Kelly Field at
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I Report September 2017
300 S. Meridian Street Union Station Indianapolis, IN 46225 (317) 786-0461 chacompanies.com PORT SAN ANTONIO BOARD OF DIRECTORS Victoria M. Garcia, Chairwoman Edward J. Moore, Vice Chair Vacant, Secretary Chris Alderete, Treasurer Andrew Anguiano Rolando Bono Victor Landa Bill Mock Alex Nava Juan Solis Dan F. Weingart Marc Whyte
PORT SAN ANTONIO STAFF PRESIDENT AND CEO Roland C. Mower VICE PRESIDENT OF ASSET MANAGEMENT Adrienne Cox EXECUTIVE VP, STRATEGIC INITIATIVES/AIRPORT Rick Crider, A.A.E. VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE & ACCOUNTING Pat Cruzen VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMUNICATIONS Paco Felici EXECUTIVE VP , COO & CFO Dan Ferris, CPA EXECUTIVE VP, GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS Juan Antonio Flores VP OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Ramon Flores VP OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Marcel Johnson EXECUTIVE VP OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Jim Perschbach VP OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, EAST KELLY RAILPORT German Rico SENIOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT & CEO Caroline Diaz
*As of February 2017 Contents Summary:
Part I Executive Summary
Report Section A: Introduction Section B: Project Background Section C: References Section D: Chronicle of Coordination Section E: Definition of Requirements Section F: Existing Pavement History Section G: Geologic Conditions and Subgrade Investigation Section H: Existing Runway Pavement Section Analysis Section I: Estimated Remaining Pavement Service Life Section J: New Pavement Section Design Section K: Alternative Construction Materials Section L: Part I Conclusion
Appendices Appendix A: Technical Workshop Meeting Summary Appendix B: Historic PCI Maps Appendix C: Site Plan of Nearby Borings Appendix D: Existing Pavement PCASE Report Appendix E: Existing Pavement FAARFIELD Report Appendix F: Proposed Pavement FAARFIELD Reports Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I – Final Report September 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stemming from a recent major maintenance and repair (M&R) project in 2016 on Runway 16‐34 at Kelly Field (SKF), the Port Authority of San Antonio (Authority) as well as the United States Air Force (USAF), encountered significant operational impacts which translated into equally significant financial burdens. The Authority initiated this study in partnership with Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA), Operations Support Squadron (OSS), the 502nd Civil Engineering Squadron (CES) and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) to determine a long‐term solution to eliminate extended runway closures at SKF.
This study has been partitioned into two parts. Part I evaluates the existing pavements and endeavors to answer two questions: 1.) Does the pavement require full reconstruction or can future M&R‐type projects address the pavement needs, and 2.) At what point in the future is it required. Part II endeavors to explore and conceive optional courses of action (COA) for construction activities on Runway 16‐34.
CHA Consulting, Inc. (CHA) has been retained by the Authority to evaluate, strategize, and recommend opinions of existing pavement condition, address the prominent questions, and recommend construction sequencing strategies which promote minimization, or altogether eliminate, extended runway closures. In March 2017, Part I of this study was presented with general recommendation to pursue full reconstruction of the inner 75’ of roughly 9,000’ of runway. This inner section, referred to as the keel section, exhibits an average pavement condition index (PCI) of 51 based on a 2012 PCI Study provided by AFCEC. AFCEC in conjunction with the 502nd CES has programmed an update to the 2012 PCI Study for some time during the 2017 calendar year. This update is considered critical as it relates to understanding the impacts (good or bad) of the 2016 M&R project.
As an aviation industry standard, PCI values below 65 for a runway (60 for a taxiway) typically points to an invasive rehabilitation, but often times full reconstruction. However, AFCEC uses a slightly different scale to determine the level of M&R as well as reconstruction. A PCI value between 50 and 70, according to AFCEC, means continued major M&R (i.e. isolated panel replacement, joint sealant replacement, spall repair, etc. for concrete pavements); whereas, pavements with a PCI below 50 will then be looked at closer to determine the severity of the pavement distresses and the timeline for which reconstruction may occur.
PCI values alone do not always make a definitive direction of a pavement project. Funding and available annual allocations, whether military or civilian sourced, can often times mold the definition of a pavement project. In this case, because the USAF owns and operates the flying facilities at SKF, pavement repair and/or reconstruction would most likely be funded through the United States Department of Defense (DoD) through its military construction (MILCON) program. No different than the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while PCI values can justify a project’s eligibility for funding, it also must outrank other facilities in the system for priority.
As such, in July 2017, AFCEC and the 502nd CES notified the Authority that the 2017 PCI Study has revealed a significant increase in PCI values for Runway 16‐34, rising from 51 to 64 on average. While Part I of this study recommends reconstruction of the keel section, the USAF intends to continue its major M&R program for Runway 16‐34. The next project is programmed for design in fiscal year (FY) 2019, with construction planned for FY2021.
1 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
REPORT A. INTRODUCTION
Kelly Field is a joint use (military/civilian) airfield located on the southwest side of San Antonio at the former Kelly Air Force Base (AFB) site. The United States Air Force (USAF) owns and operates the runway, taxiways, Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility, navigational aids, instrument approaches, and associated systems (the Flying Facilities). It manages the jointly used Flying Facilities through its 502nd Operations Support Squadron (OSS). Military use of Kelly Field includes the USAF hosting flight operations of two tenant commands, the Air Force Reserve’s 433d Airlift Wing, operating the C‐5 Galaxy, and the Texas Air National Guard’s 149th Fighter Wing, operating the F‐16 Falcon. Civilian use of Kelly Field is provided by the Port Authority of San Antonio who has a Joint Use Agreement (JUA) with the USAF for the public civilian use of the Flying Facilities, and who owns adjacent land and facilities dedicated to civilian aviation use.
The Port Authority of San Antonio (Authority) is a Texas defense base development authority charged with managing the conversion of portions of the former Kelly AFB to civilian use, while promoting economic health through the attraction and preservation of industry and associated jobs. The 1,900 acres of Kelly AFB property that was transferred to the Authority is now known as Port San Antonio (PSA) which is directly adjacent to the portion retained by the USAF and is officially known as Kelly Field Annex (KFA). Of those 1,900 acres, approximately 640 acres are dedicated to aviation use. The Authority owns and operates exclusive‐use ramp, hangars, and facilities occupied by civil operators; leaseback ramp, hangars, and facilities occupied by the USAF; a public‐use ramp; a fuel farm; connector taxiways; and a variety of buildings and hangars currently marketed to the civil aviation community. Collectively, the Flying Facilities and the PSA land dedicated to aviation use represent the airport referred to as Kelly Field. The three letter airport identifier for Kelly Field is SKF.
As a public civil aviation use airport, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has added SKF to its National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), and the Texas Department of Transportation Aviation Division (TxDOT) has also included SKF in its Texas Aviation System Plan (TASP). These inclusions validate SKF’s role as part of a state and national network of airports serving civil aviation needs. B. PROJECT BACKGROUND
SKF has a single runway (Runway 16‐34, formerly named Runway 15‐33) that has been in place since 1955. The pavement condition of some of the older concrete sections is deteriorating and may need significant reconstruction or repairs in the foreseeable future. The Authority is concerned of the hardship to its customers should significant runway closures be required for pavement maintenance, repairs and/or reconstruction. It is recognized that long runway closure periods would likewise cause hardships to the military by requiring deployment of its commands.
Page 2 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
CHA Consulting, Inc. (CHA) has been retained by the Authority to evaluate the existing runway and parallel taxiway pavements (Taxiway A), to determine likely future rehabilitative measures that will be required, and to provide recommendations on how best to mitigate runway closure times for accomplishing the work. CHA is supported by two (2) local consulting firms: Pape‐Dawson Engineers and Arias Geoprofessionals. Collectively, this team is referred to as ‘CHA’ in this report.
CHA has been coordinating its efforts closely with the Authority, and the USAF including OSS, the 502nd Civil Engineering Squadron (CES) and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC). There are two parts to this study. This Part I Report evaluates the existing pavements, determines the areas in need of imminent reconstruction, suggests the use of alternative construction materials and recommends proposed pavement sections. Part I findings were presented to the Authority and USAF personnel at a technical workshop in January 2017, and are included within this report.
The intent of Part II is to coordinate runway closure concerns when considering the future maintenance/ rehabilitation needs. Possible remedies for minimizing runway closures include considering: temporary relocated thresholds that would allow the runway to stay open for some phases of work; off‐peak or fast track construction techniques; pavement materials conducive to fast tracking (e.g. asphalt, high/early strength concrete, etc.); a temporary runway while the primary runway is closed for construction; or phasing strategies that would allow the runway to be reopened and available for brief periods during reconstruction.
The USAF manages the airport’s pavement assets using its pavement management plan procedures that provide for continuous monitoring of condition, performance, and corrective action needs. USAF pavement construction projects are planned, funded, and constructed by the AFCEC and the CES. As such, the information provided and the conclusions drawn in this report are meant to be recommendations for the Authority to use at their discretion when involved in planning charrettes, design meetings, or other construction decisions made by the USAF. C. REFERENCES
The recommendations and conclusions in this document are based on design criteria from the FAA Advisory Circulars (AC), Department of Defense (DOD) Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), SKF pavement evaluation reports completed by the USAF, and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil maps. These design references include but are not limited to:
FAA AC’s: 150/5300‐9B, Predesign, Prebid, and Preconstruction Conferences for Airport Grant Projects 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design 150/5320‐5D, Airport Drainage Design 150/5320‐6F, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation 150/5335‐5C, Standardized Method of Reporting Airport Pavement Strength – PCN
Page 3 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
150/5370‐2F, Operational Safety on Airports During Construction 150/5370‐10G, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports 150/5370‐13A, Off‐Peak Construction of Airport Pavements Using Hot‐Mix Asphalt 150/5380‐9, Guidelines and Procedures for Measuring Airfield Pavement Roughness
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) ICAO – Aerodrome Design Manual
DOD UFC’s UFC 3‐260‐01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design UFC 3‐260‐02, Pavement Design for Airfields UFC 3‐260‐03, Airfield Pavement Evaluation UFC 3‐270‐03, Concrete Crack and Partial‐Depth Spall Repair UFC 3‐270‐04, Concrete Repair
Pavement Evaluation Reports (USAF) Airfield Pavement Evaluation and Condition Survey Report ‐ April 1973 Partial Airfield Pavement Evaluation Report – March 1977 Airfield Pavement Evaluation Kelly Air Force Base – January 1990 Surface Condition Report – 2001 Airfield Pavement Condition Assessment Report – April 2008 Airfield Pavement Evaluation – December 2012 Airfield Pavement Condition Index Survey Report – April 2015
Additional reports and standards are cited throughout the remainder of this document, where applicable. D. CHRONICLE OF COORDINATION
As the USAF owns and operates the Flying Facilities at SKF, detailed coordination and communication has been crucial to understand how the USAF’s pavement goals and objectives can be met in concert with the accessibility needs of the civilian customers and base commands. A large part of that communication during the development of this report included a technical workshop in January 2017 with the USAF and the Authority. The workshop included a presentation by CHA that revealed the areas in need of imminent reconstruction, and a working discussion between the USAF and the Authority that ended with the following key conclusions:
1. The Authority will be involved in “Planning Charrettes” if construction at the airfield is presumed to affect operations. The charrette would include discussions on:
Page 4 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
a. Phasing b. Design/Construction Funding c. Sources of Funding d. USAF and/or Authority Funding 2. Full closure of the runway has significant financial impacts on both USAF and Authority 3. The 2017 Airfield Pavement Condition Assessment Report, set to be completed by the USAF later this year, will be key in the USAF’s determination of whether or not the runway requires reconstruction, or additional rehabilitation. 4. The AFCEC does not initiate planning for reconstruction of pavement until the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) value falls below 50. Similarly, PCI values below 70 but above 50 are generally deemed major maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R).
The entire meeting summary from this working discussion is included as Appendix A.
The evaluation of the airfield assets and its corresponding impacts on military and civilian operations at SKF is one of several initiatives by the Authority. There are two top priorities shared by the Authority and the USAF: those priorities are construction of a new Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), and the remaining service life of Runway 16‐34. Following the technical workshop in January 2017, CHA participated in a larger leadership forum where a status update from the technical workshop was provided to leadership from the Authority, OSS, 502d CES, AFCEC, Texas Air National Guard (TANG), Air Force Reserves, and Authority customers.
A second leadership meeting is planned for early March 2017. E. DEFINITION OF REQUIREMENTS
The intent of this section is to summarize the applicable UFC and FAA design criteria used in this report, and to identify the minimum operational requirements of the Authority and the USAF. The Flying Facilities at SKF are owned and operated by USAF; therefore work on Runway 16‐34 will require the use of UFC design guidelines. In addition to UFC criteria, an analysis based on FAA design requirements has been accomplished to help ensure the civilian use of the Flying Facilities may also be supported at SKF.
SKF MINIMUM OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The following are minimum operating requirements at SKF as outlined by the Authority and the USAF. It was stated by the Authority that if these minimums are not met, then a significant amount of business and revenue would be lost. It was stated by the USAF that if these minimums are not met, then costly deployment of military personnel would occur. The goal for any construction at SKF is to maintain these minimums to the greatest extent possible during construction. Those items awaiting feedback will be discussed further with the USAF and Authority for the Part II Report.
Page 5 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
Item Authority Minimums USAF Minimums 6,000 feet (C‐5’s) Minimum Runway Length 7,500 feet for 747‐400 8,000 feet (F‐16s) Minimum Runway Width 150 feet 150 feet Temporary/Visual NAVAIDS Awaiting Feedback Awaiting Feedback Required Maximum Tolerable Time of 2 Weeks Awaiting Feedback Runway Closure Can Operate Only Under VFR Yes Awaiting Feedback Conditions? Can Operate on a Displaced or Yes Yes Relocated Threshold? Table E‐1 – Minimum Operational Requirements
GEOMETRIC DESIGN CRITERIA
From the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) submitted to the Authority by CHA in 2015, the critical civilian aircraft at SKF is the Boeing 747‐400, while the USAF operates both the C‐5 and the F‐16. This information has been used to determine which set of FAA or UFC design standards apply at SKF. While FAA assigns a Runway Design Code (RDC) based on the most critical aircraft, UFC designates the runway as either a Class A or Class B based on the operating aircraft at the facility.
FAA geometric design is based on the RDC, as described in paragraph 105c in AC 150/5300‐13A, Airport Design. RDC is comprised of three components: Aircraft Approach Category (AAC), Airplane Design Group (ADG) and runway visibility minimums (expressed by RVR values, in feet). According to the current Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawing, SKF is an AAC – Category D (aircraft with approach speeds of 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots) and ADG – Group V (aircraft with tail heights of 60 feet to less than 66 feet and wingspans of 171 feet to less than 214 feet) facility, with the Boeing 747‐400 as the critical aircraft, as stated earlier. The visibility minimum for Runway 16‐34 is 2,400 feet RVR, based on the RNAV ILS ½ ‐ mile visibility minimum approach to both Runway 16 and Runway 34. Consequently, SKF retains an RDC of D‐VI‐2400 as denoted in the current draft ALP. Table E‐2 lists the major FAA design criteria that apply at SKF. These areas are dimensioned as shown in Exhibit A.
Page 6 of 32
U.S. Highway 90
36ath St. Thompson Neighborhood PSA Property Line
Cupples Rd.
W. Thompson Pl.
Runway 16-34
RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA
Billy Mitchell Blvd.
KELLY FIELD ANNEX
RUNWAY SAFETY AREA
Union Pacific
Classification Yard
Quintana Rd.
PSA Property Line
Southcross Rd.
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE
SW Military Dr.
Quintana Neighborhood
New Laredo Hwy.
Kelly Field at GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 0 1000 2000 EXHIBIT A FAA Runway Design Standards Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
Item FAA Design Criteria Runway Width 150 feet Runway Shoulder Width 35 feet Runway Safety Area (RSA) Width 500 feet RSA length prior to threshold 600 feet RSA length beyond departure end 1,000 feet Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) Width 800 feet ROFA length prior to threshold 600 feet ROFA length beyond runway end 1,000 feet Minimum Runway CL to Parallel 400 feet Taxiway CL Separation Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) 1,000 feet / 1,750 feet / 2,500 feet Inner Width/Outer Width/Length Table E‐2 – Runway 16‐34 FAA Design Criteria
UFC airfield design criteria varies according to runway class as defined in UFC 3‐260‐01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design. UFC airfield pavement types and traffic areas vary according to UFC 2‐ 260‐02, Pavement Design for Airfields.
UFC 3‐260‐01 provides standardized airfield and airspace criteria for geometric layout, design and construction of runways, taxiways, aprons and related permanent facilities to meet sustained operations. Runway 16‐34 at SKF is categorized as a Class B Air Force Runway with military traffic consisting of mostly F‐16’s and C‐5’s.
Table E‐3 – Runway Classification by Aircraft Type
Page 7 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
The following are the Class B runway design criteria per Table 3‐2 in UFC 3‐260‐01. These areas are dimensioned at SKF as shown in Exhibit B.
Item UFC Design Criteria Runway Width 150 feet Runway Lateral Clearance Zone 2,000 feet wide x runway length 2,000 feet wide x runway length + 400 Runway Primary Surface feet (200 feet beyond each runway end) 500 feet wide x runway length + 6,000 Mandatory Frangibility Zone (MFZ) feet (3,000 feet beyond each runway end) 3,000 feet wide x runway length + 6,000 Clear Zone feet (3,000 feet beyond each runway end) Starts at end of clear zone and is 3,000 Accident Potential Zone I (APZ I) feet wide by 5,000 feet long Starts at end of APZ I and is 3,000 feet Accident Potential Zone II (APZ II) wide by 7,000 feet long Runway CL to Parallel Taxiway Edge 1,000 feet Separation Table E‐4 – Runway 16‐34 UFC Design Criteria
CONCRETE JOINTING REQUIREMENTS
Chapter 12 of UFC 360‐260‐02, Pavement Design for Airfields provides joint layout guidance on new unreinforced concrete pavements at military facilities. The existing transverse contraction joint spacing on Runway 16‐34 at SKF varies along the length of the runway. In some areas concrete panels are 12.5’ x 12.5’ in size, and are mainly in areas where the runway has been reconstructed. In other areas panels are 25’ x 25’ in size, and likely date to original construction.
Per Table E‐5 from UFC 3‐260‐02, Pavement Design for Airfields, the maximum allowable spacing between transverse contraction joints on new rigid pavements is 20’ maximum, and is dependent on the thickness of the concrete. The concrete pavement thickness in Traffic Area C at SKF is 14 inches which would qualify for the 20’ maximum spacing.
Table E‐5 – Recommended Spacing of Transverse Contraction Joints (UFC) Page 8 of 32
U.S. Highway 90
36ath St.
PRIMARY
LATERAL Cupples Rd.
W. Thompson Pl.
PRIMARY SURFACE / LATERAL CLEAR ZONE
PRIMARY SURFACE / LATERAL CLEAR ZONE
CLEAR ZONE
Runway 16-34MFZ ZONE
MFZ ZONE
CLEAR ZONE
Billy Mitchell Blvd.
LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE
Gen. Hudnell Rd.
Union Pacific
Classification Yard
Quintana Rd.
LATERAL Southcross Rd.
PRIMARY
SW Military Dr.
New Laredo Hwy.
Kelly Field at GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 0 1000 2000 Exhibit B UFC RUNWAY DESIGN STANDARDS Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
The FAA provides guidance on maximum joint spacing. For rigid pavements with and without a stabilized subbase, the maximum transverse and longitudinal spacing between joints is illustrated below, and can be found in FAA AC 150/5320‐6F, Section 3.14.13. Additionally, the ratio between transverse spacing should not exceed 1.25 the longitudinal spacing. Though SKF does not have a stabilized subbase, it does serve aircraft greater than 100,000 pounds, and per FAA standards, should have a stabilized subbase. New 14‐inch concrete panels on a stabilized subbase should not have a transverse joint spacing of greater than 17.5 feet.
Table E‐6 – Recommended Maximum Transverse Joint Spacing (FAA) EXISTING AFCEC PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX (PCI) THRESHOLDS
One of the key factors in determining justification and funding allocation for USAF civil projects is the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Pavement Evaluation Reports are completed by the USAF at regular intervals. Full reports from 2001, 2007 and 2012, have been analyzed by CHA. The trends and data from these reports are presented later in this section, and the PCI maps from each of the reports are included as Appendix B.
As a part of the January 2017 technical workshop which occurred between the USAF and the Authority in January 2017, AFCEC stated that there are PCI thresholds typically used to determine what type of maintenance a pavement would receive in the immediate future. If the PCI rating of a particular pavement is above 70, then maintenance such as crack sealing is typically recommended. See table E‐7 below for PCI rating descriptions as defined in the AFCEC 2015 Airfield Pavement Evaluation Report.
Page 9 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
Table E‐7 – Definition of PCI Ratings
If the PCI rating of a pavement falls below 70, but is above 50, then a ‘major maintenance/ rehabilitation (M&R) is typically recommended. This M&R can include concrete panel replacement or an asphalt mill and overlay, along with joint sealant restoration. An M&R project would trigger AFCEC to proceed with a program; which would include holding planning meetings, creating cost estimates and life‐cycle cost analyses, and developing construction documents. If the PCI rating falls below 50, full reconstruction of the pavement section is typically recommended and a program would be triggered.
It is the understanding of CHA that if a pavement is rated with a PCI of 50 or below, it does not necessarily mean a full reconstruction project would be programmed by AFCEC. Based on an annual budget, AFCEC must allocate funds based on priority. While SKF may have pavements that have a PCI rating below 50, other USAF bases may have pavements that have PCI ratings that are lower. As of the date of this report, a full PCI study at SKF is to be completed later in 2017. The information from the PCI report will likely help determine when SKF’s pavement actions will be programmed within AFCEC’s pavement management system in the upcoming years, and whether a full reconstruction or additional M&R is programmed. It is also CHA’s understanding that AFCEC is focused on what impacts a 2016 concrete panel replacement M&R project will have on the upcoming PCI report for Runway 16‐34. The 2016 project consisted of the replacement of over 30 concrete panels on Runway 16‐34 that were in poor condition as determined by the contractor and CES. The concrete was removed and replaced in kind with modifications made to the jointing (12.5’ x 12.5’).
Page 10 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
F. EXISTING PAVEMENT HISTORY
RUNWAY 16‐34 PAVEMENT HISTORY
Runway 16‐34 was constructed in 1955/56 to be 11,500’ long, 300’ wide, 150’ of which is full strength runway pavement, and includes three segments: the north approach end, the main runway, and the south departure end. The approaches on each end of the runway include about 1,000’ of 300’ full‐width concrete pavements. The main runway segment includes a 75’ wide concrete keel with 112.5’ asphalt on each side. Of the 112.5’ wide asphalt, 37.5’ is within the runway and 75’ is a paved shoulder. Concrete panel dimensions in the center keel are 25’ x 25’, except for reconstructed panels that have dimensions of 12.5’ x 12.5’. The pavement thickness values vary with location. In addition, various reconstruction projects have occurred, resulting in additional pavement thickness variability. The construction history of Runway 16‐34 is summarized below:
Table F‐1 – Construction History of Runway 16‐34 PARALLEL TAXIWAY ‘A’ PAVEMENT HISTORY
Taxiway A can be characterized into two segments: Taxiway A South and Taxiway A North, with the dividing point being at Taxiway D.
Prior to 1955 the southern portion of Taxiway A was used as a runway for WW II era aircraft. Record documents generally indicate the old runways consisted of about 6 inches of concrete pavement. Major upgrades to the airfield provided in 1955/1956 converted the old runway to a parallel taxiway.
Taxiway A, north of Taxiway D, was constructed in 1955/1956. The taxiway includes a 75 foot wide concrete pavement with 50 foot asphalt shoulders on each side. The concrete is variable thickness and generally includes three (3) 25 foot wide panels. The center lane panel is 20 inches thick and
Page 11 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
the outer lane panels are 18 inches thick. The variable thickness concrete pavements were constructed over 8 inches of base placed over the natural clay subgrade soils.
Although, not indicated in the historical documents, it appears that the asphalt shoulders along the taxiway may have been reconstructed since the original construction. The existing asphalt includes regular crack‐seal repairs throughout the length of the taxiway. The block‐type crack patterns suggest that the base material may have been cement‐treated to provide a stabilized base layer as a re‐habilitation project to extend the life of the pavements. High cement levels in constructing CTB can result in excessive shrinkage cracking, which can lead to distresses that propagate as reflective cracks in the asphalt surface, similar to what is observed along Taxiway A.
The pavement thicknesses vary with location. The construction history and pavement thicknesses on Taxiway A are summarized below:
Segment Const. Pavement Type and Remarks Period Thickness North of Taxiway D 1955/56 18 - 20” PCCP Original Construction South of Taxiway D 1955/56 18” PCCP, over Original Construction 1” – 6” HMA leveling course, over (WW II era runway) 6” PCCP Taxiway Shoulders 1955/56 2” HMA over 6” Base Original Construction 1988 Est. HMA over CTB Based on observed performance Table F‐2 – Construction History of Taxiway A The 2001, 2007 and 2012 PCI Reports assess the concrete pavement along Taxiway A with values in the 90s in all three reports. If preventative maintenance on Taxiway A continues, then it can be presumed that Taxiway A PCI should not deteriorate to a value below 70 (level where major M&R is triggered) within the next 10 years. PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX (PCI) TRENDS
As described in Section E, for a pavement to be considered “serviceable” by AFCEC, the minimum Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating should be 70. A majority of the concrete in the mid‐section 9,550 feet of the runway was reported with a PCI value of 51 from the 2012 Airfield Pavement Condition Index Survey Report. See Exhibit C for a map of the 2012 PCI data and Table F‐3 for PCI rating descriptions as defined in the AFCEC 2015 Airfield Pavement Evaluation Report.
In addition to the “poor” PCI rating in the middle keel, the rate of PCI deterioration is greater than the rate of PCI deterioration of both runway ends. This higher rate of deterioration is revealed when comparing the PCI values from the 2001, 2007, and 2012 pavement evaluation reports. Figure F‐1 shows the historic concrete PCI values recorded on the first 1,000 feet of each runway end, as well as the mid‐section keel. Also shown are the typical thicknesses of the concrete (in inches) in
Page 12 of 32
Exhibit C
Kelly Field at RUNWAY 16-34 2012 Pavement Condition Index Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
those areas. The orange line in the figure represents the “minimum service level” which is defined by the USAF as a PCI rating of 70 or above.
Figure F‐1 – Runway 16‐34 Concrete Pavement Deterioration
The 2012 report shows both the Runway 16 and Runway 34 ends with PCI’s of greater than 80. The two runway ends are considered to be in “satisfactory” condition (as of 2012).
G. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AND SUBGRADE INVESTIGATION
GEOLOGY
The project site was plotted on the San Antonio Sheet of the Geologic Map of Texas (Exhibit D). SKF is underlain by Quaternary terrace deposits (Qt) overlying formational clays of the Midway Group (Emi) and the Navarro Group (Kknm).
The Quaternary terrace deposits are alluvial, floodplain deposits and consist primarily of clays containing various amounts of silt, sand, and gravel. The terrace deposits may be indurated with calcium carbonate (caliche) and may include slightly cemented seams and layers.
The Midway Group is of the Paleocene Series as part of the Lower Tertiary deposits. It consists of sand and clay; the clay is silty and sandy, with the silt and sand becoming more abundant upward grading to the mudstone and sand of the overlying Wilcox Group. It is generally light gray to dark
Page 13 of 32
Geological Units at Surface on Site
Qal Emi
Tertiary
Eocene Quaternary Alluvium Midway Group
Holocene Qt
Quaternary Terrace Deposits Kknm
Quaternary Navarro Group and Marlbrook Marl Undivided Qle
Kpg Cretaceous
Pleistocene
Leona Formation Upper Cretaceous Pecan Gap Chalk
Source: USGS, Geological Atlas of Texas, DESKTOP LIMITS San Antonio sheet, 1982.
EXHIBIT D: Geology Map Author: Palani K. Whiting Kelly Airfield at Port San Antonio 1.5 0 1.5 Miles Alternative Landing Surface Analysis San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas ³ Date: 1/16/2017 Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
gray in color. The sand is glauconitic to very glauconitic in the lower part, argillaceous and poorly sorted.
The Navarro Group clays are composed primarily of montmorillonitic, greenish‐gray to brownish‐ gray clay, which weathers to a black clay. The clays are generally fairly strong, but can exhibit a high shrink/swell potential. The deeper unweathered portions of the Navarro consist of a gray clay shale. The clay shale is strong and often exhibits a natural petroleum odor.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has prepared digital geologic maps of Texas. The on‐line information includes a GIS database of geologic units and related structural features. The project site was overlaid onto the USGS Mineral Resources On‐Line Spatial Data to create Exhibit E.
The mapped geology presented on the USGS maps is generally consistent with information presented on the San Antonio Sheet of the Geologic Atlas of Texas prepared by the University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology. Recent experience indicates that slight variations may occur between the published maps. The maps prepared for this study were developed using available published sources. When identified, apparent discrepancies between the two maps have been noted.
NEAR‐SURFACE SOIL SURVEY
According to the Bexar County Soil Survey, the soils mapped near the site are generally characterized by creek bottoms, banks of creeks, and terraces and ridges. A Soil Survey Map prepared for the project area is included in Exhibit F. The three (3) soil groups likely to occur beneath Runway 16‐34 include: Lewisville silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes (LvA) and 1 to 3 percent slopes (LvB), and Branyon clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes (HtA).
The soil survey maps provide an indication of the underlying sediments and geologic units in the project area. The geologic units represented on geology source maps are typically identified and mapped based on outcroppings that expose rocks and sediments. The boundaries and geological contacts between units are typically estimated by correlating between outcrops. Where outcrops are not visually observable, or have been obscured by development, the soil maps can be used to help estimate where the boundaries of underlying geologic units occur. In addition, soils associated with sediments, terrace deposits, and gravel formations, can provide information on the alluvial soils deposited by rivers, major streams, and their tributaries. These maps should only be utilized as a general guide, as conditions can vary at a particular location or locations.
SITE STRATIGRAPHY AND ANTICIPATED SOIL CONDITIONS
Arias Geoprofessionals (Arias) has performed geotechnical studies for private and public developments near the project area that included soil borings and laboratory testing of the recovered samples. They gathered representative borings from previous studies and plotted them on a location map along with the boring logs. This information is presented in Appendix C. Project and Client information has been removed from the boring logs themselves in order to protect client and project confidentiality. In general, the cursory review of the soil descriptions provided on the
Page 14 of 32
Kpg Kpg Knb
Knb
Qle Knb Qt
Qal PAmi
Knb Knb
QTu Qle PAmi Geology Navarro Group and Qt Terrace Deposits Knb Marlbrook Marl undivided
Quaternary QtQle Leona Formation Kpg Pecan Gap Chalk QTu Cretaceous PAmi Midway Group Tertiary Qle EPAwi Qle
Source: United States Geological Survey, https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/state.php?state=TX. DESKTOP LIMITS
EXHIBIT E: Geology Map Author: Palani K. Whiting Kelly Airfield at Port San Antonio 1 0 1 Miles Alternative Landing Surface Analysis San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas ³ Date: 1/16/2017 AuC TaB BsC HnB AuB HsB Pt HsA HsC Tb Tf LvC KcC2
HtA
VcA PaC LvB HtB PaB W Fr
HuB LvA VcC HoD3 HgD HuD Gu VcB HuC
WmA
Source: NRCS Web Soil Survey. DESKTOP LIMITS
EXHIBIT F: Soils Map Author: Palani K. Whiting Kelly Airfield at Port San Antonio 1 0 1 Miles Alternative Landing Surface Analysis San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas ³ Date: 1/16/2017 Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
boring logs was generally consistent with the mapped geology and the soil descriptions included in the available published information. The soil descriptions from Arias’ boring logs are summarized below. General notes and comments taken from the various Arias’ studies are also provided for each segment. It should be noted that subsurface conditions can be expected to vary and anticipated soil conditions provided are for preliminary informational purposes only.
Table G‐1 – Anticipated Subsurface Conditions The geological units referenced above, along with the apparent thickness of the near‐surface alluvial deposits, were derived from a cursory review of the available soil boring logs. For the purposes of this preliminary desktop study, the deeper formational soils have been grouped together as Navarro Clays. It is possible that clays of the Midway Group may also occur nearby. The anticipated subsurface conditions have been limited to the areas within the defined project limits. Actual contacts may be gradual and vary at different locations. This limited geotechnical study has been prepared using available information and is not intended as an engineering analysis to develop design parameters for final budgeting, design and/or construction.
GENERAL COMMENTS FROM REVIEW OF SOIL BORINGS
The near‐surface soils that occur in the runway areas likely consist of fat clays (CH). The clays transition into lean clays and gravels with depth. The alluvial soils that occur at the site are highly variable and include various amounts of gravel, sand, and clays that have been deposited in modern channels of local creeks and their tributary streams. The gravel fraction of the alluvium typically consists of chert and limestone gravel. As indicated in the soil borings reviewed as part of this study, the thickness of the alluvial terrace deposits varies with location.
Page 15 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
GROUNDWATER
In general, shallow groundwater in this area of San Antonio typically occurs as a “perched” condition within the sandy and gravelly alluvial soils. A perched water table is an aquifer that occurs above the regional water table due to impermeable material above the regional water table, but below the surface. As noted in Table G‐1, the alluvial sand and gravel layers should be anticipated to be water bearing. The depth to shallow groundwater is dependent on several parameters such as seasonal water table conditions, elevation and site geology. Heavy rains and flooding in the nearby Leon Creek may result in higher water tables at a given time. Exhibit G, prepared by Pape‐Dawson Engineers, Inc, shows the 100‐year storm flooding depths at the site. Groundwater levels will often change significantly over time and should be verified immediately prior to remedial measures/construction. Water levels in open boreholes may require several hours to several days to stabilize depending on the permeability of the soils. Groundwater levels at this site may differ during construction because fluctuations in groundwater levels can result from seasonal conditions, rainfall, drought, or temperature effects. Pockets or seams of gravels, sands, silts or open fractures and joints can store and transmit “perched” groundwater flow or seepage. Groundwater seepage can also occur at strata interfaces, particularly the interface between clay and sand/gravel soils.
The existence of underdrains or edge drains beneath the edges of pavement should be confirmed before reconstruction. If edge drains or underdrains are not present, they should be considered as part of the project in order to drain the subgrade and base below the runway more effectively and avoid instances of standing or stationary water.
VARIATIONS
The generalized soil conditions described on the representative boring logs may vary between the sample boring locations. The contacts noted on the boring logs to separate material types are approximate. Actual contacts may be gradual and vary at different locations. The anticipated layer thickness values indicated in the stratigraphy tables were estimated by reviewing a limited number of soil borings. The actual depths and thickness of the alluvial soils will vary with location.
Page 16 of 32
Date: Dec 12, 2016 1.37.41 PM User: rescale/ File: C:\Usen\REscatel\Desktop\161212_UD Conditions.mxd
f
Port SA Boundary c:::JPort SA Offices 100-Year Flood Depths High: 6 Low: 0.25
JOB NO. ------6796-50 DATE PAPE-DAWSON Dec 2016 EXHIBIT G "" OEStGNER RE - ENGINEERS ------PORT SAN ANTONIO, SAN ANTONIO, TX 1 CHECKED RE DRAWN RG SAN ANTONIO I AUSTIN I HOUSTON I FORT WORTH I DALLAS FLOODING DEPTH (100-YR STORM) W/ INDUSTRIAL CHANNEL 2000 NW LOOP 410 I SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 I 210.375.9000 SHEET 2.0 Tl!PEFIRM REGISTRATION1470 I Tl!Pl.S FIRM REGISTRATION 110028800 Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
HISTORIC PAVEMENT SECTION
Various pavement studies were performed between 1973 and 2015. Historical documents provided by the USAF included pavement evaluation reports, pavement condition assessment reports, and runway friction characteristic reports prepared by AFCEC and other consultants. The pavement evaluation reports typically included field cores to: measure the existing pavement thickness values, document the various pavement layers, and field testing to measure the engineering properties of the various pavement layers. The pavement thickness values described in the various studies varied slightly. The following typical section to describe the main runway pavements was included in the 1973 Pavement Evaluation and Condition Survey Report prepared by AFCEC.
Figure G‐1 – Typical Section of Runway 16‐34 (Middle Concrete Keel)
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF PAVEMENT MATERIALS
The naturally occurring subgrade soils at this site are expected to consist of dark brown fat clay (CH). Previous soil borings drilled by Arias at nearby locations indicate the near‐surface clays have typical liquid limits ranging from 48 to 81 and plasticity index values ranging from 30 to 60. Local experience with similar soils indicate that the on‐site soils would be expected to have a laboratory CBR value ranging from 2 to 3. Field testing provided in the previous studies performed by others indicates a high variability in the subgrade modulus (k) values measured at the site. Arias has summarized the k‐values reported in the 2015 AFCEC study in Exhibit H.
The k‐values were developed from Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) field tests. They represent ‘measured’ values of the existing sub‐base layers. The as‐builts show a layer of base, over gravel, over subgrade. It is our interpretation that the K=350 is representative of the base layer. Although the pavement study reports the subgrade is K=180, it is our opinion that the values are more representative of the pit‐run gravel fill material exhibited beneath the runway as opposed to the
Page 17 of 32 , .PEVMVTPGTVCHSBEFSFBDUJPO QDJ & 4PJM.PEVMVT QTJ EXHIBIT H 4PVSDF"JSGJFME1BWFNFOU&WBMVBUJPO +#4"-BDLMBOE"'#,FMMZ'JFME 5FYBT "QSJM Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
raw subgrade. Using an existing effective k‐ value of 170 to model the pit‐run gravel is a conservative approach in determining the appropriate existing thicknesses of concrete.
Our review of the k‐values reported in the previous USAF studies would suggest that the description of the pavement layers presented in Figure G‐1 is representative of the pavement subbase conditions that likely exist beneath Runway 16‐34. The high variability in the reported k‐values can be attributed to the various pavement layers that occur beneath the runway pavements.
A modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) value of 50 pci is representative of the dark brown clay subgrade soils that occur at the site. The following k‐values are used for review of existing pavements and for preliminary design of new runway pavements at the site.
Table G‐2 – Effect of subbase on k‐value of 50 pci
GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING EXPANSIVE SOILS
The clay soils that occur at this site have a very high potential to shrink and swell due to fluctuations in soil moisture content. The final design for a potential alternative landing surface should include an evaluation of the shrink/swell potential to develop methods that will reduce the effects of swelling soils. Common local design practices include: removal and replacement of the active soils, chemical treatment, and moisture conditioning (i.e. modified compaction efforts with careful control of compaction moisture) as potential site preparation methods to address swelling soils. Poor site drainage and ponding water adjacent to pavements will increase the potential for soil related movements. Good positive drainage during and after construction is very important to minimize expansive soil volume changes that can detrimentally affect the performance of runway pavements. Proper attention to surface and subsurface drainage details during the design and construction phase of development can reduce many potential soil shrink‐swell related problems during and following the completion of the project.
The information from this analysis was used to examine the existing pavement section and determine an appropriate proposed section. Pape‐Dawson Engineers, Inc. will provide additional analysis and recommendations in regards to drainage in Part II of this report.
Page 18 of 32 Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
H. EXISTING RUNWAY PAVEMENT SECTION ANALYSIS
This section describes how the USAF likely designed the pavements at SKF, using guidelines from UFC 3‐260‐02 Pavement Design for Airfields and the Pavement‐Transportation Computer Assisted Structural Engineering (PCASE) software program, the appropriate pavement design based on the current traffic at SKF, using the FAA’s Rigid and Flexible Iterative Elastic Layer Design program (FAARFIELD), and the current Pavement Classification Number (PCN), using the FAA’s COMFAA program.
UFC PAVEMENT DESIGN CRITERIA
USAF pavement design criteria is based on preset fleet mixes outlined in UFC 3‐260‐02. See Exhibit I from UFC 3‐260‐02, Table 3‐1 for design gross weights and pass levels for USAF airfield pavements. The Pavement‐Transportation Computer Assisted Structural Engineering (PCASE) software program is then used to determine the proper pavement thickness based on existing subgrade conditions at the airfield.
Six types of Air Force airfields are defined in Chapter 3 of UFC 3‐260‐02; these include light, medium, heavy, modified heavy, auxiliary and assault landing zone. Due to the layout of the existing pavement thicknesses identified by core data at SKF, a medium load airfield fleet mix was assumed. See Figure H‐1 from UFC 3‐260‐02 showing the typical traffic area layout of a medium load airfield. Exhibit J shows the different traffic areas applied at SKF.
Figure H-1 – Typical Traffic Area Layout of Air Force Medium-Load Airfield Pavements
Page 19 of 32 UFC 3-260-02 30 June 2001 Shoulder Shoulders are designed to support of 5,000 coverages a 10,000 pound load single-wheel having a tire of 100 psi. pressure 1 4 per 1 4,000 1,000 4,000 1,000 2,000 1,200 1,000 2,000 1,200 50,000 nd B traffic areas. Pass levels Pass areas. B traffic nd 100,000 squadron are designed the same as rest of Overruns Weight Pounds Passes 60,750 60,750 60,750 435,000 435,000 300,000 435,000 360,000 175,000 502,000 435,000 360,000 4 1 NA NA 1,000 4,000 1,000 2,000 1,200 1,000 2,000 1,200 NA NA NA NA NA 51,000 D Traffic Area Traffic D Weight 60,750 60,750 60,750 Pounds Passes 435,000 300,000 435,000 360,000 435,000 360,000 NA NA 1 400 400 400,000 100,000 400,000 100,000 200,000 120,000 100,000 200,000 120,000 NA NA 51,000 Weight 60,750 60,750 60,750 Pounds Passes 435,000 435,000 300,000 435,000 360,000 435,000 360,000 NA NA 400 400 400,000 100,000 400,000 100,000 200,000 120,000 100,000 200,000 120,000 NA NA 68,000 Weight 81,000 81,000 81,000 Pounds Passes 580,000 580,000 400,000 580,000 480,000 580,000 480,000 per 400 400 50,000 400,000 100,000 400,000 100,000 200,000 120,000 100,000 200,000 120,000 100,000 squadron A Traffic Area Traffic A Area B Traffic Area C Traffic 68,000 Weight 81,000 81,000 81,000 Pounds Passes 580,000 580,000 400,000 580,000 480,000 580,000 480,000 175,000 502,000 2 Design Aircraft C-17 B-52 C-17 C-17 B-52 F-15 E C-17 B-1 C-130 C-17 Type Airfield The design gross weights for Types C and D traffic areas and overruns are 75 percent of the design gross weights for Types A a design of medium load airfields with less than 200-foot-wide runways. will not be included in the mixed traffic B-52 aircraft Medium F-15 E Light F-15 C/D for Type D traffic areas and overruns are one percent of the pass levels forType A traffic area. Assault landing zone overruns pavement. Conversion Factors 1 2 Kilograms = 0.453 × pounds = 0.006894 × psi Megapascals = 0.3048 × feet Meters Heavy E F-15 Auxiliary determined command. by the F-15 Design loads and passes are major Modified Heavy Assault Landing Zone EXHIBIT I - Table 3-1 Design Gross Weights and Pass Levels for Air field Pavements
3-6 Berman Rd
Houston Blvd North Frank Luke Dr
Billy Mitchell Blvd
England Dr
Taxiway 'A'
Taxiway 'B' Taxiway 'E' Taxiway
Taxiway 'C' Taxiway Taxiway 'D' Taxiway 'F' Taxiway 500 Runway 16-34
1000 500
1,000 Taxiway 'J' Taxiway Taxiway 'K'
Growdon Rd Taxiway 'H'
Taxiway 'G'
Morey Rd
TRAFFIC AREA A TRAFFIC AREA D 0 200 400 EXHIBIT J Kelly Field at TRAFFIC AREA B RUNWAY 16-34 TRAFFIC AREA C UFC Defined Traffic Areas for Medium-Load Air Force Airfield Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
The preset UFC fleet mix for a medium‐load Air Force airfield is shown in Table H‐1.
Gross Weight (lbs) Gross Weight (lbs) Annual Passes Vehicles Traffic Areas A and B Traffic Areas C and D B‐52H Stratofortress 400,000 300,000 400 C‐17A Globemaster III 585,000 438,750 400,000 F‐15E Eagle 81,000 60,750 100,000 Table H‐1 – Preset UFC Fleet Mix
The PCASE software program has been used to evaluate the existing pavement thicknesses at SKF using the preset fleet mix above, and existing subgrade information from Table G‐2. UFC 3‐260‐02, Section 3.2 discusses the reasoning for using different aircraft weights and number of annual passes depending on the airfield traffic area.
Traffic Area A – Pavement facilities that receive the channelized traffic and full design weight of aircraft. These areas include the first 1,000 feet of runway ends, the full width of parallel taxiways, and are areas that require the greatest pavement thickness. Traffic Area B – Pavement facilities where traffic is more evenly distributed over the full width of the pavement facility but which receive the full design weight of the aircraft during traffic operations. A better distribution of the traffic on these pavements and the repetition of stress within any specific area is less than on Type A traffic areas. Traffic Area C – Volume of traffic is low or the applied weight of the operating aircraft is generally less than the design weight. In interior portion of runways, there is enough lift on the wings of the aircraft at the speed at which the aircraft passes over the pavements to reduce considerably the stresses applied to the pavements. Pavement thickness can be reduced in these portions of runways. For a medium‐load airfield, the Type C areas are limited to the center 75‐foot width of runway interior. Traffic Area D – Areas in which traffic volume is extremely low and/or the applied weight of operating aircraft is considerably lower than the design weight.
The PCASE design program has been used to determine the design thickness of concrete pavements using the subgrade thickness and modulus as defined in Table G‐2 and the Preset Fleet Mix from Table H‐1. This analysis shows how the various existing pavement sections were likely designed. The results using a natural subgrade modulus of 50 pounds per cubic inch (pci), effective subgrade modulus of 170 pci and an 18‐inch gravel base result in the following concrete thickness presented in Table H‐2, along with the existing thicknesses at SKF in those traffic areas.
Page 20 of 32 Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
PCASE Design Concrete Existing Runway 16‐34 Concrete Traffic Area Thickness (in.) Thickness (in.) 18 – Runway 16 end A 17.5 to 18 19.5 – Runway 34 end N/A (There are no Traffic Area B B 17 to 17.5 areas on Runway 16‐34) C 14 to 14.5 14.5 D 10.5 to 11 N/A (Asphalt) Table H‐2 – PCASE Concrete Design Thickness Comparison
The PCASE report for the preset mix is presented in Appendix D.
Traffic areas A, C and D are present on Runway 16‐34 per Exhibit J. Traffic Area C coincides with the section of concrete on Runway 16‐34 that is in the poorest condition. Traffic Area A coincides with the full width concrete ends while Traffic Area D occurs on the asphalt runway shoulders. From the historic pavement evaluation reports, the continual deterioration of PCI ratings along the middle keel of Runway 16‐34 and the medium to severe longitudinal cracking exhibited, the conclusion can be drawn that a majority of the concrete in the mid‐section 9,550 feet of the runway is nearing the end of its service life. This section of existing pavement is further analyzed in the section below.
PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS
While the preset mix is helpful in analyzing how the airfield was likely designed, it is prudent to analyze the actual fleet mix at SKF to understand if current traffic can be supported by existing pavements, and to design a proposed pavement section for construction cost estimates and life‐ cycle cost analyses. A preferred fleet mix forecast, which included both military and civilian aircraft, was completed by CHA for the Authority as a part of the Master Plan that was submitted in 2016. See Table H‐3 with the forecasted mix through 2035. Using the forecast data from Table H‐3, a fleet mix was developed for input into the FAA’s FAARFIELD software. This current fleet mix is shown in Table H‐4. For USAF Traffic Areas C and D design, the gross weight of aircraft is reduced by 25% as shown in the third column of Table H‐4, per UFC guidelines. The explanation for this reduction is provided in UFC 3‐260‐02, “Type C traffic areas are those in which the volume of aircraft or the applied weight of the operating aircraft is generally less than the design weight. In the interior portion of runway, there is enough lift on the wings of the aircraft at the speed at which the aircraft passes over eth pavements to reduce considerably the stresses applied to the pavements. Thus, the pavement thickness can be reduced in these areas.” For the FAARFIELD design program, aircraft weights were reduced by 25% to coincide with the UFC design criteria.
Page 21 of 32 Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
Table H‐3 – Preferred Forecast (from 2016 Master Plan)
Gross Weight (lbs) Gross Weight (lbs) Annual Annual Vehicles Traffic Areas A and B Traffic Areas C and D Departures Growth (%) C‐17A Globemaster III 585,000 438,750 5,000 0.00 Boeing 747‐400ER 800,000 600,000 300 2.00 C‐5 Galaxy 769,000 576,750 10,000 0.00 Malibu‐PA‐46‐350P 4,118 3,089 223 2.00 KingAir‐C‐90 9,710 7,285 276 2.00 SuperKingAir‐B200 12,590 9,445 1,175 2.00 Gulfstream‐G‐V 90,900 68,175 2,350 2.00 Boeing 787‐8 503,500 364,500 150 0.00 MD‐83 161,000 120,750 150 0.00 Airbus A330‐300 509,047 381,779 150 0.00 Airbus A340‐500 813,947 610,460 150 0.00 F‐16C 42,300 31,725 8,435 0.00 Table H‐4 – Current Fleet Mix
The PCASE design using the current traffic fleet mix yields significantly thinner pavement than in FAARFIELD design. This is primarily due to the fact that a fleet’s number of passes has more of an impact on pavement thickness in PCASE than in FAARFIELD. For instance when the number of
Page 22 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
passes of the C‐17 is reduced from 400,000 (the preset UFC fleet mix), to the more realistic 5,000 annual departures from the current fleet mix, the resulting pavement thickness from PCASE is reduced by 4 inches. Also, adding a stabilized base, a higher quality material than an aggregate base, to the design pavement section in PCASE does not have an effect on reducing the design concrete thickness. In contrast, the addition of a stabilized base when included with the design pavement section in FAARFIELD produces a net reduction in concrete thickness. For these reasons, FAARFIELD was determined to be the appropriate pavement design software when analyzing the overall aircraft fleet and refined operations. The current fleet mix was also used when analyzing proposed pavement design sections.
CONCRETE THICKNESS REVIEW
The FAARFIELD program was used to evaluate the existing concrete pavement thicknesses for the current fleet mix. Unlike PCASE, FAARFIELD does not account for traffic areas with varying pavement thicknesses. However, since the area of focus of this analysis is Traffic Area C on Runway 16‐34, aircraft weights from the applicable column in Table H‐4 were used in the FAARFIELD analysis. The design life in FAARFIELD was also increased from the FAA standard 20 years to 30 years in order to match the UFC guidelines. The results of that analysis assuming a k‐value (6‐inches below the existing concrete section) of 119 pci, and a 6‐inch layer of crushed aggregate, similar to the existing limestone layer described in Figure G‐1, yields a concrete thickness of 15.05 inches. See Figure H‐2. The 119 pci k‐value is the estimated subgrade modulus 6‐inches beneath the bottom of the concrete section.
Figure H‐2 – Existing Traffic Area C – PCCP FAARFIELD Analysis Page 23 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
The thicknesses analysis yields similar results to the actual thickness of the mid‐section keel of the runway, therefore overloading of the pavement by the current fleet is not likely. Appendix E contains FAARFIELD analysis of the existing section.
The pavement has been well maintained and appropriately used over its design life, as the concrete pavement along the middle keel and ends is over 60 years old. Visual examinations of the runway show medium to high severity distresses longitudinally along the original 25’ x 25’ slabs in the middle keel. These types of distresses are likely due to the fact that the current 25’ joint spacing is too great for a 14‐inch thick section. Per Table E‐5, presented earlier, from UFC 3‐260‐02, Pavement Design for Airfields, the maximum allowable spacing between transverse contraction joints on new rigid pavements is 20’. Frequent overloading of the pavement does not appear to have caused the distresses exhibited because the existing slabs mainly exhibit longitudinal cracking, and not transverse cracking. The ratio between the concrete thickness and the excessive joint spacing, along with the age of the pavement, is likely the reason for the large longitudinal cracks and the low PCI rating.
RUNWAY 16‐34 PAVEMENT CLASSIFICATION NUMBER (PCN) CALCULATION FOR TRAFFIC AREA C PAVEMENT
The PCN for Traffic Area C was calculated using the FAA’s COMFAA computer software to determine whether the existing concrete pavement in the mid‐section of the runway is capable of supporting the current mix of aircraft (from the Master Plan). The aircraft weights analyzed in COMFAA match the 75% of maximum take‐off weight to match how PCASE calculates the pavement section for Traffic Area C.
COMFAA calculates the Aircraft Classification Number (ACN) using the methods outlined by ICAO Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 3, Pavements. The PCN is calculated as described in AC 150/5335‐ 5C, Standardized Method of Reporting Airport Pavement Strength – PCN. A pavement is considered structurally adequate when the ACN of each aircraft in the fleet is a lower value than the PCN calculated for the pavement. Using COMFAA, a PCN of 74 (74/R/C/W/T) was calculated for the Traffic Area C pavement on Runway 16‐34. The highest ACN for aircraft in the fleet is 56 for the Airbus A340‐500.
The PCN of 74 calculated using COMFAA compares similarly to the PCN figures listed in the April 2015 Airfield Pavement Evaluation completed by the AFCEC. AFCEC calculated PCN for all 16 pavement sections on the runway. This analysis confirms at the existing pavement is capable of supporting the current fleet of aircraft at SKF. See Figures H‐3 and H‐4 on the following page for the required concrete thickness in Traffic Area C based on the Current Fleet mix, and the ACN/PCN analysis from COMFAA:
Page 24 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
Figure H‐3 – COMFAA Concrete Thickness Requirements
Figure H‐4 – COMFAA ACN/PCN Analysis
Page 25 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
I. ESTIMATED REMAINING PAVEMENT SERVICE LIFE
As stated in the previous section, the mid‐section 9,550 feet of the runway has exceeded its design life of 30 years by two‐fold. From an engineering standpoint, annual rehabilitation, or panel replacements, will not achieve the same finished product as full reconstruction. In order for concrete to distribute concentrated gear loads uniformly to the subgrade, a uniform subgrade strength and concrete slab dimensions should be established. The existing PCCP layer has between 18 and 27 inches of subbase beneath it which does provide significant support but lacks uniformity. In order to achieve a uniform subbase, a portion of the subbase should be excavated and replaced with a new stabilized base course layer.
A reconstruction of most of the middle 9,550 x 75 feet portion of the runway is recommended within the next five to 10 years, while ongoing M&R on the concrete ends and asphalt shoulders should maintain a satisfactory level of service (PCI value above 70) for the foreseeable future. This five to 10 year timeframe is estimated based on the following:
1. If the PCI deterioration rate continues as it did from 2001 to 2012, then the existing PCI of the middle keel is likely below 50, which, according to the AFCEC, typically determines planning/funding for reconstruction. However, if the 2017 PCI Report to be completed this year assesses the pavement with a PCI rating over 50, then M&R (Panel Replacement) would more likely be recommended by AFCEC. 2. Based on the age of the pavement and the subgrade variability, additional cracking and increased crack severity can be anticipated along the middle keel as the pavement continues to age. 3. As the runway is 60 years old, it is likely the pavement has reached its maximum fatigue capability, exhibited by the infrequent and isolated locations of cracked panels.
See Exhibit K which shows areas of the runway where reconstruction is recommended versus areas where M&R activities are recommended.
The recommendation to reconstruct the middle keel does not take into account the most recent M&R construction project on Runway 16‐34 which occurred in 2016 and included the replacement of over 30 concrete panels. It is assumed the panels that were in the worst condition were replaced. The upcoming 2017 PCI Report will potentially show whether or not this major M&R construction slows or possibly maintains the rate of PCI deterioration in the middle keel. Planned maintenance activities through 2020 will be likely based on the 2017 PCI Report. The following section describes recommendations for a newly reconstructed pavement section.
Page 26 of 32
Berman Rd
Houston Blvd North Frank Luke Dr
Billy Mitchell Blvd
England Dr
Taxiway 'A'
Taxiway 'B'
Taxiway 'F' Taxiway Taxiway 'E' Taxiway Taxiway 'C' Taxiway Taxiway 'D' Runway 16/34
Taxiway 'K' Taxiway 'J' Taxiway
Growdon Rd Taxiway 'G' Taxiway 'H'
Morey Rd Taxiway 'L'
Frank Andrews Rd Taxiway 'K'
Billy Mitchell Rd
0 200 400 Legend: Exhibit K Needs Reconstruction Kelly Field at RUNWAY 16-34 Monitor Condition / Perform M&R Runway Pavement Condition Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
J. NEW PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN
Pavement reconstruction is recommended in the mid‐section 9,550 feet of Runway 16‐34. To address closure concerns, both plain Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP) and hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavement options are considered including the use of high early‐strength concrete for the PCCP option. Another fast‐track option to be considered includes rubblizing the existing PCCP slabs (Rubblized PCCP), and then overlaying the rubblized PCCP with HMA.
The FAARFIELD software program was used to design new pavement section options. The current fleet mix from Table H‐4, and the subgrade moduli defined in Table G‐2 were used.
PCCP PAVEMENT SECTION
To provide for a more uniform support, a 6‐inch thick cement stabilized base material was considered for placement beneath the new PCCP and new HMA options. By removing the top portion of the existing subbase and reestablishing grade by replacing it with at least six inches of stabilized base would help provide a more uniform support for the new pavement. The FAA requires a stabilized base for PCCP pavements which include a stabilized base have superior performance per (AC 150/5320‐6F). The resulting PCCP pavement design section has been determined and is provided in Table J‐1:
Current Fleet Mix Traffic Area Concrete Thickness Cement Stabilized Base (in.) Thickness (in.) C 15 6 (mid‐section 9,550 feet of Runway 16‐34) Table J‐1 – FAARFIELD Design ‐ New PCCP Option A 30‐year pavement life is assumed for all options in FAARFIELD design. Based on the good condition of the thicker concrete on the runway ends, it can be assumed that if a thicker section than the 15 inches is installed, a longer pavement life can be achieved in the middle keel. FULL HMA SECTION
The proposed HMA section would require the existing PCCP and 18 inches of existing subbase to be removed, which would expose the underlying subgrade. The 50 pci k‐value of the underlying subgrade can be converted to a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 2.6, which is what was assumed for the HMA design.
Page 27 of 32 Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
Current Fleet Mix Cement Stabilized Uncrushed Aggregate Traffic Area HMA Thickness Base Thickness Base (in.) (in.) (in.) C (mid‐section 9,550 feet of 16 5 19 Runway 16‐34) Table J‐2 – FAARFIELD Design ‐ New HMA Option For a 30 year pavement life, the HMA reconstruction requires complete excavation of the pit run gravel section, and, as a result, the subgrade would be exposed. Full HMA pavement reconstruction may require lime stabilization of the exposed subgrade due to the low k‐values recorded from previous geotechnical investigations. FAA construction specification P‐155 for Lime‐Treated Subgrade states that the completed lime‐treated and mixed subgrade shall be moist‐cured for a minimum of 7 days before further courses are added or traffic permitted. This option will be further explored in Part II of this report. However, the addition of seven days of runway closure in order to stabilize the subgrade will likely adversely affect both the Authority's tenants as well as the USAF. HMA OVERLAY OVER RUBBILIZED PCCP SECTION
The HMA overlay over rubblized PCCP option did not consider the use of new base or subbase materials since this option includes pulverizing the existing rigid pavement slabs in‐place. This option also assumes that the first several inches of PCCP will be milled prior to rubblization.
Current Fleet Mix Traffic Area HMA Rubblized PCCP Thickness (in.) Thickness (in.) C (mid‐section 9,550 feet of 4 10 Runway 16‐34) Table J‐3 – FAARFIELD Design ‐ Rubblized PCCP Option
The proposed FAARFIELD pavement design data is included in Appendix F.
Page 28 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
K. ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Pavement material alternatives have been analyzed as a part of this report including stone matrix asphalt (SMA), HMA overlays on rubblized concrete, and reinforced. These construction materials/methods may be considered instead of standard practice concrete construction in critical areas of the runway. Additionally, high early strength concrete is allowed by UFC and FAA criteria and will be assessed in the Part II analysis.
STONE MATRIX ASPHALT – SMA
Reconstructing the middle 75 foot keel of the runway with asphalt would allow for a shorter construction duration and is less costly up front than concrete. The drawbacks of using traditional HMA include:
1. Pavement rutting 2. Additional life cycle costs due to the more intensive M&R activities required to sustain the life of the pavement (i.e. crack sealing and mill and overlays). 3. Fuel spill concerns, as chemicals will dissolve asphalt binder
Rutting in asphalt can occur when the asphalt cannot withstand the heavy loads exhibited by large aircraft and in locales that experience extremely high temperatures. Asphalt rutting can be reduced or eliminated by using Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA). UFC‐260‐02 Section 9.4.c discusses advantages of SMA and its use in USAF facilities. SMA is a durable surfacing material suitable for heavily loaded runways by using a high coarse aggregate content that interlocks to form a stone skeleton that resists permanent pavement deformation. The use of a rich mastic of asphalt cement, sand and fibers also provides improved environmental resistance to the pavement. SMA has been used in two trial applications by the USAF for airfield pavements in the United Kingdom and Italy, and has performed well as of the latest update to the UFC guidelines in 2001. Though more costly than traditional asphalt, SMA could be utilized at SKF to reduce construction time and costs.
HMA OVERLAY ON RUBBILIZED CONCRETE
UFC 3‐260‐02 discusses non‐rigid overlays of existing rigid pavements, “The shattered slabs or rubblized concrete fragments are then too small to develop movements to generate reflective cracks. This technique has proven successful on highways, but experience on thicker pavements such as found on airfields is very limited at present.” FAA provides further guidance in Engineering Brief No. 66 when overlaying rubblized PCCP with a flexible pavement.
Runway 16‐34 may be a good candidate for rubblization as the pavement is extensively cracked and the subgrade is of sufficient quality to allow for proper rubblization of the existing concrete pavement. Rubblization prevents reflective cracking in an HMA overlay by breaking the slabs into 1‐ 3 inch pieces at the top and 3‐15 inch pieces at the bottom of the slab. The rubblization process reduces the stiffness of the concrete pavement making it suitable as a base for flexible (asphalt) surface.
Page 29 of 32 Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
Advantages of rubblizing an existing concrete pavement prior to an HMA overlay include:
1. Work can be performed quicker than traditional reconstruction 2. Work can be performed cheaper than traditional reconstruction 3. Less off‐site disposal as the existing pavement materials are reused as a base course for the overlay 4. Future pavement repair work is simplified to a conventional mill and overlay 5. Raises the elevation of the runway, which improves drainage during rain events
A crushed aggregate base course or HMA may be used as a leveling course on top of the rubblized concrete, if correction of non‐standard gradients is necessary.
REINFORCED CONCRETE
Reinforced concrete can be used to decrease overall concrete pavement thickness as well as provide additional effective subbase support. However, the use of reinforced concrete at FAA‐ supported airfields is not a common practice. The FAA and UFC both provide guidance on reinforced concrete design. In AC 150/5320‐6F, the FAA does not permit a reduced thickness in concrete pavement design by the inclusion of steel reinforcement. Permission is required by the FAA to use either continually reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) or jointed reinforced concrete pavement (JRCP). Per the FAA, utilizing JRCP does allow for greater spacing between joints, but does not allow for a reduction in thickness. However, UFC guidelines do allow for a reduction in thickness. UFC guidelines are discussed below:
From UFC 3‐260‐02, Chapter 13.5.2, “The resulting values of reinforced concrete thickness and percent steel will represent a reinforced concrete pavement that will provide the same performance as the required thickness of plain concrete pavement.” UFC provides the following pavement design nomograph for a steel yield strength of 60,000 psi that effectively reduces the thickness of concrete required based on the percent steel used.
Page 30 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
Figure K‐1
The existing PCCP thickness was not found to be dramatically insufficient, therefore the new pavement section is not needed to be reduced in order to decrease the subbase/subgrade excavation. Also, the addition of flexural steel to the pavement section introduces constructability concerns, such as reduced paving production rate and the need for specialized equipment in order to insert the steel mat.
These alternatives to traditional construction materials were explored in hopes of decreasing the closure period during runway reconstruction, which would potentially reduce the financial impacts to the Authority.
Page 31 of 32
Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017
L. PART I CONCLUSION
The objective of this Part I Report was to evaluate the existing pavements, determine the areas in need of imminent reconstruction, offer the use of alternative construction materials and recommend proposed pavement sections. The recommendations and findings presented will be used in Part II of the report to coordinate runway closure concerns when considering the future maintenance/ rehabilitation needs at SKF. To best present this information, Course of Action (COA) matrices will be developed to assess different phasing and material options that minimize runway closure times. From the COA’s that generate the least impactful closure periods, life cycle cost analyses will be completed to determine the best ultimate course of action that meets the Authority’s needs and interests and is compatible with the USAF’s future mission.
Page 32 of 32
Appendix A Technical Workshop Meeting Summary Kelly Field Alternative Surface Landing Analysis Part I Technical Workshop
January 24, 2017 Port San Antonio Attendees: Danny Jones - Port San Antonio – [email protected] John Farrow - Port San Antonio – [email protected] Terry Rainier - CHA Consulting – [email protected] Nathan Lienhart - CHA Consulting – [email protected] Ray Yankey - CHA Consulting – [email protected] Rene Gonzales - Arias and Associates – [email protected] Song Tan - Pape-Dawson Engineers – [email protected] Karen Winnie - Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) – [email protected] Patrick Kelly - Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) – [email protected] Gerald O’Brien - 502 Air Base Wing Civil Engineering Squadron (CES) – [email protected] Eric Bowden - 502 Air Base Wing, Civil Engineering Squadron (CES) – [email protected] John Buse - Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center (AFIMSC) – [email protected] Maj. Paul Wever - AFIMSC/IZB – [email protected]
SUMMARY
I. EVALUATE Runway and Taxiway Pavement Condition a. CHA illustrated areas of airfield in poorest condition and discussed the pavement condition index (PCI) deterioration rate from 2001 to 2012 b. The AFCEC intends to conduct a PCI Update to Kelly Field (SKF) during calendar year 2017. This objective of the recent pavement repair project (2016) will hopefully be reflected in a stabilized PCI deterioration rate for the center keel. II. DETERMINE Areas in Poor Condition a. CHA determined that middle 75’ wide concrete pavement in middle 9,550 feet of runway (center keel) was in poorest condition. The PCI value was 51, with a minimum service level (MSL) targeted at 70. b. CHA recommended full reconstruction of the “center keel” within the next 5-10 years. c. CHA explained hypotheses for why the center keel is deteriorating: i. Age ii. Concrete Thickness and Joint Spacing relationship iii. Variances in subgrade strength and base materials III. IDENTIFY Logical Work Areas a. Center keel can be divided into six possible work areas IV. ANALYZE Existing Pavement Section a. CHA described how runway was likely designed. b. According to Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) Pavement Design program, subbase is not as strong as it should be to support existing 14" thick concrete. i. k value of crushed limestone base per 1973 AFCEC Pavement Evaluation Report was 100 ii. Per the design program, effective k value to support medium-load air force airfield concrete pavement of 14” at a minimum should be 170.
V. PHASE Proposed Work Areas and Working Discussion a. Four work areas identified that can be completed by runway temporary threshold relocations. Question was posed, how does this affect Air Force operations? i. Air Force Explained: 1. Displaced thresholds have worked in the past 2. It is avoided due to increased landing or takeoff stresses on thinner pavement. 3. MINIMUM Runway Length for C-5 ops = 6,000 + feet, perhaps longer for training missions. 4. MINIMUM Runway Length for F-16 ops = 8,000 feet ii. Texas Air National Guard deployed during Panel Replacement project at SKF on the runway in 2016. iii. Boeing can tolerate a runway closure, as long as it’s not a consecutive two months. A window every two weeks or so would be preferred. iv. The Fixed Base Operator (FBO), Atlantic, could not handle an extended closure, as their business is dependent on consistent traffic and refueling operations. b. For both civilian and military operations, a temporary threshold relocation requires: i. 8,000 feet of usable runway ii. Temporary cable arresting barriers iii. 1,000 feet overrun safety area beyond temporary end/threshold iv. May not need temporary approach procedure. c. A Business Cost Analysis (BCA) should be conducted to assess the financial burdens on the Air Force of deploying versus the financial burdens of fast-track construction/employing alternative construction materials. d. If runway can remain open with relocated thresholds for Work Areas A, B, E and F (see attached graphic), what can be done to minimize closure time for “middle- third?” i. Would AFCEC entertain opening to traffic before 28-day flexural strength is met? 1. A concrete mix that reaches strength quicker than traditional mixes? 2. Incremental construction over a long weekend? ii. Is asphalt a consideration for this area? 1. Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) prevents rutting and depressions from forming. 2. FAST Construction time. 1 or 2 long weekend closures 3. Concerns were expressed about fuel spills damaging asphalt pavements. Potential sealant material can be applied to aid in resisting fuel spills. iii. AFCEC has completed Life-Cycle Cost Analyses (LCCA) and suggested that CHA analyze benefits of concrete versus asphalt. AFCEC would undergo the same exercise when justifying a project. iv. A Business Case Analysis (BCA) would assess what the losses would be to both Port San Antonio and Air Force for different construction options/ runway closure times (financial impacts). e. Cost of shutting down last year cost Air Force and Port San Antonio more than the repair costs. i. For F-16’s to shutdown = $95,000/day in losses, or close to $2 million for the 70 day deployment ii. Difficult to find F-16 training locations outside of SKF f. How is the decision made by Air Force to deploy? i. Costs are greatest on front end and back end. ii. If Air Force deploys, then amount of time gone doesn’t have that much impact. iii. If closure were to last 10 days or more, deployment is likely iv. CES needs timeline from Operations Support Squadron (OSS) to confirm g. Develop a matrix or Course of Action (COA) that shows all party’s timelines and interests i. Alternatives based on construction time h. AFCEC described how civil construction projects are funded: i. 2-3 year process from initiation to execution ii. New policy is to program construction dollars to immediately follow design funding – no longer ‘shelving’ projects before executing iii. A planning charrette is conducted with all users and lines of business to define constraints and opportunities of a given project. This helps in defining the operational needs of the civilian and military of project which may require prolonged closure of the runway. iv. PCI drives project prioritization. 1. i.e. if another air force runway has a PCI of 30, then SKF gets pushed v. Current 2012 PCI Report doesn’t support reconstruction i. Although 70 PCI is described as MSL, AFCEC and CES consider 50 PCI to be the threshold to where reconstruction is considered. j. For PCI below 70, but above 50, major maintenance and repair (M&R) like what was conducted in 2016 at SKF is typical. k. 2017 PCI Report will trigger next steps, and prioritization for reconstruction of Runway 16-34. Other air force airfields may be in worse shape. l. Port San Antonio was not included with the planning charrette for the recent 2016 pavement repair project. This resulted in unfavorable conditions for civilian users and customers of Port San Antonio. m. Planning Charrette for ANY future construction would include Port San Antonio i. Once Runway is slated for reconstruction, a Planning Charrette would include discussions on: 1. Phasing 2. Design/Construction Funding 3. Sources of Funding 4. Air Force and/or Port Funding n. No funds were allocated from AFCEC to JBSA for FY 18-20 for major M&R pavement projects at this time. Only routine maintenance projects have been identified. Berman Rd
Houston Blvd North Frank Luke Dr
Billy Mitchell Blvd
England Dr
Taxiway 'A'
Taxiway 'B' Taxiway 'E' Taxiway
Taxiway 'C' Taxiway Taxiway 'D' Taxiway 'F' Taxiway
Runway 16-34 Taxiway 'J' Taxiway Taxiway 'K'
Growdon Rd Taxiway 'H'
Taxiway 'G'
Morey Rd Taxiway 'L'
Taxiway 'K' Frank Andrews Rd
Billy Mitchell Rd
WORK AREA A 6,630 SY WORK AREA D 11,680 SY 0 200 400 Exhibit D Kelly Field at WORK AREA B 12,320 SY WORK AREA E 5,740 SY RUNWAY 16-34 WORK AREA C 16,850 SY WORK AREA F 19,050 SY Proposed Reconstruction Work Areas
Appendix B Historic PCI Maps
A41B A43B A42B A26B T41C S01D S06D A31B S20D A30B A27B A02B T03A T04A A04B S07D A40B S03D A46C 20.25 PCC 18.25 PCC 18.25 PCC 15.5 PCC
A29B A33B T42C A32B A28B A28B A39B A38B T07A1 A37B A01B S01D 18.5 PCC A36B A25B 2.75 AC A35B 20.25 PCC 6.5 PCC A47B S12D S20D S19D S14D S04D S08D T40C S14D S09D T52C S14D S10D S14D S14D S15D S19D S19D S21D S14D A34B
T01A S17D S22D S17D T02A T16C S17D S17D S17D S14D A13B 20.25 PCC T06A T10C T11A T12C T38A T18A T39A T09C 21 PCC 13.5 PCC T17A 18 PCC A14B 20 PCC 18 PCC T07A2 17 PCC 2.75 AC ? PCC 19.75 PCC ? PCC 14.75 PCC S02D R03C 7.25 PCC 16.25 RPCC R02C R08A R03C R04A2 S18D S23D 14.75 PCC R03C 14.25 PCC 18.5 PCC O03C 12 AGG 12.5 AC 12.5 AC 2.75 AC 14.5 PCC 19.75 PCC 12.5 AC 18 PCC T15C T43C 6 PCC S16D T19A T50C 2 AC S05D S11D 6.5 PCC 20 PCC 14.5 PCC 19.75 PCC
R01A1 R01A2 R07C2 R02C R07C1 R02C R07C1 R02C T46A S24D R05A T44A R07C1 R03C R06C R09A T37A R10A R04A1 O01C O02C
19.5 PCC 19.5 PCC ? PCC 14.5 PCC 19 PCC 14.5 PCC 19 PCC 14.5 PCC 14.25 PCC 14.25 PCC 14.25 PCC 19 PCC 12.5 AC 18.25 PCC 14.75 RPCC 14 RPCC 14.5 PCC 18 PCC 2.25 AC .75 AC T45C
14.5 PCC T33A T21A 13.5 RPCC 6 AC 5 AC T23A T24C1 T49C 15 PCC T20A2 16.75 PCC T22A S25D ? AC S29D S26D 14.75 PCC A45C
16.75 PCC T20A1 T27C A15B A44C S32D 14.25 PCC 16.75 PCC 7.5 AC 3.75 AC S32D 6.75 PCC S30D S30D S28D S28D
S28D T30C
13.75 PCC PCI T47C S30D Good 86-100 T24C2 S29D 16.75 PCC A16B S30D S30D T48C 13.75 PCC Satisfactory 71-85 T31A S30D S27D 2.5 AC A21C Fair 56-70 11 PCC A19C A20C 15.5 PCC Poor 41-55 T36A A18C 12 PCC 10.25 RPCC 5.5 AC 11.75 PCC 6.25 PCC Very Poor 26-40 S30D T32A Serious 11-25 A17B 11 PCC 11 PCC Failed 0-10 S33D S36D Not Evaluated S34D
S35D
A22C Scale in Feet R 11.5 PCC 500 0 500 1,000 Pavement Condition Index A23C
11 PCC Lackland Air Force Base 1 inch = 1,000 feet ENGINEER: LAYOUT BY: DATE: SHEET NO: S. MOYA GH, JK 12/12/2012 1 of 1 Figure ES.2. PCI by section (7-color).
Lackland AFB ES-3/ES-4 Appendix C Site Plan of Nearby Borings 1
2
3
4
5
8
7 6
9
Legend: 1 - Boring Log No. B-4 Arias Job # 2010-901
2 - Boring Log No. B-1 Arias Job # 05SA-2056
3 - Boring Log No. B-2 Arias Job # 06SA-2350
4 - Boring Log No. B-6 Arias Job # 2016-325
5 - Boring Log No. B-3 Arias Job # 2015-425
6 - Boring Log No. B-11 Arias Job # 07SA-2350
7 - Boring Log No. B-1 Arias Job # 000974
8 - Boring Log No. B-5 Arias Job # 08SA-2116
9 - Boring Log No. B-2A Arias Job # 08-2148
Site Plan of Nearby Soil Borings
Kelly Airfield at Port San Antonio 142 Chula Vista, San Antonio, Texas 78232 San Antonio, Texas Phone: (210) 308-5884 • Fax: (210) 308-5886 Date: January 16, 2017 Job No.: 2016-701 Drawn By: RWL Checked By: RPG Figure 5 Approved By: SAH Scale: N.T.S. 1 of 1 Boring Log No. B-4 Project: Glazer's Warehouse and Distribution Center Sampling Date: 10/14/10 Hwy 151 at Callaghan Road Elevation: San Antonio, Texas Coordinates: N29o25'27.3'' W-95o35'53'' Location: See Boring Location Plan Backfill: Cuttings Depth Soil Description (ft) SN WC PL LL PI PP N -200 DD Uc CLAY (CH), dark brown, hard T 25 7 98 4.37
-brown (CL), with calcareous nodules below 2' T 11 18 48 30 6
CLAY (CL), tan, hard, with calcareous nodules 5 T 12 6.3
T 8 9
SS 6 13 31 18 50/6" 24 Clayey GRAVEL (GC), tan, very dense, with sand 10 GB 2
SS 2 **50/5" 15
SS 2 **50/2" 9 20
SS 4 **50/2" 25 CLAY (CH), tan and gray, hard, with ferrous deposits
30 SS 40 48
35 SS 41 40 80 40 26
40 SS 27 59 Borehole terminated at 40 feet
Groundwater Data: Nomenclature Used on Boring Log During drilling: Not encountered Thin-walled tube (T) Split Spoon (SS) After 24 hrs: At 17.8-ft depth (30.7-ft open borehole depth) Grab Sample (GB) Delayed water reading Field Drilling Data: WC = Water Content (%) N = SPT Blow Count Uc = Compressive Strength (tsf) Logged By: R. Arizola PL = Plastic Limit ** = Blow Counts During Seating Driller: Eagle Drilling, Inc. LL = Liquid Limit Penetration Equipment: Truck-mounted drill rig PI = Plasticity Index -200 = % Passing #200 Sieve Dry-auger drilling: 0 ft to 40 ft PP = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf) DD = Dry Density (pcf) Coordinates: Hand-held GPS Unit 2010-901.GPJ 11/19/10 (BORING LOG SA10-01,ARIASSA10-01.GDT,LIBRARY2010.GLB) (BORING 11/19/10 2010-901.GPJ Arias & Associates, Inc. Job No.: 2010-901
Boring Log No. B-6 Project: Lackland Fire Fighter Training Facility Sampling Date: 8/18/16 San Antonio, Texas Coordinates: N29o23'8.1'' W98o35'12.1'' Location: See Boring Location Plan Backfill: Cuttings Depth Soil Description (ft) SN N WC PL LL PI -200 DD Uc FILL: FAT CLAY (CH), stiff, dark brown SS 8 19 21 56 35 91
SS 16 14
FAT CLAY (CH), stiff, tan, sandy 5 SS 7 16
SS 5 17 15 38 23 90
T 17 10 T 17 111 3.6
SS 11 18 15
GRAVEL with Sand (GP), medium dense, tan SS 20 10 20
SS 20 13 16 38 22 21 25
SS 50/6" 9 30
FAT CLAY (CH), very stiff, tan and gray, with FE stains SS 18 22 23 62 39 94 35
FAT CLAY (CH), hard, gray brown, silty SS 35 20 40
-gray, very hard below 43' SS 50/4" 22 45
SS 44 21 17 50 33 98 50 BoreholeGroundwater terminated Data: at 50 feet Nomenclature Used on Boring Log First encountered during drilling: 21.5-ft depth Split Spoon (SS) Thin-walled tube (T) Water encountered during drilling After 23 hrs: 23-ft depth Delayed water reading Field Drilling Data: Coordinates: Hand-held GPS Unit Logged By: R. Arizola N = SPT Blow Count -200 = % Passing #200 Sieve Driller: Eagle Drilling, Inc. PL = Plastic Limit DD = Dry Density (pcf) Equipment: Truck-mounted drill rig LL = Liquid Limit Uc = Compressive Strength (tsf) PI = Plasticity Index Single flight auger: 0 - 50 ft WC = Water Content (%) 2016-325.GPJ 9/7/16 (BORING LOG SA13-02,ARIASSA12-01.GDT,LIBRARY2013-01 - KSL.GLB) - LOG SA13-02,ARIASSA12-01.GDT,LIBRARY2013-01 9/7/16 (BORING 2016-325.GPJ Arias & Associates, Inc. Job No.: 2016-325 Boring Log No. B-3 Project: Lackland Building 908 Sampling Date: 9/23/15 Lackland AFB, Texas Elevation: 670.9 ft (Estimated) Coordinates: N29o22'59.1'' W98o35'45'' Location: See Boring Location Plan Backfill: Cuttings Depth Soil Description (ft) SN WC PL LL PI N -200 DD Uc FILL: FAT CLAY (CH), very stiff, dark brown SS 4 18 51 33 23 29 FILL: CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), medium dense, brown, with sand SS 5 15 5 SS 8 15 46 31 10 29 -dark brown at 6' SS 5 15
SS 5 16 10 -lean clay (CL) with sand, 10' to 12' SS 12 16 47 31 13 79 -brown and tan, 12' to 16' SS 2 19 15 SS 2 23 -tan and brown, below 16' SS 4 22 CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), medium dense, tan, with sand SS 5 16 54 38 27 33 20
SS 3 31
SS 24 27 25 FAT CLAY (CH), hard, tan and gray
T 22 104 4.28 30
T 20 35
T 23 (continued) 40 Groundwater Data: Nomenclature Used on Boring Log During drilling: Not encountered Split Spoon (SS) Thin-walled tube (T) Field Drilling Data: Coordinates: Hand-held GPS Unit Logged By: R. Arizola Driller: Eagle Drilling, Inc. WC = Water Content (%) -200 = % Passing #200 Sieve PL = Plastic Limit DD = Dry Density (pcf) LL = Liquid Limit Uc = Compressive Strength (tsf) PI = Plasticity Index Single flight auger: 0 - 70 ft N = SPT Blow Count 2015-425.GPJ 10/26/15 (BORING LOG SA13-02,ARIASSA12-01.GDT,LIBRARY2013-01.GLB) (BORING 10/26/15 2015-425.GPJ Arias Geoprofessionals Job No.: 2015-425 Boring Log No. B-3 (continued) Project: Lackland Building 908 Sampling Date: 9/23/15 Lackland AFB, Texas Elevation: 670.9 ft (Estimated) Coordinates: N29o22'59.1'' W98o35'45'' Location: See Boring Location Plan Backfill: Cuttings Depth Soil Description (ft) SN WC PL LL PI N -200 DD Uc FAT CLAY (CH), hard, tan and gray (continued)
T 24 21 76 55 97 CLAYSTONE, dense, gray 45
T 16 50
T 22 55
-very dense below 58' SS 18 75/11" 60
SS 17 95/10" 65
SS 16 20 60 40 50/5" 100 70 Borehole terminated at 70 feet
Groundwater Data: Nomenclature Used on Boring Log During drilling: Not encountered Split Spoon (SS) Thin-walled tube (T) Field Drilling Data: Coordinates: Hand-held GPS Unit Logged By: R. Arizola Driller: Eagle Drilling, Inc. WC = Water Content (%) -200 = % Passing #200 Sieve PL = Plastic Limit DD = Dry Density (pcf) LL = Liquid Limit Uc = Compressive Strength (tsf) PI = Plasticity Index Single flight auger: 0 - 70 ft N = SPT Blow Count 2015-425.GPJ 10/26/15 (BORING LOG SA13-02,ARIASSA12-01.GDT,LIBRARY2013-01.GLB) (BORING 10/26/15 2015-425.GPJ Arias Geoprofessionals Job No.: 2015-425
Appendix D Existing Pavement PCASE Report
Design Name : AREA A Design Type : Airfield Pavement Type : Rigid Traffic Area : Area A Road Type : N/A Terrain Type : N/A Analysis Type : K Depth of Frost (in) : 0 SCI : 0 Wander Width (in) : 70 % Load Transfer : 25 Effective K (pci) : 170 Reduced Sub Effective K (pci) : 0 Layers Count : 2 Seasons Count : 1 Joint Spacing : 15 to 20 ft Dowel Spacing : 18.00 in Dowel Length : 20.00 in Dowel Diameter: 1.25 to 1.50 in
Required Non frost Equivalen Reduced Limited Subbase Dry Flexural Minimum Thickness Design t Subgrade Subgrade Base Equivale K Moisture Weight Density Strength Thickness (in) Above Thickness Thickness Strength Penetrati Calculate at Equivalency ncy Strength Modulus Layer Type Material Type Frost Code Content (lb/cu ft) (lb/cu ft) (psi) CrCb % Steel Analysis (in) Layer (in) (in) (in) on (in) this Depth factor Factor (pci) (psi) Pr Slip PCC N/A NFS 0 145 0 650 0 0 Compute 6 17.8 17.8 17.8 0 0 N\A 1 1 0 4000000 0.15 1000 Natural Subgrade Cohesive Cut NFS 18 100 0 0 0 0 Manual 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 1 1 170 15000 0.4 0
Pattern Name : DIUM COPY-1 AnalysisType : Mixed Pavement Type : Rigid Subgrade Category : Cat C
Traffic Area : Area A Traffic Count : 3
Vehiclesraffic Area A, Baffic Area C, D ACNea A, B, Caffic Area Dalent Passes B-52H STRATOFORTRESS 400000 300000 96 400 4 51347 C-17A GLOBEMASTER III 585000 438750 54 400000 4000 400000 F-15E EAGLE 81000 60750 37 100000 1000 103 Pavement Thickness Report U.S. Army Corps of Engineers PCASE Version 2.09.02 Design Name : AREA A Date : 2/17/2017 Design Type : Airfield Pavement Type : Rigid Traffic Area : Area A Analysis Type : K Depth of Frost (in) : 0 Wander Width (in) : 70 % Load Transfer : 25 Effective K (pci) : 170 Reduced Sub Effective K (pci) : 0 Layers Count : 2 Joint Spacing : 15 to 20 ft Dowel Spacing : 18.00 in Dowel Length : 20.00 in Dowel Diameter: 1.25 to 1.50 in
Layer Information Non frost Reduced Limited Flexural K Design Subgrade Subgrade Layer Type Material Type Frost Code Strength % Steel Analysis Strength Thickness Strength Penetration (psi) (pci) (in) (in) (in) PCC N/A NFS 650 0 Compute 17.8 0 0 0 Natural Subgrade Cohesive Cut NFS 0 0 Manual 0 0 0 170
Traffic Information AIR FORCE MEDIUM COPY- Pattern Name : 1
Passes Passes Weight (lb) Weight (lb) Traffic Equivalent Vehicles ACN Traffic Traffic Area A, B Traffic Area C, D Area A, Passes Area D B, C B-52H STRATOFORTRESS 400000 300000 96 400 4 51347 C-17A GLOBEMASTER III 585000 438750 54 400000 4000 400000 F-15E EAGLE 81000 60750 37 100000 1000 103
Appendix E Existing Pavement FAARFIELD Report
FAARFIELD
FAARFIELD v 1.41 - Airport Pavement Design
Section NewRigid01 in Job SKF.
Working directory is C:\Users\5307\Documents\FAARFIELD\
The structure is New Rigid.
Design Life = 20 years.
A design has not been completed for this section.
Pavement Structure Information by Layer, Top First
Thickness Modulus Poisson's Strength No. Type in psi Ratio R,psi 1 PCC Surface 14.88 4,000,000 0.15 650 2 P-209 Cr Ag 6.00 28,035 0.35 0 3 Subgrade 0.00 9,318 0.40 0
Total thickness to the top of the subgrade = 20.88 in
Airplane Information
Gross Wt. Annual % Annual No. Name lbs Departures Growth 1 C-17A 438,750 5,000 2.00 2 B747-400ER 600,000 300 0.00 3 B747-400ER Belly 600,000 300 0.00 4 C-5 576,750 10,000 0.00 5 Malibu-PA-46-350P 3,089 223 0.00 6 KingAir-C-90 7,285 276 0.00 7 SuperKingAir-B200 9,445 1,175 0.00 8 Gulfstream-G-V 90,900 2,350 0.00 9 B787-8 364,500 150 0.00 10 MD83 161,000 150 0.00 11 A330-300 std 381,779 150 0.00 12 A340-500 std 488,368 150 0.00 13 A340-500 std Belly 488,368 150 0.00 14 F-16C 42,300 8,435 0.00 15 MD83 161,000 1,200 0.00
Additional Airplane Information
CDF CDF Max P/C No. Name Contribution for Airplane Ratio 1 C-17A 0.02 0.03 1.31 2 B747-400ER 0.00 0.00 3.64 3 B747-400ER Belly 0.00 0.00 3.65 4 C-5 0.00 0.00 1.41 5 Malibu-PA-46-350P 0.00 0.00 7.18 6 KingAir-C-90 0.00 0.00 4.81 7 SuperKingAir-B200 0.00 0.00 7.93 8 Gulfstream-G-V 0.00 0.00 4.23 9 B787-8 0.00 0.04 3.77 10 MD83 0.09 0.09 3.42 11 A330-300 std 0.00 0.01 1.88 12 A340-500 std 0.00 0.00 2.02 13 A340-500 std Belly 0.00 0.00 2.20 14 F-16C 0.00 0.00 4.44 15 MD83 0.89 0.89 3.42
User is responsible for checking frost protection requirements.
Appendix F Proposed Pavement FAARFIELD Reports
FAARFIELD
FAARFIELD v 1.41 - Airport Pavement Design
Section NewFlexib~01 in Job SKF.
Working directory is C:\Users\5307\Documents\FAARFIELD\
The section does not have a design life of 20 years.This constitutes a deviation from standards andrequires FAA approval.
The structure is New Flexible.
Design Life = 30 years.
A design has not been completed for this section.
Pavement Structure Information by Layer, Top First
Thickness Modulus Poisson's Strength No. Type in psi Ratio R,psi P-401/ P-403 HMA 1 16.00 200,000 0.35 0 Surface 2 P-304 CTB 5.00 500,000 0.20 0 3 P-209 Cr Ag 18.67 29,277 0.35 0 4 Subgrade 0.00 3,900 0.35 0
Total thickness to the top of the subgrade = 39.67 in
Airplane Information
Gross Wt. Annual % Annual No. Name lbs Departures Growth 1 C-17A 438,750 5,000 0.00 2 C-5 576,750 10,000 0.00 3 B747-400ER 600,000 300 2.00 4 B747-400ER Belly 600,000 300 2.00 5 Malibu-PA-46-350P 3,089 223 2.00 6 KingAir-C-90 7,285 276 2.00 7 SuperKingAir-B200 9,445 1,175 2.00 8 Gulfstream-G-V 68,175 2,350 2.00 9 B787-8 364,500 150 0.00 10 MD83 120,750 150 0.00 11 A330-300 std 381,779 150 0.00 12 A340-500 std 610,460 150 0.00 13 A340-500 std Belly 610,460 150 0.00 14 F-16C 31,725 8,435 0.00
Additional Airplane Information
Subgrade CDF CDF CDF Max P/C No. Name Contribution for Airplane Ratio 1 C-17A 0.74 0.77 1.02 2 C-5 0.00 0.00 0.50 3 B747-400ER 0.01 0.01 1.13 4 B747-400ER Belly 0.00 0.01 1.13 5 Malibu-PA-46-350P 0.00 0.00 1.86 6 KingAir-C-90 0.00 0.00 1.78 7 SuperKingAir-B200 0.00 0.00 1.56 8 Gulfstream-G-V 0.00 0.00 1.37 9 B787-8 0.13 0.14 1.09 10 MD83 0.00 0.00 1.23 11 A330-300 std 0.01 0.02 1.08 12 A340-500 std 0.11 0.14 1.10 13 A340-500 std Belly 0.00 0.18 1.12 14 F-16C 0.00 0.00 1.72
User is responsible for checking frost protection requirements.
FAARFIELD
FAARFIELD v 1.41 - Airport Pavement Design
Section PAVE in Job SKF.
Working directory is C:\Users\5307\Documents\FAARFIELD\
The section does not have a design life of 20 years.This constitutes a deviation from standards andrequires FAA approval.
The structure is New Rigid.
Design Life = 30 years.
A design has not been completed for this section.
Pavement Structure Information by Layer, Top First
Thickness Modulus Poisson's Strength No. Type in psi Ratio R,psi 1 PCC Surface 14.69 4,000,000 0.15 650 2 P-304 CTB 6.00 500,000 0.20 0 3 Subgrade 0.00 9,318 0.40 0
Total thickness to the top of the subgrade = 20.69 in
Airplane Information
Gross Wt. Annual % Annual No. Name lbs Departures Growth 1 C-17A 438,750 5,000 2.00 2 B747-400ER 600,000 300 0.00 3 B747-400ER Belly 600,000 300 0.00 4 C-5 576,750 10,000 0.00 5 Malibu-PA-46-350P 3,089 223 0.00 6 KingAir-C-90 7,285 276 0.00 7 SuperKingAir-B200 9,445 1,175 0.00 8 Gulfstream-G-V 90,900 2,350 0.00 9 B787-8 364,500 150 0.00 10 MD83 161,000 150 0.00 11 A330-300 std 381,779 150 0.00 12 A340-500 std 488,368 150 0.00 13 A340-500 std Belly 488,368 150 0.00 14 F-16C 42,300 8,435 0.00 15 MD83 161,000 1,200 0.00
Additional Airplane Information
CDF CDF Max P/C No. Name Contribution for Airplane Ratio 1 C-17A 0.02 0.04 1.31 2 B747-400ER 0.00 0.00 3.64 3 B747-400ER Belly 0.00 0.00 3.65 4 C-5 0.00 0.00 1.41 5 Malibu-PA-46-350P 0.00 0.00 7.18 6 KingAir-C-90 0.00 0.00 4.81 7 SuperKingAir-B200 0.00 0.00 7.93 8 Gulfstream-G-V 0.00 0.00 4.23 9 B787-8 0.00 0.05 3.77 10 MD83 0.09 0.09 3.42 11 A330-300 std 0.00 0.02 1.88 12 A340-500 std 0.00 0.00 2.02 13 A340-500 std Belly 0.00 0.00 2.20 14 F-16C 0.00 0.00 4.44 15 MD83 0.88 0.88 3.42
User is responsible for checking frost protection requirements.
FAARFIELD
FAARFIELD v 1.41 - Airport Pavement Design
Section NewFlexib~01 in Job SKF.
Working directory is C:\Users\5307\Documents\FAARFIELD\
The section does not have a design life of 20 years.This constitutes a deviation from standards andrequires FAA approval.
The structure is New Flexible. Asphalt CDF was not computed.
Design Life = 30 years.
A design for this section was completed on 03/01/17 at 09:03:50.
Pavement Structure Information by Layer, Top First
Thickness Modulus Poisson's Strength No. Type in psi Ratio R,psi 1 User Defined 4.00 400,000 0.35 0 2 User Defined 9.56 200,000 0.35 0 3 Subgrade 0.00 18,750 0.35 0
Total thickness to the top of the subgrade = 13.56 in
Airplane Information
Gross Wt. Annual % Annual No. Name lbs Departures Growth 1 C-17A 438,750 5,000 0.00 2 C-5 576,750 10,000 0.00 3 B747-400ER 600,000 300 2.00 4 B747-400ER Belly 600,000 300 2.00 5 Malibu-PA-46-350P 3,089 223 2.00 6 KingAir-C-90 7,285 276 2.00 7 SuperKingAir-B200 9,445 1,175 2.00 8 Gulfstream-G-V 68,175 2,350 2.00 9 B787-8 364,500 150 0.00 10 MD83 120,750 150 0.00 11 A330-300 std 381,779 150 0.00 12 A340-500 std 610,460 150 0.00 13 A340-500 std Belly 610,460 150 0.00 14 F-16C 31,725 8,435 0.00
Additional Airplane Information
Subgrade CDF CDF CDF Max P/C No. Name Contribution for Airplane Ratio 1 C-17A 0.00 0.00 1.44 2 C-5 0.00 0.00 0.75 3 B747-400ER 0.01 0.01 1.85 4 B747-400ER Belly 0.00 0.01 1.86 5 Malibu-PA-46-350P 0.00 0.00 4.12 6 KingAir-C-90 0.00 0.00 3.64 7 SuperKingAir-B200 0.00 0.00 2.65 8 Gulfstream-G-V 0.00 0.00 1.99 9 B787-8 0.16 0.17 1.96 10 MD83 0.00 0.00 1.67 11 A330-300 std 0.16 0.16 2.00 12 A340-500 std 0.66 0.66 2.08 13 A340-500 std Belly 0.00 0.43 2.04 14 F-16C 0.00 0.00 3.51
User is responsible for checking frost protection requirements.