa) t(mm)
E(Mpa)
overlay
Surface
PCC
subbase
subgrade
1378.95
859
20000
223
20.68
t(mm)
E(Mpa)
50
300
150
1160
1378.95
overlay
Surface
859
PCC
20000
subbase
223
subgrade
20.68
t(mm)
146.3
300
150
1160
overlay 1378.95
Surface
959
22000
PCC
subbase
293
subgrade
20.68
50.8
600
300
1400
overlay 1378.95
Surface
859
PCC
20000
subbase
223
subgrade
20.68
120.8
600
300
1160
3222
E(Mpa)
50
50
100
145
180
50
2250
120
100
50
50
2100
50
50
50
t(mm)
overlay
Surface
PCC
subbase
subgrade
1378.95
1091
20500
266
20.68
103.3
600
300
1000
overlay
Surface
PCC
subbase
subgrade
1378.95
595
20500
300
20.68
99.7
600
300
1200
overlay
Surface
PCC
subbase
subgrade
1378.95
1025
23000
266
20.68
103.6
600
300
1000
1378.95
2500
1091
350
67
20.68
101.6
327.8
600
300
800
1378.95
16000
20.68
50
500
E(Mpa)
overlay
Surface
PCC
subbase
subgrade
t(mm)
E(Mpa)
t(mm)
1378.95
2500
595
20500
266
20.68
101.6
80.4
300
150
1000
overlay
Surface
PCC
subbase
subgrade
1378.95
595
20500
266
20.68
50
300
150
1000
1378.95
2500
1025
23000
266
20.68
101.6
53.8
300
150
1000
overlay
Surface
PCC
subbase
subgrade
1378.95
1025
23000
266
20.68
50
300
150
1000
1378.95
2500
1091
350
67
20.68
101.6
292.4
300
150
800
1378.95
2500
1091
350
67
20.68
101.6
52.5
300
150
800
1378.95
16000
20.68
50
500
1378.95
16000
20.68
50
500
50
1785
overlay
Surface
PCC
subbase
subgrade
overlay
Surface
PCC/base
subbase
subgrade
overlay
y
PCC
subgrade
1378.95
1111
20000
200
20.68
50
300
150
850
1378.95
2500
1091
350
67
20.68
101.6
52.5
300
150
800
1378.95
16000
20.68
50
500
overlay
Surface
PCC
subbase
subgrade
1378.95
2500
1111
20000
200
20.68
1378.95
2500
Surface
1091
PCC/base
350
subbase
67
subgrade
20.68
overlay
overlay
y
PCC
subgrade
1378.95
16000
20.68
101.6
126.5
300
150
850
101.6
292.4
300
150
800
50
500
overlay 1378.95
Surface
1111
PCC
21000
subbase
300
subgrade
20.68
96.7
600
300
950
100
1000
overlay 1378.95
Surface
1653
PCC
20000
subbase
200
subgrade
20.68
86.3
600
300
850
1378.95
overlay
2500
Surface
1091
350
PCC/base
subbase
67
subgrade
20.68
101.6
327.8
600
300
800
overlay
y
1378.95
PCC
16000
subgrade
20.68
50
230
100
155
50
Surface
PCC
subbase
subgrade
85
overlay
30
155
395
430
395
155
50
50
50
50
50
78
50
500
overlay
Surface
PCC/base
subbase
subgrade
Surface
PCC/base
subbase
subgrade
Surface
PCC/base
subbase
subgrade
overlay
overlay
y
PCC
subgrade
153
overlay
overlay
overlay
y
PCC
subgrade
PCC
subgrade
09
Note: AboveOverlaythicknessesareasperminimumstructuralrequirement.
Inconsiderationofverticalgeometryofrunway,theactualOverlaythicknesseswillbeincreased.
NOTTOSCALE
SketchQ
Runway09/27LifecalculationforOuterRunwaywithOverlayprovidedby
adoptingCrossSlopeof1.25%
27
3297
Shoulder
OuterRunway
7.5m
7.5m
Runway
60m
ExistingRunway
45m
OuterRunway
Shoulder
7.5m
7.5m
3222
2250
Overlay
thickness:53mm
Life:6.3yrs
Eq.Departuresof
B777_300ER:155
Overlay
thickness:63mm
Life:3.3yrs
Eq.Departuresof
B777_300ER:106
Overlay
thickness:87mm
Life:20yrs
Eq.Departuresof
B777_300ER:363
Overlay
thickness:112mm
Life:20yrs
Eq.Deaparturesof
B777_300ER:363
Overlay
thickness:77mm
Life:1.4yrs
Eq.Departuresof
B777_300ER:105
Overlay
thickness:122mm
Life:10.1yrs
Eq.Departuresof
B777_300ER:228
2100
1785
1000
30
78
Overlay
thickness:514.5mm
Life:20yrs
Eq.Departuresof
B777_300ER:49
Overlay
thickness:538mm
Life:20yrs
Eq.Departuresof
B777_300ER:62
153
09
NOTTOSCALE

0927 Runway SDR PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0927 Runway SDR PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Larsen & Toubro Limited

Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27

CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

Larsen & Toubro Limited

Runway 09/27 Upgrade

Scheme Design Report Runway 09/27 Upgrade Pavement Structural Design

Issued for MIAL review

Issued for MIAL review

Document Change History

Reason for Change

Revised as per client recommendations

CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

Larsen & Toubro Limited

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1-2

AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 2-3

AIRCRAFT OPERATING WEIGHTS ................................................................................... 3-4

NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING........................................................................................... 4-5

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS.................................................................................. 5-8

PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN ................................................................................... 6-10

FAARFIELD Design Methodology ............................................................... 6-10

Runway Elements........................................................................................ 6-12

Runway Shoulders ...................................................................................... 6-14

6.2 COMFAA CHECK ..................................................................................................... 6-15

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 7-24

LIST OF CODES ................................................................................................................ 8-26

APPENDICES & SKETCHES ............................................................................................ 9-27

CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

Larsen & Toubro Limited

SCHEME DESIGN REPORT OBJECTIVES

CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

Larsen & Toubro Limited

AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

Larsen & Toubro Limited

AIRCRAFT OPERATING WEIGHTS

CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

Larsen & Toubro Limited

PAVEMENT STRUCTURE MODELLING

CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

Larsen & Toubro Limited

Table 4.2: Runway Shoulder Pavement Structure Model

CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

Larsen & Toubro Limited

CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

Larsen & Toubro Limited

CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

Larsen & Toubro Limited

EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE

CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

Larsen & Toubro Limited

PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN

FAARFIELD Design Methodology

Set design life equal to 20 years;

Set design life equal to 30 years;

Define pavement structure.

CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

Larsen & Toubro Limited

Set design life equal to 20 years;

CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

Larsen & Toubro Limited

CSIA Expansion & Renovation Program

Larsen & Toubro Limited