Rigid Airfield Pavements

Design and Evaluation Methods

2
NOTES

GUIDANCE
 Rigid Airfield Pavements
Design & Evaluation Methods
P.1 Guidance Notes
Summary
This guidance note is intended to give advice on the selection
and use of Rigid Pavement design methods for airfield
pavements – for:
• Those interested in specifying or selecting a design method
suitable for their circumstances – Sections 1 Introduction and 2
1. Introduction
PSA1, BAA2, FAA3 or LEDFAA4; four major design methods (two British
and the two major American) for airfield pavements, including rigid
pavements – which is correct, which represents “best practice”, which
should you use?
In practice there are numerous other design methods (important
methods have been published in French, Japanese and Russian), and
no major published method is “wrong”. Differences between design
methods are caused by a number of factors, including:
• the condition of the pavement at the end of the design life,
• construction practice and material specification,
• analysis methods.
There are also important differences in the scope of design methods, e.g.:
• they may cater for the evaluation of the strength of existing
pavements and the design of rehabilitation and strengthening
requirements.
2. Selecting a Design Method
Selection of a design method will usually depend on three factors:
• Construction practice and material specifications. For instance it
would not usually be practicable to choose an American design
method, linked to American specifications and standards, in the
UK; when British design methods are closely linked to British
construction practice, specifications and standards.
• The pavement condition expected at the end of the design life
(known as the failure criterion), which governs likely maintenance
requirements. In areas where low downtime for maintenance is
vital a design method with a combination of a conservative failure
criterion and a high design reliability (the probability of the
1.
Property Services Agency (PSA) “A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design & Evaluation” (1989)
Selecting a design method only.
• Those interested in using the principal UK design methods –
Section 3 Using a design method.
• Those interested in the background to the principal UK design
methods – Section 4 Derivation of design methods.
• they may be restricted in the range of aircraft or subgrade
strengths covered.
Finally a design method is often linked to a particular material and
construction specification; for instance the PSA design guide was
linked to the PSA specification.
Informed selection of a design method requires some knowledge of
these factors and an understanding of how they may affect the capital
and whole-life costs of the pavement design.
This guidance note provides advice on:
• The selection of a design method – for Clients and Project
Managers (Section 2).
• The use of UK design methods – for Designers (Section 3).
Section 4 gives some general background to the derivation of
design methods
pavement life equalling or exceeding the design life) may be
appropriate. However, the pavement thickness and capital cost will
be higher, and in most circumstances a less onerous design
method will be suitable.
• Whether an evaluation of an existing pavement and rehabilitation
/ overlay design is required.
The failure criterion is usually defined by the proportion of the
pavement area that has failed structurally at the end of the design life,
e.g. “structural cracking of 30% to 50% of bays in the trafficked areas”.
The capabilities and limitations of the four major design systems in use
in either the UK or USA is shown in Table 2.1.
2.
BAA plc “Pavement Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Loading” (1993)

Design Method
A Guide to Airfield Pavement
Design and Evaluation (PSA,
1989)
The BAA Design Guide for
Heavy Aircraft Pavements
(BAA, 1993)
Airport Pavement Design and
Evaluation (FAA, 1995)
LEDFAA (1995)
(NB Must be used in
conjunction with the FAA
design guide3.
Table 2.1 Comparison of design methods
Construction Practice
Covers a wide range of
pavement types including
the preferred new rigid
pavement option (Fig 1 (i)) and
alternatives generally used for
evaluation and rehabilitation /
strengthening design (Fig 1 (ii)
and (iii)). Generally based on
common UK construction
practice, but allows alternative
details, such as doweled joints,
reinforced / continuously
reinforced pavements, cement-
bound soils in lieu of drylean
concrete and unbound bases /
capping layers. Linked to the
PSA specification7, now
partially embodied in Defence
Estates Functional Standards9.
Limited to jointed
unreinforced concrete
pavements on a cement-
bound base (Fig 2).
Linked to American
construction practice, with
little scope for variation of, for
instance, joint details. Covers a
wide range of pavement types.
Linked to the FAA
specification8.
Linked to the FAA
specification8.
Rigid Airfield Pavements
Design & Evaluation Methods
Evaluation & rehabilitation
Failure Condition
Developed for UK military
airports. Intended to give
minimum whole-life cost for
pavements where the cost of
disruption due to
maintenance is low.
Developed for BAA airports.
Highly conservative, intended
to give minimal pavement
downtime for structural
maintenance on very heavily
used pavements. Intended to
give minimum whole-life cost
for pavements where the cost
of disruption due to
maintenance is high.
Developed for American civil
airports. Intended to give
minimum whole-life cost for
pavements where the cost of
disruption due to
maintenance is low.
Developed for American civil
airports. Intended to give
minimum whole-life cost for
pavements where the cost of
disruption due to
maintenance is low.
Guidance Notes
/strengthening design
Comprehensive ability to
evaluate existing pavements
and design rigid overlays.
Very limited capability for
evaluating the strength of
existing pavements. No
capability for the design of
rigid overlays to existing
pavements.
Comprehensive ability to
evaluate existing pavements
and design rigid overlays.
Very limited capability for
evaluating the strength of
existing pavements. Has a
capability for the design of
concrete overslabs to existing
concrete pavements.
P.2
Limitations
Covers a limited range of
concrete strengths.
May under-design some joints
on very heavily trafficked
pavements.
Has graphs for limited ranges
of aircraft and subgrade
strengths, and considers only
one concrete strength
(concrete strengths may be
accounted for by the use of a
separate chart providing an
approximate modification to
the basic design, or by the
use of the associated design
spreadsheets - see Section 3.2).
May not design joints
correctly if the pavement
construction falls outside
common ranges.
Requires new graphs for new
aircraft. Has not been
extended to cover aircraft
such as the Boeing 777 and
Airbus A340.
FAA only recommend the use of
LEDFAA where the aircraft traffic
mix includes Boeing 777 aircraft.
Based on a computer
programme covering fixed
aircraft.
May not design joints correctly
if the pavement construction
falls outside common ranges.
 Rigid Airfield Pavements
Design & Evaluation Methods
P.3 Guidance Notes

Figure 1.

i. Preferred New ii. Traditional

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

Jointed Induced transverse

Unreinforced joints without
Pavement Quality mechanical load
Concrete (PQC) transfer devices

Drylean Concrete

iii. Multiple Slab

Rigid Pavements
(for evaluation, rehabilitation and strengthening design)

Pavement Quality Concrete Pavement Quality Concrete

Drylean Concrete
Concrete

Concrete

Figure 1: Rigid pavement constructions included in A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation.

3. Using a Design Method
This section provides advice for designers on using the two UK design
methods, A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation1 and The
BAA Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Pavements2, lists the known
limitations of the two methods and describes the dangers of mixing
design methods.
3.1. A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation
The standard design methods of A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design
and Evaluation cover:
• Rigid pavements comprising jointed, unreinforced, concrete slabs
on a cement-bound or bituminous-bound base course, without
mechanical load transfer devices at joints.
The design methods can also be used for:
• Jointed, reinforced, concrete pavements.
• Doweled concrete pavements.
• Concrete pavements on an unbound base or directly on the
subgrade.
Evaluation of all of these pavement types is described, together with:
• Multiple slab pavements (bonded, partially bonded or unbonded
concrete overlays on concrete).
• Composite pavements (bituminous surfacing on concrete).
Problems with the guide include:
• Concrete strengths.
• Aircraft Classification Numbers.
• Design Charts for new or unusual main wheel gears.
The design charts cover a limited range of concrete strengths. The low
end of the range is rarely a problem; but the high end can be,
particularly when evaluating older pavements. Limited extrapolation is
possible, but otherwise higher strengths cannot be accommodated.
The ACNs given in Appendix B are out of date and need to be
supplemented by manufacturer’s data for recent aircraft.
The Design Charts do not cover modern 6 wheel main wheel gears (e.g.
Boeing 777 and Airbus A380), or unusual main wheel gears such as the
Jointed Induced transverse
Unreinforced joints without
Pavement Quality mechanical load
Concrete (PQC) transfer devices
150mm Drylean Concrete
300mm Unbound Sub-Base
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) 20MN/m2/m
Figure 2: BAA Standard Constructive Practice.
Rigid Airfield Pavements
Design & Evaluation Methods
Guidance Notes P.4
Lockheed C5, Antonov 124 and Antonov 225. Designs can be obtained by
using the Dual-Tandem charts, although it is currently uncertain as to
whether the results are conservative or not. (NB if designs are un-
conservative the result is a reduction in the design reliability).
When using A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation it is
very important to understand the relationship between the design
flexural strength of concrete and the specified strength, and the design
guide should be read in conjunction with Pavement quality concrete for
airfields9.
3.2. The BAA Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Pavements
The principal problem with The BAA Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft
Pavements is the limited range of aircraft, subgrade strengths and
concrete strengths covered by the design charts. In particular the
aircraft mix considered typical in 1990 is no longer adequate.
The design guide is accompanied by a spreadsheet for rigid pavement
design (Fig 3) which allows the concrete strength to be varied and also
allows mixed aircraft use to be easily dealt with. However, the
spreadsheet holds the standard range of aircraft and requires
modification for an alternative aircraft mix.
For aircraft other than those in the standard mix, it is necessary to
calculate the maximum flexural stress in the concrete slab for the
standard pavements shown in (Fig 2), and the range of concrete slab
thicknesses included in the spreadsheet, and then transfer the stresses
to the spreadsheet. The aircraft data, including the Pass-to-Coverage
Ratio must also be entered in the spreadsheet. The stresses should be
calculated using the multi-layer elastic analysis program JULEA, using
the pavement model shown in (Fig 6).
Subgrade strengths other than the standard values, and between the
minimum and maximum standard values can be dealt with by using
interpolation, giving a reasonably accurate result. For values outside
the standard range, or accurate results, the stresses should be
re-calculated as described above.
The design guide includes a chart that gives an approximate
modification to the design thickness for alternative concrete
strengths. For an accurate design the spreadsheet should be used.
Jointed Induced transverse
Unreinforced joints without
Pavement Quality mechanical load
Concrete (PQC) transfer devices
150mm Drylean Concrete
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k) 40, 80, 150 MN/m2/m
 Rigid Airfield Pavements
Design & Evaluation Methods
P.5 Guidance Notes

It is possible to use the BAA design method for pavement constructions • Interface Friction.
other than those shown in (Fig 2), as long as the following parameters • CBR or k to Elastic Stiffness relationships and Poisson’s Ratio of the
are not altered (see Section 4.1): subgrade.
• Elastic stiffness and Poisson’s Ratio of concrete.

BAA plc Rigid Pavement Design Charts File RIGCDF2.xls (Originator: John Barling) v.2 issued 10/10/97.
PQ Concrete Flexural Strength N/mm2 k80 stresses corrected to agree with
Design Factor (DF) = a+b LOG C 6
Design Factor (DF) = MR/STRESS a= 0.48 b= 0.39
Design Life Years
Annual Growth Rate % 30
0

Aircraft B777-200 B747-940 B747-400 MD11 Wing B767-300 B757-200 B737-400 BAel 146-300 B747-600X A3XX 20W A3XX24W
AN Depart 0 0 3700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gross WT lb 592000 940000 851000 621000 405125 256000 150500 98000 1250000 1700000 1254000
% Gross WT 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Subgrade Ult. Low Low Medium High

PQC mm 440 390 330 295

Cumulative Damage Factor

1000

Ultra-Low
100
Low
Medium
CDF

10
x x High

1
250 300
x 350 400 450 500 550 600

0.1
Slab Thickness (mm)

Figure 3: Output example from BAA design spreadsheet

 Rigid Airfield Pavements
Design & Evaluation Methods
Guidance Notes P.6

3.3. Known limitations with sub-bases using the BAA design guide is to model them by
In addition to any described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 there are some multi-layer elastic analysis.
other limitations with both the principal UK design methods, described • Mixing material equivalency factors. If a design method includes
in Table 3.1. equivalency factors to convert one material to an equivalent
3.4. Mixing design methods thickness of another material, they should not be altered.
Design methods should not be mixed! A good design method, such as the • Using entirely different techniques from other design
four described in this document, is a coherent system with components methodologies, e.g. using the Method of Equivalent Thicknesses to
that are logically dependant on each other. Used out of context the combine pavement layers.
results can be misleading or completely wrong. Typical examples are:
• The use of information from road design methods. There is rarely
• The use of the PSA graph for the effective Modulus of Subgrade any justification to show that design information suitable for
Reaction on an unbound sub-base under a rigid pavement in roads are correct for airfield pavements where the magnitude of
conjunction with the BAA design guide. In practice one of the the loading may be an order of magnitude higher, and the
reasons for the production of the BAA design guide was a concern frequency of trafficking several orders of magnitude lower.
that the PSA graph overestimates the effective Modulus of
There are some parts of design methods that are external to major
Subgrade Reaction under heavily loaded, thick concrete slabs, so
assumptions used in the derivation of the method, and they can be
using the PSA graph removes one of the drivers for higher
exceptions to the rule. An example is the statistical method used to
reliability in the BAA design guide. The correct method for dealing
calculate the Pass-to-Coverage ratio.

Table 3.1 Limitations of UK design methods

Design Method Limitation Comments

A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation
Longitudinal joints in pavements for heavy aircraft,
when subjected to regular trafficking normal to
the joint
Standard longitudinal joints are butt joints without
mechanical load transfer devices. In the majority of
cases they perform well. However, there is some
evidence that regular trafficking normal to the
joints by heavy aircraft such as the Boeing 747, e.g.
on some aprons, can cause premature failure.

The BAA Design Guide Pass-to-Coverage Ratio The formula given in Section A of Pavement Design
Charts and Computer Programs is incorrect for the
common case of traffic normally distributed about a
centreline. The correct formula is given in Appendix
E of A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and
Evaluation1.

Flexural strength of concrete The relationships between flexural and compressive

strength given in Equations 10 and 11 in Performance
of Base Slabs (Flexible Overlays on Rigid
Pavements) are very optimistic and likely to over-
predict the actual flexural strength of the concrete.
Alternative methods are given in A Guide to Airfield
Pavement Design and Evaluation1 or paragraph 684
of Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation3.
 Rigid Airfield Pavements
Design & Evaluation Methods
P.7 Guidance Notes
4. Derivation of Design Methods
This section describes the background to the derivation of rigid
pavement design methods, and particular details of the two UK design
methods, A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation1 and The
BAA Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Pavements2.
4.1 The challenge
A rigid pavement design method has to determine a pavement thickness
that will provide the required pavement performance, i.e. an amount of
cracking equal to the failure criterion after the design movements by the
aircraft mix. Unfortunately, it is not possible to directly predict performance.
Design methods work by relating pavement behaviour (deflections,
stresses and strains), which can be approximately calculated, to
performance by a “black box” function (Fig 4). The black box has to be
obtained by relating measured performance from full-scale testing, or long-
term loading, to calculated behaviour for the actual pavements (Fig 5).
The result for a rigid pavement is an approximate relationship between
something that can be calculated (concrete stress) and performance in
terms of allowable load repetitions.
4.2 Empirical and analytical design methods
A differentiation is often made between so-called “empirical” and
“semi-empirical” design methods, and “analytical” or “mechanistic”
design methods.
Empirical design methods combine the behaviour calculations and the
“black-box”, into a single empirical (i.e. derived from testing) relationship
between the required pavement thickness and the loading and subgrade
strength. The term semi-empirical is used when the original empirical
relationship has been extended to other situations by the use of theory.
Analytical or mechanistic design methods use a theoretical method to
calculate the pavement behaviour, before applying the “black box” to
obtain performance. All of the design methods descried in Section 2 are
basically analytical, although both A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design1
and Evaluation and Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation3 use
empirical relationships to deal with multiple slab pavements.
4.3. Analysis methods
Two methods of analysing the behaviour of a rigid pavement are used:
Figure 6: BAA Pavement Model
• Westergaard solutions for stresses at the centre, edge of corner of
a finite plate on a dense liquid (Winkler) subgrade (A Guide to Airfield
Pavement Design and Evaluation1 and Airport Pavement Design and
Evaluation3).
• Burmeister solutions for stresses in a multi-layered semi-infinite
pavement on an elastic half-space (The BAA Design Guide for Heavy
Aircraft Pavements2 and LEDFAA4), often known as Multi-Layer
Elastic Analysis.
Each method has advantages and disadvantages. Multi-Layer Elastic
Analysis allows better account to be taken of bases and sub-bases, and
may have a more accurate subgrade model, but cannot deal with edge or
corner loading. The adequacy of the slab edges and corners has to be
dealt with by theoretical relationships to the stress at the slab centre,
which may not be accurate outside a relatively limited range.
Westergaard solutions can deal with edge and corner loading, but cannot
take accurate account of the effect of bases and sub-bases.
More accurate analysis methods using 2D plate theory or 3D Finite-
Element Analysis are in use in research and development but have not
yet been incorporated into routine design methods for various reasons,
including the requirement for re-calibration against performance data.
4.4. A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation
Rigid pavement design in A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and
Evaluation is based on an analysis of stresses in the concrete using
solutions of the Westergaard equations, together with an Allowable Live
Load Stress criterion derived from measured long-term performance of
a set of pavements.
4.5. The BAA Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Pavements
Rigid pavement design in The BAA Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft
Pavements is based on an analysis of stresses in the concrete using
Multi-Layer Elastic Analysis, together with an Allowable Live Load Stress
criterion derived from US Army Corp of Engineers full-scale testing.
Analysis is based on the pavement model shown in (Fig 6), using the
program JULEA.
Concrete Slab
E = 27586 N/mm2, µ = 0.15
h = variable
0% Horizontal Shear Transfer
Drylean Concrete
E = 5171 N/mm2, µ = 0.2
h = 150 mm
100% Horizontal Shear Transfer
Subgrade
E = 4.970 x k0.7741, µ = 0.4
h=∞
Rigid Pavement
 Rigid Airfield Pavements
Design & Evaluation Methods
Guidance Notes P.8

Figure 4. Pavement Behaviour and Performance

Developed by
correlation with
full-scale testing or
long-term performance.

Concrete Slab Deflection Cracking

Concrete Stress "Black Box"

Bound / Unbound Base Aircraft Concrete Failure

Coverages Flexural Criteria
Strength
Subgrade
Inputs
Pavement Behaviour Pavement Behaviour
(an approximation is calculated by analysis) (cannot be directly calculated or practicably directly measured)

Loading parameters: Pavement Parameters:

• Wheel load • Layer thicknesses
• Tyre pressure • Material properties
• Subgrade strength
 Rigid Airfield Pavements
Design & Evaluation Methods
P.9 Guidance Notes

Figure 5. Derivation of Failure Criteria

Test Aircraft Test Aircraft
(measured Coverages to Failure)

Pavement Quality Concrete – Pavement Quality Concrete –

known thickness known thickness

Calculated stress

Subgrade Subgrade
known strength known strength

Stress
Test Aircraft
(measured Coverages to Failure)

Coverages
Pavement Quality Concrete – Pavement Quality Concrete –
known thickness known thickness

Calculated stress

Subgrade Subgrade
known strength known strength

Test Pavements with Relate calculated behaviour

measured performance Calculated Behaviour to measured performance

5. References
1. PSA. “A Guide to Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation”. HMSO.
1989.
2. BAA. “Pavement Design Guide for Heavy Aircraft Loadings”. BAA.
1993.
3. FAA. “Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation”. Advisory Circular
150/5370-6DD, Federal Aviation Administration. Washington DC. 7
July 1995.
4. FAA.“Airport Pavement Design for the Boeing 777 Airplane”.
Advisory Circular 150/5320-16. Federal Aviation Administration.
Washington DC. 22 October 1995.
5. WOODMAN G.R. A commentary on “A Guide to Airfield Pavement
Design and Evaluation”. Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs, Transp. 1992. 95.
Aug. 167-172.
1. 2.
6. Acknowledgements
The Britpave Technical Committee would like to thank Graham
Woodman (WSP Group) for assistance in the preparation of this
Guidance Note, and John Cairns, Richard Moore and Glyn Davies of TPS
Consult, Bob Lane of BAA and John Cook of Defence Estates for their
contribution to its preparation.
Further details on Britpave are available at
www.britpave.org.uk
Rigid Airfield Pavements
Design & Evaluation Methods
Guidance Notes P.10
6. LANE R. WOODMAN G.R. and BARENBERG E.J. “Pavement Design
Considerations for Heavy Aircraft Loading at BAA Airports”. Proc.
ASCE Speciality Conf. “Airport Pavement Innovations – Theory to
Practice”. Vicksburg, MS. September 1993
7. PSA. “Standard Specification Clauses for Airfield Pavement Works”.
PSA Airfields Branch, 1989.
8. FAA. “Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports”. Advisory
Circular 150/537-10A. Federal Aviation Administration. Washington
DC. 1 September 1991.
9. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE. “Pavement Quality Concrete for Airfields”.
Specification 33. Ministry of Defence. 1996.
All advice or information from Britpave is intended for those who will
evaluate the significance and limitations of its contents and take
responsibility for its use and application. No liability (including that
for negligence) for any loss resulting from such advice or information
is accepted.
Century House, Telford Avenue, Crowthorne, Berkshire RG45 6YS
Tel. 01344 725731 Fax. 01344 761214

www.britpave.org.uk