19-PCI-AIR-Maxwell March 2019.pdf

ARA-TR-19-G10008.00000.00000.00005

AIRFIELD PAVEMENT CONDITION

INDEX SURVEY REPORT

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, AL

March 2019

Prepared by:

Applied Research Associates, Inc.

Mid-Atlantic Division 4000 Pemberton Square Blvd.

Vicksburg, MS 39180

June 2020 Final Report

Distribution limitation applied as of report date. Other requests for this document must be referred to the

Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC/COAT), 139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida 32403-5319.

Prepared for: Air Force Civil Engineer Center

139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1 Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida 32403-5319

Contract Number GS00Q14OADU104

Maxwell AFB i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

PREFACE ................................................................................................................... vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF TASKS PERFORMED

1.2.1 PCI Survey

1.2.2 Validation of Real Property Pavement Inventory

1.2.3 CADD/GIS Mapping

1.2.4 PAVER Implementation

1.2.5 PAVER Work Plan Development

1.2.6 Written Report

1.2.7 Photographs

1.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.3.1 Location

1.3.2 Design and Construction History

1.3.3 Current Traffic Data

1.3.4 Previous Reports

1.4 SYNOPSIS OF MAJOR PROJECTS SINCE LAST EVALUATION

2 PCI RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 PCI SURVEY PROCEDURE

2.1.1 PCI Survey Process

2.1.2 PAVER Implementation and Report Products

2.1.3 Life Cycle Graph

2.2 OVERVIEW OF PCI SURVEY RESULTS

2.2.1 PCI Results by Branch Use and Pavement Surface Type

2.2.2 Pavement Issues

2.3 SURVEY RESULTS

2.3.1 Aprons

2.3.2 Overruns

2.3.3 Runways

2.3.4 Taxiways

2.3.5 Projected PCI

2.4 SHOULDERS

3 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND CRITERIA

3.1 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT RATING DESCRIPTION

3.1.1 Area-Weighted Average PCI

3.1.2 FOD Index and Potential

3.1.3 Structural Index

3.1.4 Friction Index

ii Maxwell AFB

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Chapter Page

3.2 EA RATINGS

4 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR BUDGET SCENARIOS

4.1 BUDGET SCENARIO PROCESS OVERVIEW

4.2 BUDGET SCENARIO OVERVIEW

4.2.1 Condition Stabilization

4.2.2 Major M&R Backlog Elimination over Ten Years

4.2.3 Stopgap M&R Only (safety issues)

4.3 OPTIMUM BUDGET SELECTED

4.4 REPAIR RECOMMENDATION AND COST

4.4.1 Major M&R Projects

4.4.2 Consequence of Localized Distress Maintenance

4.4.3 Global Maintenance Plan

4.5 SECTIONS EXCLUDED FROM PAVER WORK PLANS

Appendix Page

A AIRFIELD MAPS .................................................................................................... A-1

B PAVEMENT INVENTORY AND CONDITION INFORMATION ........................B-1

B.1 REAL PROPERTY PAVEMENT INVENTORY .........................................B-3 B.2 PAVER/RPAD COMPARSON .....................................................................B-3 B.3 BRANCH USE INVENTORY ......................................................................B-4 B.4 PAVEMENT TYPE .......................................................................................B-5

B.5 INSPECTION DATA SUMMARY BY AGE GROUP ................................B-5

B.6 INSPECTION DATA SUMMARY BY PAVEMENT RANK .....................B-6

B.7 SECTIONS NOT INSPECTED AND EXCLUDED FROM

CONDITION ANALYSIS AND WORK PLANS ........................................B-7

C PCI DETERIORATION RATE SUMMARY ...........................................................C-1 C.1 BRANCH AND SECTION PCI COMPARISONS .......................................C-3

D RESERVED ........................................................................................................... D-1

E PAVER WORK HISTORY REPORT....................................................................... E-1

F PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX RESULTS ....................................................... F-1

F.1 STANDARD PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX ...................................... F-3

G FOD POTENTIAL INFORMATION ....................................................................... G-1 G.1 FOD INDEX AND FOD POTENTIAL ....................................................... G-3

Maxwell AFB iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONCLUDED)

Appendix Page

H STRUCTURAL RESULTS ...................................................................................... H-1 H.1 STRUCTURAL INDEX ............................................................................... H-3

I FRICTION CHARACTERISTIC RESULTS............................................................. I-1 I.1 FRICTION INDEX ......................................................................................... I-3

J ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLES ......................................... J-1

J.1 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT RATING DESCRIPTION ........................ J-3

K ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT AND PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN

INPUTS ............................................................................................................... K-1 K.1 PROABILITY OF FAILURE ........................................................................ K-3

L BUDGET DETAILS .................................................................................................. L-1

L.1 PAVEMENT PRIORITIZATION AND CRITICAL PCI ............................. L-3

L.2 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR POLICIES ............................................... L-3 L.3 PRIORITIZATION OF M&R POLICIES ..................................................... L-4 L.4 PRIORITIZATION OF PAVEMENT ........................................................... L-5 L.5 M&R POLICY TABLES ............................................................................... L-5 L.6 M&R COSTS ................................................................................................. L-9 L.6.1 Cost-by-work type M&R Costs ......................................................... L-9

L.6.2 Cost-by-condition M&R Work Plans and Costs ............................. L-11

M FAMILY MODELS FOR CONDITION DETERIORATION PREDICTION ........ M-1

M.1 FAMILY CURVES ...................................................................................... M-3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

ES.1 Comparison of Area-Weighted Average PCI for 2015 And 2019 ES.2 Pavement Condition (7-Color PCI Rating)

2.1 Systematic Random Selection of Sample Units to Survey

2.2 Pavement Life Cycle Showing the Effects of M&R

2.3 Current Condition by Surface Type

2.4 PCI by Pavement Type for 2015 and 2019 PCI Surveys

4.1 Summary of Budget Scenarios

4.2 Summary of Funding Required for Budget Scenarios

4.3 Summary of Backlog Remaining for Budget Scenarios

4.4 Funded M&R Costs to Maintain Current Condition

4.5 Funded M&R Costs to Eliminate the Major M&R Backlog

4.6 Funded M&R Costs for the Localized Stopgap Budget

iv Maxwell AFB

LIST OF FIGURES (CONCLUDED)

Figure Page

A.1 Facility Identification ............................................................................................. A-3 A.2 Branch Identification ............................................................................................. A-5 A.3 Pavement Ranking ................................................................................................. A-7 A.4 Pavement Condition (7-Color PCI Rating) ............................................................ A-9 A.5 FOD Index ........................................................................................................... A-11 A.6 Structural Index .................................................................................................... A-13 A.7 Engineering Assessment ...................................................................................... A-15 A.8 Major Repair Plan ................................................................................................ A-17 A.9 Sample Layout ..................................................................................................... A-19 G.1 C-17 Category FOD Potential Curve ..................................................................... G-3 H.1 Structural Index Rating Criteria.........................................................................….H-3 L.1 Significant Drop in Pavement Condition Near End of Pavement Life

Cycle…… ............................................................................................................. L-12 L.2 AC M&R Cost-by-Condition ................................................................................ L-13 L.3 PCC M&R Cost-by-Condition .............................................................................. L-13 M.1 Predicting Pavement Condition ............................................................................. M-3 M.2 Family Plot for Primary AC Pavement (0.69 PCI points per year) ....................... M-4 M.3 Family Plot for Secondary AC Pavement (2.85 PCI points per year) ................... M-5 M.4 Family Plot for Tertiary AC Pavement (2.93 PCI points per year) ....................... M-5 M.5 Family Plot for Primary PCC Airfield Pavement (0.33 PCI points per year)........ M-6 M.6 Family Plot for Secondary and Tertiary PCC Airfield Pavement (0.97 PCI points per year ....................................................................................................................... M-6

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

ES.1 Current Condition Summary ES.2 PAVER Recommended Budget Summary ES.3 Distribution List

1.1 Major M&R Since Previous Inspection

2.1 Definition of PCI Ratings and Pavement Distribution

2.2 Current Condition Summary

2.3 Apron Pavement Area and Sections by PCI Range

2.4 Overrun Pavement Area and Sections by PCI Range

2.5 Runway Pavement Area and Sections by PCI Range

2.6 Taxiway Pavement Area and Sections by PCI Range

2.7 Ten-year Projected PCI

2.8 Shoulder Location and Pavement Area

3.1 EA Rating Criteria

3.2 EA Ratings by Section

4.1 Summary of PAVER Work Plan Results

Maxwell AFB v

LIST OF TABLES (CONCLUDED)

Table Page

4.2 PAVER Recommended Major M&R by Year

4.3 Consequence of Localized Distress Maintenance

4.4 Recommended Global Maintenance

B.1 Real Property Inventory .............................................................................................B-3 B.2 Header Acronyms ......................................................................................................B-3 B.3 PAVER/RPAD Comparison ......................................................................................B-3 B.4 Branch Use Information .............................................................................................B-5 B.5 Pavement Surface Type Information .........................................................................B-5 B.6 Inspection Data Summary by Age .............................................................................B-5 B.7 Inspection Data Summary by Rank ...........................................................................B-6 B.8 Excluded Sections ......................................................................................................B-7 C.1 PCI Deterioration Rate Summary ..............................................................................C-5 F.1 Definition of PCI Ratings .......................................................................................... F-3 G.1 FOD Index Criteria ................................................................................................... G-3 G.2 FOD Producing Distresses and Probable Cause ....................................................... G-4 G.3 FOD Potential and Rating by Section ....................................................................... G-4 H.1 ACN Values for C-17 Aircraft .................................................................................. H-3 H.2 Structural Index by Section ....................................................................................... H-4 I.1 Runway 15/33 Friction Values ................................................................................... I-3 I.2 Runway 009/189 Friction Values ............................................................................... I-3 J.1 EA Rating Criteria ...................................................................................................... J-3 J.2 EA Ratings by Section ................................................................................................ J-3 K.1 Probability of Failure Information ............................................................................ K-5 L.1 PAVER Funding Priority ........................................................................................... L-4 L.2 Pavement Priority Matrix ........................................................................................... L-5 L.3 AC Stopgap M&R Policies ........................................................................................ L-5 L.4 PCC Stopgap M&R Policies ...................................................................................... L-6 L.5 AC Preventive M&R Policies .................................................................................... L-7 L.6 PCC Preventive M&R Policies .................................................................................. L-8 L.7 Sample M&R Item Unit Cost Calculation (full-depth PCC patching) .................... L-10 L.8 M&R Cost-by-Treatment ......................................................................................... L-10

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph Page

1.1 GPS Coordinates on Photographs

2.1 Aero Club Apron, Section A10C, Medium-Severity Shattered Slab

2.2 AGE Storage Lot, Section A13, Medium-Severity L&T Cracking

2.3 Maintenance Hangar Access Apron, Section A11C3, Overview

2.4 North Apron, Section A01B, Medium-severity Linear Crack

2.5 North Apron, Section T02B, High-severity Joint Seal Damage vi Maxwell AFB

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS (CONCLUDED)

Photograph Page

2.6 West Apron, Section A05B, Medium-severity Large Patch

2.7 Overrun Runway 009/189, Section O02C, Overview

2.8 Overrun Runway 15/33, Section O05C, Overview

2.9 Runway 009/189, Section R01A, Medium-severity Large Patch

2.10 Runway 009/189, Section R02A, Overview

2.11 Runway 15/33, Section R03A, Medium-severity Linear Crack

2.12 Runway 15/33, Section R04C1, Overview

2.13 Runway 15/33, Section R05A2, Overview

2.14 Runway 15/33, Section R07A, Overview

2.15 Runway 15/33, Section R10C, Low-severity L&T cracking

2.16 Runway 009/189 Turn Around, Section T06A, Low-severity Block Cracking

2.17 Taxiway A North, Section T18A, Medium-severity Joint Spalls

2.18 Taxiway A Northwest, Section T03A, High-severity Joint Seal Damage

2.19 Taxiway A Northwest, Section T13A, Overview

2.20 Taxiway A Northwest, Section T33A, Medium-severity Linear Crack

2.21 Taxiway C, Section T08A, Overview

Maxwell AFB vii

PREFACE

This report documents a March 2019 assessment of the pavement condition of the airfield pavements network at Maxwell Air Force Base (AFB), AL performed by Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA). This report provides information for:

• Planning and programming for pavement maintenance, repairs, and rehabilitation

• Prioritization of pavement facilities for maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) and construction projects

• Allocation of funds for annual M&R

• The validation of the Real Property pavement inventory This report meets the requirements for pavement condition inspection established in Air

Force Instruction (AFI) 32-1041, “Air Force Pavement Evaluation Program.”

The Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) provided funding for this airfield pavements network Pavement Condition Index (PCI) survey. Mrs. Giselle Concepcion, Headquarters Air Force Civil Engineer Center (HQ AFCEC)/COAT, was the technical contact.

The prime contractor was Applied Research Associates, Inc., under Contract No.

GS00Q14OADU104.

Frank C. Manning, AETC 42 CES/CEY, provided valuable support and information for the survey.

The field survey team consisted of Grady Holly, Victor Parker, Paul Rohrer, and Joshua Turner. Geographic Information System (GIS) drawings were provided by Grady Holley. Victor Parker, Paul Rohrer, and Joshua Turner prepared this report.

viii Maxwell AFB

This page intentionally left blank.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A pavement condition survey for the airfield network at Maxwell AFB, AL, was performed by ARA in March 2019, and a PAVER database for the airfield pavements was updated. The goals of the assessment were to:

• Determine the PCI, between zero (failed) and 100 (no distresses), of both Portland cement concrete (PCC) and asphalt concrete (AC) airfield pavements

• Update a PAVER pavement management system (PMS) to identify M&R requirements and conduct cost planning

• Validate the Real Property pavement inventory The objectives of the pavement condition survey were to:

• Acquire pertinent data to determine the current condition of the airfield pavements

• Provide the Base Civil Engineer (BCE) with the PAVER database and associated PCI Survey Report for use in making pavement management decisions

• Develop 10-year work plans for M&R cost planning for the airfield pavements

PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX

PAVER pavement management software was used to perform PCI calculations and analyses. Table ES.1 summarizes the condition survey results by branch use, and Figure ES.1 graphically compares the 2015 and 2019 PCI survey results by branch use. Figure ES.2 is the 7-color PCI by section map of the airfield network.

Table ES.1. Current Condition Summary.

Branch Use Area-Weighted

Average Area-Weighted

Average Condition Category

Pavement

2015 PCI 2015 Age 2019 PCI 2019 Age Area (ft²) Area (%) Sections

Apron 85 25 86 25 Good 2,533,470 45 15 Fair 84,955 2 2 Poor 36,205 1 1

Overrun 89 8 78 6 Good 378,463 7 6 Fair -- -- -- Poor -- -- --

Runway 85 20 91 15 Good 1,429,389 25 18 Fair -- -- -- Poor -- -- --

Taxiway 93 20 86 20 Good 1,109,882 20 17 Fair 50,117 <1 1 Poor -- -- --

Overall Airfield 87 18 87 20 Good 5,622,481 100 60 Shoulder -- -- -- -- Fair 1,714,359 -- 6

Maxwell AFB 1

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES FOR BASE PAVEMENTS

Joint-seal damage was present throughout the PCC pavements and requires replacement in many areas. Linear cracking and spalling were also prevalent. The majority of the AC pavements were in Good condition with the exception of Runway 009/189 Turnaround (T06A).

Longitudinal and Transverse (L&T) cracking has formed along paving lanes throughout.

Localized crack sealing is recommended to mitigate deterioration.

Figure ES.1. Comparison of Area-Weighted Average PCI for 2015 and 2019.

RECOMMENDED BUDGET SCENARIO

All work plans were assumed to start at the beginning of fiscal year (FY) 2020 and extend through FY 2029. The backlog elimination budget was chosen as the optimum budget because it repaired all pavements below their critical PCI value and left no backlog. This budget costs $7.6 million over the ten-year plan. Table ES.2 shows the yearly costs of the recommended budget. A full project list is included in Chapter 4. Closed pavements and shoulders were excluded from the budget scenario.

Table ES.2. PAVER Recommended Budget Summary.

Plan

FY

M&R Policy Type Total Backlog After

Plan Year

PCI

Stopgap Preventive Global Major Before After 2020 $10,927 $534,558 $0 $72,889 $618,374 $965,377 86 87 2021 $0 $552,298 $0 $965,377 $1,517,675 $0 86 87 2022 $0 $572,147 $0 $0 $572,147 $0 86 86 2023 $0 $594,665 $0 $0 $594,665 $0 85 85 2024 $0 $599,067 $67,555 $130,740 $797,362 $0 84 86 2025 $0 $607,807 $86,607 $0 $694,413 $0 85 85 2026 $0 $622,609 $8,683 $0 $631,291 $0 84 85 2027 $0 $646,062 $0 $0 $646,062 $0 84 84 2028 $0 $662,872 $9,145 $146,688 $818,704 $0 83 84 2029 $0 $687,176 $1,806 $14,292 $703,273 $0 83 83 Total $10,927 $6,079,261 $173,795 $1,329,985 $7,593,967 86 83

85 89 85

86 87

Apron Overrun Runway Taxiway Overall

A re a- W ei gh te d

A ve ra ge

P C

I

Branch Use

2 Maxwell AFB

17.75 PCC

R06A1

17.75 PCC

R06A2

17.75 PCC

R07A

10.25 PCC

R03A

8.75 AC

R09C R04C2

AC

R14C1

AC

R14C2

R09C R04C2

9.00 AC

R05A1

R05A2

5.00 AC

O05C2.25 AC

O03C

17.25 PCC

T11A

18.25 PCC

T16A

3.50 AC

O04C R10C

R13C

R02A

10.25 PCC

T30B R12C

2.50 AC

O06C

12.50 PCC

T34A

15.25 PCC

T18A2

16.00 PCC

T18A1

11.50 PCC

T33A

R01A

11.50 PCC

T17A

T13A

A11C3

T08A 10.50 PCC

T07B

18.00 PCC

T29B T09A

10.25 PCC

A04B

5.75 PCC

A10C

10.75 PCC

A07B1.75 AC

O02C

2.00 AC

O08C

.50 DBST

O01C

14.25 PCC

T03A

T04A

R04C2

16.5 PCC

R08C1

T32B

10.50 PCC

A05B

17.50 PCC

T31B

3.75 AC

T14B

T06A

4.25 AC

T19A

14.00 PCC

A11C1

14.00 PCC

A11C2

T02B

12.25 PCC

A08B

T05C

10.50 PCC

A01B

R04C1

18.00 PCC

T15B

16.75 PCC

R08C2

10.00 PCC

14.00 PCC

13.00 PCC

T12C

A13A12

TYPE OF SECTION

R - RUNWAY

A - APRON

O - OVERRUN

A - A TYPE TRAFFIC

PAVEMENT THICKNESS IN INCHES & TYPE

SECTION DESIGNATION (SEE NOTE 1)

T - TAXIWAY

TYPE TRAFFIC AREA (SEE NOTE 2)

B - B TYPE TRAFFIC

C - C TYPE TRAFFIC

S - SHOULDER

PAVEMENT TYPE

MAC - TARMACADM CONCRETE

PCC - PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

THE TIME OF LAST STRUCTURAL EVALUATION AND TRAFFIC TYPE AREA.

3. SECTION DESIGNATIONS MAY NOT CORRESPOND WITH THOSE FROMPREVIOUS REPORTS AND DRAWINGS.

1. SECTION DESIGNATION DENOTES TYPE OF SECTION, NUMBER OFSECTION FOR GIVEN SECTION TYPE, AVERAGE PAVEMENT THICKNESS AT

4. SECTION DESIGNATIONS WITHOUT A PAVEMENT THICKNESS IDENTIFIEDDENOTE SECTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN STRUCTURALLY EVALUATED.

2. TRAFFIC DESIGNATIONS ARE BASED ON UFC 3-260-02.

NOTES:

19.25 PCC

R01A

7.50 MAC7.00 PCC

3.25 AC3.75.MAC7.75 PCC

8.25 AC7.25 MAC6.25 PCC

RPCC - REINFORCED PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

AC - ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

7.50 AC8.00 MAC6.50 PCC

8.75 AC7.50 MAC7.00 PCC

8.25 AC7.25 MAC6.25 PCC

9.00 AC8.00 MAC7.50 PCC

6.00 AC12.25 MAC6.00 PCC

9.00 AC7.75 MAC6.00 PCC

8.25 AC7.25 MAC6.25 PCC

9.00 AC9.00 MAC6.00 PCC

9.75 AC10.75 MAC6.00 PCC

7.00 AC9.25 MAC6.25 PCC3.75 AC10.75 MAC6.25 PCC

3.50 AC9.25 MAC7.50 PCC

3.50 AC12.50 PCC

8.25 AC4.75 MAC7.75 PCC

3.25 AC8.75 MAC6.75 PCC

4.50 AC11.50 PCC

R

Legend 7-Color PCI Rating

Good 86-100 Satisfactory 71-85 Fair 56-70 Poor 41-55 Very Poor 26-40 Serious 11-25 Failed 0-10 Not Rated

LAYOUT BY:

Maxwell Air Force Base

PAVEMENT CONDITION

SCALE: SHEET NUMBER:

GH 1" = 800' 1 of 1

DATE:03/27/2019

ENGINEER:

Hutchison

DRAWING NUMBER:

ES.2

AIR FORCE

CIVIL ENGINEER CENTER

TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE

ORGANIZATION:

4000 PEMBERTON SQUARE BLVD.

VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI

APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

0 800 1,600400 Feet

Maxwell AFB 3

4 Maxwell AFB

REFERENCES

Below is a list of the references used during the composition of this report.

1 2019 RSMeans Heavy Construction Cost Data. Kingston, MA, 2019.

2 Airfield Pavement Evaluation, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL, January 2016, Air Force Civil

Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida.

3 American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] D 5340-12. Standard Test Method for

Airfield Pavement Condition Index Surveys. West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.

4 Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 04-9. Pavement Engineering Assessment (EA) Standards, April 2004.

5 Maxwell AFB, https://www.maxwell.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-

Sheets/Display/Article/1004960/maxwell-air-force-base/, June 10, 2020

6 Shahin, M.Y. Pavement Management For Airports, Roads, and Parking Lots. New York, NY, 2005.

7 United Facility Criteria (UFC) 3-260-02. Pavement Design for Airfields, June 2001.

8 United Facility Criteria (UFC) 3-260-03. Airfield Pavement Evaluation, April 2001.

9 United Facility Criteria (UFC) 3-260-16FA. Airfield Pavement Condition Survey Procedures, January 2004.

10 United Facility Criteria (UFC) 3-270-05. O&M: PAVER Concrete Surfaced Airfields

Pavement Condition Index (PCI), March 2001.

11 United Facility Criteria (UFC) 3-270-06. O&M: PAVER Asphalt Surfaced Airfields Pavement

Condition Index (PCI), March 2001.

12 United Facility Criteria (UFC) 3-270-08. Pavement Maintenance Management, January 2004.

Maxwell AFB 5

13 United Facility Criteria (UFC) 3-701-01. DoD Facilities Pricing Guide For FY 2011, March 2011.

14 US Air Force Instruction 32-1041. Pavement Evaluation Program. February 2017.

15 US Army Corps of Engineers. Asphalt Surfaced Airfields-PAVER Distress Identification

Manual. June 2009.

16 US Army Corps of Engineers. Concrete Surfaced Airfields-PAVER Distress Identification Manual. June 2009.

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Table ES.3 is the distribution list for Dyess AFB.

Table ES.3. Distribution List.

Agency Draft Report CD Final Report

Installation Contact 1 Attn: Mr. Frank C. Manning

AETC 42 CES/CEY

400 Cannon Street, Bldg 1060 Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-5978 Phone: (334) 306-6562

1 1 1

Installation Contact 2 Attn: Mr. Don Brown Vectrus Lead Engineer 400 Cannon Street, Bldg 1060 Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-5978 Phone: (334) 306-6562

1 1 1

Contracting Officer Attn: Mr. Ian Batchelor

772 ESS/PKH

139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1, Bldg 1120 Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319 Phone (850) 283-6570

NA 1 NA

Contract Administrator Attn: Ms. Ann Galloway

772 ESS/PKH

139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1, Bldg 1120 Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319 Phone (850) 283-4278

NA 1 NA

Technical Contact and COR:

Attn: Mrs. Giselle Concepcion

HQ AFCEC/COAP

139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1, Bldg 1120 Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319 Phone (850) 283-6783

1 1

6 Maxwell AFB

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

This report describes the condition of the airfield pavements as determined by the March

2019 PCI survey. A subsequent update of a PAVER-based PMS for the airfield is presented in this report. The scope of this assessment included all airfield pavements in current use. The PAVER PMS provides AFCEC and other organizations with a means to identify and prioritize pavement M&R requirements. The overall goals of this survey were to determine the PCI of both rigid and flexible pavements, to update the existing PAVER PMS, to identify M&R requirements and estimate the cost of recommended M&R, and to validate the Real Property pavement inventory.

The following tasks support the project goals:

• Interview personnel, and review as-built drawings, construction records, and aerial photography.

• Define the pavement network and divide it into branches and sections conforming to AFCEC structural evaluation reports.

• Conduct a condition survey of the airfield pavements in accordance with "Standard Test Methods for Airport Pavement Condition Index Surveys," American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D5340-12 and UFC 3-260-16FA.

• Enter condition survey information into PAVER 7.0 (32-byte).

• Compute PCI values for each pavement section.

• Develop ten-year M&R work plans for the pavement network using PAVER.

• Prepare a CADD map of the airfield branches, sections, and sample units.

• Prepare a geographic information system (GIS) dataset of the airfield sections.

• Report the findings of the study to installation pavement engineer, the BCE, and

AFCEC.

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF TASKS PERFORMED

1.2.1 PCI Survey

The PCI survey is a visual inspection of pavements to determine their present surface condition. The condition survey consists of inspecting the pavement surfaces for specific types of distresses, determining the severity level of each distress, and measuring the quantity of each distress. These distresses are combined to determine the PCI value of the pavement, a number between zero (failed) and 100 (no distresses) that reflects the current condition. ASTM D5340- 12 defines distress types and severities, and defines survey methods and calculations to determine the PCI.

1.2.2 Validation of Real Property Pavement Inventory

During the field survey, meticulous care is taken to document all airfield pavements at the installation. Real Property attributes such as the Facility ID, RPUID, and CATCODE are populated in the PAVER database. This enables a detailed inventory of the pavement to be

Maxwell AFB 7 developed and compared against the Real Property records after the conclusion of the field survey. Inconsistencies between the Real Property records, AFI 32-1041, and the SOW are identified in Appendix B.

1.2.3 CADD/GIS Mapping

Prior to the field investigation, a pavement network map was developed using available aerial photography and the common installation plan (CIP) provided by base personnel. The map was divided into branches, sections, and sample units. It is provided in AutoDesk drawing (.dwg) format. As surveyors inspect the pavement, they are mindful to ensure that the pre-survey airfield map depicts the actual pavement, otherwise known as a “ground-truth” survey.

Noticeable differences between what was present at the installation and what was displayed on the maps provided by the base were adjusted by a CADD technician. Small systematic errors in the digitization of the installation by base personnel may not have been detectable by inspectors and therefore not amended in the maps provided by ARA. The maps are geo-referenced to be compatible with existing datasets such as GeoBase. A section-level map that is linked to PAVER is provided. This map is also provided in ESRI Shapefile format and is suitable for linking to an existing geodatabase.

1.2.4 PAVER Implementation

The network definition, construction history, Real Property information, and data from the condition survey were entered into PAVER.

After the data were entered and the PCI determined, family curves were developed to model the change in pavement condition over time. These curves are used by PAVER to estimate future pavement condition. Several curves are typically developed, with separate curves defined for different combinations of pavement usage, e.g., apron, overrun, runway, or taxiway;

surface type, e.g., AC or PCC; and pavement rank, e.g., primary, secondary, or tertiary.

Engineering judgment is used to determine the number and types of deterioration curves that are appropriate for a particular installation.

The database "Maxwell_Air_2019," which contains the construction history, survey data, deterioration curves, M&R policies, and budgets, is provided in PAVER 7.0.9 (32 byte) format on the accompanying CD-ROM. Specific PAVER operating details are located in "The PAVER User's Guide" under the “Help” tab.

1.2.5 PAVER Work Plan Development

After the data were entered and the deterioration curves were created, the following work plan analyses were performed using standardized Air Force M&R policies and costs:

• Cost per year to eliminate the Major M&R backlog over 10 years

• Cost per year to maintain the current area-weighted average PCI for 10 years

• Cost for M&R to only deal with flight safety issues over 10 years These analyses were then used to determine the M&R needs and optimum funding levels over a ten-year analysis period. PAVER determines Major M&R needs by using the concept of “Critical PCI.” The critical PCI is the PCI value at which Major M&R is to be considered for the section. Primary airfield pavements are assigned a critical PCI of 70, while secondary and tertiary pavements are assigned a value of 55.

8 Maxwell AFB

1.2.6 Written Report

The following report includes background information on Maxwell AFB, PCI results and recommendations, and M&R budget scenarios. In this report, Appendix A contains the airfield maps. Appendix B contains the real property summary, PAVER/RPAD comparison, and pavement inventory. Appendix C contains PCI deterioration rate summary. Appendix D is reserved. In Appendix E contains a work history report. Appendix F contains PAVER reports.

Appendix G, H, I contain respectively the FOD Potential, Structural Index, and Friction Index values. Appendix J contains the Engineering Assessment (EA). Appendix K contains activity management and preventative maintenance plan. Appendix L contains the budget details for the work plans. Appendix M contains the family models for condition deterioration prediction.

1.2.7 Photographs

Photographs depicting typical pavement condition and distress types observed at

Maxwell AFB are included throughout Chapter 2 of this report. Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of each photograph are recorded in the lower right corner of the photograph.

Photograph 1.1 is a sample image of the GPS tagged photographs. Additional photographs may be found on the CD-ROM attached to this report.

Photograph 1.1. GPS Coordinates on Photographs.

1.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.3.1 Location

Maxwell AFB is located in Montgomery County, AL. The city has a population of over 199,000. Maxwell AFB is situated in the east gulf coastal plain of south central AL approximately 92 miles southeast of Birmingham, AL.

1.3.2 Design and Construction History

Occupying the original site of the first Wright brothers civilian flying school, Maxwell

AFB was named Maxwell Field in 1922 in honor of Second Lieutenant William C. Maxwell.

Lieutenant Maxwell lost his life in the Philippines in 1920 while avoiding a group of playing children as he attempted to land. Maxwell AFB is hosted by the 42nd Air Base Wing and is home

Maxwell AFB 9 to Air University. The 908th Airlift Wing of the Air Force Reserve Command is a tenant unit and the only operational flying unit at Maxwell AFB.

Recent construction projects include the repair of AC Runway 15/33 and Assault Strip 009/189 in 2012, the mill and overlay of Runway 15/33 and 009/189 in 2013, and the mill and overlay of Taxiways A, B, C, D, and E in 2014.

Every effort was made to collect the most complete possible construction history for the airfield network at Maxwell AFB. First, the base point of contact (POC) was requested to provide the latest construction dates from electronic records (GeoBase, Automated Civil Engineering System “ACES”, Real Property records, etc.). During the field survey, inspectors noted recent construction, Localized M&R, and Global M&R. As a last measure, time-lapse aerial photography was used to estimate the last construction dates for some areas of pavement.

1.3.3 Current Traffic Data

The primary aircraft operating at Maxwell AFB include the C-130H, T1A, and various light aircraft via the Aero Club.

1.3.4 Previous Reports

Airfield Pavement Evaluation, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, January 2016, AFCEC, Tyndall

AFB, Florida

1.4 SYNOPSIS OF MAJOR PROJECTS SINCE LAST EVALUATION

Major M&R projects since the June 2015 inspection are listed below in Table 1.1 and can also be found in the complete Work History Report in Appendix E.

Table 1.1. Major M&R Since Previous Inspection.

Branch Name Branch ID Section ID Major M&R Year

Runway 15/33 RW15/33 R14C1 Mill and Overlay 2016 Runway 15/33 RW15/33 R12A Mill and Overlay 2016 Runway 15/33 RW15/33 R14C2 Mill and Overlay 2016 Runway 15/33 RW15/33 R13C Mill and Overlay 2016 Runway 15/33 RW15/33 R04C1 Mill and Overlay 2016 Runway 15/33 RW15/33 R05A1 Mill and Overlay 2016 Runway 15/33 RW15/33 R09C Mill and Overlay 2016

Runway 009/189 Turn Around TW009/189T T35A New Construction - AC 2016

10 Maxwell AFB

CHAPTER 2

PCI RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 PCI SURVEY PROCEDURE

The PCI survey was performed in accordance with ASTM and Air Force guidelines. The following paragraphs outline the procedures used to evaluate the pavement, the implementation of a PMS, and information about the life cycle of pavement.

2.1.1 PCI Survey Process

The pavement network to be surveyed was defined and divided into branches, sections, and sample units. A branch is defined as a complete unit of the airfield that is used for a particular type of operation. Branches are typically named pieces of pavement, e.g., Runway 15/33, Taxiway C, or West Apron. After branches are defined, they are divided into sections based on pavement type, structure, and usage. Branch and section identifications used in this report are in general agreement with and correspond to feature designations in the January 2016 AFCEC structural evaluation report.

Sections are divided into sample units as prescribed by ASTM D5340-12. A sample unit is a subdivision of a section used exclusively to aid in the inspection process and reduce the effort needed to determine distress quantities and the PCI. The specified sample unit size for an AC pavement is 5,000 ft² ± 2,000 ft². Sample units on PCC pavements contain 20 ± 8 slabs. A small number of sample units did not meet the size criteria due to odd-size sections.

Inspecting all of the sample units within a section may consume considerable resources;

therefore, ARA uses a statistical sampling technique to determine the number of sample units to be inspected. Sample units are inspected in accordance with ASTM D5340-12 to provide a 95% confidence level, with an acceptable error of ± 5 PCI points. Figure 2.1 presents an example of the sampling method employed by ARA. Sample units with grey shading represent sample units to be surveyed. A pavement surveyor visually inspects the required sample units of each section.

Distresses are identified, counted or measured, and recorded.

Figure 2.1. Systematic Random Selection of Sample Units to Survey.

2.1.2 PAVER Implementation and Report Products

A PMS is an organized method of data management combined with predictive techniques to assist decision makers in finding optimum strategies for providing and maintaining pavements in a serviceable condition over a given period of time. The function of a PMS is to improve the efficiency of decision-making, provide feedback on the consequences of decisions, facilitate the coordination of activities, and ensure the consistency of decisions.

Maxwell AFB 11

PAVER is a management system that has the capability of being updated and/or modified as new information and better models become available, considering alternative strategies, identifying the optimum alternative, basing decisions on a rational procedure with quantified attributes, criteria, and constraints, making predictions of pavement deterioration, selecting appropriate maintenance and repair methods to maximize performance, and using feedback information regarding the consequences of decisions.

PAVER is a menu-driven computer program that provides the user a practical approach for identifying cost-effective maintenance strategies. It includes such features as data storage and retrieval, pavement network identification, PCI rating, determination of needs for maintenance and repair, performance of economic analyses, and budget planning.

The PAVER database storage capability includes historical construction data, pavement structure and materials information, condition ratings (stores previous and current condition data), and non-destructive testing results (e.g., falling weight deflectometer deflection data). Data from the current survey has been input into PAVER 7.0 and provided on the accompanying CD-ROM.

After the conclusion of the pavement assessment, the PCI distress data were input in the PAVER database. PAVER was used to perform PCI calculations, develop pavement deterioration curves and generate pavement work plans.

2.1.3 Life Cycle Graph

Figure 2.2 shows a typical pavement life cycle curve, including the effects of M&R. As the PCI of pavement decreases, applicable M&R treatments become more involved and therefore more costly. This concept is important because pavements often remain in serviceable condition for a long period of time, followed by a period of rapid deterioration.

Figure 2.2. Pavement Life Cycle Showing the Effects of M&R.

Unacceptable Serviceability

Acceptable Serviceability

Pa ve m en t C on di tio n In de x

Time

Reconstruction Preventive Maintenance

12 Maxwell AFB

2.2 OVERVIEW OF PCI SURVEY RESULTS

A total of 5,622,481 ft² of pavement was surveyed as part of this assessment. The airfield pavements consisted of 63.7% PCC and 36.3% AC. The area-weighted average PCI for all pavements surveyed was 87-Good. A total of 56 out of 60 surveyed sections had a PCI greater than 70. Of the four pavement sections below 70, two sections of pavement are at or below their respective critical PCI value. These two pavement sections are spread throughout two branches over the airfield and are in need of Major M&R. The airfield had 1,714,359 ft² of paved shoulders that were generally considered to be in Fair condition. Appendix A provides the airfield network layouts showing the pavement sections and color-coded results of the survey. Table 2.1 provides a definition of PCI rating and pavement distribution.

Table 2.1. Definition of PCI Ratings and Pavement Distribution.

Simplified PCI Rating

PCI

Rating

PCI

Range Definition Pavement

Area (ft²) Pavement Area (%)

Good Good 86-100 GOOD: Pavement has minor or no distresses and will require only routine maintenance. 3,503,138 62.3

Satisfactory 71-85 SATISFACTORY: Pavement has scattered low-severity distresses that need only routine maintenance. 1,948,066 34.7

Fair Fair 56-70 FAIR: Pavement has a combination of generally low-and medium-severity distresses. M&R needs are routine to major in the near future.

135,072 2.4

Poor Poor 41-55

POOR: Pavement has low-, medium-, and high-severity distresses that probably cause some operational problems. Near-term maintenance and repair needs may range from routine up to a requirement for reconstruction.

Poor < 40

Very Poor 26-40

VERY POOR: Pavement has predominantly medium-and high-severity distresses that cause considerable maintenance and operational problems. Near-time maintenance and repair needs will be intensive in nature.

Serious 11-25 SERIOUS: Pavement has mainly high-severity distresses that cause operational restrictions;

immediate repairs are needed.

36,205 0.6

Failed 0-10 FAILED: Pavement deterioration has progressed to the point that safe operations are no longer possible;

complete reconstruction is required.

2.2.1 PCI Results by Branch Use and Pavement Surface Type

Table 2.2 summarizes the PCI survey results by branch use and pavement surface type.

Figure 2.3 is a pie-chart illustrating the current condition of the pavement by surface type and Figure 2.4 shows a PCI distribution graph comparing the 2015 and 2019 surveys by pavement surface type.

Table 2.2. Current Condition Summary.

Branch Use Surface Type Pavement Area (ft²)

Pavement Area (%)

Area-Weighted Average PCI

Apron

AC 100,523 1.8 69

PCC 2,554,107 45.4 87

(Page 1 of 2)

Maxwell AFB 13

Table 2.2. Current Condition Summary (concluded).

Branch Use Surface Type Pavement Area (ft²)

Pavement Area (%)

Area-Weighted Average PCI

Overrun

AC 378,463 6.7 79

PCC -- -- --

Runway

AC 92,001 1.6 97

APC 825,551 14.7 87

PCC 511,837 9.1 95

Taxiway

AC 30,173 0.5 79

APC 611,797 10.9 82

PCC 518,029 9.2 90

Overall

AC 601,160 10.7 79

APC 1,437,348 25.6 85

PCC 3,583,973 63.7 89

ALL 5,622,481 100.0 87

(Page 2 of 2)

Figure 2.3. Current Condition by Surface Type.

Figure 2.4. PCI by Pavement Surface Type for 2015 and 2019 PCI Surveys.

14 Maxwell AFB

2.2.2 Pavement Issues

The predominant AC pavement distresses were weathering and L&T cracking.

Weathering and L&T cracking are both weather-related distresses. The majority of the AC pavement was in Good condition, with the exceptions of the Assault Strip Turnaround (T06A) and the AGE Storage Lot (A12 and A13).

Joint seal damage, linear cracks, joint spalls and corner spalls were the predominant distresses in the PCC pavements. Joint seal damage was the significant weather-related distresses. Linear cracking was the significant load related distress. The majority of the PCC pavement was in Good condition, with the exception of the Aero Club Apron (A10C).

The primary AC pavements at Maxwell AFB are deteriorating at an average rate of 0.69 PCI points/year. The secondary AC pavements are deteriorating at a rate of 2.85 PCI points/year.

The tertiary AC pavements are deteriorating at a rate of 2.93 PCI points/year. The primary PCC pavements are deteriorating at a rate of 0.33 PCI points/year. The secondary and tertiary PCC pavements are deteriorating at a rate of 0.97 PCI points/year. A more detailed analysis showing plots and containing further explanations may be found in Appendix M.

2.3 SURVEY RESULTS

In the following paragraphs, the pavements at Maxwell AFB are discussed by branch and further broken into sections in some instances. The recommended M&R actions for each branch and section may differ from the PAVER recommended actions based on engineering judgment.

These recommendations are based on the PCI and pavement type as well as the type, severity, and quantity of the distresses present. A surface treatment is recommended for AC pavements with medium- to high-severity weathering in order to slow further surface deterioration. Any localized maintenance should be conducted prior to the application of surface treatments.

2.3.1 Aprons

The aprons at Maxwell AFB consisted of 6 branches containing 18 sections of PCC and

AC pavement. The total area of apron pavements was 2,654,630 ft² and had an area-weighted average PCI of 86-Good. These branches will be discussed more in the following paragraphs.

The most common PCC distresses were joint seal damage, linear cracks, large patches, and small patches. The most common AC distresses were L&T cracking, patching and weathering. The distribution of pavement area and sections by PCI range are shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3. Apron Pavement Area and Sections by PCI Range.

PCI Range Rating Number of Sections Pavement Area (ft²) Pavement Area (%) 86-100

Good 10 2,006,963 75.6

71-85 5 526,507 19.8 56-70 Fair 2 84,955 3.2 0-55 Poor 1 36,205 1.4 Total Good 18 2,654,630 100.0

2.3.1.1 Aero Club Apron

Aero Club Apron consisted of one section of PCC pavement. Section A10C had an area of 36,205 ft² and a PCI of 14-Poor. Distresses with the highest deduct were medium-severity shattered slabs, low-severity shattered slabs and medium-severity linear cracking. No stopgap maintenance is recommended at this time. A complete reconstruction is recommended in FY

Maxwell AFB 15

2021. Photograph 2.1 below shows a medium-severity shattered slab in Section A10C of Aero Club Apron.

Photograph 2.1. Aero Club Apron, Section A10C, Medium-Severity Shattered Slab.

2.3.1.2 AGE Storage Lot

AGE Storage Lot consisted of two sections of AC pavement. The area-weighted average PCI of the 84,955-ft² branch was 66-Fair.

AC Section A12 had a PCI of 65-Fair and an area of 30,392 ft². Distresses with the highest deduct were medium-severity weathering, medium-severity L&T cracking and medium-severity patching. Localized preventive maintenance actions include crack sealing and deep patching. A mill and overlay is recommended in FY 2024.

AC Section A13 had a PCI of 66-Fair and an area of 54,563 ft². Distresses with the highest deduct were medium-severity L&T cracking and medium-severity weathering.

Crack sealing is the only preventive maintenance recommended. A mill and overlay is recommended in FY 2024. Photograph 2.2 on the following page shows medium-severity L&T cracking in Section A13 of the AGE Storage Lot.

16 Maxwell AFB

Photograph 2.2. AGE Storage Lot, Section A13, Medium-Severity L&T Cracking.

2.3.1.3 Engine Run-up Apron

Engine Run-up Apron consisted of one PCC section and one AC section. The area-weighted average PCI of the 82,601-ft² branch was 91-Good.

PCC Section A07B had a PCI of 91-Good and an area of 67,033 ft². Distresses with the highest deduct were medium-and high-severity joint seal damage, and low-severity joint spalls. Localized preventive maintenance actions include crack sealing and joint seal replacement.

AC Section T14B had a PCI of 90-Good and an area of 15,568 ft². Distresses with the highest deduct low-severity L&T cracking and low-severity weathering. No maintenance is recommended at this time.

2.3.1.4 Maintenance Hangar Access Apron

Maintenance Hangar Access Apron consisted of three sections of PCC pavement. The area-weighted average PCI of the 35,995-ft² branch was 85-Good.

PCC Section A11C1 had a PCI of 83-Good and an area of 11,253 ft². Distresses with the highest deduction include high-severity joint seal damage, medium-severity joint seal damage, and medium-severity linear cracks. Shattered slabs were not observed during the 2019 inspection. Localized preventive maintenance actions include crack sealing, joint seal replacement, and partial-depth patching.

PCC Section A11C2 had a PCI of 79-Good and an area of 13,344 ft². Distresses with the highest deduct include low-severity linear cracks, medium-severity joint seal damage, and low-severity corner spalls. Localized preventive maintenance actions include crack sealing, joint seal replacement, and partial-depth patching.

PCC Section A11C3 had a PCI of 93-Good and an area of 11,398 ft². The only distress was medium-severity joint seal damage. High-severity joint seal damage was not observed in the 2019 inspection. Joint seal replacement is the only preventive maintenance recommended at this time. Photograph 2.3 below shows an overview of section A11C3 of the Maintenance Hangar Access Apron.

Maxwell AFB 17

Photograph 2.3. Maintenance Hangar Access Apron, Section A11C3, Overview.

2.3.1.5 North Apron

North Apron consisted of seven sections of PCC pavement. The area-weighted average PCI of the 1,589,398-ft² branch was 87-Good.

PCC Section A01B had a PCI of 84-Good and an area of 274,393 ft². Distresses with the highest deduction include medium-severity joint seal damage, medium-severity linear cracks, and low-severity large patches. Localized preventive maintenance actions include crack sealing, joint seal replacement, and partial-depth patching. Photograph 2.4 below shows a medium-severity linear crack in Section A01B of the North Apron.

Photograph 2.4. North Apron, Section A01B, Medium-severity Linear Crack.

PCC Section A04B had a PCI of 88-Good and an area of 957,323 ft². Distresses with the highest deduct include medium-severity joint seal damage, low-severity large patches, and low-severity linear cracks. Corner breaks, scaling and shrinkage cracks were not

18 Maxwell AFB observed during the 2019 inspection. Localized preventive maintenance actions include crack sealing, grinding, joint seal replacement, and partial-depth patching.

PCC Section A08B had a PCI of 99-Good and an area of 26,000 ft². The only two distresses were low-severity small patches and shrinkage cracks. No maintenance is recommended at this time.

PCC Section T02B had a PCI of 85-Good and an area of 211,267 ft². Distresses with the highest deduct include high-severity joint seal damage, medium-severity joint seal damage, and medium-severity linear cracks. There was a decrease in the quantity of corner breaks in section T02B since the previous inspection. Localized preventive maintenance actions include crack sealing, grinding, joint seal replacement, and partial-depth patching. Photograph 2.5 below shows high-severity joint seal damage in Section T02B of the North Apron.

Photograph 2.5. North Apron, Section T02B, High-severity Joint Seal Damage.

PCC Section T15B had a PCI of 93-Good and an area of 48,000 ft². Distresses with the highest deduct include medium-severity joint seal damage, low-severity joint seal damage, and low-severity joint spalls.