CAPSA 2015 – Peer reviewed published papers

Review of experiences with Ultra-Thin Friction

Course Performance on Airport Runways
Arno Hefer
Emile Horak
Henry Heathcote
Ross Hess
Ndodana Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd, Centurion, South Africa

Elsabe van Aswegen

Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd, Johannesburg, South Africa

Arvind Jeewan
Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) SOC (Pty) Ltd

Abstract—Ultra-thin friction course (UTFC) as a proprietary
thin surface course has found increased application on roads, as
well as airport runways. The technology of purpose built asphalt
paver machines, proprietary tack coat formulations, and grading
specifications for application in the roads industry, has
proliferated to the extent that generic specifications were
implemented by SANRAL and a framework developed for
Agrément certification. Similar specifications have been used in
airport applications to evaluate the performance of these
products. Road and runways are, however, different and
performance measurements and/or methodologies and
interpretation of such results are not directly applicable to
airport runways. The paper presents and discusses experience
with the performance of UTFCs constructed on various runways
including Bloemfontein, Upington, Kimberley, Port Elizabeth
and Mthatha Airports. Background to these projects and UTFC
products are provided and assessment of performance based on
relevant parameters and criteria presented. Additional criteria,
such as the interface bond and aggregate source and quality
variation during contracts are discussed in terms of the above
mentioned performance outcomes. Various proprietary products
are available in the South African market, as well as new
innovative technologies, such as the use of bitumen rubber and
tack-less tack coats, which enable conventional paver use. The
potential of the use of these technologies for airport applications
to reduce risks during construction and long term are discussed.
Keywords—UTFC; Ultra-thin friction course; asphalt
performance; runway surfacing
I. INTRODUCTION
The concept of ultra-thin friction courses (UTFC) and its
history have been documented well [1, 2]. These thin surfacing
systems were originally developed as proprietary products
designed for specialised applications to offer high quality
functional properties, such layer drainage capacity, superior
wet weather skid resistance, spray reduction, and noise
reduction. The first UTFC construction undertaken in South
Africa was in 1999 on road facilities. The products initially
introduced to the South African market were internationally
developed and proven [2]. Application directed UTFC design,
including its potential use for airport runways, received much
attention during the first decade after launching this technology
in South Africa [3, 4].
Utilization of these proprietary products in the road
building industry has led to the development of acceptance
control systems linked to performance guarantees and
measurable performance indicators, such as riding quality,
texture depth and visual condition. In 2005 a framework for
Agrément certification of thin bituminous surfacing systems
was introduced. This process provided for certification of
locally developed UTFCs and allowed client bodies to specify
Agrément certified products [2].
Following the introduction of generic UTFC specifications
[1], performance criteria and extended three year guarantee
systems evolved that were implemented by SANRAL [2].
Whilst these principles could be applied to airport applications,
performance measures and criteria had to be revisited.
The paper presents experiences with different UTFC
products on a number of airport runway projects. Different
environments and ages offer the opportunity to report on
current performance and hold potential for future monitoring.
Whilst basic design aspects are discussed, the focus in this
paper is on performance, using parameters relevant to runways.
Finally the potential use of innovative technologies to reduce
risk during construction and long term are considered.
II. PROJECTS
The authors have been involved in a number of airport
airside rehabilitation and upgrade projects where UTFC
technology was implemented. Table I summarises the projects,
UTFC year of completion, and the quantity paved.
 CAPSA 2015 – Peer reviewed published papers
TABLE I. UTFC AIRPORT RUNWAY PROJECTS
Airport
Project Description
Project
pletion
a
UIA Friction course on Runway 17/35
Rehabilitation of Main Runway 02/20
BFIAb and friction course on Secondary
Runway 12/30
Rehabilitation of Main Runway 02/20
KIAc
and Secondary Runway 10/28
Rehabilitation of Secondary Runway
PEIAd
17/35
MA e Fastrack airport airside infrastructure
upgrade: New Main Runway 14/32
a.
Upington International Airport
b.
Bram Fischer International Airport at Bloemfontein
c.
Kimberley International Airport
d.
Port Elizabeth International Airport
These projects include four regional airports managed by
the Airports Company of South Africa (ACSA), namely
Upington, Bloemfontein, Kimberley and Port Elizabeth.
Mthatha is currently still managed by the Eastern Cape
Provincial Department of Transport.
Structural conditions and improvements of the existing
runway pavement facilities were determined and verified via
detailed investigations. Traffic forecast and analysis does not
form part of this paper, but all of these airports are on the
medium to low traffic exposure when compared with OR
Tambo and Cape Town International Airports. The design
aircraft in most cases is also a typical narrow body aircraft,
such as a Boeing 737. In addition to structural needs,
improvement of runways to meet the ICAO Annexure 14
requirements regarding safety was a primary objective. The
runway end safety areas (RESAs) were improved from the
minimum standard of 90m long to the preferred length of
240m. Geometric upgrades involved various detailed mill and
asphalt build up with asphalt base material to improve the cross
fall, as well as smoothing of longitudinal profiles across the
improved cross sections to better meet the ICAO Annexure 14
standards. These improvements also had to link in with
improved basic drainage facilitation on the runways involved.
In all cases a UTFC surfacing was specified to improve
macrotexture and to improve drainage and skid resistance in
wet weather.
The Mthatha airport airside was upgraded as a fast track
design build project. This airport upgrade posed a specific
problem with regards to a high once off peak traffic demand
for the associated High Visibility Event (HVE) linked to the
funeral arrangements of the late Nelson Mandela and very low
normal scheduled air movements afterwards [5]. Among other
facilities, the project included a new 2720 x 45 metre main
runway with 7.5 metre wide surfaced shoulders and 240 metre
RESAs. The new runway received a UTFC surfacing to
achieve ICAO skid resistance and macrotexture requirements
and to complement geometric safety provisions.
III. ASPECTS OF SPECIFICATIONS, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
UTFC Generic UTFC specifications originally published by
Com- 2 Gilbert, Olivier and Galé [1] evolved into a mature system
m
implemented in the SANRAL Standard Specifications for road
2008 288 550 works [6]. This performance based system covers all aspects of
UTFCs in terms of the extended three year guarantee system,
2008 204 758 quality assurance, performance measurements and criteria,
remedial work and payment items. This specification system
2013 219 077 was adopted on all projects, with changes related to
performance measurements and criteria. Measurements, criteria
2013 54 135 and performance appraisal are the subjects of subsequent
2013 103 200
sections.
As a terminology reference, UTFC can be defined as a cost-
effective open to semi-open ultra thin hot mix asphalt wearing
course, applied on a relatively thick modified binder tack coat,
with the objective to provide enhanced long-term functional,
e.
especially friction, properties. Whilst the products used were
Mthatha Airport mostly proprietary, aggregate grading, composition and
quality, and mix volumetric ranges were typical as shown in
Table II. Basic mix parameters were monitored and subjected
to specified tolerances similar to acceptance control of
traditional asphalt. A 13.2 mm maximum aggregate size with
target UTFC thickness of 20 to 25 mm was used on all
projects. Larger maximum aggregate sizes are preferred for
higher wheel loads and to ascertain achievement of adequate
macrotexture levels. In addition, opting for a larger aggregate
size potentially generates larger voids, which are less
susceptible to clogging [7].
Table III outlines the different UTFC systems,
environmental and supporting conditions. Both UL-M (“ultra-
mince” or very thin) and Novachip products are Agrément
certified, whilst non-certified mixes have been used
successfully on other projects. Project locations and climates
vary from Arid to Dry Sub-humid. In general, environmentally
linked durability dictates the life of asphalt layers on airport
facilities due to low traffic intensity [8]. Moreover, open-
graded mixes designed with interconnected voids and high
permeability are prone to aging and failure by ravelling. This is
also the primary structural failure mechanism associated with
UTFCs, although less open-graded with more mastic compared
to conventional open-graded mixes [3]. The basic film
thickness parameter is critical to long term durability of these
mixes and should be carefully controlled. In addition, a
modified binder was used on three projects, which ought to
increase mix durability and lower susceptibility to drain-down
during construction [7].
TABLE II. TYPICAL MIXPROPERTIES
Mix Property Representative Value/ Range
Maximum Aggregate Size 13.2 mm on all projects
13.2 mm fraction 64 - 75%
Crusher dust and fillerfraction 25 - 36 %
% Passing 2.36 mm sieve 21 - 28%
Polished Stone Value ≥ 48
Aggregate Crushing Value ≤ 21
Flakiness Index ≤ 18
Marshall Voids 12 - 15%
Voids-in-Mineral Aggregate 21 - 25%
Binder Film Thickness 9 - 13 microns
 CAPSA 2015 – Peer reviewed published papers

TABLE III. UTFC SYSTEMS, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUPPORTING CONDITIONS

Project/ Environmental UTFC System Support

Thornthwaite Tack Pre-treatment/
Binder Aggregate Max. Deflection Base Layer Index
Location Moisture Class Product Rehabilitation/
Type Type (/m2) (YMax) a, micron (BLI) a, micron
(Index) New Construction
Arid
Upington UL-M EVA Quartzite 0.65 Main: Pre-treatment 1390 640
(-51.5)
Dry Sub-humid Main: Rehabilitation 500 170
Bloemfontein UL-M EVA Dolerite 0.60
(-18.0) Secondary: Pre-treatment 990 670
Semi-Arid Roadspan Main: Rehabilitation 660 290
Kimberley AE2 Dolerite 0.60
(-34.5) UTFC Secondary: Rehabilitation 740 280
Dry Sub-humid
Port Elizabeth NovaChip 50/70 Quartzite 0.55 Secondary: Rehabilitation 890 430
(-18.2)
Dry Sub-humid Much Asphalt
Mthatha AE-2 Dolerite 0.61 Main: New construction 470 180
(-12.3) UTFC
a.
Calculated from deflection bowl measured under 120 kN FWD Load

Lime was used in mixes at Upington (UIA) and
Bloemfontein (BFIA) with expected improvement in aging
resistance and adhesion. The mix used at Port Elizabeth (PEIA)
included an anti-strip agent.
The projects vary in terms of actions performed and thus
potential supporting conditions. Falling Weight Deflectometer
(FWD) deflection bowl parameters, Maximum Deflection
(YMax) and Base Layer Index (BLI) are listed in Table III to
provide an indication of support. According to the updated
benchmark ranges proposed by Horak, Emery and Maina [9],
YMax below 1500 micron and BLI below 600 micron
represent sound or relatively stiff airport pavements. At UIA
and the secondary runway of BFIA, the existing facilities only
received surface pre-treatment in the form of crack sealing and
selective asphalt mill and replace. These runways signal
marginally sound to warning conditions. Rehabilitation work at
Kimberley (KIA) and PEIA focused on geometric correction
by mill and asphalt build-up. The main runway at BFIA
received structural strengthening by continuous deep milling
and replacement, including an asphalt base, followed by a
continuously graded medium asphalt layer supporting the
UTFC. Bowl parameters for these rehabilitated runways
indicate stiff support. The newly constructed main runway at
Mthtaha Airport (MA) comprises a bitumen stabilized crushed
stone base with a continuously graded medium asphalt layer
supporting the UTFC. Bowl parameters confirm stiff
supporting conditions.
Traditionally, UTFCs are constructed on a thick modified
binder tack coat laid in a single pass with a special self-priming
paver [1]. The self-priming system applies the tack coat
directly in front of the mix, triggering a “migration process”
that enhances penetration, interface fusion, adhesion and
sealing [1, 2]. The modified tack typically consists of 65%
cationic emulsion modified with selected polymers (and other
enhancers) to provide a durable, waterproof membrane, with
maximised adhesion and fine crack reflection resistance [2].
Even though UTFCs are mostly paved with modified self
tacking pavers, the unique paving plant equipment can be
exposed to high demand, which can influence project progress,
particularly if night work is done and during very strict time
windows. In the case of KIA the lack of availability of such a
modified paver forced the application of a normal paver with a
proprietary tack-less tack coat application also using
conventional equipment. Short experimental work on site
indicated what the correct formulation and cooling off period
were to prevent paver pickup of the tack coat. As alluded to,
the different projects represent a variety of aged, fresh, and
combinations of substrate conditions. The application rates
reported are within the typical range; 0.5 /m2 for new asphalt
surfacing up to about 0.7 /m2 on aged, or open, coarse
surfacing. PEIA essentially received a continuously graded
medium asphalt blanket overlay after geometric correction. At
KIA, some coarse sections received tack applications up to
0.8 /m2. In 2004, Pretorius, Wise, and Henderson [3] cited the
following application criteria based on their review of the
literature.
TABLE IV. APPLICATION RATE CRITRIA [3]
Substrate Condition Application Rate a
New Asphalt Base 0.65 - 0.75 /m2
Rich and/or fine Dry, open textured
Existing bituminous textured surfaces surfaces
surfacing
Min. 0.8 /m2 Max. 1.2 /m2
a.
Emulsion tack coat application rates based on a 65% net bitumen content
IV. PERFORMANCE
Indicators commonly used to assess UTFC performance on
airports include visual indicators, skid resistance, texture depth,
and roughness. These indicators have also been included in
performance based specifications. This section reports on the
performance of UTFCs of different ages and interprets data
using criteria relevant to runways.
A. Visual Indicators
Table V summarises visual indicators for the projects under
consideration. The service life of UTFCs is commonly
expected to be about 10 years with the primary mode of failure
being ravelling. On airports, ravelling poses a hazard in terms
of damage to aircraft components and operation of the system.
ICAO Annexure 14 calls for the surfaces of airport airside
facilities to be kept clear of any loose stones or other objects
that may cause a problem in this regard. Pitting and ravelling of
the UTFC at UIA occurred after about 5 years in service. This
was limited in extent and degree though. Notwithstanding the
 CAPSA 2015 – Peer reviewed published papers
TABLE V. LATEST UTFC VISUAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Airport
Aggregate Loss and/or
Surface Texture
Cracking
Limited loss and cracking of Still good with open
warning degree, mostly textured surface
UIA
attributed to aging and
reflective cracking
No loss or cracking observed. Still good with open
BFIA textured surface
No loss with localised Very good
KIA reflective cracking observed with open textured
outside keel area surface
No loss limited current use. Very good
PEIA with open textured
surface
No loss and no cracking Very good with open
MA
textured surface
generally higher aging potential of airfield surfaces and
intrinsic aging-prone open mix structure, aging at UIA are
further aggravated by its location in an arid environment with
known high ultra-violet exposure.
Although the authors have not been involved in UTFC post
construction investigations at these airports, they have
observed top-down cracking on other UTFCs due to early
aging and traffic loading which may very well be the case at
UIA. Early cracking recorded at KIA are mostly attributed to
old sealed cracks that had propagated from the substrate
through the UTFC. These cases indicate that UTFCs are
sensitive to reflective cracking and potential top-down crack
mechanisms which can be ascribed to the relatively rigid and
open structure; each void represents a defect and potential
starting point for the initiation of fracture. This observation
emphasises the importance of using thick modified tack coats.
Reduced UTFC tack coat application rates became common in
the road industry to prevent risks of bleeding and this practice
was also assumed for airports. However, the relevance of using
lower tack coats on runways is disputed due to lower traffic
intensities, more aggressive environmental exposure as well as
the demand to resist higher shear forces at the UTFC-substrate
interface.
Visual indicators suggest that texture and water run-off
functionality were generally retained on all projects. As
indicated elsewhere storm water runoff is a function of ICAO
motivated correct cross fall and longitudinal geometric
standards and not merely the application of an UTFC [10]. In
all of these projects the geometry was either radically improved
or close to optimum requirements or designed on the optimum
level to facilitate storm water runoff better. More detailed
testing was performed in this regard and is reported on in
sections to follow.
Rubber deposited in the touchdown zone by aircraft tyres
can create slippery conditions and obliterates paint markings.
Experience in Europe suggests that UTFCs exhibit self-
cleaning properties with regard to rubber deposits [11]. In
South Africa, none to low rubber build-up have been reported
for UTFCs [3,4,11]. Observations included in Table IV
Summary of Observations
Water
Rubber Build-Up
Run-off
Good. Run-off inside layer and through surface texture Limited due to
low ATMs
Good, Run-off inside layer and through surface texture. General Limited due to
side drainage and subsurface drainage improved during this low ATMs
project.
Good. Run-off inside layer and through surface texture. General None due to low
drainage was a problem before but side drainange and shoulder ATMs
runoff was improved as special maintenace project
Good. Run-off inside layer and through surface texture. General None due to low
side drainage and subsurface drainage improved during this ATMs
project.
Very good. Run-off inside layer and through surface texture. None due to low
General: new strip and proper cross fall and geometry provided. ATMs
indicate that limited to no rubber removal were required on the
projects under consideration. Naturally, the degree of rubber
deposit also depends on the type and volume of aircraft.
B. Skid Resistance
Wet friction on runways is generally measured with
continuous friction measurement devices (CFMD) provided
with a smooth tread tyre and equipped with artificial-wetting
features. In South Africa, the Grip Tester had been used for
many years with recent introduction of the Mu-meter. The data
presented are therefore based on Grip Tester measurements
available up to 2013. Only one of the four runways was
measured in 2014, and using the Mu-meter.
ICAO Annexure 14 requires that paved runways be
constructed or resurfaced to provide surface friction
characteristics at or above a minimum level. Whilst this level
should be specified by the State, ICAO provides guidance for
establishment of friction criteria representing a design level for
new surfaces, maintenance planning level, and a minimum
level [12]. Levels applicable to Grip Tester measurements are
shown in Table VI for the two recommended test speeds,
namely 65 km/h and 95 km/h.
The ICAO Airport Services Manual, Part 2 [12] states that
an average wet friction value at each test speed for the entire
runway length should be obtained when the runway is clean.
The test width should cover both tracks straddling and at a
distance from the centreline that represents most operations.
Whilst average values along the whole runway length are
assessed, Annexure 14 stipulates immediate initiation of
corrective maintenance when any portion of a runway is found
to be below the specified minimum level, including notification
of the portion and its location.
Table VI to follow summarises friction data collected over
the short term, generally associated with performance
guarantee periods. The results presented are based on Grip
Number (GN) data reduced to 10 m intervals and speeds
generally within 1.5 km/h of the target speed. Measurements in
tracks at the 3 m and 5 m off-sets were combined.
 CAPSA 2015 – Peer reviewed published papers

TABLE VI. SUMMARY OF WET FRICTION - FIRST 3 YEARS

Measured with Grip Tester at 65 km/h Test Speed

Average % Below % Below % Below

Time
GN Range DL (0.74) ML (0.53) MinL (0.43)
Completion 0.65 - 0.79 57 - 99 0-5 0

First Year 0.74 - 0.81 2 - 60 0 0

nd rd
2 - 3 Year > 0.74 0 0 0

Measured with Grip Tester at 95 km/h Test Speed

Average % Below % Below % Below

Time
GN Range DL (0.64) ML (0.36) MinL (0.24)
Completion 0.56 - 0.71 40 - 95 0 0

First Year 0.61 - 0.71 2 - 70 0 0

nd rd
2 - 3 Year > 0.63 0 0 0
a.
GN: Grip Number
b.
DL: ICAO Design Level
c.
ML: ICAO Maintenance Level
d.
MinL: ICAO Minimum Level
It is commonly accepted that the design level is difficult to
achieve shortly after construction. This is due to the aggregate
microtexture being masked by a film of bitumen resulting from
the manufacturing process. The effect of this film on skid
resistance reduces over time with exposure to the climate and
traffic. The data suggest that the design level is generally
achieved within a year based on average friction, although a
substantial portion of the runway may still be lower. It is
significant that the UTFCs generally exhibit friction values
above the recommended maintenance levels within this critical
period. Friction values at or above the design level over 100
percent of the facility can only be expected during the second
year. Although these phenomena are well known, they are
seldom effectively provided for in specifications which may
lead to unrealistic expectations of the product in the short term.
Fig. 1 presents the long term wet friction at 65 km/h of
three runways where this information was available. The data
suggest a remarkable increase in average friction values over
the first two years, with a gradual decrease thereafter. It is
generally accepted that a reduction of friction occurs over time
with exposure to traffic. The data for tracks 8 m from the
centreline were included as a datum. Whilst this data confirm
higher relative friction values outside the aircraft operational
zone, a gradual reduction in friction is still present.
Fig. 1 indicates that all UTFCs exhibit friction values above
the design level for the first five years after construction. Only
Runaway 02-20 at BFIA reached the design level threshold in
year five. Friction measured with the Mu-meter in 2014 (year
6) confirms this result. Based on the current friction reduction
rate, the friction at all facilities should remain above the
maintenance planning level for at least another five years and
up to the 10 to 12 years expected service life.
FIG. I: LONG TERM FRICTION PERFORMANCE OF UTFCS
C. Texture Depth
ICAO Annexure 14 recommends an average texture depth
(or macrotexture) for a new runway surface of not less than
1 mm. Macrotexture facilitates bulk water drainage from the
surface, thereby controlling the reduction of wet friction with
increase in speed. UTFCs further improve the efficiency of this
process by removing additional surface water through internal
voids. According to the FAA [11,13] a reduction in texture
depth would not normally be considered an issue, as long as the
wet runway friction is above the minimum specified limits.
This should again be interpreted against the broader picture of
all aspects which contribute to a safe runway in wet weather
[10]. The contribution of macrotexture per se is lower than
adherence to optimal cross fall and smooth longitudinal
geometry as one example.
The texture depth criterion is based on representative
discrete sampling using the sand patch test (or volumetric patch
method) to obtain the mean texture depth (MTD). Caution
should, however, be exercised when using this method on
mixes with high interconnected voids, as this can result in
overestimates of texture depth. Nowadays essentially
continuous measurements are commonly obtained with laser
profilers. Data are processed in 10 m intervals to mean profile
depth (MPD). The following equation can be used to convert
MPD to an estimated texture depth (ETD) contained in ISO
13473-1:
ETD = 0.2 + 0.8·MPD (1)
Although no internationally agreed relationship exists between
MTD and MPD, the ISO standard states that the error in the
transformation equation is much less than the variability
associated with the volumetric patch method due to operator
and equipment factors. This relationship was therefore assumed
in processing of all data.
Table VII summarises texture depth data available for all
projects. The data show that achieving texture depths in excess
of 1 mm is normally not a problem on newly constructed
UTFCs.
 CAPSA 2015 – Peer reviewed published papers

TABLE VII. TEXTURE DEPTH E. Supplemental Perfromance Tests

UTFC Age Average %< Minimum It is known that horizontal force during landing and turning
Runway
(years) (mm) 1mm (mm) movements on airport pavements peak on the surface up to
about 50mm below the surface [15]. It has been shown before
UIA 17/35 2 1.2 <1 0.9
that if the interlayer bond of thin surface treatments is not intact
BFIA 02/20 2 1.1 28 0.8 and in good order that horizontal forces can cause typical
BFIA 12/30 2 1.1 28 0.8 crescent shaped shear cracks and debonding. This clearly has
KIA 02/20 <1 1.5 0 1.1 significant safety risks in terms of foreign object debris (FOD).
KIA 10/28 <1 1.2 3 0.5 A relatively thin surface treatment, such as a UTFC, would
PEIA 17/35 <1 1.8 <1 0.9 therefore be in that danger zone of exposure to high shear
deformation and potential debonding on a runway.
MA 14/32 <1 1.8 0 1.2
The Torque Bond Tests (TBT) is not commonly specified
or even part of recommendations in ICAO documents, but
Even though a relatively high portion of the measurements forms part of the Agrément certification process for UTFCs
fell below the 1 mm target at BFIA, Fig. 1 shows that good [16]. Cores were drilled for TBTs on a number of these airports
skid resistance were still obtained in year 2. projects. This testing did not initially form part of the planned
evaluation process, and the majority of the tests were therefore
The virtually single sized grading of UTFCs is probably the
not done during the specified time window (28 to 56 days after
main factor which provides for good mactotexture. It was
construction). Nevertheless, the torque bond values shown in
observed that typical flakiness index and strict gradings
Table VII clearly illustrate gain in shear resistance with time.
specifications form the basis of this product. An interesting
Also interesting is the fact that the PEIA UTFC with the lowest
aspect was observed on MA, where due to various industry
tack application rate, exhibits a value above the indicative
supply problems, at least four different material sources were
400 kPa criterion proposed in the Agrément guideline
utilised. The designs were checked in all cases and they all met
document; albeit marginally, considering the time of testing.
specification as laid down. However, when the average least
dimension (ALD) of the 9.5mm nominal size aggregate was Based on the UTFC performance reported previously, these
evaluated, it showed some interesting trends in the actual application rates serve the airports under discussion well.
macrotextures measured on the completed MA runway. ALD is However, the airports represent relatively low traffic and
normally associated with seal work, yet higher ALDs showed especially the secondary runway of PEIA experiences low
better macrotexture values as well. intensity traffic loading. Molenaar et al. [11] specified an
D. Roughness application rate of 1/m2 to achieve torque bond values of at
least 600 kPa for UTFC construction at OR Tambo
Roughness is implied by good geometric longitudinal International Airport.
smoothness. In all cases the airports were either improved in
this aspect to meet the ICAO criteria fully or the new designed Enhanced surface drainage of UTFCs is basically implied
and constructed airports achieved the optimum design with the designed high texture depth or macrotexture. However
standards. Runway geometric upgrade projects typically not all proprietary UTFCs cater for drainage via interconnected
involve milling and asphalt build-up. Evaluation of the voids, or permeability, as well. In general, reduced
substrate roughness before constructing the UTFC is functionality of systems designed for inter-layer drainage can
recommended and should be encouraged by appropriate be expected over time due to clogging. The occurrence and rate
specifications. These projects normally warrant inclusion of a of clogging, however, depends on the local environment. It is
thin continuously graded asphalt blanket layer (essentially a true that higher traffic volume airports may in fact also suffer
binder course) to protect the pavement from water ingress after from rubber build up influencing macrotexture as well as inter-
milling an old layer or build-up with asphalt base material. layer drainage.
Such a layer also enhances the runway smoothness before
constructing the UTFC. TABLE VIII. TORQUE BOND AND LCS DRAINOMETER TEST RESULTS

It is important to mention that airport roughness - the Airport 3 Months 1 Year 1.5 Years 2 Years 7 Years
measurement and interpretation - are significantly different to
Torque Bond Values (kPa)
the standard practice and standards developed for roads. One
aspect is that a runway has finite length while a road is PEIA 448 - 802 - -
continuous, which in itself influence measurement technology KIA - 595 - >1000 -
and methodology. Most importantly, road roughness is defined
in terms of road user comfort, whilst runway roughness UIA - - - - >1500
parameters are (or should be) dictated by fatigue of aircraft
components and operational safety aspects. However, this did Interconnected Voids (%)
not form the focus of this paper as it is addressed in detail in
KIA - - - 22 -
another paper. Refer to Emery, Hefer and Horak [14] for
further information. UIA - - - - 17
 CAPSA 2015 – Peer reviewed published papers
The interconnected voids were determined using the LCS
drainometer test (Sabita Manual 17) on UTFCs at KIA (after 2
years) and UIA (after 7 years) as shown in Table VIII. Both
mixes exceed the criteria proposed by [3] of >16% initially and
>12% after trafficking. The results therefore confirm good
inter-layer drainage capacity after many years in service.
V. ALTERNATIVE UTFC TECHNOLOGY
The potential use of bitumen rubber modified UTFC in
South Africa has been recognised in the past [3, 11]. TRAC
piloted and implemented this technology in recent years by
constructing BR UTFCs on sections of the N4 East Toll Road.
The authors in collaboration with Roadmac Surfacing and
Much Asphalt successfully applied a bitumen rubber UTFC
overlay on the R23 special maintenance contract in 2014.
The data and discussions presented above suggest that the
two primary risk factors that influence UTFC long term
performance is durability due to the inherent porous nature and
thus exposure of the mix to moisture and oxygen; and
sensitivity to reflective cracking and potentially top-down
cracking, due to the high-void- rigid mix. The advantages of
using rubber crumb modification of UTFCs for airport
applications are therefore evident. Bitumen rubber modified
asphalt mixes have long been used on rehabilitation projects in
South Africa with great success to mitigate reflective cracking.
In addition, its inherent resistance to aging attributed to the
presence of carbon black is well known, and offers an ideal
solution to enhancing the long term performance of UTFCs on
runways.
Aspects of performance of the BR UTFC overlay on the
R23 are briefly highlighted. A modified emulsion tack
application rate of 0.8 /m2 was used. As part of the
supplementary tests performed on airport UTFCs reported on
in this paper, Torque bond tests and LCS Drainometer tests
were also performed on the R23 BR UTFC. The average torque
bond value after 10 months is 770 kPa. This value is relatively
high, as expected, and compares with the KIA UTFC torque
bond value after 1.5 years as shown in Table VIII. The LCS
interconnected voids after 10 months of road traffic is 16%
with a range of 13% to 18% for the six tests performed. These
values are slightly lower compared to the drainage capacity of
the older, traditional UTFCs presented above. Pretorius et al [4]
excluded the BR UTFC mix from their trial sections as it
appeared to be prone to closing-up, presumably based on
gyratory compaction data. Nevertheless, the R23 data indicate
that acceptable inter-layer drainage can be expected.
Grip Tester measurements were performed within the first
two weeks after UTFC constructing. A test speed of 95 km/h
was included to enable evaluation of the skid resistance using
criteria for runways. The results summarised in Table IX
indicate good comparison with conventional UTFCs.
TABLE IX. R23 BR UTFC SKID RESISTANCE RESULTS
Measured with Grip Tester at 95km/h Test Speed
Project
% Below % Below % Below
GN Range
DL (0.64) ML (0.36) MinL (0.24)
R23 0.31 - 0.80 99 1 0
As experience with these mixes show, skid values below
the design level but above the maintenance level is normal
within the first year after construction. While these skid levels
pose no operational risks, an increase to the design level can be
expected in the second to third year.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The paper presents experiences with the performance of
different UTFC products constructed on various runways in
different climates with ages ranging between 2 and 7 years.
Visual indicators, skid resistance, texture depth, and roughness
performance are discussed and data presented.
• All UTFCs performed well based on visual data.
Premature ravelling of low extent occurred on one
airport in an arid climate. Early, but limited cracking
occurred on two airports representing partially
rehabilitated substrates and in semi-arid and arid
climates.
• Historic friction data show that the ICAO maintenance
level can be achieved directly after construction.
Friction level at or above the design level can only be
expected during the second to third year. Specifications
should allow for this phenomenon to prevent unrealistic
performance expectations.
• Texture depth criteria for runways are normally based
on volumetric patch measurements and data should be
interpreted as such. Historic data suggest that achieving
texture depths in excess of 1 mm is not normally a
problem on newly constructed UTFCs.
• Evaluation of the substrate roughness before
constructing the UTFC is recommended and should be
encouraged by appropriate specifications. Factors that
drive road roughness criteria are different from those
determining runway roughness criteria. As such road
roughness criteria should not be applied to runways.
The data suggest that tack coat application rates should be
optimized for different substrate, traffic and durability
demands. In general, consideration should be given to using
richer applications of tack coat on airports as durability and not
traffic induced bleeding problems will be the issue to design
for. LCS Drainometer results for UTFCs on two airports show
good long term inter-layer drainage functionality.
The two primary risk factors that influence UTFC long
term performance is durability and sensitivity to reflective and
potentially top-down cracking. Bitumen Rubber UTFC is
recommended for use on airport pavements and offer
advantages in mitigating ageing and cracking in general.
Performance data collected on a recent road contract where this
technology was used suggest that BR UTFC should perform
well if used on airports.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors acknowledge The Airports Company South Africa
(SOC) Ltd. for granting the opportunity and permission to
collect and publish this data.
 CAPSA 2015 – Peer reviewed published papers

REFERENCES [9] E. Horak, S. Emery and J. Maina, “Review of falling weight

[1] T.M.Gillbert, P.A. Olivier, and N.E. Galé, “Ultra-thin friction course:
Five years on in South Africa,”Proc. 8th Conf. on Asphalt Pavements for
Southern Africa (CAPSA), 12 - 16 September, 2004.
[2] C.J.Roux, D.R. Rossmann, and L. Kannemeyer, “Critical review of
performance of UTFC in South Africa,” Proc 10th Conf. on Asphalt
Pavements for Southern Africa, Champagne Sports Resort, KZN, 11-14
September, 2011.
[3] F.P. Pretorius, J.C. Wise, and M. Henderson, “Development of
application differentiaded ultra-thin asphalt friction courses for Southern
Africa,” Proc. 8th Conf. on Asphalt Pavements in Southern Africa
(CAPSA), 12 - 16 September, 2004.
[4] F.P. Pretorius, A. Jeewan,I. Sambo, and J. Grobler, “Development of
optimal runway friction systems for Southern African international
airports,” Proc 10th Conf. on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa,
Champagne Sports Resort, KZN, 11-14 September, 2011.
[5] E. Horak, S. Emery, A, Hefer, S. Lacante, and P. Agema,”Fast track
planning design and build of a new runway at Mthatha airport,”11th
Conf. on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa (CAPSA)”, in press.
[6] SANRAL, “SANRAL works contract pro-forma for 2014” Section
B9000, South African Roads Agency (SOC) Ltd, Pretoria, South Africa.
2014.
[7] G. Huber, “Performance survey on open-grade friction course mixes,”
NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 284, Transportation Research
Board, National Academy Press,.Washington DC, 2000.
[8] E. Horak, S. Emery and I. Mihaljevic, “Balancing asphalt rut resistance
with durability and safety requirements on runway rehabilitations,”
XXIVth World Road Congress, Mexico City, 26 - 29 Sept., 2011.
deflectometer deflection benchmark analysis on roads and airfields,”
Proc. 11th Conf. on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa.”, in press.
[10] Horak E, Emery S and Morton, B (2010) Roughening up a wet
pavement surface. 4th SARF/IRF Regional Conference for Africa.
Somerset West, South Africa. 11–13 Oct.
[11] P.J. Molenaar, P. Agema, and H.Marais, “The development of a new
thin friction course for Tambo International Airport in South Africa,”
Proc 10th Conf. on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa, Champagne
Sports Resort, KZN, 11-14 September, 2011.
[12] ICAO, “Airport services manual, pavement surface conditions, Part 2,”.
Doc 1937 (4th Ed.). International Civil Aviation Organization, 2002.
[13] FAA, “Measurment, construction, and maintenance of skid-resistant
airport pavement surfaces,” Advisory Circular 150/5320-12c, Federal
Aviation Administration, US Department of Transport, 1997.
[14] S. Emery, A. Hefer, and E. Horak, “Roughness on runways and
significance of appropriate specifications and measurement,” Proc. 11th
Conf. on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa.”, in press
[15] E. Horak, J.W. Maina, and S. Emery,“A case study: quantification and
modelling of asphalt overlay delamination on an airport pavement,”
Eight International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads,
Railways, and Airfields, June 29 to July 2, 2009, University of Illinois,
Urbana Champaign.
[16] Agrément,“Guideline document for the assessment of and certification
of thin surfacings,” Version 2.0, Agrément South Africa, Pretoria, 2008.