KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2021) 25(4):1424-1432 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808

DOI 10.1007/s12205-021-1884-x www.springer.com/12205

Surveying and Geo-Spatial Engineering

Analysis of an Airport Pavement Management System

during the Implementation Phase
a a a
Alessandro Di Graziano , Eliana Ragusa , Valeria Marchetta , and Antonio Palumbob
a
Dept. of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, Catania 95125, Italy
b
S.A.C. Società Aeroporto Catania S.P.A., Airport, Catania 95121, Italy

ARTICLE HISTORY ABSTRACT

Received 21 October 2020 The study analyzes an airport pavement management system (APMS) during the implementation
Revised 16 November 2020 phase. After a report on the characteristic of an APMS and a literature review on its application
Accepted 23 November 2020 all over the world, the research work focuses on a case of study related to one of the most
Published Online 5 February 2021 relevant airports in Southern Italy. To define a maintenance program, the evaluation of data
available relating to inventory data, pavement condition and performance curves is the
KEYWORDS essential prerequisite. The latter concern the identification of critical areas, in order to
subsequently define the maintenance alternatives. The obtained findings concern the
Airports planning of M&R activities over the years. Depending on pre-established scenarios, the design
Airport pavement management system choices are the result of the most profitable strategy among those technically admissible. The
APMS study highlights current limitations of the implemented APMS regarding data available. For this
Pavement condition reason, subsequent studies will improve the system through the implementation of traffic and
Performance
climate conditions data as well as the evaluation of collateral costs. Moreover, it is possible to
confirm that the use of an APMS is important from the first phase of implementation, as it
allows to simplify and rationalize some processes, even if it is still necessary to implement the
database with further data, also to solve the inevitable approximations on the performance
curves. Furthermore, the calibration of the latter will improve the maximization of network
conditions and the cost / benefit ratio. Anyway, the paper provides useful information to
practitioners for future applications, highlighting at the same time the research steps still to be
taken to get a more efficient APMS.

1. Introduction adopted strategies, there could be different effects on the future

The optimal management of pavement infrastructure designed
for aircraft movement represents a fundamental objective for
airport managers. Considering pavement as an asset of unlimited
duration is an incorrect conception that could pose serious risks
to circulation. The thorough knowledge of pavement - qualitatively
and quantitatively - represents the first step in having the right
awareness of possible issues affecting it. It is in this context that
pavement management systems are developed. Historically,
most agencies responsible for managing airport pavements have
made decisions regarding maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R)
through an experience approach or an existing approach (Federal
Aviation Administration, 2014).
Today these methods have become obsolete, as they do not
meet the current airport needs. Furthermore, depending on the
conditions of pavement. Therefore, the use of an airport pavement
management system (APMS) becomes fundamental as it predicts
the benefits of possible interventions in an objective and rational
manner.
In the next sections, a report about the features of an APMS
and a literature review on its application all over the world
represent a theoretical point of view for the following case of
study related to one of the most relevant airports in Southern
Italy. Referring to the first application of an APMS, it is essential
to start with analysis processes on inventory data and performance
curves to proceed then with the identification of the critical areas
and the design choices. In this regard, this paper highlights the
importance of APMS from the first implementation phase, analyzing
its potentiality and limitations. In this step there is a need to
implement the database with further data, for instance to solve

CORRESPONDENCE Alessandro Di Graziano adigraziano@unict.it Dept. of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, Catania 95125, Italy
ⓒ 2021 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

inevitable approximations on the performance curves, but there
is already a significant simplification of all the analysis processes
leading to design choices. The main target of this study is therefore
to provide useful information to practitioners for future applications
and highlight at the same time all the other research steps still to
be taken to get a more efficient APMS.
2. Rules of APMS
The earliest pavement management system was developed in the
United States and Canada in the late Sixties (Finn, 1998; Haas et
al., 2015), only later in Italy. It was initially applied only in the
road sector (Cafiso et al., 2002). In airports, it began to be used in
the 1980s, initially for runways (Ismail et al., 2009a). Several
methods implemented in highway PMSs can generally be
transferred to the airport management context without difficulty
(Gendreau and Soriano, 1998). In fact, it is known that runway,
like also highways, are susceptible to deterioration which, if not
controlled, could result in safety risks for aircrafts taking off or
landing (GAO - United States General Accounting Office, 1998).
The main objective of an APMS is to support airport managers in
making decisions. It provides the tools and methods necessary to
ensure the correct pavement operation through the designing and the
planning of interventions in the short, medium and long term.
To achieve the objectives, it is also necessary to conduct an
optimization process. In fact, nowadays, one of the main purposes
of every project planner is often to plan activities with limited
resources in discrete time units and at a minimum total cost
(Cajzek and Klanšek, 2019).
One of the greatest potentials of an APMS is not to evaluate
the current pavement conditions, but to predict its future conditions
as a function of time and, in particular, the relative cost of
rehabilitation at various times throughout its life (Federal
Aviation Administration, 2014). The estimate of the deterioration
rate becomes essential to realize the optimal period in which to
apply M&R activities and to avoid possible higher future costs. It
is important to highlight that this type of curve is theoretical as it
evaluates only the rehabilitation costs. Taking account of all the
external costs entails an inevitable change of approach (Odoki et
al., 2015), but they are important for the selection of the preferred
pavement design and rehabilitation strategies (Wang et al., 2016).
For instance, the growth of air traffic in recent years has meant
that flight delays have important repercussions, not only on
airlines, but also on airport passenger experience and related
inconveniences (Malandri et al., 2019).
Choices should be made after identifying the cause of pavement
deterioration, the costs and the effects of possible M&R activities. A
rapid deterioration depends on numerous factors, such as
construction type, quality, pavement use in terms of traffic,
climatic condition and applied maintenance. Often the critical
condition is not easily identifiable. In fact, the pavement may not
have obvious signs, consequently maintenance and rehabilitation
interventions may not be easy to plan. In this scenario, an APMS
allows the identification of the most appropriate activities during
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 1425
the pavement life cycle.
There are numerous regulatory references relating to APMS
throughout the world:
1. In America, the Federal Aviation Administration has issued
AC 150/5380-7, whose latest version is AC 150/5380-7B,
released in 2014. It highlights the ability of an APMS to
provide objective and systematic procedures for maximizing
benefits and minimizing costs (Federal Aviation
Administration, 2014).
2. In 2018, ICAO published the Eighth version of Annex 14.
In Chapter X it is recommended to use a preventive
strategy in M&R activities (ICAO, 2018).
3. In Europe, the Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 establishes
the technical requirements and administrative procedures
to be implemented at all airports (EASA, 2014).
4. In Italy, the main regulatory reference is the LG 2015/03–
APT – Airport Pavement Management System that contains
the necessary criteria available to an APMS for the planning
and carrying out of the necessary checks and M&R activities
(ENAC, 2015).
In accordance with the international regulations, the macro-
operations that an APMS can perform are: 1) collect and archive
data relating pavement network condition; 2) evaluate pavement
condition, using the help of performance indicators; 3) predict
future pavement condition in terms of performance evolution
and degradation through appropriately calibrated mathematical
algorithms; 4) determine the consequences on pavement condition
and its life cycle costing after performing any possible M&R
alternatives; 5) estimate the necessary budget to achieve specific
management objectives, which consist of maintaining pavements
above a specified minimum acceptable condition; 6) identify the
optimal maintenance strategy, according to airport needs, which
allows to formulate and define M&R priorities.
In order to develop these activities, the decision-making processes
of an APMS are divided into two application levels (Federal
Aviation Administration, 2014): network-level management and
project-level management. The first determines the critical areas.
At the project-level management, instead, a specific section,
previously identified, is examined to make decisions on the most
cost-effective M&R alternative.
Consequently, an effective and efficient APMS should include a
database and an advanced analysis tool. There are various aspects
that characterize an APMS: 1) inventory data; 2) pavement condition
data; 3) data storage and georeferencing methods; 4) technical
specifications of software for APMS.
Regarding APMS software, it needs to include a database and
a solver: the first one is important for data storage while the second
one conducts the analyses through calibrated mathematical
algorithms at network or project level. The latter therefore
minimizes the subjectivity of decision making.
3. Application of APMS in the World
Maintaining airport operations is one of the main objectives of
1426 A. Di Graziano et al.
airport managers. Although dated, a 1991 study on Full-Cost
Approach to Airport Pavement Management (McNerney and
Harrison, 1995) relates to an assessment conducted at Dallas/
Fort Worth International Airport in order to make a comparison
between the intervention activities of the taxiways and to
estimate the cost due to the closure of the runway. Based on the
airline delay, its closure costs were $ 131.000 per day in bad
weather and $ 110.000 per day in good weather. Considering the
increase in air traffic in recent years, it is reasonable to imagine
that today the cost of a runway closure would be higher. In this
regard, an APMS provides a support for a more accurate
estimation, even if this process is often still in an evolving phase.
The use of an APMS is increasingly popular in the world.
Since 2003, some research has been conducted in the United
States and it has been found that the APMS has become more
diffused over the years. The results obtained in 2016 show that
78% of the US Airports with active APMS have used it for more
than 15 years (Covalt et al., 2019).
The process of implementing an APMS is not unique but it
depends on each airport. Regardless of the importance and size
of an airport, the use of expert systems represents the knowledge,
experience and judgment of an expert pavement engineer (Ismail et
al., 2009b). In this respect, PWGSC (Public Works and Government
Service Canada) has provided guidance for the implementation of
an APMS in small and medium-sized airports. The document
specifies the importance of a computerized software program as
a management support (PWGSC, 2002).
According to a survey of the Federal Aviation Administration
in 2011, a software application is used by all airport agencies that
have an active APMS. In detail, about 20% use external consultants
to manage their APMS (Federal Aviation Administration, 2011).
The development of technology has led to an evolution of APMS
software.
The infusion of the new spatial technologies such as GIS has
enhanced the development of Management Systems (Hadidi et
al., 2016). In 1994, it was predicted that GIS would be widely
used by 2004 (Haas et al., 2015). This prediction has indeed
found confirmation: today it is difficult to find an APMS that
does not use GIS and GPS technologies. Nowadays GIS is
increasingly used also in public authorities (Morova et al., 2016).
In recent years, BIM (Building Information Modeling) has been
integrating with existing systems to the development not only of
design and construction, but also of management of facility
data, reliability and life cycle maintenance. BIM is based on
interoperability, which is one of the fundamental aspects in the
digitization of facilities (Abbondati et al., 2020). Currently, I-
BIM used for airports are very limited, however there are all the
prerequisites for it to evolve in the future (de Oliveira et al.,
2020).
The process of implementation and management of an APMS
is influenced by several aspects such as survey of conditions,
performance curves, M&R management and the implementation
timing. The need to estimate the time of the intervention has
encouraged several studies to identify predictive analytics models.
Starting from the hypothesis that predictions are less reliable if
the analysis periods are longer, the degradation models of the
various performance indicators require continuous calibrations
according to updated available data. In the literature there are
numerous studies relating to performance curves, of which the
ones listed below try to represent the broad range of the analyses
carried out. With reference to network-level optimization and
stochastic duration modeling, studies conducted on the runway
of Chicago O'Hare International Airport illustrate that pavement
facilities surfaced with Portland cement concrete (PCC) have
much slower deterioration rates than asphalt overlay on PCC. It
has been found that in some cases on the keel of runways there
are higher deterioration rates (Noruzoliaee and Zou, 2019).
A study of the Beijin Capital International Airport taxiway
made it possible to evaluate the pavement performance under
realistic random aircraft loads. Once the strategy and process for
short-term non-deterministic distress prediction are developed,
the research can be used as a guide to improve understanding of
pavement behavior (Ma et al., 2019).
A development of a prediction model for rutting in airport
pavement has been proposed in relation to heavy loads caused by
the passage of aircraft (Donovan et al., 2016). The deterioration
of the pavement in terms of Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
was studied at the Shanghai Hongqiao International Airport. It
emerged that a high maintenance level can lead to an increase in
the service life of the pavement of 20% up to 90% compared to
lower levels (Ling et al., 2013).
Regarding PCI, the performance curves estimated in the APMS
of Mariposa-Yosemite Airport are a function of the pavement
structure, surface characteristics, traffic, maintenance history and
use, in accordance with ASTM (American Society for Testing
and Materials International) D5340-12 (Wadell Engineering
Corporation, 2017). In two Portuguese international airports the
evaluation of IRI and PCI degradation trends was instead
possible through the analysis of the data available between 2011
and 2013; it is conducted according to the procedures illustrated
in ASTM E1926-08 and ASTM D5340-12 (Carvalho and de
Picado Santos, 2019). Among the methods for evaluating the
pavement conditions present in the scientific literature (Cafiso et
al., 2019), an innovative one is based on the APCI, Airfield
Pavement Condition Index (Wesołowski and Iwanowski, 2020).
This parameter considers the overviews of repairs and takes into
account the procedures reported in ASTM D5340-12 (2018) for
the surface deterioration, in ASTM D4694-09 (2020) for the load
bearing capacity, in ASTM E1926-08 (2015) for the roughness
and in ASTM D1425-14 (2020) for the evenness of the surface. In
this context, converting manual surveys to automatic pavement
condition surveys has significantly improved the time taken to
collect data (Peraka and Biligiri, 2020).
Another essential task in an APMS is time management for
M&R activities. With the aim to establish an optimum inspection
interval, recent studies conducted in Brazil have presented a
systematic inspection policy for runway pavement, concerning
the concept of delay time modeling (DTM) (de Souza and de

Almeida Filho, 2020). Repairing pavement in a rapid way led to
a study relating to the analysis and comparison of the technical
and mechanical performance of different materials (Leonelli et
al., 2017). In an Italian airport, the optimized management
made it possible to redevelop over 100.000 m2 of runway and
40.000 m2 of parallel taxiway in just 15 consecutive days (Di
Mascio and Moretti, 2019). More studies are needed on costs,
as these are not always easily identifiable (Qabaja and Labeedi,
2020).
Currently Catania Airport uses theoretical decay models for
the various performance indicators and a limited set of M&R
activities. In 2019, Catania Airport was equipped with a first tool
for analyzing pavement condition and managing the surveys.
The main components of the current structure of the APMS and
the first analyses are reported in detail below.
4. The Case Study of Catania Airport
Catania – Fontanarossa Airport, inaugurated in 1924, is located
in Italy and it is the main airport in the Sicily Region, among the
first at national level. Identified with IATA (International Air
Transport Association) code “CTA” and ICAO (International
Civil Aviation Organization) code “LICC”, it is considered a
City Airport, as it is in the south of the urban center of Catania
(about 3 km) near the industrial area. According with the
exponential growth of traffic, in June 2019 the airport recorded
an increase of 7.44% compared to the previous year.
The Aerodrome Reference Code for Catania Airport is 4D.
The airport airside is composed of one runway, identified as
“RWY 08/26”, a parallel taxiway, eight exit taxiways and aprons.
The main characteristics of the infrastructures are described
below.
The runway is 2.666,01 meters long, 45 meters wide; the
shoulders width is 2 × 7,50 meters. Its longitudinal slope is
variable (SL ≤ 0.74%), the transversal slope presents a double-
pitch section with 1,0% ≤ ST ≤ 1,2%. RWY 08/26 has a rigid
pavement type in the sections between progressive 0,00 – 200,00
meters and 2.545,93 – 2.666,01 meters, in correspondence to the
two Thresholds (THR 08 and THR 26 according to the aeronautical
code), with a Pavement Classification Number (PCN) 120/R/A/
W/T. In the section between progressive 200,00 − 2.545,93 meters,
the runway has a flexible pavement type, with a Pavement
Classification Number (PCN) 97/F/A/W/T.
The eight taxi lanes that connect the runway to the taxiway
and aprons have a flexible pavement, variable length, depending
on the constraints imposed, and width more than 20 meters (20 m <
Wmin < 30 m); the shoulders width is 2 × 10,50 meters. Finally,
aprons have a surface of more than 576.000 m2 and have rigid
pavement type.
In 2019, the first implementation of the APMS referring to the
pavement infrastructure of maneuver area was carried out with
the support of Road-SIT PMS® application, an extension of
ESRI's ArcGis program®. The main components of the current
APMS structure at Catania Airport are analyzed below.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 1427
Fig. 1. Subdivision of Maneuver Area into Sections and Sample Units
4.1 Inventory Data
Inventory data includes data relating to geometry, traffic, climate
and surveys. In accordance with ASTM D5340-12 (2018), the
pavement network in Catania Airport is therefore identified into
three Branches: Runway, Taxiway A and Connections. The
subdivision of the Branches into homogeneous Sections was
made using the cumulative sum method. Referring to the
infrastructures under study, it evaluated the deviations of the
deflections compared to the average ones, determining the
identification of 32 Sections. Moreover, according to ASTM-D-
5340-12 (2018), sections are then divided into areas of 450 ± 180 m2,
for a total of 561 Sample Units. Fig. 1 illustrates the subdivision
of the maneuver area into Branches and Sections and 30 Sample
Units.
All the subdivisions described above have been implemented
on a GIS, in which information on the structure of the pavement,
survey data, subgrade and so on have been reported.
As regards traffic data, the analysis of traffic spectra has
identified the Critical Aircraft, Airbus A320-200. Although in
Catania Airport there is not only an average annual increase in
traffic volume, but also a different use of the areas and a variation
over time of traffic spectrum, in the current APMS version it is
considered a constant traffic spectrum relative to annual traffic.
Moreover, currently the influence of traffic data is not considered
in the evaluation of pavement deterioration. It will be subject to a
future update of the APMS implementation for sure.
In the current APMS, climatic data are not evaluated in the
process of pavement degradation too. The information related to
the years from 2009 to 2018 has been implemented, but till now
they are reported only as archiving and viewing of the reports.
4.2 Pavement Condition Data and Performance Curves
A fundamental component of any APMS is the ability to estimate
pavement condition. The analysis of survey data conducted at
Catania airport from 2013 to 2019 allows to evaluate structural
and functional characteristics of pavement infrastructures. These
refer to bearing capacity, roughness, surface distress, macro-
texture and skid resistance. However, the current APMS database
1428 A. Di Graziano et al.
contains only the data of the latest surveys conducted, with the
only exceptions for bearing capacity and grip tests. For these
reasons, the decay curves currently implemented in the APMS of
Catania airport are theoretical with the consequent risk that
evaluation errors are made due to overestimation or underestimation
of pavement deterioration.
Structural data are determined in terms of elastic modules for
each pavement course and subgrade. In the current APMS, the
performance indicator relating to structural characteristics is the
bearing capacity in terms of average Residual Life (RL). A good
condition is considered for RL more than 5 years, fair for RL
between 2 and 5 years, poor for RL between 0 and 2 years,
critical for RL of 0. Currently, a single linear decay curve has
been implemented in APMS software as a function of the time. It
is therefore not considered that usually there are higher deterioration
rates in the sample units subjected to heavy loads due to the
passage of aircraft.
The acquisition of functional data includes the definition of
indicators relating to irregularity, through the International
Roughness Index (IRI), and general condition of pavement, in
terms of number and types of distresses, through the Pavement
Condition Index (PCI).
Relative to IRI, the reference length of irregularity equal to 50
meters and the related limit values are in compliance with ICAO
Annex 14 (ICAO, 2018). Consequently, an acceptable condition
is considered for IRI less than 1,80 m/km, tolerable for IRI
between 1,80 m/km and 2,80 m/km, excessive for IRI between
2,80 m/km and 3,60 m/km, unacceptable for IRI more than
3,60 m/km. PCI evaluation is in accordance with the procedure
described in ASTM D5340-12 (2018). In detail, a good condition is
considered for PCI more than 70, fair for PCI included between
55 and 70, poor for PCI between 40 and 55, critical for PCI less
Fig. 2. Catalogue of Interventions: (a) Deep Structural, (b) Intermediate Structural, (c) Surface Structural, (d) Functional
than 40. In both functional indicators the decay curves consider
only the time. IRI is in fact represented by a theoretical linear
relationship IRI = 0.4t + 0.5. As for PCI, it is considered the
following theoretical decay relationship PCI = -0.14 · t3+2.28
2
· t − 15t + 100.
However, it is important to reiterate that these curves should
be calibrated in order to consider the real traffic conditions and
the impact of climate on the decay of materials. Therefore, the
analyses conducted in this first phase will certainly be subject to
further investigations. There are other functional indicators, but
they are currently only reported as archiving and viewing reports. In
particular, they are Mean Profile Depth (MPD), relative to macro-
texture, Grip Number (GN), relative to skid resistance, longitudinal
and transverse slopes.
4.3 M&R Database
In the current APMS of Catania airport, four types of intervention
have been included, considering each costs and effectiveness on
the pavement condition. They can be divided into rehabilitation
and maintenance interventions (Fig. 2). In a future update of this
APMS it will be appropriate to proceed with an integration of the
standard interventions.
In the figure the depth at the left hand indicates how deep the
rehabilitation should be performed using Splittmastix Asphalt
(SMA) for wear course, High Modulus Asphalt Concrete (HMAC)
for binder and base courses, Cement Bound Granular Mixtures
(CBGM) for subbase course. The thicknesses of the rehabilitation
range from 65 cm for intervention of type 1 (deep structural) to 5
cm for intervention of type 4 (functional).
Moreover, in the database, only the rehabilitation costs have
been included, while all the collateral costs have not been
calculated. Often, in the airport field, collateral costs exceed the

ones of intervention. The closure of a runway, even for just one
day, could require flight cancellations and diversions into other
airports. Specifically, since there is only one runway at Catania
airport, certain interventions could result in inevitable closure of
the entire airport. Consequently, considering collateral costs after
the definition of interventions to be implemented, could compromise
the identification of the best strategy.
4.4 Identification of the Critical Areas
The evaluation of structural and functional data contained in an
APMS is the key component for the subsequent identification of
the critical areas. The indicators of RL, IRI and PCI have been
identified as a reference for the study.
The solver implemented in Road-SIT PMS® calculates the
effects, in terms of any variation of structural and functional
indicators, as a function of the decay curves previously introduced.
Once a new maintenance or rehabilitation intervention is assigned to
a specific area, the simulation also permits to evaluate the costs
associated in terms of materials and execution.
The first step was to analyze the conditions of pavement
infrastructure in the maneuver area in the year 2020. A plan was
created for each indicator analyzed. Each Sample Unit was
colored according to the result of the simulation in 2020. For
instance, Fig. 3 illustrates the plan that schematizes the current
state of the airport maneuver area according to the chromatic
index of PCI.
The analysis of the current state identifies which Sample
Units require intervention. However, with the aim of defining a
Five-Year Program, it was necessary to determine the needs of
the maneuver area infrastructure until 2024.
Considering the performance curves of the three indicators,
the analysis of each Sample Unit took place through the execution
of simulations. In particular, the simulations allow to identify the
Fig. 3. Current State Plan – PCI
Table 1. Design Choices in Scenario A and Scenario B
Scenario Infrastructure Type of intervention Year
A Runway 1 2021
2022
2023
2024
Total
B Runway 3 2020
2021
Total
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 1429
year in which at least one of the performance indicators investigated
had reached the critical limit threshold. In this study, the limit
thresholds assigned are RL equal to 0 years, IRI greater than 3,60
m/km and PCI less than 40. The eventual achievement of the
critical threshold by 2024 of performance indicators under study
has therefore made it possible to define the critical areas, which
type of M&R activities to predict (referring to the four types
present in the database) and the year of execution. The identification
of the criticalities is the essential requirement for the definition of
the design choices over the years. Those relating to the Runway
are detailed below.
4.5 Design Choices – Runway
An economically and technically advantageous planning of
M&R activities requires the definition of appropriate strategies.
Depending on identified Scenarios, the Design Choices are
based on optimization criteria. Among the admissible technical
strategies, the identification of airport needs makes it possible to
identify the most profitable one. In detail, the optimization process
identifies the best strategy for achieving the pre-established
objectives over a predefined time interval, such that the total
M&R cost, which is the sum of present and expected future M&R
costs over a planning horizon, is minimized. More specifically
the basic idea behind the framework is not different from an
alternative view of M&R action planning which is to minimize
the gap between the design life-cycle cost and the actual life-
cycle cost, using the heuristic method for solving the optimization
problem which is also known as “incremental NPV/cost” or
“effective gradient” method.
In accordance with the needs of the airport manager, two
different scenarios have been defined in the same period of
analysis. These make it possible to compare the different effects
and impacts on airport operations, as described below. Scenario
A identifies the minimum interventions to solve the major
criticalities present, mainly considering structural problems.
Assuming only type 1 interventions, it restores the pavement in
optimal conditions, with RL greater than or equal to 20 years.
Scenario B starts from the hypothesis of planning a total
redevelopment of the runway in the year 2025. It provides only
“night” intervention of type 3, surface structural, in order to
maintain airport operations, taking into account that the airport
significantly reduces fights during the night. Taking into account
the limited effectiveness of the type 3 intervention on RL, it is
Total area [m2] Cost of intervention [€]
3.000,00 326.970,00
10.125,00 1.103.523,75
7.125,00 776.553,75
3.750,00 408.712,50
24.000,00 2.615.760,00
12.375,00 802.436,25
12.375,00 802.436,25
24.750,00 1.604.872,50
1430 A. Di Graziano et al.

considered appropriate to anticipate the years of the interventions

avoiding that the works are conducted when RL reaches 0 years.
They have therefore all been predicted between 2020 and 2021.
Table 1 describes the rehabilitation costs of the Design Choices in
Scenario A and Scenario B over the years.
The comparison of the rehabilitation costs between the two
Scenarios reveals that Scenario B allows a saving of approximately
one million euros. However, it is necessary to make more in-
depth considerations.
First of all, type 3 intervention has a limited effect on RL.
Consequently, to ensure the effectiveness of Scenario B, analyses
have been conducted concerning critical courses of each Sample
Unit in which the intervention is planned. Since the critical
courses are found on base or bituminous conglomerate courses,
it is hypothesized that the execution of type 3 interventions could
solve some of the problems in the pavement infrastructure under
study.
Fig. 4. Prediction of Runway’s Pavement Condition after the Application
In addition, in-depth analyses on Scenario B made it possible of: (a) Scenario A, (b) Scenario B
to estimate the collateral costs, as they are easily identifiable.
These include the impacts on roundtrip transportation to the
workplace, night plant and night labor. On the other hand, the there are more marked needs in a higher number of Sample
collateral costs of Scenario A include operating costs linked to Units. Similar reasoning can be made on regularity, even if the
the inevitable closure of the runway. However, it is important to variations are less significant (Table 2).
highlight that the implementation of Scenario A allows to avoid
future additional costs, as restores the optimal conditions of the 5. Conclusions
intervention areas. To guarantee the minimum performance of
the infrastructure, Scenario B involves the inevitable redevelopment This work analyzes the potentiality and limitations of an APMS
of the entire runway in the year 2025. This additional cost should during the implementation phase.
be considered and for this reason the rehabilitation costs of In order to defining a Five-Year Program on the runway of
Scenario B will increase significantly over the years. Catania airport, the Design Choices refer to M&R activities
On this subject, the prediction of the runway’s pavement necessary to maintain adequate pavement conditions. The
conditions to 2025 is developed with the help of the performance assumptions underlying the process analysis are the following:
curves implemented in the current APMS. Fig. 4 illustrates the 1. Areas under study: the study concerns only the infrastructures
predictions after the application of the Design Choices in implemented in the current APMS.
Scenario A and Scenario B. 2. Traffic data: the basic hypothesis is a constant traffic
Through Scenario B there is a decrease of about 20% in the spectrum. Furthermore, in the actual performance curves
average residual Useful Life compared to Scenario A. Furthermore, there is no reference to traffic data.

Table 2. Runway Conditions in Different Scenarios

Current state (2020) Estimate to 2025 – Scenario A Estimate to 2025 – Scenario B
Section Residual life IRI Residual life IRI Residual life IRI
PCI PCI PCI
(years) (m/km) (years) (m/km) (years) (m/km)
RWY2 14,44 2,01 71,24 13,06 3,40 57,12 9,87 3,57 55,18
RWY3 14,86 1,58 76,46 12,97 3,17 60,18 10,74 3,30 58,43
RWY4 14,84 1,70 74,61 12,85 3,28 59,54 10,40 3,44 58,03
RWY5 10,69 1,82 74,73 14,20 2,56 67,22 7,20 3,04 61,71
RWY6 15,75 1,72 74,27 15,28 2,90 62,98 11,61 3,16 59,49
RWY7 13,92 1,73 75,00 13,36 3,20 59,68 9,70 3,32 59,25
RWY8 13,96 1,72 73,29 15,24 2,76 66,26 10,08 3,12 61,20
RWY9 13,09 1,85 75,63 13,01 3,39 59,19 8,91 3,50 58,39
RWY10 17,25 2,01 72,49 12,25 4,01 49,92 12,25 4,01 49,92
RWY11 17,20 1,73 76,11 12,20 3,73 56,02 12,20 3,73 56,02
RWY12 16,70 2,07 69,28 11,70 4,07 46,97 11,70 4,07 46,97
Average values 14,79 1,81 73,92 13,28 3,31 58,64 10,42 3,48 56,78

3. Climate data: although these data have been implemented
in the current APMS, they are not processed during the
analysis processes.
4. Types of intervention: there are only four types of intervention
in the current APMS. They do not best represent all possible
scenarios. No maintenance activity has been planned for
rigid pavement type.
5. Costs of M&R activities: there are only the costs related to
intervention in the M&R database. Collateral costs are not
considered and therefore need to be evaluated at a later
stage.
6. Performance indicators: the research work takes into
consideration RL, IRI and PCI indicators.
The findings obtained show that there are currently some
limitations, consequently the maximization of network conditions
and the cost / benefit ratio may not be reached. Subsequent studies
will improve the system through the implementation of traffic
and climate conditions data as well as the evaluation of collateral
costs. It is therefore possible to confirm that the use of an APMS
software allows to simplify and rationalize some processes.
Nowadays, the current version of APMS software used in Catania
airport allows to have a well-organized and easily accessible
database. However, it is emphasized that future implementations
are certainly needed to improve the execution of analysis and
optimization processes. The latter will certainly be the subject of
future studies.
Finally, it is possible to state that in an implementation phase
of an APMS, it might be appropriate to accompany the execution
of the Design Choices with thorough investigations on the
current state. This will prevent possible evaluation errors made
during all the analyzed processes.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank STS Mobile in the person of S. Tattolo
and Siteco Informatica in the person of A.Marchi for providing
support to the use of the implemented Road-SIT PMS software.
ORCID
Alessandro Di Graziano https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6484-2758
Eliana Ragusa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8924-6423
Valeria Marchetta https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4551-5828
References
Abbondati F, Biancardo SA, Palazzo S, Capaldo FS, Viscione N (2020)
I-BIM for existing airport infrastructures. Transportation Research
Procedia 45:596-603, DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2020.03.052
ASTM D1425-14 (2020) Standard test method for evenness of textile
strands using capacitance testing equipment. ASTM D1425-14,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
ASTM D4694-09 (2020) Standard test method for deflections with a
falling-weight-type impulse load device. ASTM D4694-09, ASTM
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 1431
International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
ASTM D5340-12 (2018) Standard test method for airport pavement
condition index surveys. ASTM D5340-12, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, USA
ASTM E1926-08 (2015) Standard practice for computing international
roughness index of roads from longitudinal profile measurements.
ASTM E1926-08, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
USA
Cafiso S, Di Graziano A, Goulias DG, D’Agostino C (2019) Distress
and profile data analysis for condition assessment in pavement
management systems. International Journal Pavement Research
and Technology 12:527-536, DOI: 10.1007/s42947-019-0063-7
Cafiso S, Di Graziano A, Kerali H, Odoki JB (2002) Multicriteria
analysis for pavement maintenance management. Transportation
Research Record 1816, Journal of the Transportation Research
Board 1816(1):73-84, DOI: 10.3141/1816-09
Cajzek R, Klanšek U (2019) Cost optimization of project schedules
under constrained resources and alternative production processes by
mixed-integer nonlinear programming. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management 26(10):2474-2508, DOI: 10.1108/
ECAM-01-2019-0013
Carvalho AFC, de Picado Santos LG (2019) Maintenance of airport
pavements: The use of visual inspection and IRI in the definition of
degradation trends. International Journal of Pavement Engineering
20(4):425-431, DOI: 10.1080/10298436.2017.1309189
Covalt M, Raczkowski L, Fisher M (2019) A review of state airport
pavement management practices and airport pavement conditions in
the United States from 2003 through 2016. Pavement and Asset
Management. Proceedings of the world conference on pavement and
asset management, June 12-16, Baveno, Italy, 29-34
de Oliveira SG, Tibaut A, Dell'Acqua G (2020) Airport pavement
management systems: An open BIM approach. Proceedings of the
5th International Symposium on Asphalt Pavements & Environment
(APE), 450-459, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-29779-4_44
de Souza NM, de Almeida Filho AT (2020) A systematic airport runway
maintenance and inspection policy based on a delay time modeling
approach. Automation in Construction 110, DOI: 10.1016/
j.autcon.2019.103039
Di Mascio P, Moretti L (2019) Implementation of a pavement management
system for maintenance and rehabilitation of airport surfaces. Case
Studies in Construction Materials 11:1-11, DOI: 10.1016/
j.cscm.2019.e00251
Donovan P, Sarker P, Tutumluer E (2016) Rutting prediction in airport
pavement granular base/subbase: A stress history based approach.
Transportation Geotechnics 9:139-160, DOI: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2016.
08.005
EASA (2014) Commission regulation (EU) No 139/2014. Brussels,
Belgium
ENAC (2015) Linee guida n.3/2015-APT – Airport pavement management
system. Linee Guida Sulla Implementazione Del Sistema Di Gestione
Della Manutenzione Delle Pavimentazioni - Ed. n. 1 del 1/10/2015,
Italy
Federal Aviation Administration (2011) ACRP SYNTHESIS 22 -
Common airport pavement maintenance practices. A Synthesis of
Airport Practice. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington DC,
USA
Federal Aviation Administration (2014) Advisory circular 150/5380-7B.
Airport Pavement Management Program (PMP). Federal Aviation
Administration, Washington DC, USA
Finn F (1998) Pavement management systems - Past, present, and
1432 A. Di Graziano et al.
future. Public Roads 62
GAO - United States General Accounting Office (1998) Airfield pavement
– Keeping nation’s runways in good condition could require
substantially higher spending. Report to the Chairman, Committee
on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate, Washington
DC, USA
Gendreau M, Soriano P (1998) Airport pavement management system:
An appraisal of existing methodologies. Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice 32:197-214, DOI: 10.1016/S0965-
8564(97)00008-6
Haas R, Hudson WR, Falls LC (2015) Pavement asset management.
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA
Hadidi T, Naghawi H, Al Kilany O, Al Sharief A (2016) Utilizing
Geographic information system as a tool for pavement management.
International Journal of Applied Mathematics, Electronics and
Computers 4(4):96-100
ICAO (2018) Annex 14 to the convention on international civil Aviation
– Volume I – Aerodrome design and operation, eighth edition.
Montréal, QC, Canada
Ismail N, Ismail A, Atiq R (2009a) An overview of expert systems in
pavement management. European Journal of Scientific Research
30(1):99-111
Ismail N, Ismail A, Rahmat RAOK (2009b) Development of expert
system for airport pavement maintenance and rehabilitation. European
Journal of Scientific Research 35(1):121-129
Leonelli F, Di Mascio P, Germinario A, Picarella F, Moretti L, Cassata M,
De Rubeis A (2017) Laboratory and on-site tests for rapid runway
repair. Applied Sciences 7(11):1-20, DOI: 10.3390/app7111192
Ling J, Du Z, (2013) A performance prediction model for airport
pavements based on bayesian analysis of random effects. International
Journal of Pharmaceutical Compounding (IJPC)
Ma X, Dong Z, Chen F, Xiang H, Cheng C, Sun J (2019) Airport asphalt
pavement health monitoring system for mechanical model updating
and distress evaluation under realistic random aircraft loads.
Construction and Building Materials 226:227-237, DOI: 10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2019.07.174
Malandri C, Mantecchini L, Reis V (2019) Aircraft turnaround and
industrial actions: How ground handlers' strikes affect airport airside
operational efficiency. Journal of Air Transport Management 78:
23-32, DOI: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.04.007
McNerney MT, Harrison R (1995) Full-cost approach to airport pavement
management. McGraw Hill, Washington DC, USA, 121-130
Morova N, Terzi S, Gökova S, Karaşahin M (2016) Pavement management
systems application with geographic information system method.
Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences 20:103-110, DOI:
10.19113/sdufbed.69064
Noruzoliaee M, Zou B (2019) Airfield infrastructure management using
network-level optimization and stochastic duration modeling.
Infrastructures 4(1):1-20, DOI: 10.3390/infrastructures4010002
Odoki JB, Di Graziano A, Akena R (2015) A multicriteria methodology
for optimising road investments. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers ICE, Transport 168(1):34-47, DOI: 10.1680/
tran.12.00053
Peraka NSP, Biligiri KP (2020) Pavement asset management systems
and technologies: A review. Automation in Construction 119, DOI:
10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103336
PWGSC (2002) A best practice for the implementation of a pavement
management system for small and medium airports. Public Works
and Government Services Canada, Airport Engineering Division,
Gatineau, QC, Canada
Qabaja M, Labeedi A (2020) An investigation of the airport pavement
management system (APMS). International Journal of Advanced
Engineering, Sciences and Applications (IJAESA) 1, DOI: 10.47346/
ijaesa.v1i1.35
Wadell Engineering Corporation (2017) Pavement management program
Mariposa-Yosemite Airport. A county of Mariposa Aviation Facility,
Mariposa, CA, USA
Wang H, Thakkar C, Chen X, Murrel S (2016) Life-cycle assessment of
airport pavement design alternatives for energy and environmental
impacts. Journal of Cleaner Production 133:163-171, DOI: 10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.05.090
Wesołowski M, Iwanowski P (2020) Evaluation of asphalt concrete
airport pavement conditions based on the airfield pavement condition
index (APCI) in scope of flight safety. Aerospace 7(6):1-22, DOI:
10.3390/aerospace7060078