See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228827909

Comparative Study of Rigid Pavement Thickness

Designs Using FAARFIELD

Article

CITATIONS READS

0 339

3 authors, including:

Lia Ricalde
Applied Research Associates, Inc.
13 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lia Ricalde on 08 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RIGID PAVEMENT
THICKNESS DESIGNS USING FAARFIELD
David R. Brill, P.E., Ph.D.
Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Technology R&D Branch
David.Brill@faa.gov

Izydor Kawa, Ph.D.

SRA International Corporation
Izydor_Kawa@sra.com

Lia Ricalde
SRA International Corporation
Lia_Ricalde@sra.com
Abstract

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed a new computer-based procedure for airport
pavement thickness design, called FAARFIELD, to replace LEDFAA 1.3. The new computer program will
become the FAA standard with the release of Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5320-6E in early 2008.
FAARFIELD differs significantly from previous FAA standards, with respect to the design of rigid
pavements. FAARFIELD has been tested and calibrated to ensure that PCC thickness designs are
reasonably similar to those produced by the FAA rigid design curves for similar inputs of pavement
structure and aircraft traffic. For complex gear loads outside of those covered by the design curves the new
finite element (FE) based models give a better prediction of the critical stress than previous, non-FE
models.
Two thickness design comparisons were performed. The first compared FAARFIELD thicknesses
for new rigid pavements serving aircraft traffic mixes only up to and including the 2D/2D2 configuration
(B747), to corresponding designs performed using the FAA’s standard design curves. This analysis was
used to establish the rigid calibration factor built into FAARFIELD. A second analysis considered
FAARFIELD designs for 3D (B777), 2D/3D2 (A380) and other complex gear types, and compared these to
designs using earlier FAA design procedures including the AC 150/5320-6D design curves. Since the
design curves do not cover 3D and higher gears, it was therefore necessary to use the FAA program
COMFAA to develop appropriate designs for comparison.

Introduction

With the release of Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5320-6E, “Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation,” [1]
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is introducing a new computer program for airport pavement
thickness design, called FAA Rigid and Flexible Iterative Elastic Layer Design (FAARFIELD). Like its
predecessor program, LEDFAA 1.3 [2, 3], FAARFIELD performs FAA standard thickness designs for
flexible and rigid pavements, including both new and overlay designs. The basic look and feel of
FAARFIELD is intentionally unchanged from LEDFAA. The key changes from LEDFAA 1.3 are internal
and mainly affect the design of rigid pavements. FAARFIELD implements a three-dimensional finite
element structural model for rigid pavements and rigid overlays. Also, the rigid pavement failure model
was completely revised, reflecting new data on rigid pavement performance under 4- and 6-wheel gears
obtained from Construction Cycle 2 (CC2) at the FAA’s National Airport Pavement Test Facility
(NAPTF), located at the William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport, NJ. Other
significant changes were made to the program, and have been discussed elsewhere [4], but the
modifications to the rigid structural and failure models are the changes most relevant to this paper.
 One of the key changes in AC 150/5320-6E is that the FAA thickness design nomographs have
been retired, and FAARFIELD is now designated as the standard FAA design procedure. In the previous
generation of this AC (150/5320-6D), the design charts based on the CBR equation (flexible) and
Westergaard analysis (rigid) were the default design standard for aircraft mixes up to 2D/2D2 (B747),
while LEDFAA 1.3 was an alternate procedure for all mixes. With the new AC, this is no longer the case.
Nevertheless, the retired AC 150/5320-6D design charts have been shown to provide reasonable and
conservative thicknesses for both rigid and flexible pavements [5] for the fleet of aircraft up to and
including the 2D/2D2, so it is reasonable to make minor adjustments to the FAARFIELD design model to
ensure that FAARFIELD designs do not deviate too greatly from the methods that have proven successful
in the past. In FAARFIELD, this is done for rigid pavements through the introduction of a calibration factor
applied to the computed stresses. The calibration factor was derived from a comparison of FAARFIELD
thickness designs with corresponding designs based on the older FAA design nomographs. Thus, the
calibration factor is completely independent of the parameters that are used in the FAARFIELD model to
regress computed stresses against full-scale rigid performance data.

Rigid Pavement Failure Model in FAARFIELD

The FAARFIELD computer program features an updated failure model for rigid pavements and overlays.
The new model has the mathematical form:

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎛ SCI ⎞ ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎜1 − ⎟(ad − bc ) + Fs′bc ⎥
′
DF ⎢
=
Fs bd ⎥ × log C + ⎢ ⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎥ (1)
⎢ ⎛ SCI ⎞ ⎥ ⎢ ⎛ SCI ⎞ ⎥
⎟(d − b ) + Fs′b ⎥ ⎟(d − b ) + Fs′b ⎥
Fc
⎢ ⎜1 − ⎢ ⎜1 −
⎣ ⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎦ ⎣ ⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎦

where:

DF = design factor, defined as the ratio of concrete strength R to computed stress σ

C = coverages
SCI = structural condition index, defined as a subset of the pavement condition index (PCI) excluding all
non-load related distresses from the computation
a, b, c, d = parameters
Fs′ = compensation factor for high quality and stabilized base
Fc = calibration factor.

The various constants in equation (1) have different meanings. The parameters a, b, c and d were obtained
by least squares regression of the design factor DF against the logarithm of coverages to failure observed in
full-scale tests, including historical tests by the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES)
and recent tests performed by the FAA at the NAPTF. Following Rollings’ [6] procedure, this was done for
two points on the SCI vs. log (C) curve, corresponding to incipient failure (SCI = 100-, or first through
crack), and to complete structural failure (SCI = 0). A complete description of the data analysis is given in
ref. [7]. The constant Fs′ is the compensation factor for high quality bases and has the effect of modifying
the slope of the falling leg of the SCI vs. log (C) line, reflecting the observation that, in full-scale tests,
rigid pavements constructed with stabilized bases exhibited longer life post-first crack than those without
such bases. The default value of Fs′ is 1, obtained for a standard crushed aggregate (P-209) base of 8
inches (203 mm) thickness. Stabilized bases give values of Fs′ <1. The factor Fc is the calibration, or
scaling factor. It is not derived from analysis of full-scale data, but rather from comparison of the
uncalibrated failure model with corresponding designs based on the design chart method in AC 150/5320-
6D, as shown below. In FAARFIELD 1.1, Fc has a value of 1.13.
It may be verified that equation (1) is linear in log(C) for all values of Fs′ . This is a key difference
between equation (1) and the previous rigid pavement failure model used in LEDFAA. In the previous
failure model [3], values of Fs′ not equal to one had the effect of distorting the failure curve so it was
nonlinear in log(C). This was changed in the current model based on the observed performance of
stabilized base test items at the NAPTF [7].

Aircraft Traffic Mixes

The previous FAA thickness design procedures described in Chapters 2 through 4 of AC 150/5320-6D
make use of the “design aircraft” concept, in which all traffic must be converted to equivalent passes of one
of the component aircraft in the mix (the design aircraft). Typically, the design aircraft is the aircraft that
would, by itself, require the greatest thickness. FAARFIELD, like LEDFAA, and LEDNEW (developed by
the US Army Corps of Engineers [8]) before it, is based on the cumulative damage factor (CDF) concept,
according to which the partial damage contributed from each aircraft in the traffic mix is summed to obtain
total damage. Because of the different traffic models, and other variant assumptions, a direct comparison of
slab thickness requirements for single aircraft does not necessarily give a valid comparison for mixtures of
aircraft. For this reason, the calibration was based on an analysis of thickness requirements for aircraft
traffic mixes.
The eight aircraft traffic mixes selected for this comparative study are all actual mixes from U.S.
civil airports. Three of the mixes selected include New Large Aircraft (NLA) types that, due to their
complexity, are outside the scope of the FAA thickness design curves. These aircraft types include 3D
(Boeing B777), 2D/3D2 (Airbus A380), and 2D/2D1 (Airbus A340-500/600). Traffic mix data for these
three mixes is given in tables 1 through 3. The remaining five mixes are historical mixes including only
aircraft types up to and including 2D/2D2 (Boeing B747) for which design charts exist in AC 150/5320-6D.
It is the latter five mixes that were used in this study to establish the calibration factor. Summary traffic mix
data for these five mixes is given in Table 4. Note that, even though table 4 gives only the design aircraft
information for the Westergaard-based design procedure, the FAARFIELD designs were performed using
the complete aircraft traffic mix as input.

Comparison 1: Thickness Design Comparisons for Non-NLA Traffic Mixes

The purpose of the first phase of the comparative design study was to establish the calibration factor Fc on
the basis of an overall comparison of FAARFIELD rigid pavement designs with equivalent thickness
designs obtained using the method of AC 150/5320-6D (Chapter 3). Hence, as stated above, traffic mixes
including NLAs not supported by the standard procedures in Chapter 3 (design charts) were excluded from
this phase, leaving five traffic mixes in the matrix (table 4).
The next step was to define a set of test cases covering the range of rigid pavement structures that
would be encountered in normal practice. The matrix of rigid pavement structures consisted of four
subgrade strengths (E = 4,500, 7,500, 15,000 and 25,000 psi), and three concrete flexural strengths (R =
500, 650 and 700 psi). With the five traffic mixes, this resulted in 60 data points for analysis. In all cases
the design assumed a 6-inch (152-mm) crushed aggregate (Item P-209) subbase course directly over the
subgrade. For each aircraft traffic mix, multiple sets of rigid pavement thickness designs were prepared.
The first set used FAA program R805FAA [9] to obtain PCC thicknesses consistent with AC 150/5320-6D,
chapters 2 and 3. R850FAA is a spreadsheet implementation of the rigid pavement thickness design
nomographs in AC 150/5320-6D, chapter 3. Like the design nomographs on which it is based, the use of
R805FAA is limited to traffic mixes containing non-NLA aircraft. Subsequent sets of designs used
FAARFIELD to obtain the design thickness, but varied the factor Fc within a suitable range (1.0 - 1.2). By
analyzing the full set of runs, a value of Fc was found that minimizes the overall difference between
R805FAA and FAARFIELD for the non-NLA mixes. As shown in figure 1, setting Fc = 1.13 minimizes
the sum of the squares of the differences between R805FAA and FAARFIELD for the set of structures
considered. Hence, Fc = 1.13 was adopted as a reasonable value for the calibration constant in
FAARFIELD 1.1.
It is important to emphasize that the calibration factor Fc in equation (1) is not a safety factor.
That is, the intention of the calibration factor is to minimize overall deviations from the older standard for a
particular class of designs (those involving the traditional aircraft fleet), and not to provide an additional
margin of conservatism. However, assuming that some level of conservatism is already built into the older
design curves, it will necessarily be reflected in the calibrated design procedure.
Comparison 2: Thickness Design Comparisons for NLA Traffic Mixes

The phase 1 calibration analysis described above does not give any information on how FAARFIELD
designs for traffic mixtures including new large aircraft (NLA) types such as the Boeing B777 and Airbus
A380 (both of which feature 3D gears) would compare with equivalent designs performed using the earlier
FAA method. Because there is no standard method in AC 150/5320-6D to account for 3D or other complex
gears in the pavement design charts, any such comparison necessarily involves making certain assumptions
about how the Westergaard-based procedure should be extended to NLAs.
FAA AC 150/5335-5A [10] recommends using the computer program COMFAA [11] to compute
Westergaard-based pavement thicknesses as part of the procedure for reporting pavement classification
numbers (PCN) for airport pavements. COMFAA’s aircraft library includes all the aircraft types in
FAARFIELD, and also allows the user to define arbitrary gear configurations. Because of its ability to
handle the complex gear configurations, COMFAA was used to develop comparisons with the calibrated
FAARFIELD for the traffic mixes that include NLA traffic (tables 1, 2 and 3). In performing these
comparisons, the procedures specified in AC 150/5335-5A [10] were used. These procedures deviate from
those embedded in program R805FAA in several significant ways:
1. In AC 150/5320-6D (and hence, in R805FAA), all S and D aircraft, and most common 2D aircraft,
are treated as generic aircraft types. By contrast, the AC 150/5335-5A method allows COMFAA to
determine a PCC thickness based on the specific gear geometry. For example, in R805FAA a B727 aircraft
would be classified as a generic dual (D) with assumed wheel spacing and tire contact area, whereas
COMFAA uses the specific B727 aircraft data to determine thickness.
2. In AC 150/5320-6D, pass-to-coverage (P/C) ratios are specified for the aircraft type and are not a
function of either gear spacing or tire contact area. In COMFAA, the P/C ratios are computed for each
aircraft as a function of both gear geometry and tire contact area. In general, the P/C ratios using COMFAA
will differ from those embedded in R805FAA for the same aircraft.
3. The AC 150/5320-6D design procedure includes a provision that, for the purpose of determining
the equivalent departures of the design aircraft, all “wide-body” aircraft are to be treated as 2D aircraft with
a gross weight of 300,000 lbs. This provision is not used in AC 150/5335-5A. Instead, the actual
configuration and weight is used for all aircraft. In current ACs, civil aircraft are no longer classed as
“narrow-body” and “wide-body” for the purpose of pavement design.
4. In AC 150/5335-5A, the conversion factor for expressing departures of a given aircraft in terms of
the design aircraft gear type is:

Conversion Factor = 0.8 (M − N ) (2)

where M is the number of wheels on the critical aircraft main gear, and N is the number of wheels on the
main gear to be converted. For conversions among S, D, 2D and 2D/2D2 gears, equation (2) agrees
approximately with the conversion factors listed in AC 150/5320-6D, chapter 3. However, the use of
equation (2) allows extension of the procedure to 3D and higher gears.
In most cases the above deviations do no not greatly affect the final thickness by the Westergaard-
based procedure. However, in certain cases there can be a significant difference, especially where shifting
from generic to specific gear characteristics causes a change in the assumed design aircraft.
The matrix of rigid pavement structures used for the phase 2 portion of the study consisted of three
subgrade strengths (E = 7,500, 15,000 and 25,000 psi), three concrete flexural strengths (R = 500, 650 and
700 psi), and three different stabilized base layers (6 in./152 mm Soil Cement Base, Item P-301, 6 in./152
mm Cement Treated Base, Item P-304, 6 in./152 mm Econocrete Base, Item P-306). With the three traffic
mixes, this resulted in 81 data points for analysis.
For each of the above data points, the design thickness using the COMFAA method was compared
to the corresponding design thickness from FAARFIELD 1.1 (with the 1.13 calibration factor from phase 1
applied). As an additional comparison, the corresponding thicknesses using the LEDFAA 1.3 rigid design
procedure were also computed. The comparisons for the three aircraft mixes are shown in figures 2, 3 and 4
respectively. For R = 500 psi (3.45 MPa), LEDFAA 1.3 solutions are not shown, since R = 600 psi (4.14
MPa) is the lower allowable limit in LEDFAA 1.3, so the total number of LEDFAA points is 54.
It should be noted that the design method using COMFAA, following the procedures in AC
150/5320-6D for increasing the top-of-subbase k-value for stabilized layers, does not make a distinction
among the various stabilized base materials. Hence, the PCC thickness designed using COMFAA is the
same for any stabilized base layer of a given thickness, regardless of the material specification (all else
being equal). By contrast, both LEDFAA and FAARFIELD assign a higher elastic modulus to the higher
quality material, resulting in a reduced PCC thickness requirement. As shown in figures 2 through 4, the
effect of the variation in base layer modulus is more pronounced in LEDFAA than in FAARFIELD.
A basic statistical analysis was performed on the data behind figures 2 through 4, yielding the
following information. For the set of all 81 designs, the mean difference between the COMFAA thickness
and the FAARFIELD thickness was -0.06 inches (i.e., FAARFIELD was thicker than COMFAA for these
designs by an average of 0.06 inches (1.5 mm). The standard deviation of this sample was 0.73 inches (18.5
mm). While the average difference over the whole set was negligible, the thickness difference for a
particular case can be significant, as can be seen in figures 2 through 4. A separate statistical calculation
showed that the mean difference between the LEDFAA and FAARFIELD thicknesses was 0.66 inches
(16.8 mm), i.e., LEDFAA was thicker, on average, by that amount, with a standard deviation of 0.72 inches
(18.3 mm). This latter calculation was based on the 54 cases where a LEDFAA design was computed.
The comparisons in figures 2 through 4 do not fully account for the sensitivity of the COMFAA
method to the selection of the design aircraft, which can cause significant jumps in the design thickness as
computed by the older method. As an illustration of this phenomenon, consider the IAD traffic mix (mix 1-
NLA). Table 5 shows the analysis of the IAD traffic mix leading to the selection of the B737-700 aircraft
as the design aircraft. In this case, it was assumed that the R-value of the PCC was 650 psi (4.48 MPa), and
that the k-value at the top of the stabilized base was 187 pci (50.7 MPa/m). This value corresponds to the
design case with E = 7500 psi (51.7 MPa) for the subgrade (top of subgrade k = 82.4 pci (22.4 MPa/m)) and
a 6 inch (152 mm) thick stabilized base, using the k adjustment curves embedded in the R805FAA
program. From table 5, it is clear that COMFAA requires the greatest thickness for the B737-700.
Therefore, following the procedure of AC 150/5320-6D, chapter 3, the B737 would normally be taken as
the design aircraft for this mix. However, it can also be observed from table 5 that the required thickness
for the B727 is nearly equal to that for the B737, and only a small change in either gross weight or annual
departures would shift the design aircraft to the B727. Figure 5 illustrates the effect on the final thickness
design if the required thicknesses for mix 1-NLA are computed for equivalent departures of the B727
instead of the B737. As shown in figure 5, just this one change - reassigning the design aircraft from B737
to B727 - adds up to 1.3 inches of additional PCC thickness in the COMFAA-based procedure. It should be
noted that a similarly large effect would not necessarily be observed using the R805FAA program, since
both aircraft (B727 and B737) would be treated as generic dual gears using the design nomographs (with
the same P/C ratio based on AC 150/5320-6D). However, this example serves to illustrate one of the
advantages of the CDF-based design procedure in FAARFIELD, that it is less sensitive than previous
methods to slight changes in the assumed traffic.

Conclusions

The FAA has introduced a new pavement thickness design computer program, called FAARFIELD,
effective with AC 150/5320-6E. For rigid pavement designs, including designs of overlays, FAARFIELD
differs significantly from previous FAA standards, particularly in the use of a 3D-FE based structural
response model to determine the critical stresses for design. In addition, a revised rigid pavement failure
model is introduced, based on new analysis of full-scale traffic tests. The FAA was concerned to know the
effect that the new models in FAARFIELD would have on required thicknesses of PCC slabs designed
following FAA standards. Since the previous design procedures are believed to give satisfactory results for
aircraft mixes within the limitations of the available design nomographs (up to and including the B747) it
was also a goal to minimize the overall deviation from the nomograph method for civil traffic mixes not
including 3D or other complex gear types.
A two-stage design comparison was performed. The program R805FAA was used to develop
designs based on the nomographs. As a result of the phase 1 comparison (between FAARFIELD and
R805FAA for the pre-B777 fleet, a calibration factor of 1.13 was applied to the design factor (DF) in the
FAARFIELD rigid pavement failure model. This is equivalent to scaling the computed stresses by the same
factor. In the second phase analysis, FAARFIELD thickness designs were compared to both the
Westergaard-based design procedure and to LEDFAA 1.3, for three aircraft mixes including NLAs. The
program COMFAA was used to compute the design thicknesses for all aircraft including NLAs. These
results showed that the FAARFIELD-computed thicknesses were, on average, approximately equal to those
computed using the COMFAA procedure, and significantly less than LEDFAA 1.3. In contrast to
FAARFIELD, which follows the CDF procedure and does not require a design aircraft, the AC 150/5320-
6D traffic model, and hence, the thickness computed with COMFAA, is sensitive to the selection of the
design aircraft.

Acknowledgements/Disclaimer

The work described in this paper was supported by the FAA Airport Technology R&D Branch, Dr. Satish
K. Agrawal, Manager. The contents of the paper reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for
the facts and accuracy of the data presented within. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views and policies of the FAA. The paper does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

References

1. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, “Airport Pavement Design
and Evaluation,” Draft Advisory Circular AC 150/5320-6E, 2008.
2. Hayhoe, Gordon F., Kawa, Izydor, and Brill, David R., “New Developments in FAA Airport Pavement
Thickness Design Software,” in Proceedings of Transportation Systems 2004 Workshop, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, March 29-April 2, 2004.
3. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, “Airport Pavement Design
for the Boeing B777,” Advisory Circular AC 150/5320-16, 1995 (cancelled).
4. Kawa, Izydor, Brill, David R. and Hayhoe, Gordon F., “FAARFIELD – New FAA Airport Thickness
Design Software,” in Proceedings of the 2007 FAA Worldwide Airport Technology Transfer
Conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey, April 2007.
5. Garg, Navneet, Guo, Edward, and McQueen, Roy, Operational Life of Airport Pavements, Technical
Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-04/46, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Research,
December 2004.
6. Rollings, Raymond, Design of Overlays for Rigid Airport Pavements, Technical Report No.
DOT/FAA/PM-87/19, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Research, April 1988.
7. Brill, D.R., Hayhoe, G.F., and Ricalde, L., “Analysis of CC2 Rigid Pavement Test Data From the
FAA’s National Airport Pavement Test Facility,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
the Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields, Trondheim, Norway, July 2005.
8. Barker, Walter R., and Gonzalez, Carlos R., “Pavement Design by Elastic Layer Theory,” in
Aircraft/Pavement Interaction: An Integrated System, Proceedings of the Airfield Pavement Specialty
Conference, ASCE, Kansas City, Missouri, Sept. 4-6, 1991.
9. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, “Airport Pavement Design
and Evaluation,” Advisory Circular AC 150/5320-6D, Change 3, Issued April 2004.
10. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, “Standardized Method of
Reporting Pavement Strength - PCN,” Advisory Circular AC 150/5335-5A, 2006.
11. Kawa, Izydor, and Hayhoe, Gordon F., “Development of a Computer Program to Compute Pavement
Thickness and Strength,” in Proceedings of the 2002 FAA Worldwide Airport Technology Transfer
Conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey, May 2002.
Table 1. Traffic Data for Mix No. 1-NLA

Airport/Feature: Washington Dulles Airport (IAD), RWY 1L-19R

Aircraft No. Aircraft Gross Weight, lbs. (Tonnes) Annual Departures
1 Sngl Whl-30 35,000 (15.9) 17850
2 Sngl-Whl-60 55,000 (24.9) 164599
3 B727 210,000 (95.3) 7965
4 B737-700 160,000 (72.6) 86053
5 B737-800 173,000 (78.5) 17064
6 B757 250,000 (113.4) 22021
7 DC8 355,000 (161.0) 260
8 B767-200 350,000 (158.8) 10433
9 B777-200ER* 634,500 (287.8) 11102
10 B777-300* 750,000 (340.2) 996
11 B747-400 873,000 (396.0) 5990
12 DC10-10 460,000 (208.7) 4135
13 MD11 Wing 621,000 (281.7) 3693
14 MD11 Belly 621,000 (281.7) 3693
15 A340-200/300 Wing 621,000 (281.7) 2065
16 A340-200/300 Belly 621,000 (281.7) 2065
*Aircraft not admissible for AC 150/5320-6D design curves
Table 2. Traffic Data for Mix No. 2-NLA

Airport/Feature: Memphis Airport (MEM), RWY 18R-36L

Aircraft No. Aircraft Gross Weight, lbs. (Tonnes) Annual Departures
1 Sngl Whl-45 45,000 (20.4) 20432
2 DC9-30 100,000 (45.4) 2578
3 B707 350,000 (158.8) 203
4 B737-400 150,000 (68.0) 11663
5 MD90-30 160,000 (72.6) 3184
6 B727 169,000 (76.7) 19
7 B727 210,000 (95.3) 13367
8 B757 255,000 (115.7) 2321
9 B767-200 350,000 (158.8) 669
10 B747-400 870,000 (394.6) 311
11 MD11 Wing 607,000 (275.3) 3915
12 MD11 Belly 607,000 (275.3) 3915
13 A300-600 364,000 (165.1) 4632
14 A330 467,000 (211.8) 4072
15 B777-200A* 590,000 (267.6) 156
16 C-141 343,000 (155.6) 1030
*Aircraft not admissible for AC 150/5320-6D design curves
Table 3. Traffic Data for Mix No. 3-NLA

Airport/Feature: John F. Kennedy Airport (JFK), RWY 13R-31L

Aircraft No. Aircraft Gross Weight, lbs. (Tonnes) Annual Departures
1 A300-600 375,900 (170.5) 3838
2 A320 162,000 (73.5) 15101
3 A330 507,000 (230.0) 1015
4 B757 270,000 (122.5) 7544
5 B737-800 174,200 (79.0) 1561
6 B747-200 833,000 (377.8) 2207
7 B747-400 873,000 (396.0) 8519
8 B767-200 335,000 (152.0) 6178
9 B767-300ER 409,000 (185.5) 9635
10 B777-200 A* 632,500 (286.9) 3111
11 Concorde 410,000 (186.0) 406
12 Fokker F100 100,000 (45.4) 12117
13 DC9-30 121,000 (54.9) 569
14 DC9-50 121,000 (54.9) 488
15 A340-500/600 Wing* 750,000 (340.2) 2441
16 A340-500/600 Belly* 750,000 (340.2) 2441
17 A380-800* 1,340,000 (607.8) 5475
18 B747-SP 696,000 (315.7) 3
19 DC8 358,000 (162.4) 504
20 MD11 Wing 621,000 (281.7) 3315
21 MD11 Belly 621,000 (281.7) 3315
*Aircraft not admissible for AC 150/5320-6D design curves
Table 4. Summary of Traffic Data for Non-NLA Mixes

Design Equivalent
Traffic Aircraft Gross Weight, Annual
Mix No. Airport/Feature (R805FAA) lbs (Tns.) Departures
1-NON Sarasota-Bradenton (SRQ) B727 (D) 209,000 (94.8) 2,171
2-NON Washington Dulles (IAD), TWY W-1 B727 (D) 209,500 (95.0) 4,628
3-NON Charlotte Douglas (CLT), RWY 18R-36L B737-300 (D) 150,000 (68.0) 19,122
4-NON Charlotte Douglas (CLT) DC8 (2D) 350,000 (158.8) 4,062
5-NON Philadelphia Intl. (PHL), 1993 Traffic B727 (D) 209,500 (95.0) 22,601
Table 5. Determination of Design Aircraft for IAD RWY 1L (Mix 1-NLA).

PCC Thickness,
Gross Wt. lbs. Annual COMFAA,
No. Aircraft (Tonnes) Departures P/C (COMFAA) in. (mm)
1 Single Wheel-30 35000 (15.88) 17850 6.25 8.02 (204)
2 Single Wheel-60 55000 (24.95) 164599 5.24 11.41 (290)
3 B727 210000 (95.25) 7965 2.92 17.93 (455)
4 B737-700* 160000 (72.58) 86053 3.75 18.07 (459)
5 B737-800 173000 (78.47) 17064 3.53 17.21 (437)
6 B757 250000 (113.4) 22021 3.87 14.05 (357)
7 DC-8 355000 (161.0) 260 3.35 13.90 (353)
8 B767-200 350000 (158.8) 10433 3.96 15.12 (384)
9 B747-400 873000 (396.0) 5990 3.46 16.85 (428)
10 DC-10-10 460000 (208.7) 4135 3.70 15.55 (395)
11 MD11 Wing 621000 (281.7) 3693 3.67 16.78 (426)
12 MD11 Belly 621000 (281.7) 3693 3.01 17.46 (443)
13 B777-200 ER 634500 (287.8) 11102 4.04 15.77 (401)
14 B777-300 750000 (340.2) 996 4.13 15.97 (406)
15 A340-200/300 Wing 621000 (281.7) 2065 1.89 16.06 (408)
16 A340-200/300 Belly 621000 (281.7) 2065 3.07 16.86 (428)
*Design Aircraft
 180

160
Sum of Squares (Objective Function)

140

120 2
y = 6082.6x - 13767x + 7843.1
R2 = 0.9998
100

80

60

40
F c = 1.13 minimizes the
objective function.
20

0
0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25
Calibration Factor F c

Sum of Squares Poly. (Sum of Squares)

Figure 1. Optimal Value of FAARFIELD Calibration Factor

 30

PCC Thickness, in. 25

20

15

10

0
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi
R = 500 psi R = 650 psi R = 700 psi

COMFAA LEDFAA 1.3 FAARFIELD

Figure 2. PCC Thickness Design Comparison for Traffic Mix 1-NLA

(IAD, RWY 1L)
 25

20
PCC Thickness, in.

15

10

0
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi
R = 500 psi R = 650 psi R = 700 psi

COMFAA LEDFAA 1.3 FAARFIELD

Figure 3. PCC Thickness Design Comparison for Traffic Mix 2-NLA

(MEM, RWY 18R)
 30

PCC Thickness, in. 25

20

15

10

0
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi
R = 500 psi R = 650 psi R = 700 psi

COMFAA LEDFAA 1.3 FAARFIELD

Figure 4. PCC Thickness Design Comparison for Traffic Mix 3-NLA

(JFK, RWY 13R)
 30

25
PCC Thickness, in.

20

15

10

0
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
P301
P304
P306
E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi E = 7.5 ksi E = 15 ksi E = 25 ksi
R = 500 psi R = 650 psi R = 700 psi

COMFAA (B737 as design aircraft) COMFAA (B727 as design aircraft) FAARFIELD

Figure 5. Effect of Design Aircraft Selection on PCC Thickness Design Comparisons

(Traffic Mix 1-NLA)

View publication stats