‘DESIGN OF RUNWAY PAVEMENT: A CASE STUDY

ON DHOLERA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT’

A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted by
16CE095: KAGATHARA HARSHAD M.
16CE118: MAVANI TUHIN H.
16CE121: PANSURIYA NAYAN M.
17CE306: KHER BHAVISHA P.
17CE310: HINGRAJIYA PARIN R.
17CE314: VAGHASIYA MANTHAN A.
in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree of
B.TECH. (CIVIL ENGINEERING)
Under the subject of

CE442: PROJECT-1 & CE444: PROJECT-2

BIRLA VISHVAKARMA MAHAVIDYALAYA (ENGINEERING

COLLEGE)
(An Autonomous Institution)
VALLABH VIDYANAG AR
Affiliated to

GUJARAT TECHNOLOG ICAL UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD

Academic Year: 2019 – 2020
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, B. V. M.
ENGINEERING COLLEGE, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR-
388120

APPROVAL SHEET
This project report entitled “RUNWAY PAVEMENT: A CASE STUDY ON
DHOLERA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT” carried out by Kagathara Harshad,
Mavani Tuhin, Pansuriya Nayan, Kher Bhavisha, Hingrajiya Parin, Vaghasiya
Manthan is approved for the submission for the award of the degree of B. Tech
(Civil Engineering).

Name and Signature of Supervisor

Name and Signature of Examiner(s)

Date:

Place:
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, B. V. M.
ENGINEERING COLLEGE, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR-388120

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
Certified that this project report “Runway Pavement: A Case Study on Dholera
International Airport” is the bonafide and original work of “Kagathara Harshad,
Mavani Tuhin, Pansuriya Nayan, Kher Bhavisha Hingrajiya Parin, Vaghasiya
Manthan” who carried out the project work under my supervision.

NAME SIGNATURE

KAGATHARA HARSHAD M.
MAVANI TUHIN H.
PANSURIYA NAYAN M.
KHER BHAVISHA P.
HINGRAJIYA PARIN R.
VAGHASIYA MANTHAN A.

SIGNATURE
SUPERVISOR
Dr. L.B. ZALA
PROFESSOR & HEAD

CIVIL ENGG. DEPT.

SIGNATURE
Dr. L.B. ZALA
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
 DEPARTMENT SEAL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to express our special thanks of gratitude to our guide Dr. L.B. ZALA
who gave us the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic RUNWAY
PAVEMENT: A CASE STUDY ON DHOLERA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, and also
for providing valuable suggestion, time, and guidance regarding various important aspects,
inspiration and encouragement throughout our project work.

We also like to thank Dr. I. N. Patel, Principal of BVM Engineering College, Dr. L.
B. ZALA Head of Civil Engineering department and all the faculties of Civil Engineering
Department for their moral and technical support

KAGATHARA HARSHAD M.
MAVANI TUHIN H.
PANSURIYA NAYAN M.
KHER BHAVISHA P.
HINGRAJIYA PARIN R.
VAGHASIYA MANTHAN A.
 TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER NO. TITLE
LIST OF TABLE

LIST OF FIGURES

ABSTRACT

1. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 General
1.2 Study on Gujarat Airport
1.3 Need of the study
1.4 Aim of the study
1.5 Objectives of the study
1.6 Scope of the study
1.7 Study Methodology
2. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320-6F – Airport Pavement
Design and Evaluation
2.2 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10G – Standards for
Specifying Construction of Airports
2.3 FAARFIELD user manual
2.3.1 Flexible Pavement Design
2.3.2 Rigid Pavement Design
2.4 Introduction of PCASE software
2.5 Research Paper
3. CHAPTER 3: STUDY AREA
3.1 General
3.2 Regional Area
4. CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 General
4.2 Number of Borings, Locations and Depths
4.3 Factor affecting selection of site
4.4 Subgrade Stabilization
4.5 Soil testing
 4.5.1 Particle size distribution test
4.5.2 Liquid Limit test
4.5.3 Plastic Limit test
4.5.4 Compaction test
4.5.5 California Bearing Ratio test
4.6 Result Table
4.7 Pavement design using FAARFIELD
4.7.1 Flexible Pavement design
4.7.2 Rigid Pavement design
4.8 Pavement design using PCASE
4.8.1 Flexible Pavement design
4.8.2 Rigid Pavement design
5. CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
List of Table
1. Comparison of FAA Standard Layers’ Specification with MORTH Specification
2. Minimum Layer Thickness for Flexible Pavement Structure
3. Minimum Layer Thickness for Rigid Pavement Surface
4. Typical Subsurface Boring, Spacing & Depth
5. Quantity off Sample Taken for Test
6. Maximum Weight Retained on Sieve
7. Particle Size Distribution Test 1
8. Particle Size Distribution Test 2
9. Liquid Limit Test
10. Plastic Limit Test
11. Compaction Test
12. CBR Test 1
13. CBR Test 2
14. Some Characteristics of Unified Soil Classification Group
15. Characteristics of Soil
16. Result Table
List of Figure
1. Gujarat International & Domestic Airport Map
2. Overview of FAARFIELD Program
3. Creating New Job
4. Structure Modification
5. Adding Airplane Data
6. Designing Pavement Structure
7. Dholera International Airport
8. Dholera Greenfield Airport
9. Liquid Limit Device (Casagrande)
10. Number of Blow V/S Water Content
11. Plastic Limit Test
12. Compaction of Mould
13. Water Content V/S Dry Density
14. CBR Test
15. CBR Test Machine with Load Ring
16. CBR Measurement Instrument
17. Penetration V/S Standard Load Intensity 1
18. Penetration V/S Standard Load Intensity 2
19. Design of Flexible Pavement
20. Design of Rigid Pavement
 ABSTRACT

Dholera International Airport is a proposed airport development project

located near Ahmedabad. To develop Dholera Special Investment Region (SIR)
as global manufacturing and transaction hub i.e. “The engine for economic
recovery of the country” which is supported by world class infrastructure. Project
goals are to dual the employment potential, triple industrial output and multiply
exports from the region in next five years.
 CHAPTER - 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
An airport pavement is a complex engineering structure. Airport pavements are
designed and constructed to provide adequate support for the loads imposed by airplanes and
to produce a firm, stable, smooth, skid resistant, year round, all-weather surface free of debris
or other particles that can be blown or picked up by propeller wash or jet blast. To fulfil these
requirements, the quality and thickness of the pavement must not fail under the imposed loads.
The pavement design guidance presented in AC is based on layered elastic theory for
flexible pavement design and three-dimensional finite element theory for rigid pavement
design. The FAA has developed the computer program FAA Rigid and Flexible Iterative
Elastic Layer Design (FAARFIELD) to assist with pavement design, see further chapter for
detailed information on FAARFIELD.
1.2 Study on Gujarat Airport
Gujarat possesses one of the largest airport infrastructures in the country, where an
excellent trunk road infrastructure makes access to the nearest airport relatively easy. However,
specific demand for small airports / airstrips development at emerging Centres of Growth such
as Special Investment Regions, ports, entertainment zones, Economic or industrial zones etc.
may arise.
There are 19 airports in Gujarat State, where in the Dholera green-field airport is to be
constructed. The airports are operated and owned by either the Airport Authority of India,
Indian Air Force and Government of Gujarat or private companies. There are two international
airports, nine domestic airports, two private airports and three military bases in Gujarat. Two
more airports are under construction.

[Figure 1: Gujarat International and Domestic Airport Map]

1.3 Need of the study
 The existing airport of Ahmedabad has appeared as one with highest annual growing
in traffic and will get saturated much before the year 2020. The development of
Ahmedabad airport is difficult due to various details. Considering this detail, a new
airport is essential to the need of future traffic.
 Similarly, since the size, scale, and scope of the development and economics actions
that will take place in Dholera SIR, connectivity by air, rail, and road connectivity
would be basic infrastructure need.
 As forecasted, the level of economic actions following enormous domestic and foreign
investment shall need a world class modern Greenfield International Airport.
 The proposed airport will also attend the need of adjoining cities of Ahmedabad,
Bhavnagar, Vadodara, Nadiad and Rajkot.
 Moreover, the spill over of Ahmedabad Airport will be existing to proposed Dholera
Airport. As per estimate the present Ahmedabad Airport will reach to overload stage
much before 2020.

1.4 Aim of the study

 To study the design of runway pavement “A Case Study of the Dholera Greenfield
Air Pavement.
1.5 Objectives of the Study
 Overview of popular flexible and rigid airport design methods.
 To learn the design of airfield pavement.
 To learn the use of FAARFIELD software.
 To learn the use of PCASE software.
1.6 Scope of the study
 To study factors impacting pavement ability to safely operate the aircraft on the runway.
 Analysis of Flexible and Rigid Pavement for the runway pavement.
 Best design practice for the runway pavement.
1.7 Study Methodology
Problem Statement

Aim of Study

Objectives of Study

Data Collection

Soil Investigation

Various Soil Properties Checks

 Particle Size Distribution Test

 Liquid Limit Test
 Plastic Limit Test
 Compaction Test
 CBR Test

Design Based on CBR

If CBR ≤ 5% If CBR > 5%

Stabilization Process

Use Cement, Lime, Fly

Ash, Terrasil
Pavement Thickness
Design Using
FAARFIELD &
PCASE Software

Flexible Rigid
Pavement Pavement

Select Best Pavement

Conclusion
 CHAPTER – 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320-6F – Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation
Purpose
This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance to the public on the design and evaluation of
pavements used by aircraft at civil airports. For reporting of pavement strength, see AC
150/5335-5C, Standardized Method of Reporting Airport Pavement Strength – PCN.

Cancellation
This AC cancels AC 150/5320-6E, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation, dated September
30, 2009.

Application
The FAA recommends the guidance and standards in this AC for airport pavement design and
evaluation. In general, use of this AC is not mandatory. However, use of the standards in this
AC is mandatory for all projects funded under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) or with
revenue from the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program.
This AC does not apply to the design of pavements that are not used by aircraft, i.e., roadways,
parking lots, and access roads.

Principal Changes
This AC contains the following changes:
1) Reformatted to comply with FAA Order 1320.46, FAA Advisory Circular System.

2) Revised text and design examples to incorporate changes in FAARFIELD v1.41 2.

Pavement design software. Also added general guidance on how to use FAARFIELD.

3) Simplified and moved guidance on economic analysis.

4) Included all pavement design, including previous guidance on pavement design for
airplanes weighing less than 30,000 pounds (13 610 kg).
5) Added tables for minimum layer thickness for flexible and rigid pavement structures.

Units
Through this AC, customary English units will be used followed by “soft” (rounded)
conversion to metric units for tables and figures and hard conversion for the text. The English
units govern.
2.2 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10G – Standards for Specifying Construction of
Airports
Table 1: Comparison of FAA standard layers’ specification with MORTH Specification

American Society MORTH

Sr. No. Item Name for Testing & Specifications (5th
Material (ASTM) Revision)
1 Clearing & Grubbing P-151 Clause 201
2 Excavation, Subgrade P-152 Clause 304
3 Embankment Construction P-152 Clause 305
4 Subbase Course P-154 Clause 309
5 Lime Treated Subgrade P-155 Clause 402
6 Fly Ash Subgrade P-158 Clause 403
7 Crushed Aggregate Base Course P-209 Clause 405
8 Cement Treated Base Course P-304 Clause 403
9 Lean Concrete Base Course P-306 Clause 601
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)
10 P-501 Clause 602
Pavement
P-160 P-161
11 Fencing P-162 P-163 Clause 808
P-164

2.3 FAARFIELD user manual

Overview of FAARFIELD Program

FAARFIELD consists of five main forms linked as schematically shown in Chart. The primary
forms are Startup, Structure and Aircraft. Startup establishes which job and section will be
evaluated. Structure establishes the pavement structure to be analyzed. Aircraft establishes the
aircraft operating weight and frequency of operation that will be used to apply loads to the
pavement. Notes contains output data and other section information. Options contains analysis
and output options.

[Figure 2: Overview of FAARFIELD Program]

FAARFIELD Pavement Design Process

The basic FAARFIELD design steps include:

Step 1: From Start-up, create a new job and add the basic sections to analyse.

[Figure 3: Creating New Job]

Step 2: From Structure, modify the pavement structure to be analyzed.

[Figure 4: Structure Modification]

Step 3: From Airplane, add Airplane Load and Traffic Data.

[Figure 5: Adding Airplane Data]

Step 4: Return to Structure and Design Pavement Structure.

[Figure 6: Designing Pavement Structure]

Step 5: Adjust Layer Thicknesses, Change Layer Types. Repeat Step 4.

Step 6: Select Life/Compaction, print out design report.
Step 7: Return to Start up and view pavement design report.
Step 8: Print pavement design report to be included in engineer’s report.

Aircraft Traffic Considerations

Load
Landing Gear Type and Geometry
Tire Pressure
Aircraft Traffic Volume
Departure Traffic
Total Departures over Design Life
Airplane Traffic Mix
Total Cumulative Damage
Non-Aircraft Vehicles
Pass-to-Coverage Ratio

An airplane seldom travels along a pavement section in a perfectly straight path or along the
same path each time. This lateral movement is known as airplane wander and is modelled by a
statistically normal distribution. As an airplane moves along a taxiway or runway, it may take
several trips or passes along the pavement for a specific point on the pavement to receive a
full-load application. The ratio of the number of passes required to apply one full load
application to a unit area of the pavement is expressed by the pass-to-coverage (P/C) ratio.

Cumulative Damage Factor

In FAARFIELD, fatigue failure is expressed in terms of a cumulative damage factor (CDF)

using Miner’s rule. CDF represents the amount of the structural fatigue life of a pavement that
has been used up. It is expressed as the ratio of applied load repetitions to allowable load
repetitions to failure. For a new pavement design, the pavement structure is adjusted until the
cumulative CDF=1 for the traffic mix applied over the structural design life period being
evaluated. For a single airplane and constant annual departures, CDF can be expressed by the
following:
 [Table 2: Minimum Layer Thickness for Flexible Pavement Structures]

[Table 3: Minimum Layer Thickness for Rigid Pavement Structures]

2.3.1 Flexible Pavement Design

General

Flexible pavements consist of a HMA wearing surface placed on a base course and a subbase
(if required) to protect the subgrade. In a flexible pavement structure, each pavement layer
must protect its supporting layer. Non-drained pervious granular layers must not be located
between two impervious layers, which is referred to as sandwich construction. This is to
prevent trapping water in the granular layer, which could result in a loss of pavement strength
and performance.

Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Surfacing

The HMA surface or wearing course limits the penetration of surface water into the base
course, provides a smooth, skid resistant surface free from loose particles that could become
foreign object debris (FOD), and resists the shearing stresses induced by airplane wheel loads.
To meet these requirements, the surface must be composed of a mixture of aggregates and
asphalt binders which will produce a uniform surface of suitable texture possessing maximum
stability and durability. A dense-graded HMA, such as Item P-401, meets these requirements.
Base Course

The base course distributes the imposed wheel loadings to the pavement subbase and/or
subgrade. The best base course materials are composed of select, hard, and durable aggregates.
The base course quality depends on material type and gradation, physical properties, and
compaction. The quality and thickness of the base course must prevent failure in the support
layers, withstand the stresses produced in the base, resist vertical pressures that may produce
consolidation and distortion of the surface course, and resist volume changes caused by
fluctuations in moisture content.

Base courses are classified as either stabilized or unstabilized. If aircraft in the design traffic
mix have gross loads of 100,000 pounds (45,359 kg) or more then use of a stabilized base is
required. AC 150/5370-10, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, includes the
material specifications that can be used as base courses: stabilized (P-401, P-403, P-306, P-
304) and unstabilized (P-209, P-208, P-219, P-211). The use of Item P-208 Aggregate Base
Course, as base course is limited to pavements designed for gross loads of 60,000 pounds
(27,200 kg) or less.

 Stabilized Base Course

FAARFIELD includes two types of stabilized layers, classified as stabilized (flexible) and
stabilized (rigid). The two stabilized flexible base options are designated P-401/P-403 and
Variable. The word flexible is used to indicate that these bases have a higher Poisson’s ratio
(0.35), act as flexible layers as opposed to rigid layers, and are less likely to crack. The standard
FAA stabilized base is P-401/P-403, which has a fixed modulus of 400,000 psi (2,760 MPa).

 Aggregate Base Course

The standard aggregate base course for flexible pavement design is Item P-209, Crushed
Aggregate Base Course. Item P-208, Aggregate Base Course, may be used as a base for
pavements accommodating aircraft fleets with all aircraft less than 60,000 pounds (27,200 kg)
gross weight.

Subbase

A subbase is required as part of the flexible pavement structure on subgrades with a CBR value
less than 20. The standard subbase layer (P-154) provides the equivalent bearing capacity of a
subgrade with a CBR of 20. Subbases may be aggregate or treated aggregate. The minimum
thickness of subbase is 4 inches (100 mm), additional thickness may be required for practical
construction limitations or if subbase is being utilized as non-frost susceptible material. The
material requirements for subbase are not as strict as for the base course since the subbase is
subjected to lower load intensities. Allowable subbase materials include P-154, P-210, P-212,
P-213, and P-301.

Subgrade

The ability of a particular soil to resist shear and deformation varies with its properties, density,
and moisture content. Subgrade stresses decrease with depth, and the controlling subgrade
stress is usually at the top of the subgrade. Specification Item P-152, Excavation, Subgrade,
and Embankment, covers the construction and density control of subgrade soils.

In FAARFIELD, the subgrade thickness is assumed to be infinite and is characterized by either

a modulus (E) or CBR value. Subgrade modulus values for flexible pavement design can be
determined in a number of ways. The applicable procedure in most cases is to use available
CBR values as calculated at in-service moisture content and allow FAARFIELD to compute
the design elastic modulus using the following relationship:

E = 1500 x CBR, (E in psi)

2.3.2 Rigid Pavement Design

Concrete Surface Layer

The concrete surface must provide a non-skid texture, prevent the infiltration of surface water
into the subgrade, and provide structural support for airplane gears. The quality of the concrete,
acceptance and control tests, methods of construction and handling, and quality of
workmanship are covered in Item P-501 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement. See AC
150/5370-10, Item P-501 for additional discussion regarding PCC specifications.

Base / Subbase Layers

The base layer provides a uniform, stable support for the rigid pavement slabs. Stabilized base
is required for base under pavements designed to serve airplanes over 100,000 pounds. Two
layers of base may be used, e.g. P-306 over a layer of P-209. Layering must be done in such a
way as to avoid producing a sandwich (granular layer between two stabilized layers) section
or a weaker layer over a stronger layer. The first base layer directly under the PCC surface
must be offset 12 to 36 inches from the edge of the PCC layer. Subsequent base or subbase
layers beneath the base layer should be offset 12 inches from the edge of the layer immediately
above.

Subgrade: Determination of Modulus (E Value) for Rigid Pavement Subgrade

In addition to the soils survey and analysis and classification of subgrade conditions, the
determination of the foundation modulus is required for rigid pavement design. The foundation
modulus is assigned to the subgrade layer; i.e., the layer below all structural layers. The
foundation modulus can be expressed as the modulus of subgrade reaction, k, or as the elastic
(Young’s) modulus E. The subgrade modulus can be input into FAARFIELD directly in either
form; however, all structural computations are performed using the elastic modulus E. If the
foundation modulus is input as a k-value it is automatically converted to the equivalent E value
using the following equation:

2.4 Introduction of PCASE software

Pavement-Transportation Computer Assisted Structural Engineering (PCASE)

develops software tools to aid in the design and evaluation of transportation systems. A product
of PCASE is the PCASE desktop which converts pavement design and evaluation criteria into
a stand-alone software package.

PCASE software is used by Pavement Engineers as a tool for designing pavements and
repair alternatives for both airfields and roadways. The PCASE tool gives the Engineer the
ability to perform pavement designs quickly and thereby providing the ability to make
decisions faster and with precision and consistency.

The PCASE desktop is made up of modules which include Traffic, Design, Evaluation,
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), Non Destructive Testing (NDT), Vehicle Edit, Climate,
and Core Reports.

Traffic module is capable of building traffic models to be used in the design or evaluation
modules using vehicles provided in the database. Standard Air Force, Army, and Navy criteria
patterns are also available for use.

Design module is capable of designing flexible, rigid, and aggregate roadway pavement and
flexible, rigid, mat, and aggregate airfield pavement using empirical or layered elastic methods.
A cost comparison tool is also available.

Evaluation module is capable of analyzing flexible, rigid, and aggregate roadway and airfield
pavement using empirical or layered elastic methods and producing resultant allowable loads,
passes, Aircraft Classification Numbers (ACN), Pavement Classification Numbers (PCN), and
overlay requirements.

DCP module is capable of analyzing field DCP data and providing resultant pavement layer
strengths.
NDT module is capable of importing and viewing falling weight deflectometer data (FWD),
defining section boundaries and assigning data for back calculation.

Climate module is capable of calculating temperature data used in the evaluation module.

Vehicle Edit module is capable of creating vehicles not available in the database or editing an
existing vehicle (i.e. load, gear configuration, tire pressure, contact area, tire shape, and
analysis points). The module also provides Aircraft Classification Numbers (ACN) and vehicle
characteristics.

Core Reports module provides a spreadsheet of physical property, core log, cursory pavement
condition survey, and construction history data.

2.5 Research Paper

1) Evaluation of Airfield Pavements Using FAARFIELD (Andreas Loizos, Angeliki
Armeni and Christina Plati)
 The major objective of these pavements is to provide adequate load-carrying capacity
and good ride quality. For this reason, a proper pavement design is essential.
 The present research study deals with the verification of a runway’s flexible pavement
design, using the analytical method of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
 The latest becomes more apparent when considering the variability of material
characteristics and properties, when using the analytical tool at international level.

2) Advances in FAA Pavement Thickness Design Software: FAARFIELD 1.42 (D.R.

Brill and I. Kawa)
 Comparison of the results indicated that FAARFIELD v1.4 returns flexible pavement
sub-base thicknesses 20% less than FAARFIELD v1.3, but 13% greater than APSDS.

 FAARFIELD v1.4 also returned rigid pavement concrete thicknesses that were
generally less than FAARFIELD v1.3 and COMFAA, except for the six wheeled gear.

3) Comparing Rigid and Flexible Airport Pavement Thicknesses Designed by Different

Methods (Greg White and Reeve Balestra)
 The newly released program, designated FAARFIELD 1.4, includes significant
modifications to both rigid pavement and flexible pavement design models, and adds
new features to improve the user experience.

 Designs performed using FAARFIELD 1.4 typically are less conservative than in the
previous version (FAARFIELD 1.3)
4) Load Transfer in Rigid Airport Pavement Joints (David R. Brill, M. ASCE, and
Edward H. Guo)
 The interlock mechanism is effective in transferring load through the joint in PCC
pavements, especially when enhanced through the use of tie bars.
 The direction of load transfer is less significant for predicting load transfer efficiency
of doweled joints.
 Tie bar (interlock) joints were initially more effective than doweled joints in providing
load transfer.

5) Subgrade Damage Approach for the Design of Airport Flexible Pavements (Manue l
O. Bejarano and Marshall R. Thompson)
 New design procedures based on Subgrade Stress Ratio (SSR= ratio of deviator stress
to unconfined compressive strength) have emerged for better considering subgrade
rutting in airport flexible pavements.

 The approach is based on an extensive literature review of current damage concepts

included in current mechanistic-based design procedures, soil permanent deformation
laboratory data, and airport traffic conditions.

 The literature review and data analysis indicate that cohesive subgrade soils exhibit a
threshold stress ratio below which stable permanent deformation patterns are obtained.
This threshold stress level corresponds to SSRs of 0.50 to 0.60.

6) Electrically conductive pawing mixture and pavement system (Peter L. Zaleski, David
J. Derwin, Walter H. Flood, Jr.)
 An electrically conductive paving mixture for use in a pavement system which prevents
the accumulation of frozen precipitation on surfaces, for example, like that of an airport
runway.
 The pavement system comprises a layer of electrically conductive paving mixture, a
layer of insulative paving mixture, electrically resistive cables, an electrical power
supply, sensors for measuring humidity and temperature, and a control and monitoring
system.
 The electrically conductive paving mixture comprises a blend of naturally occurring
amorphous graphite and synthetic graphite/desulfurized petroleum coke.
 Preferably, the blend of naturally-occurring graphite to synthetic graphite/desulfurized
produced coke is in the ratio of 2:1.
7) Smart airport pavement instrumentation and health monitoring (Shuo Yang, Halil
Ceylan, Kasthurirangan Gopalakrishnan, Sunghwan Kim)
 Pavement deteriorations caused by aircraft loading, temperature, and moisture
variations can be one of the major concerns in the safety of airport operations. Other
pavement related safety concerns include the skid resistance (friction), FOD on
pavement surface and the infiltration of water into the pavement sub-structure.
Pavement health monitoring could be an effective solution to prevent the aircraft
accidents and damages caused by poor pavement performance and FOD.
 The use of wireless Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) tags for determining
thermal gradients in pavement layers; self-powered MEMS/NEMS multifunction
sensor system capable of real-time, remote monitoring of localized strain, temperature
and moisture content in airport pavement that will eventually prevent catastrophic
failures such as blow-ups on runways during heat waves.

8) Investigation of shear failure in airport asphalt pavements under aircraft ground

manoeuvring (Hao Wang, Maoyun Li & Navneet Garg)
 This study aimed to investigate the effect of aircraft ground manoeuvring operations on
shear failure potential of airfield asphalt pavements using the multi-axial stress state
criteria.
 A numerical modelling study was conducted to characterise the stress state in the
asphalt layer using an advanced three-dimensional (3-D) finite element (FE) model that
has been validated in previous studies. The complex tyre–pavement interactions were
characterised with non-uniform distributions of tyre–pavement contact stresses at
vertical and tangential directions.
 Different tyre rolling conditions caused by aircraft ground manoeuvring during landing
were simulated including free rolling, full-braking, and turning. The effects of take-off
weight and operating speed were also considered in the analysis. The multi-axial stress
states in the bulk asphalt material and at the asphalt layer interface were analysed by
means of the Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria in a normal-shear stress plane.
 Airfield pavement responses at the near-surface were affected by the non-uniform
distributions of 3-D tyre–pavement contact stresses that varied depending on different
tyre rolling conditions under aircraft ground manoeuvring operations. The multi-axial
stress state criterion was proven effective to evaluate the shear failure potential at
airfield asphalt pavements under the combined loading of normal stresses and shear
stresses. Aircraft braking or turning significantly increases the shear failure potential in
the bulk material and at the asphalt layer interface due to the tangential stresses applied
on the pavement surface. The effects of aircraft weight and operating speed on
pavement shear failure were limited compared to aircraft manoeuvring.
9) New Airport Pavement Technologies from the USA (Greg White)
 Significant airport pavement research and development is being progressed around the
world with the USA being the focal point of such efforts. This has led to a number of
new and emerging technologies. There is a strong desire to improve the ability to
predict pavement issues and failures prior to their occurrence.
 New technologies such as Performance Monitoring and Prediction, Instrumentation of
Pavements, Advanced Pavement Modelling and Design, Improved Asphalt Surface
Performance, New Generation Runway Grooving are included in this paper.
 There is a significant research effort, primarily in the USA, attempting to advance and
add value to the airport pavement body of knowledge. These efforts are generally
concentrated on performance monitoring, instrumentation of real pavements, modelling
and design tools, asphalt and other material performance and surface friction. A number
of these technologies could be readily adapted and implemented at Australian airports
now or in the future.

10) Cyclic Shear Deformation of Asphalt at Melbourne Airport (Greg White)

 In 2010 and 2011, the two runways and associated taxiways at Melbourne Airport were
resurfaced over a ten-month period. Approximately six months after the completion of
the works, a number of localised horizontal surface deformations were identified in one
runway, concentrated in the heavy braking and turning zones and only in one traffic
direction.
 A preliminary investigation found no evidence of inadequate design, non-compliance
with the specification or construction related issue. Inadequate bond to the underlying
asphalt leading to delamination was also excluded as the cause. The aim of this
subsequent investigation was to determine whether a cause could be identified to
explain the failures.
 The two asphalts’ performance in the field was significantly different under the shear
forces imparted during heavy aircraft braking. The calculation of forces applied to the
surface showed that during landing on Runway 34 (with failures) the shear force was
approximately double that of Runway 16 (without failures). During landing on Runway
27 (without failures) shear forces were found to be similar to those on Runway 34. A
difference in operating procedures or imparted shear forces could not explain the
difference in field performance.
 CHAPTER – 3
STUDY AREA
3.1 General

 The Dholera International Airport is a part of Dholera Special Investment Region

(Dholera SIR) of Gujarat government, located at a distance of 100 kilometres south
west of Ahmedabad.

 The project is being implemented with an aim to decongest the saturated Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad.

 The Dholera Airport will be built on 1700 acres of land, 29 km from Dholera and 80
km from Ahmedabad.

3.2 Regional area

 The Dholera International Airport project aims to decongest the Ahmedabad airport,
which has been handling 11 million passengers per annum, as against its capacity of 7
million passengers.

 Once fully operational, the Dholera International Airport is likely to have an annual
capacity of 50 million passengers.

[Figure 7: Dholera International Airport]

 The airport is to have two parallel runways of 2,910 meters and 4,000 meters and will
be developed in three phases at a cost of ₹1,712 crore. The first phase of the airport is
likely to become operational by the year 2024.

 One of the runways to be built in the first phase with a capacity to handle up to 30
million passengers per annum. The second runway would be built under the project’s
second phase, having a capacity of 20 million passengers per annum.

[Figure 8: Dholera Greenfield Airport]

 CHAPTER – 4
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 General
Accurate identification and evaluation of pavement foundations is necessary. For
engineering purposes, soil includes all natural deposits that can be moved and manipulated
with earth moving equipment, without requiring blasting or ripping. Subgrade soil is the soil
layer that forms the foundation for the pavement structure; it is the soil directly beneath the
pavement structure. Subsurface soil conditions include the elevation of the water table, the
presence of water bearing strata, and the field properties of the soil. Field properties include
the density, moisture content, frost susceptibility, and typical depth of frost penetration.

4.2 Number of Borings, Locations and Depths

The locations, depths, and numbers of borings should be sufficient to determine and
map soil variations. If past experience indicates that settlement or stability in deep fill areas at
the location may be a problem, or if in the opinion of the geotechnical engineer more
investigations are warranted, additional and/or deeper borings may be required to determine
the proper design, location, and construction procedures. Where uniform soil conditions are
encountered, fewer borings may be acceptable. Suggested criteria for the location, depth, and
number of borings for new construction are given in Table. Wide variations in these criteria
can be expected due to local conditions.

[Table 4 - Typical Subsurface Boring Spacing and Depth]

Area Spacing Depth

Runways, Taxiways and
Taxi lanes
Other Areas of Pavement
Borrow Areas
Random Across Pavement at
200-foot (60 m) Intervals
1 Boring per 10,000 Square
Feet (930 sq. m) of Area
Sufficient Tests to Clearly
Define the Borrow Material
Cut Areas - 10' (3 m) Below
Finished Grade Fill Areas -
10' (3 m) Below Existing
Ground
Cut Areas - 10' (3 m) Below
Finished Grade Fill Areas -
10' (3 m) Below Existing
Ground
To Depth of Borrow
Excavation
4.3 Factor affecting selection of site
 Nature and volume of traffic
 Contact pressure
 Wheel load
 Axle configuration
 Vehicle speed
 Environmental factors (climate and temperature changes)
 Subgrade type
 Rain and precipitation

4.4 Subgrade Stabilization

Where the mean subgrade strength is lower than a modulus of 7,500 psi (CBR 5), it
may be necessary to improve the subgrade chemically, mechanically, or by replacement with
suitable subgrade material. When the design modulus is lower than 4,500 psi (CBR is lower
than 3), it is necessary to improve the subgrade through stabilization or replacement with
suitable subgrade material. Subgrade stabilization should also be considered if any of the
following conditions exist: poor drainage, adverse surface drainage, frost, or need for a stable
working platform. Subgrade stabilization can be accomplished through the use of chemical
agents or by mechanical methods. It is often beneficial to stabilize the subgrade to create a
stable construction working platform. When it is not possible to create a stable subgrade with
either chemical or mechanical stabilization it may be necessary to remove and replace the
unsuitable material. A geotechnical engineer should be consulted to determine what long-term
strength can be achieved with stabilized layers. It is recommended to use a very conservative
estimate of the benefit unless you have tests results to substantiate the long-term benefit. Note:
Generally, the stabilized layer should be 12 in (300 mm) or otherwise recommend by the
geotechnical engineer. When designing pavements that include a layer of 11/10/2016 AC
150/5320-6F 2-9 stabilized material it may be necessary to model this layer as a user defined
layer when performing pavement structural design in FAARFIELD.
4.5 Soil Testing
4.5.1 Particle Size Distribution
Object
Dry and Wet Sieve analysis is carried out to quantitatively determine the Particle Size
Distribution for soil particles of size 75 micron and bigger.

Apparatus
Balance, Sieve, Sieve Shaker, Oven, Trays, Wire Brush.
Procedure

1. The soil fractions retained on and passing 4.75mm Sieve shall be taken separately for
the analysis. Dry the soil sample in a Thermostatically Controlled Hot Air Oven at
105º to 110ºC.
2. Weigh the portion of the soil sample retained on 4.75mm Sieve and record the mass.
The quantity of the soil sample to be taken for the test should be as per Table 1 & 2
given below:

[Table 5: Quantity of sample taken for Test]

Maximum size of material present in substantial Weight to be taken for
quantities test
75 mm 60 kg
40 mm 25 kg
25 mm 13 kg
19 mm 6.5 kg
12.5 mm 3.5 kg
10 mm 1.5 kg
6.5 mm 0.75 kg
4.75 mm 0.40 kg

[Table 6: Maximum Weight Retained on Sieve]

IS Sieve Designation 450 mm Dia. Sieves (in kg) 300 mm Dia. Sieves (in kg)
80 mm 15 kg 6 kg
20 mm 4 kg 2 kg
4.75 mm 1.0 kg 0.5 kg
2 mm -- 0.2
425 micron -- 0.05
75 micron -- 0.02

3. Sieve the sample through the sieve net of size 4.75mm and higher. Other sieves may
be introduced in between the sieves, depending upon the additional information desired
to be obtained. The sieves shall be agitated and any particles may be tested to see if
 they will fall through, but they shall not be pushed through. The quantity taken each
time for sieving shall be such that the maximum weight retained on each sieve does
not exceed the values given in Table 2.
4. Record the mass retained on each sieve. If the sample appears to contain over 5%
moisture, the water content shall be determined and the masses corrected accordingly.
If the soil contains more than about 20% gravel particles and the fines are very cohesive
with considerable amounts adhering to the gravel after separation, the gravel shall be
washed on 4.75mm Sieve using sodium hex metaphosphate solution.
5. The portion of soil passing 4.75mm Sieve shall be oven-dried at 105 to 115°C. Weigh
this soil mass to accuracy of 0.1% of its total mass and record the mass. Spread out
this material in large tray or bucket and cover with water.
6. Wash the soaked soil specimen on 75-micron sieve until the water passing is
substantially clean. The fraction retained on the sieve should be tipped in a try, dried
in the oven and sieved through the nest of 2mm, 425 microns and 75 micron sieves.
The fraction retained on each sieve should be weighed separately and the masses
recorded.

Observation Table
[Table 7: Particle Size Distribution Test 1]

IS Sieve Mass Retained Retained% Cumulative%

100 mm 0 0 0
75 mm 0 0 0
19 mm 0 0 0
10 mm 0 0 0
4.75 mm 0 0 0
2 mm 50 5 5
600 micron 45 4.5 9.5
425 micron 39 3.9 13.4
300 micron 35 3.5 16.9
212 micron 55 5.5 22.4
150 micron 51 5.1 27.5
75 micron 58 5.8 33.3
pan 667 66.7 100

Sand 33.30%
Silt & Clay 66.70%
 [Table 8: Particle Size Distribution Test 2]
IS Sieve Mass Retained Retained% Cumulative%
100 mm 0 0 0
75 mm 0 0 0
19 mm 0 0 0
10 mm 0 0 0
4.75 mm 0 0 0
2 mm 49 4.9 4.9
600 micron 51 5.1 10
425 micron 40 4 14
300 micron 39 3.9 17.9
212 micron 52 5.2 23.1
150 micron 54 5.4 28.5
75 micron 60 6 34.5
pan 655 65.5 100

Sand 34.50%
Silt & Clay 65.50%
4.5.2 Liquid Limit Test
Object
To determine the liquid limit of the soil.
Apparatus
Grooving Tool, Mechanical Liquid Limit Device, Balance, Hot Air Oven, Evaporating
Dish, Spatula.

Procedure
1. About 120 gm of air-dried soil from thoroughly mixed portion of material passing 425
microns IS Sieve is to be obtained.
2. Distilled water is mixed to the soil thus obtained in a mixing disc to form uniform paste.
The paste shall have a consistency that would require 30 to 35 drops of cup to cause
closer of standard groove for 12mm length.
3. For clayey soil leave it for 24 hours prior to test to ensure distribution of Moisture
throughout the soil mass.
4. The soil should then be remixed thoroughly before the test. A portion of the paste is
placed in the cup of Mechanical Liquid Limit device and spread into portion with few
strokes of spatula as possible.
5. At the same time, trim it to a depth of 1 cm at the point of maximum thickness and
return excess of soil to the dish.
6. The soil in the cup shall be decided by the firm strokes of the grooving tool along the
diameter through the centre line of the follower so that clean sharp groove of proper
dimension is formed.
7. Lift and drop the cup by turning crank at the rate of two revolutions per second until
the two halves of soil cake come in contract with each other for a length of about 12
mm by flow only.
8. The number of blows required to cause the groove close for about 12 mm shall be
recorded.
9. A representative portion of soil is taken from the cup for water content determination.
10. Repeat the test with different moisture contents at least three more times for blow
between 15 and 35.
 [Figure 9: Liquid Limit Devices (Casagrande)]

Observation Table
[Table 9: Liquid Limit Test]
A Determination number 1 2 3 4
B Number of blow 0 21 27 30
C Container number 6 8 7 9
D Weight of container, gm 28.66 28.55 29.15 29.05
E Weight of container+ wet soil, gm 35.68 38.04 38.41 46.26
F Weight of container+ oven dry soil, gm 35.32 35.39 35.98 41.82
G Weight of water,(G=E-F)gm 0.36 2.65 2.43 4.44
H Weight of dry soil,(H=F-D)gm 6.66 6.84 6.83 12.77
I Water content,(I=G/H)% 5.41 38.74 35.58 34.77

Graph

Liquid limit
39

38

37

36

35

34
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

[Figure 10: Number of blow v/s Water Content]

4.5.3 Plastic Limit Test
Object
To determine the plastic limit of the soil.
Apparatus
Evaporating dish, spatula, glass plate, moisture containers, rod of 3 mm diameter,
balance sensitive to 0.01 g and oven controlled at temperature 105º to 110ºC.

Procedure

1. Take about 20 gm of thoroughly mixed portion of the material passing through 425
microns IS sieve obtained.
2. Mix it thoroughly with distilled water in the evaporating dish till the soil mass becomes
plastic enough to be easily moulded with fingers.
3. Allow it to season for sufficient time (for 24 hours) to allow water to permeate
throughout the soil mass.
4. Take about 8 gm of this plastic soil mass and roll it between fingers and glass plate with
just sufficient pressure to roll the mass into a thread of uniform diameter throughout its
length. The rate of rolling shall be between 80 and 90 strokes per minute.
5. Continue rolling till you get a thread of 3 mm diameter.
6. Kneed the soil together to a uniform mass and re-roll.
7. Continue the process until the thread crumbles when the diameter is 3 mm.
8. Collect the pieces of the crumbled thread in air tight container for moisture content
determination.
9. Repeat the test to at least 3 times and take the average of the results calculated to the
nearest whole number.

[Figure 11: Plastic Limit Test]

Observation Table
[Table 10: Plastic Limit Test]
A Determination number 1 2 3
B Container number 3 4 6
C Weight of container, gm 29.73 28.39 44.01
D Weight of container+ wet soil, gm 32.42 31.38 46.39
E Weight of container+ oven dry soil, gm 31.88 30.79 45.92
F Weight of water,(F=D-E)gm 0.54 0.59 0.47
G Weight of dry soil,(G=E-C)gm 2.15 2.4 1.91
H Water content,(H=F/G)% 25.12 24.58 24.61

PLASTIC LIMIT(Average water content) 24.77

4.5.4 Compaction Test
Object
To determine the compaction test by light / heavy compaction test method.
Apparatus

Proctor Mould & Metal Rammer, Balance, Sieve, Oven, Steel Straight Edge, Airtight
Container.

Procedure
1. Take a representative portion of air-dried soil large enough to provide about 5 kg of
material passing 19mm IS sieve (for soils not susceptible to crushing during
compaction) or about 15 kg of material passing 19mm IS sieve (for soils susceptible to
crushing during compaction. Sieve this on a 19mm IS sieve and the reject the coarse
fraction after its proportion of the total sample has been recorded.
2. Add suitable amount of water with the soil and mix it thoroughly. For sandy and
gravelly soil add 3% to 5% of water. For cohesive soil the amount of water to be added
should be 12% to 16% below the plastic limit.
3. Weigh the mould with base plate attached, to the nearest 1g and record the weight as
W1. Attach the extension collar with the mould. Compact the moist soil into the mould
in five layers of approximately equal mass, each layer being given 25 blows, with the
help of 4.9 kg rammer, dropped from a height of 450mm above the soil. The blows
must be distributed uniformly over the surface of each layer. The operator shall ensure
that the tube of the rammer is kept clear of soil so that the rammer always falls freely.
4. After completion of the compaction operation, remove the extension collar and level
carefully the top of the mould by means of straightedge. Weigh the mould with the
compacted soil to the nearest 1 g and record this weight as W2.
5. Remove the compacted soil from the mould and place it on the mixing tray. Determine
the water content of a representative sample of the specimen. Record the moisture
content as ‘M’.
6. The remainder of the soil shall be broken up and repeat Steps (iii) to (v) above, by
adding suitable increment of water to the soil. For sandy and gravelly soils, the
increment is generally 1% to 2% and for cohesive soils the increment is generally 2%
to 4%. The total number of determinations made shall be at least five, and the moisture
contents should be such that the optimum moisture content, at which the maximum dry
density occurs, is within that range.
7. For compacting soil containing coarse material up to 37.5 mm size, the 2250 cm³ mould
should be used. A sample weighing about 30 kg and passing the 37.5 mm IS sieve is
used for the test. Soil is compacted in five layers; each layer being given 55 blows of
the 4.9 kg rammer.

 The blows should be uniformly distributed over the surface of each layer. Each layer of
the compacted soil is scored with a spatula before placing the soil for the succeeding
 layer. The amount of soil used should be just sufficient to fill the mould leaving about
5mm to be struck off on the top after compacting the final layer.
 The collar is removed and the compacted soil is levelled off to the top of the mould by
means of the straight edge. The mould and the soil is then weighed. The soil is then
ejected out of the mould and cut in the middle and a representative sample is taken I n
airtight container from the cut surface. The moisture content of this representative
specimen is determined by finding the wet weight, keeping in the oven at 105º to 110ºC
and finding the dry weight the next day.
 This procedure is repeated to six times using fresh part of the soil specimen and after
adding a higher water content than the preceding specimen every time so that the last
compaction is carried out at moisture 7 to 10 percent higher than estimated optimum
moisture content.

[Figure 12: Compaction of Mould]

Observation Table
[Table 11: Compaction Test]

Wt. of mould
B Mould no. 7093
(A)(gm) =
Trial no. 1 2 3 4 5 6
C
(% of water added) (0%) (3%) (6%) (9%) (12%) (15%)
D Wt. of wet sample + mould (gm) 9798 10250 10437 10392 10427 10215
E Wt. wet sample (E=D-A) (gm) 2705 3157 3344 3299 3334 3122
F Wet density of sample (F=E/V) (gm/cc) 1.2 1.4 1.49 1.47 1.48 1.39
G Container no. 1 5 11 10 2 12
H Wt. of container (gm) 30 28 29 28 28 28
J Wt. of wet sample + container (gm) 44 45 44 44 48 47
K Wt. of dry sample + container (gm) 43 43 42 41 44 43
L Wt. of water (L=J-K) (gm) 1 2 2 3 4 4
M Wet. Of dry sample (M=K-H) (gm) 13 15 13 16 16 15
N Water content [N=100*(L/M)]% 7.69 13.33 15.38 18.75 25 26.67
P Dry density [P=100*(F/(100+N))] gm/cc 1.12 1.24 1.29 1.23 1.19 1.1
V Volume of mould 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250

Graph

MDD & OMC Test

1.3

1.25

1.2

1.15

1.1

1.05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

[Figure 13: Water Content v/s Dry Density]

4.5.5 California Bearing Ratio Test
Object
To determine CBR value of the soil.
Apparatus

Loading Machine, Cylindrical Mould, Compaction Rammer, Adjustable Stem,

Perforated Plate, Tripod and Dial Gauge, Annular Weight.
Procedure

Procedure of Test Specimen

1. Remoulded specimen: The test material should pass 19 mm IS sieve and retained on
4.75 mm IS sieve. The dry density for a remoulding shall be either the field density or
the value of the maximum dry density estimated by the compaction test (Heavy
Compaction Test). The water content used for compaction shall be the optimum water
content or the field moisture as the case may be.
2. Dynamic Compaction: A representative sample of the soil weighing approximately 4.5
kg or more for fine grained soil and 5.5 kg or more for granular soil shall be taken and
mixed thoroughly with water. If the soil is to be compacted to the maximum dry density
at the optimum moisture content, the exact mass of the soil required shall be taken and
the necessary quantity of water added so that the water content of the soil sample is
equal to the determined optimum moisture content.
3. Fix the extension collar and the base plate to the mould. Insert the spacer disc over the
base. Place the filter paper on the top of the spacer disc.
4. Apply Lubricating Oil to the inner side of the mould. Compact the mix soil in the mould
using heavy compaction i.e. compact the soil in 5 layers with 55 blows to each layer by
the 4.89 kg rammer.
5. Remove the extension collar and trim the compacted soil carefully at the level of top of
mould, by means of a straight edge. Any holes developed on the surface of the
compacted soil by removal of the coarse material, shall be patched with the smaller size
material. Remove the perforated base plate, Spacer disc and filter paper and record the
mass of the mould and compacted soil specimen. Place a disc of coarse filter paper on
the perforated base plate, invert the mould and compacted soil and clamp the perforated
base plate to the mould with the compacted soil in contact with the filter paper.
6. Place a filter paper over the specimen and place perforated plate on the compacted soil
specimen in the mould. Put annular weights to produce a surcharge equal to weight of
base material and pavement, to the nearest 2.5 kg.
7. Immerse the mould assembly and weights in a tank of water and soak it for 96 hours.
Mount the tripod for expansion measuring device on the edge of the mould and record
initial dial gauge reading. Note down the readings every day against time of reading. A
constant water level shall be maintained in the tank throughout the period.
8. At the end of soaking period, note down the final reading of the dial gauge and take the
mould out of water tank.
 9. Remove the free water collected in the mould and allow the specimen to drain for 15
minutes. Remove the perforated plate and the top filter paper. Weigh the soaked soil
sample and record the weight.

Procedure for Penetration Test

1. Place the mould assembly with test specimen on the lower plate of penetration testing
machine. To prevent upheaval of soil into the hole of the surcharge weights, 2.5 kg
annular weight shall be placed on the soil surface prior to seating the penetration
plunger after which the remainder of the surcharge weights shall be placed.
2. Seat the penetration piston at the centre of the specimen with the smallest possible load,
but in no case in excess of 4 kg so that full contact of the piston on the sample is
established.
3. Set the load and deformation gauges to read zero. Apply the load on the piston so that
the penetration rate is about 1.25 mm/min.
4. Record the load readings at penetrations of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 4.0, 5.0, 7.5, 10 and
12.5 mm.
5. Raise the plunger and detach the mould from the loading equipment. Take about 20 to
50 g of soil from the top 30 mm layer and determine the moisture content.

[Figure 14: CBR Test]

[Figure 15: CBR Test Machine with Load Ring]

[Figure 16: CBR Measurement Instrument]

Observation Table
[Table 12: CBR Test 1]

Penetration (mm) Standard load intensity (kg) CBR%

0 0
0.5 29.8
1 32.9
1.5 35.1
2 39.1
2.5 41.8 3.12
3 43.4
4 46.6
5 48.4 2.35
7.5 58.4
10 64.3
12.5 70.3

Graph

CBR Test
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

[Figure 17: Penetration v/s Standard Load Intensity]

 [Table 13: CBR Test 2]

Penetration (mm) Standard load intensity (kg) CBR%

0 0
0.5 20.6
1 24.7
1.5 28.6
2 31.9
2.5 34.0 2.96
3 37.4
4 39.8
5 42.6 2.3
7.5 49.5
10 57.5
12.5 65.3

Graph

CBR Test
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

[Figure 18: Penetration v/s Standard Load Intensity]

 [Table 14: Some Characteristic of Unified Soil Classification Group]
Soil Type Soil Value as Unit Dry CBR Subgrade Drainage Volume Potential
Group Foundation Weight (I.S. % Modulus Characteristics Change Frost
or subgrade light Kg/cm² Characteristics action
material compaction)
g/m³
Coarse Grain GW Excellent 2.00-2.24 60-90 >8.33 Excellent Almost None None to
Soil Gravelly Very
Soil(G) Slight
GP Excellent to 1.76-2.08 25-60 >8.33 Excellent None None
Good
GM Excellent to 2.08-2.22 20-80 >8.33 Fair to Poor Very Slight Slight to
Good Medium
GC Good 1.92-2.24 20-80 5.55- Poor Slight Slight to
8.33 Medium
Coarse Grain SW Good 1.76-2.08 20-60 5.55- Excellent Almost None None to
Soil – Sand 8.33 Very
Soil (S) Slight
SP Good to 1.59-1.92 10-30 5.55- Excellent Almost None None to
Fair 8.33 Very
Slight
SM Good 1.92-2.16 10-40 5.55- Fair to Poor Very Slight Slight to
8.33 High
SC Fair to 1.68-2.08 15-50 5.55- Poor Slight to Slight to
Good 8.33 Medium High
Fine Grain Soil ML Fair to Poor 1.60-2.00 5-20 2.78- Fair to Poor Slight to High to
with Low 5.55 Medium Very
Compressibility High
CL Fair to Poor 1.60-2.00 5-15 2.78- Very Poor Medium Medium
5.55 to High
DL Poor 1.44-1.60 3-8 2.78- Poor Medium to Medium
5.55 High to High
Fine Grain soil MH Poor 1.28-1.60 3-8 2.78- Poor High Medium
with High 5.55 to High
Compressibility CH Poor to 1.44-1.76 3-5 1.39- Very Poor Very High Medium
Very Poor 2.78
DH Poor to 1.28-1.68 2-4 1.39- Very Poor Very High Medium
Very Poor 2.78
[Table 15: Characteristics of Soil]

Soil Type Soil Value as Unit Dry CBR % Subgrade Drainage Volume Potential
Group Foundation Weight (I.S. Modulus Characteristics Change Frost
or subgrade light Kg/cm² Characteristics action
material compaction)
g/m³
Fine Grain soil MH Poor 1.28-1.60 3-8 2.78- Poor High Medium
with High 5.55 to High
Compressibility
4.6 Result Table
[Table 16: Result Table]

Sr. No. Material MDD OMC CBR K Flexible Rigid

1 Actual soil 1.29 15.38 3.05 68.23 1300.4 797.56
2 2% cement 1.84 15.38 4.76 96.51 1015.5 763.52
3 4% cement 1.96 7.69 12.49 204.58 573.4 711.45
4 2% lime 1.96 10.67 5.29 104.78 958.3 756.15
5 4% lime 1.95 8.46 5.99 115.67 889.4 747.52
2% cement +
6 1.83 15.14 11.37 190.54 608.5 714.24
0.04% terrasil
2% cement +
7 1.84 13.00 17.64 268.25 465.8 705.86
0.06% terrasil
2% cement + 1.83
8 16.80 3.47 75.60 1215.5 787.4
0.08% terrasil
4% cement +
9 1.80 16.41 8.89 157.31 697.3 724.4
0.04% terrasil
4% cement +
10 1.87 15.00 16.37 253.08 486.6 706.37
0.06% terrasil
2% lime
11 1.94 14.30 7.28 134.64 787.2 735.83
+0.04% terrasil
2% lime
12 1.85 13.90 2.51 58.75 1429.6 818.13
+0.06% terrasil
4% lime
13 1.90 11.70 7.67 140.23 760.6 732.28
+0.04% terrasil
4% lime
14 1.92 11.36 8.85 156.76 699.2 724.66
+0.06% terrasil
15 2% Flyash 1.82 15.33 0.85 25.28 2075.1 924.56
16 4% Flyash 1.84 15.00 0.73 20.26 2158.2 946.15
4.7 Pavement design using FAARFIELD
4.7.1 Flexible Pavement Design

FAARFIELD

FAARFIELD v 1.42 - Airport Pavement Design

Section Flexible in Job Flexible.

Working directory is C:\Users\Nayan\Documents\FAARFIELD\
The structure is New Flexible. Asphalt CDF was not computed.
Design Life = 20 years.
A design for this section was completed on 07/16/20 at 20:48:53.
Compaction requirements for this section were computed on 07/16/20 at 20:49:51.

Pavement Structure Information by Layer, Top Firs t

Thickness Modulus Poisson's Strength

No. Type
mm MPa Ratio R MPa
P-401/ P-403 HMA
1 101.6 1,378.95 0.35 0.00
Surface
2 P-401/ P-403 St (flex) 127.0 2,757.90 0.35 0.00
3 P-209 Cr Ag 237.3 478.94 0.35 0.00
4 Subgrade 0.0 182.44 0.35 0.00

Total thickness to the top of the subgrade = 465.9 mm

Airplane Information

No. Name Gross Wt. tonnes Annual Departures % Annual Growth

1 A380e 575.000 1,200 0.00

2 A380e Belly 575.000 1,200 0.00

3 B747-8F 449.056 1,200 0.00

4 B747-8F Belly 449.056 1,200 0.00

Additional Airplane Information
Subgrade CDF
CDF CDF Max for P/C
No. Name
Contribution Airplane Ratio
1 A380e 0.00 0.48 1.71
2 A380e Belly 0.48 0.50 1.88
3 B747-8F 0.00 0.52 1.59
4 B747-8F Belly 0.52 0.52 1.59

Subgrade Compaction Requirements

NonCohesive Soil

Depth of Depth of
Percent Maximum compaction compaction Critical Airplane
Dry Density (%) from pavement from top of for Compaction
surface (mm) subgrade (mm)
100 0 - 1276 0 - 811 B747-8F
95 1276 - 2985 811 - 2520 A380e Belly
90 2985 - 4803 2520 - 4337 A380e Belly

Cohesive Soil
Depth of Depth of
Percent Maximum compaction compaction Critical Airplane
Dry Density (%) from pavement from top of for Compaction
surface (mm) subgrade (mm)
95 0 - 1130 0 - 664 B747-8F
90 1130 - 2267 664 - 1802 A380e Belly
85 2267 - 3532 1802 - 3066 A380e Belly
80 3532 - 4728 3066 - 4263 A380e Belly
User is responsible for checking frost protection requirements.
[Figure 19: Design of Flexible Pavement]
4.7.2 Rigid Pavement Design
FAARFIELD
FAARFIELD v 1.42 - Airport Pavement Design

Section Rigid in Job Rigid.

Working directory is C:\Users\Nayan\Documents\FAARFIELD\
The structure is New Rigid.
Design Life = 20 years.
A design for this section was completed on 07/16/20 at 22:04:56.

Pavement Structure Information by Layer, Top First

Thickness Modulus Poisson's Strength R

No. Type
mm MPa Ratio MPa
1 PCC Surface 425.6 27,579.03 0.15 4.48
P-401/ P-403
2 127.0 2,757.90 0.35 0.00
St (flex)
3 P-209 Cr Ag 152.4 628.48 0.35 0.00
4 Subgrade 0.0 330.49 0.40 0.00

Total thickness to the top of the subgrade = 705.0 mm

Airplane Information

Gross Wt. Annual % Annual

No. Name
tonnes Departures Growth
1 A380e 575.000 1,200 0.00
2 A380e Belly 575.000 1,200 0.00
3 B747-8F 449.056 1,200 0.00
4 B747-8F Belly 449.056 1,200 0.00

Additional Airplane Information

CDF CDF Max for

No. Name P/C Ratio
Contribution Airplane
1 A380e 0.00 0.08 3.78
2 A380e Belly 0.11 0.12 4.19
3 B747-8F 0.00 0.89 3.54
4 B747-8F Belly 0.89 0.89 3.55

User is responsible for checking frost protection requirements.

[Figure 20: Design of Rigid Pavement]
4.8 Pavement design using PCASE
4.8.1 Flexible Pavement Design

Design Name : FLEXIBLE

Design Type : Airfield
Pavement Type : Flexible
Traffic Area : Area A
Analysis Type : CBR
Depth of Frost (in) : 0
Wander Width (in) : 1778

Layer Information

Moisture Dry Unit Weight

Layer Type Material Type Frost Code
Content (kg/m^3)

AC AC NFS 0 2322.68
BASE UCS NFS 5 2162.49
DRA NA NFS 5 2082.4
SEP NA NFS 8 2082.4
SUBG COHCUT NFS 18 1601.85

Non frost
Reduced
Analysis Design Limited Subgrade
Subgrade CBR Strength
(kg/m^3) Thickness Penetration (mm)
Strength (mm)
(mm)
Compute 127 0 0 0
Compute 254 0 0 100
Manual 504 0 0 50
Manual 102 0 0 50
Manual 0 0 0 17.64

Total thickness to the top of the subgrade = 987.0 mm

Traffic Information
Weight
Passes
Weight (kg) Passes
Traffic Equivalent
Vehicles (kg) Traffic Traffic ACN Traffic
Area A, Passes
Area A, B Area C, Area D
B, C
D
AIRBUS A380-800 562001 421500 55 100 1 100
BOEING 747-8 443613 332709 23 100 1 79
AIRBUS A380-800 562001 421500 55 179

4.8.2 Rigid Pavement Design

Design Name : RIGID

Design Type : Airfield
Pavement Type : Rigid
Traffic Area : Area A
Analysis Type : K
Depth of Frost (in) : 0
Wander Width (in) : 1778
% Load Transfer : 25
Effective K (pci) : 134.69
Reduced Sub Effective K (pci) : 0
Joint Spacing : 3.8 to 4.6 m
Dowel Spacing : 305 mm
Dowel Length : 406 mm
Dowel Diameter: 20 mm

Layer Information
Non frost
Dry Unit Flexural K
Layer Moisture Design
Weight Strength Strength
Material Type Thickness
Type Content (kg/m^3) (kg/m^3) (kPa/mm)
(mm)

PCC NA 0 2322.68 4.48 198 0

DRA NA 5 2082.4 0 504 0
SEP NA 8 2082.4 0 102 0
SUBG COHCUT 18 1601.85 0 0 134.64

Total thickness to the top of the subgrade = 804.0 mm

Traffic Information
Weight
Passes
Weight (kg) Passes
Traffic Equivalent
Vehicles (kg) Traffic Traffic ACN Traffic
Area A, Passes
Area A, B Area C, Area D
B, C
D
AIRBUS A380-800 562001 421500 55 100 1 100
BOEING 747-8 443613 332709 23 100 1 35
AIRBUS A380-800 562001 421500 55 135
 CHAPTER – 5
CONCLUSION

After performing MDD, OMC and CBR tests on the soil sample we found that our soil type is MH.
After stabilization with different chemicals we concluded that there is about 40% reduction in the
thickness of flexible and rigid pavement. The combination of cement and terrasil is found best
which not only increases the soil strength, dry density and CBR value but also reduces the moisture
content in the soil. Also terrasil is water resistant so when it is added to soil it makes soil
hydrophobic which doesn’t allow to absorb water and with proper drainage that excess water can
be remove effectively at airport site.
 REFERENCES

 AC No: 150/5320-6F
 AC No: 150/5370-10G
 FAARFIELD 1.42 user manual
 PCASE user manual
 Andreas Loizos, Angeliki Armeni and Christina Plati, "Evaluation of Airfield Pavements
Using FAARFIELD" (2017)
 D.R. Brill and I. Kawa, "Advances in FAA Pavement Thickness Design Software:
FAARFIELD 1.42" (2017)
 Greg White and Reeve Balestra, "Comparing Rigid and Flexible Airport Pavement
Thicknesses Designed by Different Methods" (2019)
 David R. Brill, M. ASCE, and Edward H. Guo, "Load Transfer in Rigid Airport
Pavement Joints" (2012)
 Manuel O. Bejarano and Marshall R. Thompson, "Subgrade Damage Approach for the
Design of Airport Flexible Pavements" (2012)
 Peter L. Zaleski, David J. Derwin, Walter H. Flood, "Electrically conductive pawing
mixture and pavement system" (1998)
 Shuo Yang, Halil Ceylan, Kasthurirangan Gopalakrishnan, Sunghwan Kim, "Smart
airport pavement instrumentation and health monitoring" (2014)
 Hao Wang, Maoyun Li & Navneet Garg, "Investigation of shear failure in airport asphalt
pavements under aircraft ground manoeuvring" (2017)
 Greg White, "New Airport Pavement Technologies from the USA" (2014)
 Greg White, "Cyclic Shear Deformation of Asphalt at Melbourne Airport" (2014)