CBR Design of Flexible Airfield Pavements With Case Study.: Destafney, Thomas M

Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive
Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection
1985
CBR design of flexible airfield pavements with case study.
Destafney, Thomas M.
http://hdl.handle.net/10945/21186
nmm l» u » n» 1 t
i i
1 iiiii . 1, mv I » ji >mi I
<0
CO
m
< I
Q
<
CBR DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS
WITH CASE STUDY
--
1)4633
By
THOMAS M. DESTAFNEY
A REPORT PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COMMITTEE

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING IN
S3 PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
S FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
u-v--
Spring 1985
Y-»
CLD '* b »-^ \ \
This dc^'T^Tit has been op*) cved

r
fc: public r;I;aro and rale; 'its

diiiiibution is ualisaited &3 8 & io^
T238808
-
.
'
" —r-
r
to UJ
UJ <J o y
=f E 5?
< o
2 •25
5-a
E =
in
CTi (0 co
S
t, -H
s
00 P 10
>
u
m i/>
tl 41 Q
< -5 O *^ a to
U
CBR DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS
WITH CASE STUDY
By
THOMAS M. DESTAFNEY
A REPORT PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COMMITTEE

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING
>-.
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Spring 1985
jffer /=** so at Aft.
£•-._ _ _ . __
'; '
Dir.tr
Dist Spscial
-7
To Camille, Neal and Cara
L*
—
_~_. «J
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the assistance of my graduate
committee chairman, Professor W. H. Zimpfer, for his assistance
in the preparation of this report and for his outstanding teaching
skills. Many thanks are also due to the other committee members,
Professors W. G. Shafer and Z. Herbsman, for their assistance.
I would like to especially acknowledge the invaluable support
of my wife, Camille, whose admirable engineering and home-making
ski i Is have made this undertaking much easier.
I would also like to acknowledge the support of my parents,
James and Peggy Destafney. Their years of support and guidance ere
most responsible for my making it this far.
My appreciation also goes to the United States Navy for making
this past year of post graduate study possible.
n
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 History and Trends in Design 1
1.3 Airfield Pavement Structures 3

1.4 Fundamental Flexible Pavement Theory 5
CHAPTER TWO - DYNAMIC LOADS AND AIRCRAFT WANDER 9
2.1 Dynamic Effects 9

2.2 Aircraft Wander 10
2.2.1 Lateral Traffic Distribution 11

2.2.2 Effects of Aircraft Wander en Pavements 14
2.2.2.1 Traffic Areas 16
CHAPTER THREE - PRELIMINARY DATA ESSENTIAL FOR DESIGN 17
3.1 Introduction 17
3.2 Subgrade Investigation and Evaluation 17
3.2.1 CBR Test Procedure 18
3.3 Landing Gear Configurations and Tire Pressures 21

3.4 Aircraft Loads and Repetitions 23
CHAPTER FOUR - CORPS OF ENGINEERS CBR DESIGN AND PROCEDURE --- 27
4.1 History ar.d Development 27

4.2 Adaptation of CBR Method to Airfield Pavements 27
4.3 CBR Thickness Design Procedure 29
4.3.1 Subgrade and Subbase Design CBR Selection --- 31

4.3.2 Design Aircraft Selection and Traffic
Forecasting 33
4.3.3 Minimum Pavement Thickness 33
4.3.4 Determination of the ESWL --- 34
4.3.5 CBR Design Curve Development 41
4.4 Design for Protection Against Frost 45

-*>V f'"" '
"" '-— —** ' "" ">
'
•
!,..,.. „ ....,, — - ^. .,- .,j
CHAPTER FIVE - CASE STUDY: PALAU AIRFIELD 55
5.1 Introduction 55
5.1.1 Palau Climate and Geology 57
5.2 Palau Airfield Design 58
5.2.1
5.2.2
Existing Airfield and Design Parameters
New Airfield Design and Construction
— 58
Criteria 60
5.2.3 Palau Airfield, FAA Design 62
5.2.6 Performance of the Palau Airfield 62
5.3 Pa"!au Airfield CBR Design 65
5.3.1 Design Criteria 65
5.3.1.1 Subgrade CBR Design 65

5.3.1.2 Sybase and Base Design CBR Values -- 66
5.3.1.3 Minimum Pavement Thickness 66
5.3.1.4 Design Aircraft 67
5.3.1.5 Forecasted Annual Aircraft Operations 69
5.3.2 ESWL Calculations 71

5.3.3 CBR Design Curve Development 76
5.3.4 Pavement Thickness Determination 77
5.4 Comparison of Design Results 82
CHA D TER SIX - CONCLUSION 85
6.1 Conclusion 85
REFERENCES 87
!
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1 . 1 Purpose
It is the purpose of this paper to state the fundamentals
involved in the design of flexible airfield pavements utilizing the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) CBR (California Bearing Ratio)
design method. This paper will also discuss concepts that are
considered to be prerequisites to any discussion of the subject,
including baîc pavement theory, aircraft loading effects, subgrade
strength, and aircraft characteristics related to design. The CBR
method of design will be outlined, and an actual design performed in
order to more clearly illustrate this method of designing flexible
airfield pavements.
1 .2 History and Trends in Design
Airport design and constiuction has become a modern day civil
engineering skill that encompasses all major aspects of the profession.
The rapid development of aircraft size and landing gear wheel
configurations over the past 40 to 50 years has had a profound affect
on the design and construction of one phase in particular, that of
airfield pavements.
Prior to World War II, airfield pavements, both flexible and rigid,
were designed and constructed based on standard, "canned" designs and
cross-sections. During the war, increased bcmbing and transport
>. *. \p *. *. n
—
I -- _ MfeAtt
I
requirements of the military created a need for larger and therefore
heavier aircraft that had larger payload capacities. As Figure 1-1
shows, the years 1950-1980 saw aircraft grow larger still, as civilian
airlines found it more economical to transport increasing numbers of
passengers in larger and heavier aircraft (6:65). Not only have
aircraft weights increased, but their frequency of operation has
greatly increased Worse yet, aircraft have historically increased in
weight throughout the evolution of their useful lives, and usually
without a change in the number or spacing of its wheels (13:640). This
growth in aircraft weight coupled with the continued increase in the
number of operations has led to the development of several pavement
design methods, most of which were derived from existing highway design
methods (1 :39).
I, OCO
900
800
747-200
700 /747-1OO
747-SP
/ •
600
/ OC-iO-JO
SCO /
/ L-IOll
0OC-1O-1O
400 / u
Concede
707-32C
300 ?/ £-8 63
707-320 767-200
707-irO>/ OC-8
757 200 *
•
200
100
So
*\ \ DC 7
727-100
|
'OC-6 DC-9-30
DC-3^ '
DC-4
1
1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 I98C

Yior enter «(»ice
Figure 1-1. Trends in the Weight of Transport Aircraft

Over the years there ha? been a steady trend towards expanding the
concepts of pavement design. Initially, the only considerations were
subgrade strength, load, and pavement thickness. Concepts have been
expanded to include climactic effects (i.e. frost action), material
auality, tire pressures, load reoetition, landing qear wheel configuration
(multiple wheels), skid resistance, and roughness. The jumbo jet has
placed a new emphasis on the need for a better understanoing of a pave-
ment subjected to an aircraft loading. The Boeing 747 and Lockheed C5A
Galaxy, for example, give civil engineers good reason to be concerned.
They are both high use, high weight (over 750,000 lbs.) aircraft that are
partially responsible for many of the new concepts in design listed above.
1.3 Airfield Pavement Structures
A pavement or pavement structure can be defined as a structure
consisting of one or more layers of processed materials (6:420). A
pavement that is composed of portlanj cement concrete is referred to as
rigid, whereas one consisting of a mixture of aggregate and bituminous
material is referred to as a flexible pavement. This paper will discuss
the design of flexible airfield pavements only. It should be pointed out
that throughout this paper the term "design" will refer only to the
determination of the thickness of the pavement and its components.
The principal functions of a flexible airfield pavement are to
provide air traffic with a smooth, safe operating surface which can
withstand any applied load or environmental influence for some prescribed
period of operation (6:420). The thickness of each layer must be
sufficient to insure that any applied loads will not cause a failure in
it or in any of the underlying layers. As Figure 1-2 shows, a typical
.•» • .•• .n
-~- - . .1 - II ..« r
,|^.w.i -" ' - - - - - .i»...i r.J
pavement is composed of a surface course, base course, and subbase course,
all of which rest on a compacted subgrade. The surface course, or wearing
course as it is sometimes calleo, is composed of rock aggregate and
asphalt and ranges in thickness from three or four inches to thicknesses
of 12 inches or more. The wearing course is intended to prevent the
penetration of water to the base layer, provide a smooth riding, well
bonded surface that is free of loose particles and debris, and to provide
resistance to any shear stresses due to aircraft wheel loads. The
pavement should also be resistant to fuel and other solvents in locations
where operations increase the likelihood of a spill.
V2X2ZVZ '—
T7
— 22ZZ&®. i
cement- stabiiizeJ or birurrunsrabilized base
/,/ sN
\
V// N~ ' •
~
subbase
— _
.
V \
\
-
/
'•" -*
\ s/ V -~-~ f '
' .-
/ / f .
t
; s
- >> r
i >_\M - '
i J
N I /
C'.V - < £</ -< ';,
"V N subpiJe
Figure 1-2. Typical Flexible Pavemen^ Components

The baê course is intenced to distribute wneel loads to the ûo-
base and suby de. It must be caDable of protecting the subgrade from
failure, withstanding the stresses within itself, resisting any vertical
stresses tending to cause consolidation or deformation of the wearing
course, and resisting any change in volume due to a fluctuation in
moisture content.
The subbase layer r st simply be capable of orotecting the subgrade
by withstanding the i
i
sse existing at its own depth. This optional
layer is used in areas w.._re frost action is severe or in locations where
the subgrade is extremely weak. ;
The subgrade is exposed to lower stresses than any of the overlying
layers, as stress decreases with depth. This foundation layer must have
the strength to withstand the stresses existing at the subgrade depth.
A flexible airfield pavement may also be classified as a full-depth
asphalt pavement, which is a flexible pavement that has all courses above
the improved or compacted subgrade composed of asphalt mixtures. The
design of typical airfield flexible pavements will be further discussed
in Chapters 4 and 5.
1 .4 Fundamental Flexible Pavement Theory
The CBR method of flexible pavement design was developed by the
Corps of Engineers by studying the effects of uniform circular loads
acting on a homogeneous, isotropic, and elastic half-space. These three
conditions are the assumptions made by the nineteenth-century French
mathematician, Boussinesq, as he studied the distribution of stress,
strain, and deflection in a media beneath a point load on the surface
(8:163).
"'''' '' '' '' ^ "

'' •"
' >V -"
V V.TtV»V*W V ;î;,l^»
" "
>' -
• '
'
' ' ' T * ' » . . . i'.V
Vertical stresses beneath a point load have a bell shaped distri-
51 bution. The maximum stresses occur directly beneath the point of
application. The stresses are maximum near the surface and theoretically
decrease to zero at an infinite depth.
For the study of flexible pavements, the surface loading is not a
point load, but is distributed over an elliptical area, although assumed
to be circular for design purposes. The vertical stresses at the tire-
pavement interface are equivalent to the tire pressure and the variation
in vertical stress with depth follows the same distribution as for a
point load.
r The
Figure 1-3 shows a circular load of radius r and pressure p.
vertical stress, a , at any point beneath the load is dependent on the
vertical distance, z, beneath the surface and the radial distance or
offset, r, from the point or center of load application.
a i i i i i i
\
\
\
\
x v
i
Figure 1-3. Vertical Stress Under Uniform Circular Load

r .— ~,
^ si'
* r
I 7
/
1.4.1 Subgrade Deflection
, ]
The amount of subgrade deflection of a flexible pavement is an
important design concept. The percentage of the surface deflection

•:'•
F
v* contributed by the deflection of the subqrade varies betwec-n 70 and
i 95 percent. It can therefore be assumed that most of the deflection,
p
which is the integration of vertical strain with depth, is due to the
1
'; elastic compression of the subgrade layer (14:73).
Generally, for analysis of flexible pavements, it is assumed that

'
i
all pavement components above the subgrade do not contribute to the
total surface deflection. The total surface deflection is equal to the
deflection within the subgrade layer.
;.;- The COE analysis assumes that the pavement and subgrade together
are considered to behave as a homogeneous, isotropic, elastic, semi-
l\ infinite medium. For tire applied loadings, subgrade deflections may be
calculated through the following equation:
where
A = vertical deflection, in.
p = tire contact pressure, psi
a = radius of tire contact area, in.
E = modulus of elasticity, psi
F = deflection factor, a function of depth and
radial offset from load centerline
The modulus of elasticity E and Poisson's ratio are both important
r parameters in the study of deflections under loads. The modulus of

—
^—^™—*^^— t^"*t^t— T"~r"*r~. . . : . 1
.
1
. «
.
J l . _ _ . .
elasticity is defined as the stress to strain ratio and in equation 1.1
is assumed to be constant. The greater the modulus of elasticity, the
higher the resistance to elastic deformation. The modulus of elasticity
is assumed to be constant throughout the pavement and equal to the
modulus of the subgrade material (12:29).
Poisson's ratio is defined as the ratio of the transverse strain to
longitudinal strain, which expresses a material's ability to increase
its transverse dimensions under a compressive load or decrease its
transverse dimensions under the effects of a longitudinal, tensile load.
The COE CBR design theory is based on a Constant Poisson's ratio of 0.5.
CHAPTER TWO
K"-
DYNAMIC LOADS AND AIRCRAFT WANDER

C.J
2. 1 Dynamic Effects
The dynamic responses of aircraft, specifically acceleration and
deceleration forces, can be considerably more severe than those for
even the largest of trucks. An aircraft undercarriage assembly may
transmit a load greater than the static weight to the pavement due to
these dynamic 'ffects.
This may be best demonstrated by considering the following three
critical conditions. First, consider the point of impact on the runway
b during an aircraft landing. As the aircraft lands, its weight is carried
aerodynamical ly and the resulting pavement loading is, to a large degree,
due to the downward velocity component (sink rate) of the aircraft. The
H degree of this downward velocity component can range from a high value
due to a poorly executed landing to a low value aue to a well executed
landing. Other than surface scuffing and scratching, there is no evidence
r-~ that this area of the pavement typically suffers structural overload due
to this action (1 :9).
The second condition considers the rotation of an aircraft during
takeoff. As the aircraft gains speed and begins rotation, the nose gear
•*v is lifted off the ground, thereby transferring all weight to the main
gear assembly. This weight is increased hy the increasing aerodynamic
r force on the elevator. This condition, known as the "spike effect", has
never been observed to cause pavement failure (1:9-10).
r
10
The third condition is the most critical with regard to flexible
pavements and has been documented as having accelerated pa ement failure.
It involves the centrifugal effects of taxiing on turn-offs and turn-ons
to runways. In turning, particularly on hot days, an aircraft can create
a large shear force that tends to push the underlying asphalt outside
the turn, possibly resulting in displacement of the pavement (1:10).
Despite the documented failures due to centrifugal effects, it is
a lack of large scale evidence of all three of the above conditions that
has led to the conclusion that these dynamic effects are not more
critical from a design standpoint than the conditions encountered for a
static or taxiing aircraft at maximum gross takeoff weight (14:447).
Therefore, flexible airfield pavements are designed based on the design
aircraft's maximum gross takeoff weight.
2.2 Aircraft Wander
An aircraft pass may be defined as one passage of a single aircraft
at the critical design location. This critical design location is
generally a taxi way, as this is where most damage to the pavement is
anticipated. Airfield pavements are normally designed for a given number
o1 passes of a design aircraft. The number of times a pavement is
subjected to the design aircraft's maximum load determines the pavement's
ultimate life span. An aircraft pass is not to be confused with an
application of the maximum stress, or a coverage. The relationship and
difference between the terms pass and coverage and the effects of aircraft
wander on airfield pavement design will be discussed in this section.

.
2.2.1 Lateral Traffic Distribution
Most airfield runway and taxiway center! ines are marked tc aid
pilots in landing, taking off, and taxiing. This convenience has
resulted in more channelized aircraft traffic, with the highest
concentration being in the centerline area of the runway (12:8).
Despite this, aircraft are much more widely distributed laterally than
highway vehicles. F ,x>m a theoretical standpoint, there is an equal
chance of an aircraft deviating to the right or left of the centerline.
Because airfields are usually designed to withstand a large number of
aircraft passes, the traffic may he considered to be normally distributed
and represented by a normal curve. Figure 2-1 presents actual distri-
bution curves derived from field observations at three U.S. Air Force
airfields. Note how both actual observed curves follow the theoretical
normal distribution curve.
Aircraft wander may be defined as the width over which the center-
line of airfield traffic is distributed 75 percent of the time. A wander
width or design traffic width of 70 inches is applied to taxiways and the
first 1,000 feet at each runway end, while a wander width of 140 inches
is ised for runway interiors. These values are based on field
observations (12:11).
An aircraft coverage is defined as when each point of the pavement
within the design traffic width receives one application of load (14:158).
Each aircraft pass, or operation, applies only a partial coveraqe each
time it taxies, takes off, or lands. The number of coverages per pass
or operation is dependent on the tire width, number of tires per gear,
the design traffic width, and the percent traffic in the design lane
(75 percent)
5
12
1 BO
f
c
=
o
ion 3 a
X
-*
0.
W3
jut
Distri Distri
cr
C.
o»
X
;«
J
—
w 4*
-3 £
m C *•- (0
V « to
cx> a>
A' ^
CJ Traffic
X
Traffic
X
i
0)
\
e*
E
o —
'
'J/i -
> >
U V.

aW
3
**
3 o
4'
< s U
o«
-
n u
41
x e / **** X —
0) w
< < o >-
o
u.
1
1
— X
«*
u —
*-i <
«-
1
C Jt --
1 1
X N\ O «D •--
\ *-o o -
>•) O Q
c X
si 1
< C (9 V \
> "8 ** "*>* \
Bai
obse
Charles
Force
166
V
on Lake
Mr 11
at
Based
Dill
made
Mar
A
<j
00T -r «uoi3»Aj»«qo jo 3us3a»<j
Figure 2-1. Distribution of Aircraft Traffic About Centerline

13
This concept may be best demonstrated by consicering a one tire
aircraft and its movements on an airfield pavement. Figure 2-2 shows
the normal distribution of traffic about a taxiway centerline with a
wander width of 70 inches and tire width W As defined, 75 percent
of all aircraft passes fall within the shaded regions of the normal
curve, between lines drawn at 35 inches right and 35 inches left of the
taxiway centerline. Assume that the normal distribution curve shown
if Figure 2-2 is divided transversely into strips, with each strip being
W. inches wide. Each time the aircraft tire passes over the center strip,
a coverage is being applied to that strip. For design purposes, the
number of coverages applied to the pavement is defined as the number of
coverages applied to that strip where the maximum accumulation occurs
(12:12).
P(x) = TIRE CENTER LINE PASSES/lN.
Figure 2-2. Normal Distribution of Aircraft Traffic

About Centerline
14
Now, assume that aircraft traffic is appMed to tfe taxiway so that
in 100 aircraft passes, the aircraft tire runs over the center strip cf
W inches in width 20 tines. In this particular example, 20 coverages
have been applied and the coverage to pass ratio is equal to 20/100 =
0.20, or the pass to coverage ratio is equal to 100/20 = 5.0.
By using the basic analysis just presented, the Corps of Engineers
has derived equations that can be used to calculate the number of
coverages per pass for any aircraft. The conversion from passes to
coverages used to be quite important to the designer, as the number of
coverages was used to determine load repetition factors, which are
thickness adjustment factors that are based on the number of passes or
operations and the numoer of gear tires in each main assembly. However,
further analysis by the C0E has simplified the process by deleting the
requirement to convert passes to coverages for load repetition factor
determination. Curves have been generated for determining the factor
based on the number of aircraft passes and the number of main gear tires
per assembly. Despite this simplification, it is important that the
designer understand the basic concepts of aircraft passe? versus coverages
2.2.2 Effects of Aircraft Wander on Pavements
As previously stated, aircraft have more lateral space available for
transverse wander than do vehicles on highways. Highway vehicles, for
example, have an average transverse standard deviation of about one foot.
Aircraft on taxiways that have painted centerlines have a standard
"
deviation between 2.0 and 3 feet. Durinq take-off, aircraft standard
deviations vary between 7.5 and 15 feet while for landing, the standard
15
c *ct
deviation ranees from 13 to 20n fee mmj Due to the highly
channelized effect of highway traffic, each vehicle pass or movement is
considered to be one stress repetition or coverage. This is not true
for runways and taxiways due to the relative lack of channelized
conditions.
Figure 2-3 shows the effects of the standard deviation of aircraft
wander on pavement damage. The 3.5 feet standard deviation curve is
representative of taxiway travel conditions. Because the lower standard
deviation represents more channelized travel, the peak pavement damage
occurs at the center of the main gears. Note that as the standard
deviation increases, the peak damage moves towards the pavement centerline.
The results of these principles are that taxiways tend to have higher
failure rates near the main gear locations, while runways develop more
distress at their centerlines. This theory has been proven accurate by
field observations made at various airports (14:155-156).
[ 1 1 1
a = 3 5 leel
(1
u
c
la = 7 leet\
GO
t' ~~^\A
-i
a.
a 10 5 (eet
*"*»
M\ \ \
«t V V
k
S \\
\f
\ \
e
\ \
\ \
T3
V \ \
\ \
IX
\ \ \
/ ! ! 1
5 10 15 20 25 30
lain jl distinct Ifom povemtnl centerhne (It)
Figure 2-3. Effect of Standard Deviation of Aircraft Wander

on Pavement Damage
10
2.2.2.1 Traffic Are?s
Because relatively channelized traffic occurs on taxiways and
runway ends, construction costs may be reduced by allowing a thinner
pavement at the runway edges and other low-use areas. In order to
take advantage of the variability of traffic volume over different
areas of airfield pavements, the COE has categorized these areas
into zones of anticipated distress, or traffic areas (14:160).
Type A traffic areas are those that will be subjected to the
highest concentration of maximum loaded aircraft. These include
primary taxiways, aprons, and the first 500 feet of each runway
end. These areas are designed for 25,000 coverages of heavy,

\ I
multiple-wheel aircraft.
Type B traffic areas are those areas exposed to a normal
distribution of maximum loaded aircraft. These include the second
500 feet of each runway end, parking, and maintenance area pavements.
They are designed for 5000 coverages of the design aircraft.
Type C traffic areas are those exposed to partial aircraft
loads and includes the runway interior, secondary taxiways, and
calibration hardstands. These areas are designed for 5000 coverages
of the design aircraft at 75 percent of gross load.

J
CHAPTER THREE
PRELIMINARY DATA ESSENTIAL FOR DESIGN
3.1 Introduction
An airfield pavement is intended to protect the subgrade from shear
failure due to aircraft loads applied at the surface. These loads are
distributed by the tires to an acceptable level that will not exceed
the strength of any pavement layer or the subgrade. Therefore, sub-
grade strength, design aircraft wheel configuration and tire pressures,
and the magnitude and number of load repetitions are all data that is
essential to flexible pavement design.
3.2 Subgrade Investigation and Evaluation
An accurate and thorough investigation of the supporting subgrade
material is essential to the proper design of a flexible pavement. The
greater the strength of the subgrade, the lower the required thickness
of the pavement intended to protect it will be. Desirable subgrade
characteristics include strength, good drainage, ease and permanency of
compaction, and permanency of strength (14:328).
The subgrade investigation usually consists of a soil survey that
will reveal the arrangement of the different soil layers in relation to
the subgrade, the samplinq and testing of soil from each layer to
ascertain its physical properties with respect to in-place density and
subgrade support, and a survey that will rpveal the availability and
suitability of local construction materials that will be used in the

17
• ~—
.
13
construction of the Davement. Soil borings art? generally used to
accomplish the surveys and sampling which can be used to show the soil
or rock profile and the lateral extent of each layer. Properties
derived from field and lab tests include soil type, sieve analysis,
Atterberg limits, moisture-density relationships, permeability, organic
content, strenath, and CBR. Table 3.1 contains general criteria for the
spacing and depth of soil borings for airfield soil investigations
(11:2-2).
Compaction requirements for airfield pavement subgrades are generally
more strict than those intended for highways. Compaction of the sub-
grade to sufficient densities and sufficient depths is particularly
important in areas of concentrated traffic on airfield runways, taxiways,
and aprons. Standard test methods for subgrades, subbases, and base
courses are given in Table 3-2 (10:4-6).
3.2.1 CB R Test Procedur e
The CBR test is a penetration test and is expressed as a percentage
of the penetration resistance to that of a standard value for crushed
stone. The test consists of compacting about ten pounds of soil in a
six inch diameter mold, immersing it in water for four days with a
surcharge applied, and then penetrating the soaked sample with a two
inch diameter piston at a specified loading rate. The soil's resistance
to penetration, expressed as a percentage of that for a standard crushed
stone, is the C n R design value. Therefore, a CBR of SO means that the
stress required to penetrate the sample 0.1 inch is only half of that
required for the piston to penetrate that same distance in the standard
crushed stone. The stress required to penetrate the standard stone to
0.1 inch is 1 ,000 psi
"•" '.* •." •.* ••* %* -'»*-'«*-

'
^ww'.v.'.yt'.v.v.'ii .•iV\'.f*. Jf J ,
,
...v.'.'. unv , Iv •.•.
1 1
13
^
i—t 01 o TD
rH c to c 41 c
tfl o c -H M 3
C 41 -H H 3 3 3 o
•h x: u oo U M O O r-l
en "O 4-1 01 a 3 0) U en r-l rH SO

VJ 3 Ol T-t XI u y-i *j 01 4)
C 4-1 14-1 >4-l U C 1 c XI XI 4) 00
0) •H O o at01 o* 0) u c
O B 00 o jo c u m e u 4-1 ^ •H
01 C w o o 01 Ol 01 -i 4-1
XT r-l O 0) <NJ 41 at o1
V-. Ol 01 U en
•H r-i -a c -a c o
o*
T-l U-l 14-1 3 •w î
-t->
O- a •r-( ^ o C p 3 en X o
<D a* t-i en u CO
o
cr o O 4) O
Q U
as
01
4J oo
01
> ^
»
01
HH
O in rH
01
«
rH
41
rH
c
-O
3
r-l
-o n: c 0) •— c 0) IH -13 3
<4-l O O
C 00 el) -rH r-l — 0) to u X! Q c3 O O >-\ u
TO c U 4-1 en aj r-H -a -a 01 Ul r-l u 41
rH tC J £50 c M 'rH 01 a. a. a 00 3 00 X) >-i
C7) 'J c c c C -H OJ Ul 01 3 3 O
C a) o u H iH TJ u 4) CO a a •u a oo 4-1
a. 01 rH V-i 3 c X! x: c -H 41 •H C 41 <X)
tn 4-1 4-1 V-i O 4-1 41U 4-1 H c x: C -H 01 U

01 i-H 01 X> -H U ^ U H en •H 4J u-i nj
01 nj u CO 0) rJ O a •H B m U-l
£3-
I/O >4-l c 0) c u m X. C •H O t-i
c -J Ol o X! c 41 ea •H ft! X "~> 3
i- o o u (-1 l-t o C
4-1 01 4-1 01 en
o o x: c o O o
cni 4-1 o u 4-1 4-1
c en
01 i"
— r—
01 i-
S- O rH
•r~ CO
3 i-i rH
CX > 01 4-1 -H
ai i- 01 3
cc o U-, c
+-> rH
o 01 rH
L=
3
ra
s- o
cm CO
U -W
E o V 01 a 4) 14H
c Q. "0
ex
3 ^
'1— X Ifl -H o
0^ 3 -a
en
a eg a m 4_i
01 3 <j c 01 41 0)
tj •H 01 eg
u r-l oi
I
M X 01 r-l (a f
CO M en
6 ca
U C 01
ai o
o o u
M fill
(0
xj c c-M a. than
<T3 A nj in placed) rH
rH
0) CO 00 0) •H
Hc
r>> 4) >-i >4-l
«j -a ni
3 -H 3 Shallow
more
be
JZ
c 3 c u
3 3 m 3 H00
06 a. O
- ."* ."'" .*
I**
-Lii- i*>*iiii>iffl^nnJ
•
i r 20
j E
i F
X X X X X X XXX xxxxxxxx
X X X X X X XXX xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
Ifl
oOJ
<s
XXX
i-
O)
'i
r. -C
3
1/1
CO w
S-
o m
ai u
4- s_ o
o o
3
1/1o
X) c_>
o
-C OJ
4-> to
3 13 01 ra as
—I
so
ON co m N — ooo oon —
s_ C2
H H f- f- (- H H H H H
4-1
1.0
a
c:
cu ro
(—
oo wo in ( o ,trûi
o m
oo*(stco
r* ,
oi wo wo uo
T3 <ni
T»r_•»»„ —
aauuuQuoa—
to
_- oo
s_
(O
CD
CO u u U <J Q Q Q
T3
a i C
ao
(O
jQ
-Q
Cs -l~> 3
t/3 oo
CNJ
ro
0J a,
r— E
'
-Q a.
<Q o
-5
n.'
E
£- = o
- o c —
III o
o
So W w
to
-
ca
3
a u
£ o e s:
2 a Si
D < co co^ U £ £ O 5 <
HI 1 J
I
HIK4BH I
m I'
> . »< 1 1) » «l
21
3 . 3 Landing Gear Configurations and Tire Pressures
As discussed in Chapter One, the last three decades have seen a
very significant increase in aircraft size and weight. In order to more
evenly distribute these loads on the pavement, aircraft have been
El modified by increasing the number of wheels supporting them. Figure 3-1
shows the effects of dual wheels on stresses for a constant tire
pressure (14:77). In the figure, all tire pressures are 100 psi . As
the figure shows, surface stresses are not affected oy wheel configurations
and are equal to the tire pressure. However, dual wheels result in
increased stresses at reater depths due to an overlapping of pressure
1
r bulbs
'/. The vertical stress at a point due to a load acting on a pavement
surface depends on botn the applied pressure and the magnitude of the
] [])
load. Figure 3-2 shows tha effects of tire pressures on stress variation
with depth (14:76). As the figure shows, a higher tire pressure creates
i
("'.
higher vertical stresses in the upper layers of the pavement. Note that
j jj
for the two 80 kip loadings, the vertical stresses are about equal at a
'
S depth of abo'it 30-35 inches. Therefore, high tire pressures require the
K ';-;
use of stronger materials in the upper layers of the pavement while not
1 significantly affecting the pavement's total depth. For a constant tire
£ ;v pressure, an increase in load increases the vertical stress at any depth.
r >. The load distribution between the nose gear and the main gears is
i dependent on the aircraft type and the location of the center of gravity.
[". \- For airfield pavement design purposes, it is usually assumed that five
percent of the aircraft gross weight is acting on the nose gear, with
i P the remaining 95 percent supported by the main gear:. It is also assumed
\ _-.. that each tire on a main gear assembly supports a proportional amount of
*
S the weight acting on the assembly.
** _
W I U" .
'<" . " . » I '
.
.' .
» '
.» . »' .— ^-
Vertical stress (psi)
20 40 60 SO 100 120 140 160

1 I I
/f'^
^4-kip single -— \^
10 -
X/ -,» "
^20-*ip single
15
20 — /' vV^-kip dual 37.5" c-c

-
a 25
I 30
& 35
-
j
1
1
r 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1
i i
Figure 3-1. Effects of Dual Wheels on Vertical Stress
Vertical stress (psi)
40 80 120 160 200
J ! i L_i
r
Fiqure 3-2. Effects of Tire Pressures on Stress Variation With Depth
r
23
The pavement designer needs to be intimately familiar with the effects
(i of tire pressure and wheel configuration on a pavement. Table 3-3 shows
the main landing gear configurations and tire pressures for some of the
more common civilian aircraft in use today (6:63).
WL
3.4 Aircraft Loads and Repetitions
Without question, an aircraft will inflict the most wear on a
pavement when it is loaded to its maximum gross weight. Therefore, the
design aircraft's maximum gross weight is one of the major parameters
for flexible airfield pavement design.
Another imoortant parameter related to aircraft weight is the

r
number of loading cycles, or repetitions, that the pavement will be
exposed to over its intended life.
The design thickness, t, of a pavement may be expressed as
t = ct.T (3.1)
•.
where T is the standard thickness for a particular aircraft and a. is
Et a load reoetition factor that adjusts the pavement thickness. Experiments
conducted at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station have determined that the load repetition factor is dependent
on the number of wheels in each main landing gear assembly and the esti-
mated number of aircraft passes that the pavement will be subjected to
(12:24). Therefore, for design purposes, a standard design thickness
v/ill be determined for the design aircraft and will be adjusted by the
load repetition factor to account for the number of aircraft passes
anticipated over the pavement's intended life. Figure 3-3 shows the
t load repetition factor versus passes curves for various landing gear
c
24
configurations. The application of these curves will be demonstrated
in Chapter Five.
25
Table 3-3. Main Landing Gear Configurations and Tire

Pressures for Corrrrion Aircraft
Typical
inflation
Main landing
uimen sions, it i
pressures.
gear configuration Aircraft X y Z u psi
DC-9-S0 2S.1 170

B-737 30.5 148
0=0 B-727 34.0 168
DC-8-61 300 550 188

DC-8-62 32.0 550 187
DC-8-63 32.0 55.0 196
DC-10-10 54.0 64.0 173
B-720B 32.0 49.0 145
B-707-120B 34.0 56.0 170
B-707-320B 34.6 56.0 180
B-737 34.0 45.0 161
B-767 45.0 560 183
Concorde 26.4 65.7 184
L-1011-500 52.0 70.0 184
A-OOOB 35.0 550 168
Op
B-747A 440 58.0 121.2 142.0 204
Lapx B-747B. C, F 440 580 1212 142.0 185
cmo-1 -
DC- 0-30
1 540 64.0 300 216.0 157*
DC- 10-40 540 300 2160 165'
"G&~li 64
\r - — \
~ — —
n
25
1
'
i
i
"7 #—
\
\ 1 1
—
1
\
1 1
"=-— j" -
\ |
(N \
-1
_ __ . . ^_
Y _ 2_ -• -— : j|i:_- -— - .._.-" -:_ _ i_=;: - :==== LT

"
•
=^==£3= — --^==~-|
_r^_— —
\==EE
v — "- - \
— "r - -==-=-
.
— _zrz
— _
;
—
. 1
1 - -
•-
\ — _.
3 U|
i ft
I
i
"o
S3 \
— >->• \
o o \
Jc - - _ 1
i 'i
'
_ . . .
- : r-= _=.-=.;
\
\
~ :_: .
\\ 1 = 1
" — .
- - -. — -=?= t ====== .—-—,L
====== ^=r=i£T.^ HEA^ ==\===I —~ ~-====-A ===r^r -L====_t
:.__
:~r..--. :======
——
-
[ rl
—.
\ ~~ ~irv^
\ \ -— 1
... _
A
—— — \~\ —
!
— -
1
%=\
\ i
a
l\
V*
\ a
\
1
1
\
\
\ \ \
'o is
\ \ u
\\
1 \ \j \\ '
r \
W i
- ::.-. - . _- . - -- «
i
, 1
.
===== -==-r^ b
3
1 \
\
r\i - -- ~ O
>
A -
u
~
rV\\
- --: ====== -
—
- — _i_r:: zzJtjlz =-:-==
:
™
-
-.; __ :
\Vy
-
EErfEfEE eeee"
- : :
— ££
=^T=I'
—-=.= —
:
\ \ \\
-
a
c==: .z——. .
u
—aAt|\— :
<
— "\\
VV \ \\
o
r—
\
l\»
Vl\
\\
V\
. — -'-.-
-> -
~ ~~
- :-;--
~
•"•
"~
-
.:-....
"~~ -'--' •_—

V ~
_:-:
:
-:---."-i
:.— ;r£
s
"t'\_"
C3
:
a3
\
9
£.
r cs »-
"o
3 > c d
•OJ'T)
Figure 3-1 Composite Plot of Load Repetition Factors Versus Passes

CHAPTER FOUR
CORPS OF ENGINEERS CBR DESIGN AND PROCEDURE
4.1 History and Development
The California Division of Highways developed the CBR method
of design in 1928. The outbreak of World War II required that an
immediate decision be made by the U.S. Army concerning the choice of a
design method, as there were no methods dedicated to the design of
flexible airfield pavements. Obviously, the COE did not have the time
required to develop a comDletely new method of design. Therefore, it
was decided that a review of all existing flexible highway design
methods would be made. The method that appeared the most adaptable to
airfield use would be adopted and modified. After investigating all
available methods for several months, the COE chose the CBR method
because of its procedural simplicity, satisfactory performance, and ease
in adapting it to airfield design (6:423).
4.2 Adaptation of CBR Method to Airfield Pavements
Between the years of 1928 and 1940, the California Highway Department
(CHD) studied the adequacy of flexible Davements. From their observations,
they developed the curves shown in Figure 4-1. Curve A was derived fror
jm
pavements subjected to normally encountered highway conditions and
curve B from light traffic conditions.
27
28
80 i
70
60
H 50 :
^, Cumt 4
40 \
\
\
V \!
\J
'
Cu'rt 8
50
\ S \ i !
i
V
20 -
10
\. i
\>4^-^
!
6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Figure 4-1. Total Thickness of Base and Surfacing

in Relation tc CBR
"
* -J
29
The CHD also found that curve A was more reliable and therefore,
assumed it to represent a 9,000 lb. wheel load. They also reasoned
that because aircraft tires operate at larger deformations and the
traffic on airfields is less channelized, this curve would also
represent a 12,000 lb. aircraft wheel load (6:424).
Because of the war emergency program, the COE utilized soil
mechanics to extrapolate from the 12,000 lb. curve to curves for larger
wheel loads. Curves for larger wheel loads were generated based on the
assumption that the pavement acted as a homogeneous layer. These
tentative design curves are shown in Figure d-2.
Towards the end of World War II, the U.S. Army Air Corps introduced
the B-29 bomber. It complicated flexible pavement design, as it had a
dual-wheeled gear. The COE proceeded with an analysis of its effect on
flexible pavements and their design. This analysis was based on the fact
that a principal cause of pavement failure was strain or deflection.
Their investigation and tests concluded that a single-wheel load that
produces the same deflection as a multiple-wheel load will produce
equivalent or larger strains in the pavement foundation compared to the
multiple-wheel load (6:425). This very important concept is known as the
equivalent single-wheel load (ESWL) and will b? discussed further in
section 4.3.
4 . 3 CBR Thickness Cesign Procedure
In order to design a flexible pavement using the CBR method, the
subgrade CBR, minimum pavement component thicknesses, design aircraft type,
and the anticiDated traffic volume must all be determined. These variables
effect the magnitude and distribution of loads, as well as the frequency
that the pavement and subgrade will be subjected to stresses.

j
" -i
30
5 6 7 8 9 :0 20 30 40 50 60 80 100
Coli'O'n.o b*3"<*) rot'O (CB S ). m "'. 01 I -inch pec«lfo!.on
Highly pii'.tiC Sond? <'0y jO".3-c:ay mulu'es *eq Cxj
io'iOS <0» lypKul '.C'l\ Sondf
uniiroifd bo^f moirfiois-compoc^fd ooj tO'lly tl*0«
'.ookfd ',p«i">fni
Figure 4-2. Tentative CBR Design Curves
-••.•.».-.•,, vX*; ..^

31
7ne CCE C3R design method is the basis for desiqn methods used by
the Navy, A^ r Force, and Army. They are all quite similar. However,
each of these military services uses slightly different design criteria
due to the varying ranges of aircraft size and landing gear configuration.
The Air Force criteria for flexible airfield pavement design appears to
be the most general. This is probably due to the very wide range of
aircraft that regularly use Air Force airfields. Their aircraft inventory
ranges from the single engine Cessna to the enormous C-5A Galaxy. For
this reason, Air Force criteria such as Davement thickness minimums and
subbase gradation requirements will be utilized in the desiqn.
4.3.1 Subgrade and Subbase Design CBR Selection
The CBR design procedure may be considered to be empirical and
acquires i*^ validity through the correlation of lab or field (in-situ)
CBR test values with known traffic loadings and frequencies. When
various soil types are encountered at the site, a range of subgrade C8R
values may be found to exist. Where this condition exists, some designers
select the lowest CBR value for pavement thickness determination when '.he
difference in the high and low CBR value is not too large. When lower
than average values are found in isolated locations across the site, the
designer should consider replacing these areas with more suitable
material before constructing the pavement.
The lab determined CBR must also be compared to maximum allowable
CBR design values that are determined by the subbase gradation require-
ments set forth in Table 4-1. For example, suppose that a lab test
determined a subbase CBR of 40 and sieve analysis on the same material
showed 85 v passing the no.

, 10 sieve. From Table 4-1, the maximum
.<.-.-. ..-.-.•.•»•_.- .*•."-.» -..•• .".,-.»'•..*-., -.»"-.• ".•..•_.'•_.'-_•

. . . j'-.r-j '-j] v>vio
— - -
32
Table 4-1. Maximum Permissible Subbase C8R Values
Maximum Values
Maximum Gradation
Material Design Size Requirements Liquid Plasticity
C3R (in.) Percent Passing- Limit Index
No. 10 No. 200
Subbase 50 3 50 15 25 5
Subbase ^0 3 80 15 25 5
Subbase 30 3 100 15 25 5
1 3 1
Subbase 20 3 25 35 12
'Suggested limits.
• %
•'- . -'• .'
. t Cm l". i'i .«. . k. -;»..- . i..r .-..«.._•_ .'.

-^
.
JO
allowable design C3R will be 30. All gradation and Atterberg limit
requirements listed in Table 4-1 must be met. Exceptions to the
gradation requirements are permissible when supported by adequate in-
place CBR tests on similar construction that has been in service for
several years (1 1 :5-3)
4.3.2 Design Aircraft Selection and Traffic Forecasting
A design aircraft should be selected as a basis for the pavement
design. The design aircraft is generally the heaviest or most damaging
aircraft that will operate at the airport, or the most frequent user.
The design aircraft's weight and landing gear configuration are the
primary aircraft characteristics used in the design of flexible airfield
pavements utilizing the CBR method.
It is essential in the design of an airfield pavement to have
realistic estimates of the future demand to which the airport will be
subjected. There is a variety of forecasting techniques available,
ranging from subjective judgement to sophisticated mathematical models,
that can be used to estimate both the number and mix of aircraft that will
utilize the design airfield over its life. A forecast such as this
generally results in a srecified number of aircraft passes or movements of
the design aircraft by converting all aircraft types to equivalent design
aircraft loadings. Due to the broad scope of this concept, it will not
be discussed in detail in this paper (6:173-177).
4.3.3 Minimum Pavement Thickness
In order to simplify the infinite variety of loading conditions that
may exist, the COE has categorized airfields into three major loading
-- v •v ,
•/•.^•'.••.•.•••::v.v:^.t .-::î
,
..-\ •.ii^'V^^-' ^^..^ ^' ^'\
\i\'jLSJMLdbiuAl^^
mwwmm mm mmm
34
conditions. The categories are heavy-load, medium-load, and light-load.
The design gear load for each of these conditions is 265 kips, 100 kiDS,
and 25 kips, respectively. Table 4-2 gives by traffic area the COE
minimum acceptable thicknesses for base and wearing courses for each
loading condition. The designer should check to insure that all C8R
designs meet these minimum thickness requirements.
4.3.4 Determination of the ESWL
As aircraft became larger and heavier, it was realized that their
assembly loads were too large to be delivered to the pavement through a
single wheel. To better distribute these loads over the pavement surface,
*
multiple-wheel assemblies were developed.
Because reliable design methods have been formulated based on single
wheel loadings, complex landing gear arrangements must be equated to a

i "5
single wheel configuration, or ESWL. The ESWL replaces for computational
purposes the effects of a multiple-wheel assembly with the effects of
a single wheel assembly. The ESWL may therefore be defined as a
fictitious load acting on a sinale wheel with the same contact area as
one tire of the multiple-wheel assembly, and that produces the same
deflection as the multiple-wheel assembly at a given depth in the pavement.
Figure 4-1 shows both the multiple-wheel and single-wheel configura-
tions and their respective deflection conditions. The subscript k in
Figure 4-3 (a) refers to known conditions under a dual-wheel gear, while
the subscript e shown in (b) of the same figure refers to the ESWL
loading configuration. The following analysis is also applicable to more
complex landing gear configurations.

i e
j r
I II I
.
II .IM II
"^T^^** ' *' 7^V^ i.i.i.i
v ."^ i
i. '' ) ' J - V- I ! -. ->
! 35
Table 4-2. Minimum Surface and Base Thickness Criteria
Heavy-Load Design
Twin-cwin assembly, bicycle; spacing, 37-62-37 inches

center- to-center; contact area, 267 square inches
each wheel
Minimum Thickness (in.)
Traffic Area 100-CBR Base 80-CBR Base
Surface Eace Total Surface Base Total
A 5 10 15 6 9 15
B 4 9 13 5 8 13
C A 9 13 5 8 13
D 3 6 9 3 6 9
Access aprons 3 6 9 3 6 9
t
i
H Shoulders 2 6 8 2 6 8
Medium-Load Design
Twin-tandem assembly, tricycle; spacing 32.5 x A8 inches

center-to-center contact area, 208 square inches
;
each wheel
Minimum Thickness (in.)
Surface Base Total Surface Base Total

t
A 4 6 10 5 6 11
B 3 6 9 4 6 10
C 3 6 9 A 6 10
D 3 6 9 3 6 9
: Access aprons 3 6 9 3 6 9
Shoulders 2 6 8 2 6 8
con t inued
r
, I
lie
36
Table 4-2. (continued)
Light Load Design
Single wheel, tricycle; contact area, 100 square inches
Minimum Thickness
B 3 6 9 4 6 10
C 3 6 9 3 6 9
Access aprons 3 6 9 4 6 10
Shoulders 2 6 8 2 6 8
Shortfield Design
Single-tandem assembly, tricycle; spacing 60 inches

center-to-center; contact area, 400 square inches
100-CBR Base 80-CBR Base

Traffic Area
A 4 6 10 5 6 11
1,
'-."hen underlying subbase layer has a design CBR of
80, the minimum thickness of base course is 6 Inches
37
T\rm So»cir\fl
~l r
PI o t2
**'•»
Figure 4-3. ESWL Analysis, (a) Deflection Under

r Multiple Gear, (b) Deflection Under
Equivalent Single Wheel
r
:
38
In Figure 4-3, a, id the radius of the assumed round, known contact
area of one tire for the dual wheel configuration

^
and a is the same for
e
the ESWL configuration tire. Horizontal offset distances from each tire
in the known configuration to the computational point in question, 0,
are represented by r, and r~.
In an elastic, homogeneous medium, the deflection A is expressed
as
A=2|L (4.1)
where
A = deflection , in.
= load intensity, psi

p
a = radius of contact area A , in.
E = modulus of elasticity, psi
F = deflection factor obtained from Figure 4-4
In Equation 4.1, the deflection factor, F, is a function of the
depth and offset radii ratios.
(M (4.2)
The total deflection at point for the known multiple gear
condition is simply the sum of the deflections contributed by each wheel
load. From Equation 4.1 and Figure 4-3:

' '
'04 uS 0.' 1000*3 ( 'Cu 0' 9'*3 '« 'K''fl
fm »")'.'< '
94u>Ut .n PSl
f o>i'«i'<r> !oc»oo"> •« mt:**
9 !
Sj'I0C« (T'JC 1
C'f.Wf '« 6S'
Notf Ijr DO'"'", S"*J*H I If tf"'f .* "it C'Cu'O' 3'tO

»•
(oKset 00') F.
Figure 4-4. Deflection Factor, F, for Uniform Load

of Radius r; Poisson ratio = 0.50
"""S
p 3
k V
+
\ - A1 ~2 (4.3)
where f ; (4.4)
a a
( k k)
Similarly, for t^°. ESWL:
a
A "
^
T~ F
e
(4.5)
where f = f
ft
t ;
;
y
± (4.6)
It is desired that the total deflection under the ESWL equal the
total deflection beneath the multiple gear load. Therefore, by equating
the two, P , or the ESWL, may be solved for. By equating equations
4.3 and 4.5:
m m «
', ^ (4.7)
Since there are eaual tire contact areas, a, - a , and

k e
(4.8)
p p
k e
Therefore
*Vi% (4.9)
Substituting Equation 4.9 into Equation 4.7 gives
m », tw (4.10)
41
By cancellation of terms and solving for P

e
P F
P - k Z i max
e (4J1)
e
where F = — (4.12)
\T~m777T 2
For any multiple-wheel assembly, P. is known. Therefore, the
ESWL analysis is simplified to finding the magnitude and location of the
maximum I F. value at a specific depth. For dual -wheel gears, Z F.
values are calculated under one tire and at the center of gravity of
the assembly. For dual-tandem assemblies, E F. values are computed
underneath the center of one tire, at the center of a line connecting
the two closest tires, and at the center of gravity of the assembly.
This method of ESWL determination will be illustrated in a case study
presented in Chapter Five.
4.3.5 CBR Design Curve Development
The CCE has developed a flexible pavement design method that allows
CBR versus thickness curves to be generated for any aircraft with any
type of landing gear configuration. The design curve can then be used
to determine the thickness of pavement required to protect the subgrade.
The equations used in this design process were derived from actual data
taken from test sections and operational airfields (12:40).
In Chapter Three, it was stated that the design thickness, t, of
a pavement is the standard thickness, T, corrected by a load repetition
factor, u. . This standard thickness can be found by using the following
equation:
—
ESWl \
U C3R " tt
(4.13)
where
ESWL = equivalent single wheel load
C3R = subgrade C8R index
A = tire contact area of one tii
Equation 4.13 may also be expressed as:
i r~
(4.14)
CBR
Va~
V C
J
M 8.1
tt
p
e
where
p = ESWl tire pressure, psi
Note that Equation 4.14 is expressed in terms of the two parameters,

'
T CBR
— an n
and
y[Tc p
e
Equation 4.13 has one very significant limitation. It is only valid
for CBR values of up to about 15. Because of this, further tests were
conducted by the COE Waterways Experiment Station that resulted in a new

CR R -
T
equation and a new versus relation. The statistical equation
Pe
of the best-fit curve from collected data is:
-£- = -0.0481 - 1.562 log (™) - 0.6414 log (— ) (4.15)

Va~ \ e/ V p e'
-0.4730 log (^\
T CBR
Note that Equation 4.15 is also expressed in terms of and . These
P
e
V*7
^•V-.-'-. ..'*.•'..•'..•' VW'.-'V-.'-."-.-'-. '':'\-~'.m ' :•''.•'•'.•'

parameters êre plotted as a combined C3R curve using actual performance
data obtained and is shown in Figure 4-5. Equation 4.15 and the curve
in Figure 4-5 are valid for any C3R. With this in mind, the following
steos outline the procedure for generating a CBR versus thickness curve
for any type of aircraft with any landing gear configuration.
Step 1 . Assure a series of design thicknesses at which
corresponding CBR values will be calculated. A
good interval to use is every 10 inches to 70
inches of depth.
Step 2 . Convert the design thicknesses assumed in step 1
above to standard thicknesses using the load
repetition factors found in Figure 3-3. These
factors are based on the number of anticipated
aircraft passes and the number of main landing
gear tires used to calculate the ESWL.
Step 3 . Divide the standard thicknesses found in Steo 2
by the square root of the area of tire contact.
Enter Figure 4-5 with each value to determine
.. CBR ,
corresponding values.
P
K
e
Step 4 . Determine the ESWL at each of the depths or
thicknesses assumed in Step 1. Divide each
ESWL by the contact area of one tire to obtain
the ESWL tire pressure (p ).
>! .. T _ —
. . ..- ,.
v •.--•.
44
t-l
^
<
\A/j
. - M - »^ mA- ^ - » _
tl J
4b
Step 5 . Multiply each of the -=£ values found in Steo 3

e
by the corresponding d value determined in Step 4
to obtain tne C3R value required below each assumed
thickness .
Step 6. Plot each determined CBR value against the
corresponding design thickness on a semi-log plot.
Figure 4.6 is provided as an example of a CBR versus thickness
design curve. This procedure and the use of the resulting design curve
will be demonstrated as part of a case study presented in Chapter Five.
4.4 Design for Protection Against Frost
Severe frost action can result in the nonuniform heave of pavements
during the winter and spring months because of ice segregation c* the
loss of supporting capacity during thawing. During the winter, ice
lenses are formed in the subgrade voids. As tne temperature begins to
rise in the spring and summer, the upper ice lenses in the subgrade
begin to melt first. Because the deeper ice has not yet thawed, there
is no place for the melting ice to drain. This lack of drainage results
in a loss of strength in the subgrade (6:466).
Some soils are more susceptible to frost than others. The COE has
classified soils according to their susceptibility to frost, as shown in
Table 4-3.
Two methods of frost design have been developed by the COE. The
first method provides a sufficient thickness of pavement to insulate the
subgrade The second method allows for the freezing of the subgrade
and produces a oavement thickness on the basis of a reduced pavement
iL. .'. ' V. n\ ' . • '. ;'- •'. \\ *,

-I rb
'
.
w
^".
.->v
•,< / •
• •>•,.•.•..• .-w C \ -•..•.• V ..:A-.ji -' •-••• ••- '
| ft |
C9«
2 4 6 a 10 20 30 40 SO
l
i 1 '
•
1 ! I 1 i i i 1
1 -
20 sf/
- 30
«•>
f 40
7w _
50
NOTJ.
POI5S0NS RATIO =05

GriOSS WCICHT = 320 MPS
60- —
70-
1
, i , 1 1
1 ,1,1,
Figure 4-6. CBR/thickness Design Curves for the C-141 Aircraft
'
mtmmtKmititmt ^-^^^^£l-l:J:iL:J_ilJ^';J:L':.!:llJ'-' ""'*

;/
>..%
::••:: >•-> •:>•:
..!'
Ll . N V. V. -
','.£'"-','f;"*|';':".'
Table 4-3. Frost Susceptibility
Classification of Soils
.........
Degree of Percentage Typical

Frost frost finer than soil
Type of soil
Group suscepti- 0.02 mm by classifi-
bility weight cation
Fl... Negligible Gravelly soil } to 10 GT, GP,

CO low. GT-GM,
GP-GM.
F2. .. Low to Gravelly soils 10 to 20 . . GM, CSf-
medium. GM,
GP-GM.
3 to 15 SW, SP,
SM,
SW-SM,
SP-SM.
F3... High.... Gravelly soils Greater GM-GC.
than 20
Sands, except Greater SM, SC.
very fine than 15
silty sands
ClaysPt >12 CL. CH.

F4. .. Very high ML-MH.
Very fine silty Greater SM.
sands. than 15
Clays, PK12 CL.
CL-ML.
Varvedclays CL ML,
and other fine SM.CM.
grained.
banded sedi-
ments.
i
".*>*
.N. %
• ......
...... .
—
<~r%.-.
48
strength during the thawing period. The choice of method depends on the
i subgrade material characteristics, the economics of construction at a
particular site, and the allowable amount of nonuniform heave (6:467).
The depths of frost penetration typical of various geographical
regions have been correlated to a number known as the freezing index.
The freezing index is defined as the number of degree-days between the
highest and lowest point!" on a curve of cumulative degree-days versus
time for one freezing season. Such a curve is shown in Figure 4-7. A
degree-day is defined as the difference between the average daily
temperature and 32 degrees, Farenheit.
The freezing index used for design is related to the coldest
winter in a 10 year period, or the average of the three coldest winters
over a thirty year period. Figure 4-8 shows the distribution of design
i n freezing index values for the continental United States. The freezing
index value acquired from Figure 4-8 can be related to the depth of
frost penetration through Figure 4-9, which is a graph of freezing
index versus frost penetration (6:466-467).

} 5
In the first frost design method, some penetration of the frost
v £ into the subgrade is acceptable. From extensive studies, the COE has
rr determined the acceptable amount of frost penetration into the subgrade,
which is dependent on the thickness of the base course. This relationship
is shown in Figure 4-10 (6:467-468). The x-axis of this figure rroresents
the base thickness for a flexible pavement, assuming no penetration of
frost into the subgrade. The base thickness is obtained by subtracting
the thickness of the surface course from the depth of frost penetration
found in Figure 4-9. The y-axis gives the frost design thickness of the
h
r>
• ..... » -— ^
49
::
.800
S 1
.400
-
^
/
J
?
A /
' \ \N
\ ^
\
I
\-»-Utcn O
\ Ciiryf
o IO
CM
s
n -400
\
—
R;
.-.
.--
-eoo
Curve lor COHXSl umler in
\ \ \
Q
__
10 or areroge of 3 coldest \ \ $
watt n o> 30 "
-1200 \
/
/
-1600 /
P F V ^
;:'
-2000
Percd in which tree/rig conditions
> V _ ^s\
0Cfk/- far design yeor.
_1
"("
Spring liost melting tor
design year
-2400 1
NOV DEC JAN FEB MAO APfl
Figure 4-7. Determination of Freezing Index
•**
I
u r
—
p jMHUW
i tliliilin.« I Ui^»j' T—»»^- i i m »
50
OJ
—*
ra
>
X
Hi
ac
—«
i/i
cn 
C — • (
01 C
•f— ^5
f>
aj »—
a <T3
-t->
^~ c
o 
r— c
+-> o
3 <_>
X3
• r- +->
i/l
•
tr
a i
•r—
CO
i-
CD
51
03
1_
M
C
a.
0)
i-
O)
i-
t
'
52
o •-
combined Uticti-ess of pavement
end non-l,-ost-susceptiblf POSt
for tt'O f'CSl penetration into
iubqrcdt (fig tf-45)
c • o-p
», -•
mater content of bote
ws - water con/en/ of SutxjrOCe
fiompte . If c ' 60 and r» 2 0, then
6-40" ana s
-10*
140 35
L
sv
120
08-
VA
// 30
It
1 0, v '
I2>
1 4, X
100 25 5
Y
a
- 20i
A wi^
eo
yy •I 6
60 M?
V
hi
20
R
15
5
%i
40
\J$
Mm
AM
/ {/
20
// ,
4 •inch n"r nmuf n del ion t )ose

r i i i I i i
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ilO 120 130 140 I5C
Bcs« lh>ckn«i$ for jrro IfCTf pt»*trotion into Sub<3rod«,C- mcf*l
Figure 4-10. Design Depth of Non-frost-susceptible

Base for Limited Subgrade Frost
Penetration
53
base and the acceptable depth of frost oenetration into the subarade.
The pivot line are based on values of r, which is a ratio of the sub-
grade water content to the base water content.
The pavement thickness determined from the method described above
should then be comDai-ed to the design thickness determined from CBR
design curves, with the larger of the two thicknesses being used.
In the second method, design diagrams have been developed for
flexible pavements that relate landing gear assembly loads and
configurations to pavement thickness for each of the frost groups shown
in Table 4.3. Figure 4-11 shows a typical design chart for a
particular landing gear configuration. Note that F4 soils are not
included in this chart. This procedure is normally not applicable to
these types of soils, as they can result in nonuniform heave (6:469).
The first frost design method described above should be used for F4 soils
As with the first method, the thickness determined from Figure 4-11
should be compared to the design curve determined thickness, with the
larger of the two being used for design.
r
54
Lood in pound! on twin tond«m otttrrblf ir.< jcl« qtof lpocing

, Jt 63 >n , con roc I
orto 267 in 2 iixt >mii
Figure 4-11. Frost Condi tion; Reduced Subgrade Strength

Design Curves for Flexible Pavements
CHAPTER FIVE
CASE STUDY: PALAU AIRFIELD
5.1 Introduction
The Republic of Palau is a Micronesian archipelago nation located
in the southwest Pacific Ocean about 700 miles due southwest of Guam
(Figure 5-1). It is a former District of the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands (TTPI). The TTPI was created by the United Nations at
the end of World War II, with the United States assuming the role of
administrator, as directed by the United Nations (4:6-7).
The Palau Islands had a combined population of about 15,000 in
1983. There are approximately 200 islands in the archipelago, with
most of the 15,000 people being concentrated on the district center
island of Kcror as shown in Figure 5-2 (4:6-7).
In the 1970' s, the United States Navy undertook a construction
effort known as the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The basic
mission of the CIP was to provide the districts of the TTPI (Palau,
Yap, Truk, Ponape, Marianas, and Kosrae) with basic infrastructure that
would help these tiny island groups to catch up with the rest of
civilization. The for.al point of the construction effort in each of
the TTPI districts was the construction of a new airfield (9:10).
This chapter will present a case study concerning the design and
construction of a flexible pavement airfield in the Palau Islands. The
case study will first give pertinent background information concerning
the project in general, and will discuss the area geography and climate,
55
10* - K\\ ' «o-
n
-
_, HONOLULU
ITlOO"
klr^v
Figure 5-1. Palau and Its Neighbors
loan «'i"
Figure 5-2. Area Map
J
57
Section 5.2 will review the design criteria used and discuss the
actual design as accomplished using the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) design method for flexible airfield Davements.
Section 5.3 will present a design based on the same criteria
using the COE CBR design method. This design will be compared to the
actual FAA design in section 5.4.
It should be stressed that the purpose of section 5.2 is not to
investigate the FAA design method, but rather to present its design
product to make it available for the comparison mentioned above.
5.1.1 Palau Climate and Geology
Palau has nine months of very heavy rainfall, with the other three
being quite dry. On the average, there is about 150 inches of rainfall
per year. The temperature rarely fluctuates lower than 81°F. or over
89°F. The relative humidity is always high, averaging about 82 percent
(9:10).
The upper soils on Palau are evidently the result of a long period
of intense weathering. The dominant weathering processes have been a
reduction in orqanics, rain leaching and atmosoheric oxidation (5:4).
Almost all of the silicates have been removed from the soil, making the
residual soil truly lateritic. The soil in Palau is quite red, due to
the presence of a small amount of iron oxide.
Subsurface soil conditions at the airfield were found to be fairly
consistent across the airfield site. This soil, a red to red brown
residual silt, ranges in thickness from about 25 feet to over 60 feet.
The residual silt changes to a silty sand with a greenish tint with
increasing depth. This layer is typically 15 feet thick and transitions

58
to a hard, well-cemented, volcanic breccia with a greenish tint. This
tint is the result of hydro thermal action subsequent to its formation
(5:4).
The strength of the silt at the airport site is fairly consistent,
ranging from medium-stiff to stiff. It has an average dry density of
57 PCF and an average moisture content of 75 percent. The average
plasticity index is 36 and the average liquid limit is 94. After
being oven dried and compacted to 100 percent relative density, this
soil displays an average maximum dry density of about 86 PCF and an
average optimum moisture content of about 30 percent. Field CBR tests
resulted in a range from 3 to 11, with the average being about 5.
Most of the near surface soil was saturated due to the high quantity of
rain (5:4).
5.2 Palau Airfield Design
5.2.1 Existing Airfield and Design Parameters
The original airstrip was constructed by the Japanese prior to
World War II by cutting down several hilltops and filling the intervening
valleys. Several modifications had been made since the war, with the
final change being an extension from 5,000 feet to 6,000 feet. The
existing runway was quite irregular in profile, with the runway ends
having a difference in elevation of 20 feet. Figure 5-3 shows the
pre-construction runway, lookinq west. The effective runway width was
only 70 to 80 feet in some portions and averaged about 100 feet.
Continental Air Micronesia began making reqular jet flights to Palau
and other TTPI islands from Guam in 1976.
.*»'. *>"!•.
.*»V
,
59
4->
V)
<D
c
o
o
to
C
. o
u
I
O)
i-
Q-
is
fi
- -
- « . . i
- —
\. s >. s. ,Y°.V. '".'• .'• ."• »">> •'» .'\»\» i »"? ^,*j-j>1.j. i
*
« *
»\ » V» *>
-
:
60
5.2.2 New Airfield Cesign and Construction Criteria
The new runway was to be 7,200 feet by 150 feet, with a 175 foot
safety area on each side of the striD. An engineering study was
performed to help determine the most suitable location for the new
airport. Cespite several engineering problems with building on the
existing site, this was decided on as the best option. Extending and
widening the existing runway would require extensive fill operations,
with some fill embankments being 85 to 90 feet. A plan view of the
airfield is shown in Figure 5-4. Note that the center 2700 feet of the
runway is labeled as full depth asphalt. This is noted for informational
purposes only, as this section was designed using the Asphalt Institute's
method of design for full depth asphalt pavements. All other areas of
the runway, taxiway, and apron were designed by the FAA method and are
the topic of discussion here.
Hawaii Architects and Engineers of Honolulu was the design firm
selected by the U.S. Navy to design a major portion of the Palau CIP
infrastructure, including the Palau airfield. The following are the
major criteria used to design the airfield pavement using the FAA
method (3)
(a) FAA design method
(b) Boeing 727-200, design aircraft
(c) subgrade CBR of 5
(d) subbase CBR of 35
(e) base CBR of 100
(f) traffic volume of 8000 annual departures, 20 year life.
Note that the FAA design is based on departures instead of coverages
or passes.
»«»«**"»<"--**- '-- •'-- *'- *-*'- •' •' •'

*--*-*-•
, i" '- • - liUl'i i «. . ti« it i
i i, i -im iM W»*«rfM»tai»ji*adhiMdhi
ii
I
-a
<*-
i-
ra
Q-
a
62
5.2.3 Palau Airfield, FAA Design
j ui Figure 5-5 shows the resulting typical airfield design cross-
section for all pavement areas except the full depth section. Figure 5-6
shows the airfield at 99% complete. Note the two concrete hardstands
on the apron for aircraft parking.
The asphalt wearing course consists of hot mix asphaltic concrete.
The rock base course is crushed basalt that was quarried locally by the
contractor, and the subbase course is composed of dredged coral aggregate
The design cross-section depicted in Figure 5-5 is slightly
different than the as-built cross-section. The only difference in the
two is that the as-built cross-section has a 10 inch cement modified
base, whereas the original design called for a 12-inch non-treated base.
This modification was made after construction had begun, and was due to
C a higher than anticipated plasticity index of the basalt aggregate.

3
The base was treated with 3 percent cement and due to resulting CBR's
in excess of 100, the A/E allowed a reduction in this layer from 12 to
10 inches.
R £
5.2.4 Performance of the Palau Airfield
The construction of the Palau airfield was completed in June of
1983. However, there were portions of the pavement that were completed
and put into service up to one year prior to this time. The pavement
has performed exceptionally well. No load induced distress has been
noted to date. Some minor tension cracking has occurred, and are
thought to be caused by localized subgrade settlement (3).
i f
"" " '••»
] '
63
4 in. A/C' 3 in. A/C

safety
i . area
/ 12 in. base
/ 12 in. base
24 in. subbase 24 in. subbase
I reenter 100 It. of / outside 25 It. of

runway; taxiway;] runway
lapron
no scale
*
] B
S> c-f
i
F Figure 5-5. Palau Airfield Pavement, FAA Design
!-• '
!
>» " " — ......__.. ~ ;
" /;
-
:
-- T ---- -, ;-
54
f :
* rrr~ " —
"""^ jmh- -»-~~ --— ----
"i
V*.
O-
£
oo
**-
s_
APS i
^n Q.
4\ ,- .' * » ^-
[•
'
i m _ i
„ II
.
LJ JJ M WfJ
I
I
"*J - > '! * -y.- M ..^.,
65
The 8000 annual departures designed for is far from being realized.
There have been about 500 departures per year, average, since the
airfield was opened to traffic. Therefore, the pavement is not being
•'•.'
truly tested (3)
5.3 Palau Airfield C8R Design
The following will be a complete CBR pavement design for the
Palau airfield. The design will be accomplished using the C0E CBR
design method and will be based on the same criteria as discussed in
section 5.2 for the actual FAA design.
"^ The design will first discuss four key parameters for CBR design:
a
(a) design CBR of subgrade and subbase materials, (b) minimum pavement
.:! component thicknesses, (c) design aircraft characteristics, and (d) the
forecasted annual aircraft operations.

L
As discussed in section 4.3, this design will incude a demonstration
y. of the ESWL calculations for the design aircraft. This will be followed
by the culmination of a CBR design, the development of the CBR versus
i thickness curves for the design aircraft. The design curves' will then
be used to determine the thickness of each pavement layer. A comparison
of the resulting CBR design will then be made to the FAA design product.
5.3.1 Design Criteria
5.3.1.1 Subgrade CBR Design
As mentioned in section 5.1.1, laboratory CBR determinations
made on the subgrade material showed values ranging from 3 to 11,
with an average value of 5. The A/E based his design on a subgrade
CBR of 5 with the requirement that the contractor remove areas
/-'
:
00
showing CBR values lower than 5, and replace the material with
more suitable material. The Palau airfield CBR design will also
be based on subgrade CBR of 5.
5.3.1.2 Subbase and Base Design CBR Values
Laboratory CBR tests performed on the coral aggregate that was
used for subbase construction resulted in a CBR of 35 (3). The
gradation and Atterberg limits d=ita on this same material is as
fol lows
(a) 3 inch maximum size
(b) 55% passing tne no. 10 sieve
(c) 12% passing the no. 200 seive
(d) unknown liquid limit
(e) non-plastic (PI = 0)
Using this data with Table 4-1, it can be determined that the
maximum permissible CBR is 40. However, because the laboratory
value is only 35, the design CBR for the subbase will be 35. The
value acquired from Table 4.1 cannot be used if it exceeds the
laboratory determined value.
The base course will be constructed of locally quarried basalt
aggregate. A CBR of 100 was determined in the laboratory from
soaked CBR tests performed on this material (3).
5.3.1.3 Minimum Pavement Thickness
In looking at Figure 5-4, it can be seen that the most extreme
loading condition will occur when a fully loaded aircraft departs
and, due to a westerly wind, must take off to the west. This
results in a fully loaded aircraft having to taxi the full length

57
of the runway before turning around to take off. Because the
f,
runway will have to be used as a taxi way in this fashion, the inner
most 100 feet of the full length of the runway will be designed as
a type "A" traffic zone. Of course, the taxiway and apron will
L. also be designed as type "A" traffic areas. The outermost 25 feet
along the runway on both sides will be designed as a type "B"
traffic zone.
From Table 4-2, the minimum type A pavement thicknesses for a
medium-load, 100 CBR base airfield are 4 inches for the asphalt
layer and 6 inches for the base. For type B traffic areas, the
minimum thicknesses are 3 inches of asphalt and 6 inches of base.
Figure 5-7 is a plan view of the Palau airfield showing the layout
of traffic areas.
ia With respect to frost, obviously, this will not be a factor in
'
Palau's tropical climate.
r
w**
t .
5.3.1.4 Design Aircraft
-'-
The design aircraft selected by the A/E for the FAA design
was the Boeing 727-200. Most jet flights made to Palau are made in
this type of aircraft. The CBR design being presented here will
..';
also be based on the 727-200. The following data is considered
pertinent to the design (5:60-61):
II (a) maximum gross weight, 170,000 lb.
(b) main landing gear configuration, dual
(c) tire pressure, 168 psi
i!; (d) wheel spacing, 34 in.
h
—
53
'
/ -o
s I
N
S
V
/
S
N V
N
J
m r^3
v s
7
s Q.
\ N
s
a
>»
s C
CD
D^H
s
s
s
s
s
v
s s
cc
CO
s s o
s
s
3
s
O
00 i a>
i-
>
s
V
N
s >
s s
03
s s
7 : i
s s
>> s
i
s un
s
v
N
>
\ . Z3
v
s C7>
v
i : a
1
t ]
I
5 r*\
k^<\
1
J
59
A shorter version of the 727-200, the 727-100, is shown landing at
the Palau airfield during the construction of the new airfield in
Figure 5-8.
5.3.1.5 Forecasted Annual Aircraft Operations
Because the FAA design method is based on the number of annual
aircraft departures and the CBR method is based on the number of
annual aircraft passes, the two must be equated to each other to
insure that both designs are based on the same criteria.
In looking at Figure 5-4, it can be seen that an aircraft can
arrive at the airfield from either the east or west. Upon arrival,
all aircraft will proceed to the apron, located at the western end
of the airfield, for passenger drop-off and pick-up, and servicing.
The taxiway and apron will recieve two passes per departure. Two
passes is equivalent to 2 x 8000 departures per year for 20 years,
or 320,000 passes. Therefore, for type "A" traffic areas, the
airfield pavement will be designed for 320,000 passes over a 20 year
period.
For type "3" traffic areas, the number of aircraft passes will
be reduced. Because type "R" traffic areas are designed for one-fifth
the number coverages of type "A" traffic areas, this same factor
will be applied to the 320,000 passes being designed for in type "A"
traffic areas, resultina in 54,000 passes over a 20 year life for
the type "B" areas.
These assumptions and estimates of the frequency of loadinqs
are considered to be valid and close to those that the FAA design
was based on.

—
70
"1
3
to
r—
ie
c
>-> c:
KJ o
•r—
cr »->
c U
'
-»— 3
TD L.
C .»->
ro l/>
_J C
O
Oo
o
1 L.
1 OJ
l»« XJ
C\J c
r~~ ZD
CO
- . 1 ..,, — 1
Uifcl
71
5.3.2 ESWL Calculations
Based on the concepts of the ESWL presented in section 4.3.4, the
following calculations will demonstrate the procedure for converting
multiple-wheel landing gear arrangements to equivalent single wheel loads.
The 727-200 aircraft, as stated, has a dual-wheeled main landing
gear configuration. Each main landing gear is assumed to apply 47. 5% of
the aircraft weight to the pavement. With this in mind, a free-body
diagram of one main gear assembly under maximum loading conditions is
shown in Figure 5-9.
As shown in section 4.3.4, P, or the load acting on any one tire
in a multiple-tire assembly, is known. In this case, P = 40,375 pounds,
and the area of tire contact is equal to:
. 40,375 lb.
"
c 168 psi
= 240 in 2
The area, A , is assumed to equal the area of contact of the ESWL tire
and also equal to the area of contact of one tire of the multiple wheel
gear. The radius of the assumed round contact area is equal to:
A
c
a
k
240
8.7 in
72
8tt 750 lb.
I
Tir»N<x1 Tir» No. 2
34 in.
L 1_J. i
P = 40.375 to. P = 40.375 lb.
k k
Q1« — •02
Figure 5-9. Free-body Diaqram of Main Landinq Gear

of 727-200 Aircraft, Fully Loaded
73
Because we are dealing with a dual-wheel gear, Z F. values need
to be calculated at the center of gravity of the assembly and directly
beneath one tire. The condition resulting in the maximum deflection
condition, or the maximum Z F. value, is critical and will be used to
determine the ESWL at that particular deDtn. ESWL values will be
calculated at 10 inch intervals to a depth of 70 inches. Only the
calculation for the ESWL at a depth of 30 inches will be demonstrated.
Again referring to Figure 5-9, points 01 and 02 are the locations
where equivalent single wheel loads will be calculated. For clarity, the
ESWL calculation at point 01 will be referred to as case 1, and case 2
will refer to the condition at point 02.
Case 1 will be investigated first. The depth below the pavement
surface, z, is equal to 30 inches. The offset, r, from tire number 1 to
point 01 is equal to zero. The offset from tire number 2 to point 01 is
equal to the tire spacing, or 34 inches. With this information,
Figure 4-4 can be entered with the deDth in radii equal to 30 divided by
8.7, or 3.45. Deflection factors can be found for both tires by using
an offset, in radii, of for tire number 1, and an offset of 34 divided
by 8.7, or 3.9 f or tire number 2. The deflection factors found in
Table 4-4 are 0.43 for tire number 1, and 0.21 for tire number 2.
Therefore, I F. is equal to the sum of the deflection factors, or 0.64.
For case 2, z is also 30 inches. The offset, r, from tire number 1
to point 02 is eûal to 17 inches. The offset from tire number 2 to
point 02 is also equal to 17 inches. Therefore, the offset for both
tires in radii is equal to 17 inches divided by 8.7, or 1.95 radii.
The depth in radii is, again, 3.45. By entering Figure 4-4 with these
* -. % "• N ."V .V .
-. .N \. '. *. .". .*» ."- .> ."» '.'•.'•".'• '.'•'. s ". s ">"/."I*»Vi
74
values, the deflection factor is found ro be 0.33 for tire number 1
and tire number 2. Therefore, the £ F. value for case 2 is equal to
0.66. These calculations are summarized in Table 5-1.
From Table 5-1, it can be seen that the maximum £ F. value is
equal to 0.66 for case 2. This value will be used to calculate the
ESWL. The ESWL may now be calculated using Equation 4.11.
P. £ F.
k i max
1.5
From Equation 4.12, F = I

+ t
& 1 z/a y
0.42
40,375 (0.66)
Therefore,
0.42
* 62,450 lb.
The equivalent single wheel load in this case, at a depth of 30 inches,
is equal to 63,450 pounds. This fictitious load that is assumed to act
on a single wheel produces the same deflection at 30 inches as the dual
gear shown in Figure 5-9.
The ESWL value calculated at 30 inches may also be expressed in
terms of the percent of assembly load. For example, the 63,450 pound
load calculated above is 78 percent of the 80,750 pound assembly load.
A graph of depth versus percent of assembly load may be constructed
by plotting the percent of assembly load versus depth for ESWL values
calculated at various depths. Tnis was done here and is shown in
»*oO\v,y *»•.%• v v v >"v\,«> j"v •*• -

% •"• - v »• •" •• •• .* .• *• •••
v •. v
/b
Table 5-1. ESVJL Calculations Sunrary
X Depth
r/a=0
Tin* No.
r/a=3.31
If. F
.
(ESVW.)
345 51.524
1
o.sa 0142
Q.43 0.21
r/a=!95 r/a=195
Casa
3.45 0.6« 0.42 83.450
2
0JJ3 QL33
v ' •.' «.' -' '. . » . » . - • . k 'l .

' l'l l'*
•-'-*-'-*- .1. 1-. -->-'. ». 1.1.
9 ,.-, —— ^
,
„ — . _ —___ r _ — _ _—_ B
... .
...
75
Figure 5-1Q. This graph may now be used to easily determine the ESWL at
any depth up to 70 inches. As will be seen, this curve is quite

i Li
convenient f or constructing CBR versus depth curves.
""
'.-
5.3.3 CBR Design Curve Development
* ^ Section 4.3.5 outlined the method for generating CBR design curves
'.-'
for any aircraft loading condition. Once constructed, this curve becomes
-- ['. the main tool used in determining the thickness of each component layer
,'*
.. of the pavement being designed.
"•'
r- Tables 5-2 and 5-3 are a summation of the calculations performed
•;•'. for the generation of type "A" and type "B" traffic area design curves,
J
respectively. Both tables follow steps 1 through 6 as outlined in
['. ;.-. section 4.3.5.
Figures 5-11 and 5-12 are the design curves. They are each a plot
1 G of CBR versus thickness curves for the design aircraft operating at
V 320,000 passes for type "A" traffic areas and 64,000 passes for type "B"
f>
/ traffic areas. Each design curve has been generated by plottinq the
1
fe first and last columns of both Table 5-2 and 5-3. Section 5.3.4 will
[' illustrate the use of these curves.
i
5.3.4 Pavement Thickness Determination
S i^
\[ .. Now that the design curves have been generated, they can be used
[•] .. to illustrate the thickness determination procedure for the total pavement
-'
*-i and each component layer. First, type "A" traffic area pavement
•;"
v thicknesses will be determined.
The total pavement thickness is controlled by the strength, or CBR,

».
•j ^- of the subqrade. By entering Figure 5-11 with the subgrade CBR of 5, a
"'.
. total pavement thickness of 38 inches is found. This is the total design
— l~~~-.
B ! 77
k :•
•%
10
20
"
30
a
] D o
Q
40-
i :i
50
727-200 Aircraft
80.7SO lb. AswrnWy load
l
60
70
40 50 60 70 80 100
ESWL, p«rc»ot of a.tambly load
j r
Figure 5-10. ESML (Percent of Assembly Load) Versus Depth
. — —
78
E
ID cc CO in o CM i*« ,
m r- C\J r^ *3" CO CM ^_
(J "* 1
D
a co CO CM CM ID CO in
a* o
CM
CM
CM
ID
CM
CO
CM
CT> r— CM
CM CO CO
a." 1 m O
r—
O O
CO
o oo CO
LT> lO en CM
<T\ «* 00 o O CO
o «*
LO
CO r-» _, m CO
ID 1X5 p^ r^. r-. 1
p»
i-
rO
>* o
IX)
O
LO
O in
o o o
Lf) in in in
r-. r^ r-« r-. p^ r-«
| s s s
_
i
3
I/O <
jjj O
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o o o O
00 00 CO 00
to
c
o
4->
<TJ >.
»— I
3 * f
O 1
r— LO CM 00 00
5 2 *3- CO CO p-~
1}
t_>
qj
00
-*
5 < 5 <JD m p^ oo CO CTl CT>
1/1
-t->
1/1
<TJ
UJ —o
c o.
1
O)
EO
CO
oo O lO
in
CO
CM
in o r^.
O
CO
in
|

cp
CM
ro
j
O o o o o o o
o.
ai
•»
4->
,
CM
"«*
CO
— T
cc
in
in
in
CM
CO
> H- 1
en
L.
3
T3
S-
o — CM CM CO ** •ci-
O U 1
IX) LT> LT> in in in
u
c • r- in LO LO in in in in
cr.<;
•F—
">
(/I o
o
H
cc:N. T> m'
00 ~j
l_> p^ ,_ CM CO ^r in ID p-^
™ <j — r™ CM CO **- in in r~v
W> JC
CM K
IT) in ID in in in LO
 Cn Ol en CTI CTl en
«3 O o O o O o O
1
c 5
w «• «»
»
•
c
* c CD o O o o o o
o c»-
•£ 1 CM CO *d- in in r~
L 1
r
— —
c" •" -"
*« T« 1
I H«»" *« . ., ., i , i ,,
79
in in VO CM r»» CT> in
OB
U en r— UD "3"
J
ro — CM .
0?
CO
o co
CM
CM
UD
CM
co
in
en
m
f—
is
CM
*
Osl CM CM CM CM en en
a" in
m O
f—
O
in
O
CO
o oo CO i
lO
(lb] o en "3- CO o OCTi CM
ESWL(
o
in
*3-
in VO
in CO
us r-» i r~-
J
B
o
in
O
in
O
m o
in
o
in
o O
in in
3 Sj5 r^ r-« r-» r^ r~. r»» r~-
«* o
00
o
CO
o
CO
O
CO
o o o
CO CO CO
>»
3 * E
<J
X -D
i
T> t/1
- 1 •• 2 CM
m CO
in
CO ^r
CO
co
00
m r^
<_> CJ 5 < ° f-^ en en
-J i/l
UJ —o
C ra
a; CL
b
co
o o - „ en
CM
in
in in CM
en
CM
lO
co
^r
«
C7 m a. r— o CM
o o o
o O o
ai
>
» u
o o o Q Q
CD
*y
lO
1
o o o o
L_> co
** en ^r co CO
u
1
T f— en in n
(Ti
<_>
a;
>
i_
3
4->
«*-
<n
i-
u
»"
^
II
1
<
1
o
IX)
'
in
CM
in
•
CM
in
CO
in
«*•
in
in
in
L. y •
c: -,— in in to
cn«< in in in in
S*
*^ f
o
<s>
o
£ CM
cc r~^ ? -'
C3
U CXJ
r-^
in o o in o O
2 o — p"~
CO
CM rn
in CO* en I
«i £ *T in to r«»
>-
CM CM (M CM CM CM CM
| oo CO CO CO co 00 co
a CO CO CO CO 00 00 CO
* o o o o o o o
f - c o o o o o o o
a Sy -
•"" CM en rr in in r^
»-
I 1
k
>
t
[ ; — - ' ' ——
so
4±t
1
* >
?
H
;
t\
111,*
1 1
•
m
:
-|-rj
'
—
•
i
i
I
>
TM M M
——i— —
'
,
'
— —— — .
'
i .
•
i. »
«
I
f
:
'
f
'"*
m—
*
;
>
;
•
——
-— — —r" —
t !
"
-**"*
'
'
-frrr
i i i i (
«o
o
CO
o
"O
.
<+-
•1
&>
f—
L.
on
O)
V/-I
l/>
13
Q-
<o
—
I
i ; '
o
l
\l ::£:_4J4-
TM
;
1
i 1 '
i
'
3 a»
'
— •
--n
tH~~-I ?~
i t
M-J-— MM 1 ! 1 i
T3
i
s
M o
IX VMM
i 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
III i * .
MM
'
!
.. ; T3 (X)
Q. m
1
.
i
II! '« r:
i
>J !
r
MM Ml!
'
1 r" ,*
V
i
i
i
,
1
! 1 1 ! ! 1
O
!
i I
i I III 111 1 1 1 1
llii
o > i-
00 s
a
c
o
o
1 — CM
t :
<
.... — — ——1_
:
, .
, . . ! '. . .
: i I : : i
r: -:
I
| ,
[
_ i .
-: v
— u—rr
—
---- T
—! : : l {.: : ..
rj CO
— — — —»—
•
» •
1
a>
^-v
—— —
i
•-^\ |
' :
; p- r
:
*
.
• — :
'
i
it 1
' ' —— '
i '
1
\
'
'
-ITTT 1
' ' i ' ' ' -! i . i
' I > [\l 1 »

CH
T~ r^ T~rh M
1 j
' ( 1
Mm
1 1 1
! 1 '
; 1
I i
i i
i±± +4r i-H-tHt
Mil -ftr::4 r
i
;
"t
~
-
iiii
i i
! 1
1 , I
t
j
I
i
t
i ill I
±:
; i
i
1
~_:: i
i
i
t
i
1 1
I
t
::±:::::: T i
1 II
o O o o o
CO 1^
U» *S»H3tMl
-
- — — " — -
81
o
- -j — "-:
O
- - — ._ -TZ- -— - . .—--
o
CO
--• \ — - — ~ -
: —.-
a
—
i
*r-
0)
 i-
L. ^~
a <c
<_s
c
o
o
o-cxi
•*— 1
wi r~-
- - — - - - -
en
— — — \ — -- -—
aj
i.
3
tN
-;-
— — — -
—
O Q O o o o
CO V
131H1
r
82
thickness, t, required to protect the subgrade. The same figure is
next entered with the subbase CBR of 35 to find a combined base and
asphalt layer thickness of 11 inches. Th i s produces a subbase thickness
of 38 minus 11, or 27 inches. Using the minimum type "A" traffic,
medium load airfield asphalt thickness of 4 inches, a base of 7 inches
will be required. This meets the required minimum of 6 inches for a
100 CBR base.
For the type "B" traffic areas, Figure 5-12 is entered with a
subgrade CBR of 5. This results in a total thickness of 36 inches.
The same figure is next entered *ith the subbase CBR of 35 and shows a
combined base and asphalt thickness of 10 inches. This results in a
subbase thickness of 36 minus 10, or 26 inches. Using the minimum type
"8" traffic area, medium load airfield asphalt thickness of 3 inches, a
base of 7 inches will also be required in these areas. This also meets
the required minimum of 5 inches for type "B" areas with a 100 CBR base.
Figure 5-13 is a cross-section of the Palau airfield Davement showing the
results of the designs just accomo 1 ished.
5.4 Comparison of Desicn Results
Because only one design using the two different methods was compared
here, it would be both difficult and unfair to come to any definite
conclusions regarding the ^-elative conservatism of the two methods.
With regard to the Palau airfield design, the CBR design method has
resulted in a similar and slightly less conservative pavement cross-
section.
-^
*
p
n o
Q:
"5 •
.1 •
^
2 3
Qi
CQ
c
CO
O
I
>
a.
in
J
84
The apparent and relatively conservative nature of the FAA method
may be due to the fact that this method is predicated uoon a subgrade
soil rating system. This rating system ranks soil types based on their
FAA soil classification groups, drainage behavior, and frost susceptibility.
Therefore, it is possible for major airfield pavements to be designed
using the FAA method based solely upon soil classification and the
environmental conditions in existance at the site (14:465). It seems
logical that such a basis for design, with all of the variables possible
within each soil group, would need to be sliohtly more conservative.

CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION
6. 1 Conclusion
The intent of this paper has been to present the COE CBR flexible
airfield pavement design method and to illustrate its procedure through
a case study. This writing has also given a thorough overview of
prerequisite topics necessary for an understanding of this and other
airfield desiqn methods.
The COE design method was created out of need for a flexible pave-
ment desiqn method dedicated to airfield pavements. It has been the
basis for several subsequent flexible design methods. As has been shown,
the COE C3R design procedure is clear and concise, and is based on an
irrefutable subgrade strength indicator, the CBR index.
In order to simplify the desiqn procedure, .omouter programs have
been developed by the Army that are particularly useful in determining
pavement thickness requirements for newly designed aircraft. "Canned"
CBR design curves are also available for the various common aircraft
in use today, essentially making it necessary only to estimate the
number of aircraft loading repetitions and determine the subgrade
strength in order to design a flexible airfield pa venter) t.
The author was quite fortunate to have been involved in the
construction of the Palau airfield that was presented as a case study
in Chapter Five. The airfield was completed in June of 1983 and is
85
36
operational today. It offered the U.S. .Navy and its associated engineering
firms and contractors a real challenge to find ways to utilize high
moisture content residual soils for large scale earth fill operations.
The design method just presented is for airfield pavement thickness
determination. It should be stressed that very much more goes into the
total design of an airfield pavement that was not within the scope of
this work. Runway length, alignment, and drainage are a few of the many
aspects involved in a total airfield pavement design package.

.
REFERENCES
1 Ah 1 v i n , R . G . , Developments in Flexible Pavement Design in the

United States , William Clowes and Sons, Ltd., London, 1971.
2. Brown, Donald N. and George M. Hammit, "Flexible Pavement for

Tomorrow's Major Airports," Transportation Engineering Journal ,
Vol. 95, No. TE 4, November 1969, pp. 617-628.
3. Djou, S. K., Civil Engineer, Hawaii Architects and Engineers,

Honolulu, Hawaii, telephone interview, 21 January 1985.
4. Hawaii Architects and Engineers, Inc., Trust Territory Physical

Planning Program, Final Report for Palau District November, 1968. ,
5. Hawaii Architects and Engineers, Inc., Soils Investigation for

Babel thuap-Koror Airport February, 1978. ,
6. Horonjeff, R. and Francis X. Mc.Kelvey, Planning and Design of

Ai rports , McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1983.
7. Martin, Frederick R. and Raymond F. A. Judge, "Design and Evaluation

of Aircraft Pavements," Transportation Engineering Journal Vol. 99, ,
No. TE 4, November, 1973, pp. 735-799.
8. McCarthy, David F., Essentials of Soil Mec han ics and Foundations ,
Reston Publishino Company, Inc., Reston, 1977.
9. Ralph M. Parsons Company, E nvi ronmenta l Impac t Assessment Report ,

Proposed Babel thuao-Koror Airpo r t, Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands Palau District June, 1976.
, ,
10. United States Department of the Navy, Ai rfield P a vements , U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, O.C., 1973.
11. United States Departments of the Navy, Army, and Air Force,
Flexib e Pavement Design for Airfield s, U.S. Government Printing
l
Office, Washington. D.C. 1973. ,
12. United States Amy Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,

Procedures f or th e Develo pment of CB R D esign Curves U.S. Government ,
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1977.
13. Vallerga, Bernard A. and B. F. McCullouqh, "Pavement Evaluation and

Design for Jumbo Jets," Transportatio n Engineering Journal Vol. 95, ,
No. TE 4, November 1969, pp. 639^6~5~77~
14. Yoder, E. J. and M. W. Witczak, Principle s of Pavement Design ,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, "1975.
87
rwm
ZJ
J -J J
J J L
I
/
/
9-85
UNCLASSIFIED
Technical
Report
distributed by
D EFENSE
T ECHNICAL
i NFORMATION
ENTER
-
Acquiring Information
Imparting Knowledge
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

Cameron Station
Alexandria, Virginia 22304-6145
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
NOTICE
We are pleased to supply this document in response to your request.
The acquisition of technical reports, notes, memorandums, etc., is an active,

ongoing program at the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)
that depends, in part, on the efforts and interest of users and contributors.
Therefore, you know of the existence of any significant reports, etc., that
if
are not inDTIC collection, we would appreciate receiving copies or

the
information related to their sources and availability.
The appropriate regulations are Department of Defense Directive 3200.12,

DoD and Technical Information Program; Department of Defense
Scientific
Directive 5200.20, Distribution Statements on Technical Documents
(amended by Secretary of Defense Memorandum, 18 Oct 1983, subject:
Control of Unclassified Technology with Military Application); Military
Standard (MIL-STD) 847-B, Format Requirements for Scientific and Technical
Reports Prepared by or for the Department of Defense; Department of Defense
5200. 1R, Information Security Program Regulation.
Our Acquisition Section, DTIC-FDAB, will assist in resolving any

questions you may have. Telephone numbers of that office are: (202) 274-
6847, (202) 274-6874 or Autovon 284-6847, 284-6874.
DO NOT RETURN THIS DOCUMENT TO DTIC
EACH ACTIVITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DESTRUCTION OF THIS

DOCUMENT ACCORDING TO APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.
UNCLASSIFIED
Thesis
^4533 Destafney
1c. 1 CBR design of flexible
airfield pavements with
case study.
Thesis
D4533 Destafney
c.l CBR design of flexible
airfield pavements with
case study.

CBR Design of Flexible Airfield Pavements With Case Study.: Destafney, Thomas M

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CBR Design of Flexible Airfield Pavements With Case Study.: Destafney, Thomas M

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CBR Design of Flexible Airfield Pavements With Case Study.: Destafney, Thomas M

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive

Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection

CBR design of flexible airfield pavements with case study.

A REPORT PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COMMITTEE

This dc^'T^Tit has been op*) cved

fc: public r;I;aro and rale; 'its

A REPORT PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COMMITTEE

I would like to acknowledge the assistance of my graduate

committee chairman, Professor W. H. Zimpfer, for his assistance

in the preparation of this report and for his outstanding teaching

Professors W. G. Shafer and Z. Herbsman, for their assistance.

I would like to especially acknowledge the invaluable support

of my wife, Camille, whose admirable engineering and home-making

ski i Is have made this undertaking much easier.

I would also like to acknowledge the support of my parents,

most responsible for my making it this far.

My appreciation also goes to the United States Navy for making

this past year of post graduate study possible.

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION 1

1.2 History and Trends in Design 1

1.3 Airfield Pavement Structures 3

CHAPTER TWO - DYNAMIC LOADS AND AIRCRAFT WANDER 9

2.1 Dynamic Effects 9

2.2.1 Lateral Traffic Distribution 11

2.2.2.1 Traffic Areas 16

CHAPTER THREE - PRELIMINARY DATA ESSENTIAL FOR DESIGN 17

3.2.1 CBR Test Procedure 18

3.3 Landing Gear Configurations and Tire Pressures 21

CHAPTER FOUR - CORPS OF ENGINEERS CBR DESIGN AND PROCEDURE --- 27

4.1 History ar.d Development 27

4.3.1 Subgrade and Subbase Design CBR Selection --- 31

4.4 Design for Protection Against Frost 45

!,..,.. „ ....,, — - ^. .,- .,j

CHAPTER FIVE - CASE STUDY: PALAU AIRFIELD 55

5.1.1 Palau Climate and Geology 57

5.2 Palau Airfield Design 58

5.3 Pa"!au Airfield CBR Design 65

5.3.1 Design Criteria 65

5.3.1.1 Subgrade CBR Design 65

5.3.2 ESWL Calculations 71

5.4 Comparison of Design Results 82

CHA D TER SIX - CONCLUSION 85

It is the purpose of this paper to state the fundamentals

involved in the design of flexible airfield pavements utilizing the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) CBR (California Bearing Ratio)

considered to be prerequisites to any discussion of the subject,

including ba^ic pavement theory, aircraft loading effects, subgrade

strength, and aircraft characteristics related to design. The CBR

method of design will be outlined, and an actual design performed in

order to more clearly illustrate this method of designing flexible

1 .2 History and Trends in Design

Airport design and constiuction has become a modern day civil

engineering skill that encompasses all major aspects of the profession.

The rapid development of aircraft size and landing gear wheel

configurations over the past 40 to 50 years has had a profound affect

on the design and construction of one phase in particular, that of

were designed and constructed based on standard, "canned" designs and

cross-sections. During the war, increased bcmbing and transport

requirements of the military created a need for larger and therefore