TE 47 - Army Airfield Pavement Maintenance ERDC ReportDRAFT.pdf
PDF 8 MB Posted
- Attached to
- RFI for Base Operations Support, Ft. Wainwright, AK Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W912CN-21-R-0023
About this file
This Special Notice includes a Request for Information (RFI) from the U.S. Department of the Army seeking feedback on a draft Performance Work Statement and exhibits for base operations support services at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. The RFI details include a one-year base period and four one-year option periods, with services required in the Fort Wainwright region under primary NAICS code 561210. Interested parties are invited to submit questions on the provided templates relating to the draft documents by the specified due date. Responses will be collected for an interested vendor list but this notice does not constitute a solicitation. The Army will not reimburse any costs associated with responding to the RFI.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
RFI for Base Operations Support, Ft. Wainwright, AK has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06
Airfield Pavement Condition Survey, Ladd Army Airfield, Fort Wainwright, Alaska Jeremy Robinson, P.E. July 2016
Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory
Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies only. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center (CEERD-GM-A), 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180.
DRAFT
[page intentionally left blank]
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06
July 2016
Airfield Pavement Condition Survey, Ladd Army Airfield, Fort Wainwright, Alaska Jeremy Robinson, P.E.
Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Final report
Distribution limited to U.S. Government agencies only; test and evaluation. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center (CEERD-GM-A), Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199.
Prepared for U.S. Army Installation Management Command 2405 Gun Shed Rd.
Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-1223
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 iii
Abstract: An airfield pavement condition survey was performed in June 2016 at Ladd Army Airfield, Fort Wainwright, Alaska. The pavement surface condition was evaluated, using the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) survey procedure, for continued use of the pavements under current missions. Results of the condition survey are presented in this report and include: (a) a tabulation of the existing pavement sections, (b) the PCI and rating of the surface of each pavement section, and (c) maintenance and repair recommendations based on the condition survey.
DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes.
Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.
All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.
DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 iv
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 v
Contents Figures, Tables, and Photos ...................................................................................................................... vi
Unit Conversion Factors ........................................................................................................................... viii
Preface ........................................................................................................................................................ ix
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... xi
Critical Findings ........................................................................................................................................ xiii
Actions since Last Inspection .................................................................................................................. xiv
1 Introduction
Background Objective and scope
2 Background Data
Description of the airfield Previous reports Design and construction history
3 Pavement Condition Survey and Results
Pavement condition survey Analysis of PCI data MicroPAVER Maintenance Type Definitions
Localized M & R
Global M & R
Major M&R Maintenance and rehabilitation policy
4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions Recommendations
References
Appendix A: MicroPAVER Output Summary
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 vi
Figures, Tables, and Photos
Figures
Illustration 1. Surface Condition ISR ratings based on 2016 survey. .................................................. xv
Illustration 2. Structural ISR ratings (from 2012 Airfield Pavement Evaluation). .............................. xvi
Illustration 3. Airfield pavement section identifications and locations. .............................................. xvii
Figure 1. Layout of airfield and facility identifications
Figure 2. Airfield pavement section identifications and locations
Figure 3. Scale for pavement condition rating
Figure 4. Sample Unit layout, Runway 07L-25R, Sections R02A, R03C, R04C, RO5C, R06A, R08C, R09C, and R10C
Figure 5. Sample Unit layout, Runway 07R-25L, Section R11A
Figure 6. Sample Unit layout, Taxiway A, E, F, and G, Sections T01A, T02A, T03A, T19A, T20A, T21A, T22A, T23C, and T25C
Figure 7. Sample Unit layout, Taxiway S and Refuel Apron, Sections T04A, T05A, T06A, T07A, T08A, A12B, A13B, A14B, A15B, and A16B
Figure 8. Sample Unit layout, Taxiway N, Sections T09A, T10A1, T10A2, T11A, T12A1, and T12A2
Figure 9. Sample Unit layout, Taxiway B, C, and D, Sections T13C, T14C, T15C, T16C, and T17C
Figure 10. Sample Unit layout, Taxiway A, E, and F, Sections T18A, T24C, and T28A
Figure 11. Sample Unit layout, POL Taxiway, Maintenance Ramp, and POL Ramp, Sections T27C, A22B, A23B, A24B1, A24B2, A25B, and A26B
Figure 12. Sample Unit layout, Smoke Jump Ramp and Chinook Ramp, Sections A01B, A02B, and A27B
Figure 13. Sample Unit layout, Hanger 1 Apron, Blackhawk Ramp, and Glider Ramp, Sections A04B, A05B, and A07B
Figure 14. Sample Unit layout, Kiowa Ramp, Blackhawk Ramp South, and GSAB Hangar Apron, Sections A09B, A10B1, A10B2, A29B1, and A29B2
Figure 15. Sample unit layout, Medivac Ramp and VOR Check Point Ramp, Sections A18B1, A18B2, A19B, A21B1, and A21B2
Figure 16. Sample Unit layout, AAC Hangar Apron, Sections A28B1 and A28B2
Figure 17. Pavement condition rating summary
Tables
Table ES-1. PCI and maintenance strategies. ....................................................................................... xviii
Table 1. Construction history
Table 2. Summary of physical property data
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 vii
Table 3. Shoulder Pavement, Type, and Condition
Table 4. Comparison of 2008, 2012, and 2016 PCI surveys
Table 5. Maintenance, repair, and major repair alternatives for flexible airfield pavements
Table 6. Maintenance, repair, and major repair alternatives for rigid airfield pavements
Table 7. Summary of maintenance requirements
Table 8. Summary of pavement distress needing maintenance and rehabilitation by facility use and surface type
Table A1. Summary of cost for required and preventive maintenance and repair for all sections (FY16)
Table A2. Section identification and extrapolated PCI summary
Photos
Photo 1. Runway 07-25R, overall
Photo 2. Runway 07-25R, Section R05C, low severity, sealed crack
Photo 3. Runway 07-25R, Section R03C, high severity crack
Photo 4. Runway 07-25L, overall
Photo 5. Runway 07-25L, high severity crack near Twy D
Photo 6. Taxiway A, overall
Photo 7. Taxiway B, overall
Photo 8. Taxiway C North, overall
Photo 9. Taxiway D North, overall
Photo 10. Taxiway D North, Section T16C, settlement along patched area
Photo 11. Taxiway E, overall
Photo 12. Taxiway F, overall
Photo 13. Taxiway G, overall
Photo 14. Taxiway N, overall
Photo 15. Taxiway N, Section T12A2, high severity crack
Photo 16. Taxiway S, overall
Photo 17. Taxiway S, Section T07A, high severity crack with settlement/depression
Photo 18. Taxiway S, Section T06A, high severity patching
Photo 19. POL Apron, overall
Photo 20. Medivac Ramp, overall
Photo 21. Kiowa Ramp, overall
Photo 22. Smoke Jump Ramp, overall
Photo 23. Glider Ramp, overall
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 viii
Unit Conversion Factors
Multiply By To Obtain cubic feet 0.02831685 cubic meters cubic yards 0.7645549 cubic meters degrees Fahrenheit (F-32)/1.8 degrees Celsius feet 0.3048 meters inches 0.0254 meters miles (U.S. statute) 1609.347 meters pounds (force) 4.448222 Newtons pounds (force) per square foot 47.88026 Pascals pounds (force) per square inch 6.894757 kilopascals square feet 0.09290304 square meters square inches 6.4516 E-04 square meters square yards 0.8361274 square meters tons (2,000 pounds, mass) 907.1847 kilograms yards 0.9144 meters
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 ix
Preface
The purpose of this report is to provide a condition assessment of the pavements at Ladd Army Airfield (LAAF), Fort Wainwright, Alaska. This report provides data for:
a. Planning and programming pavement maintenance, repairs, and structural improvements.
b. Designing maintenance, repair, and construction projects.
c. Determining airfield operational capabilities.
d. Providing information for aviation flight publications and mission planning.
Users of information from this report include the installation’s Directorate of Installation Support (DIS), Directorate of Public Works (DPW), engineering design agencies (DISs, DPWs, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), Airfield Commanders, U.S. Army Aeronautical Services Agency, and agencies assigned operations planning responsibilities.
Information concerning aircraft inventory, passes, and operations shall not be released outside U.S. Government agencies. This report satisfies requirements for condition inspection established in Army Regulation (AR) 420-1 (Headquarters, Department of the Army 2008) and supports airfield survey requirements identified in AR 95-2 (Headquarters, Department of the Army 2007).
The Assistant Chief of Staff Installation Management (ACSIM) is the HQ, Department of the Army proponent for the Army Airfield Pavement Evaluation Program. The program is managed and funded by the U.S.
Army Installation Management Command (IMCOM). The Program Manager is Mr. Ali Achmar, HQ IMCOM, G4 Public Works Division, Facilities Management Branch, 2405 Gun Shed Rd., Fort Sam Houston, TX, 78234-1223, ali.a.achmar.civ@mail.mil. The airfield manager of LAAF at the time of this survey was Mr. Robert Marcinkowski, Tel: 907- 353-7022, robert.d.marcinkowski2.civ@mail.mil.
Personnel of the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory (GSL), Vicksburg, Mississippi, prepared this publication. The findings and
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 x recommendations presented in this report are based upon condition survey work at LAAF in June 2016. The survey team consisted of Andrew Harrison, Jeremy Robinson, and Terry Jobe, Airfields and Pavements Branch (APB), GSL. Jeremy Robinson prepared this publication under the supervision of Timothy W. Rushing, Chief, APB; Dr. Gordon W.
McMahon, Chief, Engineering Systems and Materials Division; Dr.
William P. Grogan, Deputy Director, GSL; and Bartley P. Durst, Director, GSL.
At the time of publication of this report, COL Bryan S. Green was the Commander and Executive Director of ERDC, and Dr. Jeffery P. Holland was the Director.
Recommended changes for improving this publication in content and/or format should be submitted on DA Form 2028 (Recommended Changes to Publications and Blank Forms) and forwarded to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, ATTN: CEERD- GM-A, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 xi
Executive Summary
Personnel of the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Vicksburg, Mississippi, conducted the field testing at Ladd Army Airfield, Fort Wainwright, Alaska, in June 2016. A visual inspection was conducted to establish the condition of the airfield pavement surface, which does not necessarily correspond to its load-carrying capacity.
MicroPaver Version 6.5.5 was used for this pavement condition survey.
Significant conclusions resulting from the 2016 airfield pavement condition survey reveal the following:
a. The condition survey indicates that the airfield pavement sections range from serious to good.
b. Installation Status Report (ISR) ratings for the airfield pavements based on the PCI from the 2016 pavement survey and the load-bearing capacity in terms of the aircraft classification number divided by the pavement classification number (ACN/PCN) determined from the 2012 structural pavement evaluation are shown in Illustrations 1 (page xv) and 2 (page xvi), respectively.
c. The major distress types observed on the asphalt concrete (AC) pavements were longitudinal and transverse cracking, joint reflective cracking, oil spillage, depressions, patching, block cracking and weathering. The major distress types observed on the Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements were joint seal damage, scaling, joint and corner spalls, linear cracks, corner breaks, shattered slabs, and patching slabs.
d. Illustration 3 (page xvii) identifies the airfield pavement sections and their locations on Ladd Army Airfield. The pavement condition index (PCI) and recommended maintenance strategies for each section are given in Table ES-1 (page xx).
e. The PCIs of ten (10) taxiway sections (T01A, T02A, T04A, T05A, T07A, T08A, T15C, T17C, T20A, and T22A) and five (5) apron sections (A04B, A15B, A19B, A21B2, and A24B2) fail to meet the minimum PCI outlined in AR 420-1, Chapter 7.
f. For sections rating good, satisfactory, fair, or poor (PCI > 40), approximately $1,902,000 (FY16) is required for localized maintenance and repair. This includes seven (7) runway sections (R02A, R03C, R06A, DRAFT gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 xii
R08C, R09C, R10C, and R11A), twenty-three (23) taxiway sections (T01A through T08A, T10A1, T10A2, T11A, T12A1, T12A2, T15C, T16C, T17C, T18A, T19A, T20A, T21A, T22A, T24C, and T28A), and twenty-one (21) apron sections (A01B, A02B, A04B, A05B, A09B, A10B1, A12B, A13B, A14B, A15B, A16B, A18B1, A18B2, A19B, A22B, A23B, A24B1, A25B, A26B, A27B, and A28B1.). Maintenance and repair should be performed in the near future to preserve the performance of these sections. The cost summary details for localized maintenance and repair for these sections is given in Appendix A (Table A1).
g. For the sections rated as serious (PCI 10-25) and failed (PCI 0-10), reconstruction is recommended; however, an estimated cost of $266,000 (FY16) is required to conduct maintenance and repair in lieu of reconstruction. This includes two (2) apron sections (A21B2 and A24B2). The cost summary for maintenance and repair of these sections is shown in the major repair column in Appendix A (Table A1).
h. The costs provided in this report are estimated costs for material and labor only and do not include other contractual costs. A project site investigation is required before major work is initiated.
i. In planning structural improvements and/or reconstruction requirements, it should be recognized that UFC 3-260-02 (Headquarters, Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force 2001b) specifies that the following pavements be rigid pavement: all paved areas on which aircraft or helicopters are regularly parked, maintained, serviced, or preflight checked; on hangar floors and access aprons; on runway ends (1,000 ft) of a Class B runway; primary taxiways for Class B runways; hazardous cargo, power check, compass calibration, warm-up, alert, arm/disarm, holding, and washrack pads; and any other area where it can be documented that a flexible pavement will be damaged by jet blast or by spillage of fuel or hydraulic fluid.
j. Overloading the pavement facilities will shorten the life expectancy.
k. To be in concurrence with AR 420-1 (Headquarters, Department of the
Army 2008), a structural evaluation, including nondestructive testing, will be required in FY 20.
Additional details on surface condition and work required to maintain and strengthen the airfield are contained in Chapters 3 and 4 of this report.
DRAFT
gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 xiii
Critical Findings
Critical findings are identified during the airfield pavement condition survey field work and data analysis. They are defined as pavement deficiencies that can have a significant impact on pavement life, aircraft operations, and/or mission capabilities.
There were no critical findings observed during the June 2016 pavement condition survey at Ladd Army Airfield, Fort Wainwright, Alaska.
Highlight gordon.morey Highlight
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 xiv
Actions since Last Inspection
Building 3005 (A10B2) was demolished and replaced with 8-in.-thick Portland cement concrete pavement. The AAC Hangar Apron (A28B1 and A28B2) was constructed with 8-in.-thick Portland cement concrete pavement.
The GSAB Hanger Apron (A29B) was constructed with 8-in.-thick Portland cement concrete pavement.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 xv
I llu st ra tio n
1.
S ur fa ce C on di tio n
IS
R ra tin gs b as ed o n s ur ve y.
G L
ID
E
R R
A M
P
T A
X
IW
A Y
N
T A
X
IW
A Y
D
N O
R T
H
TAXIWAY D
R U
N W
A Y
7L
-2 5R
B L
A C
K H
A W
K A
P R
O N
H A
N G
A R
A
P R
O N
C H
IN
O
O K
R A
M P
S M
O K
E J
U M
P R
A M
P
T A
X
IW
A Y
B T
A X
IW
A
Y C
N
O R
T H
TAXIWAY C
R U
N W
A Y
R -2
5L
R E
F U
E L
IN
G
A P
R O
N S
T A
X
IW
A Y
S
B L
A C
K H
A W
K S
O U
T H
R A
M P
M E
D
IV
A C
R A
M P
T A
X
IW
A Y
E
P O
L T
A X
IW
A
Y
P O
L A
P R
O N
T A
X
IW
A Y
F
TAXIWAY A
K
IO
W A
R A
M P
A H
A R
A M
P
M A
IN
T
E N
A N
C E
V O
R C
H E
C K
R A
M P
S
C A
L E
IN
F
E E
T
N
N O
R T
H T
A X
IW
A
Y
TAXIW
AY G
R A
M P t o t o t o
N O
T E
V A
L U
A T
E D
G S
A B
H A
N G
A R
A P
R O
N
A A
C H
A N
G A
R A
P R
O
NDRAFT
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 xvi
Ill us tr at io n
. S tr uc tu ra l I
SR
ra tin gs (f ro m
A irf ie ld
P av em en t E va lu at io n)
G L
ID
E
R R
A M
P
T A
X
IW
A Y
N
T A
X
IW
A Y
D
N O
R T
H
TAXIWAY D
R U
N W
A Y
7L
-2
R
B L
A C
K H
A W
K A
P R
O N
H A
N G
A R
A
P R
O N
C H
IN
O
O K
R A
M P
S M
O K
E J
U M
P R
A M
P
T A
X
IW
A Y
B T
A X
IW
A
Y C
N
O R
T H
TAXIWAY C
R U
N W
A Y
7R
-2 5L
R E
F U
E L
IN
G
A P
R O
N S
T A
X
IW
A Y
S
B L
A C
K H
A W
K S
O U
T H
R A
M P
M E
D
IV
A C
R A
M P
T A
X
IW
A Y
E
P O
L T
A X
IW
A
Y
P O
L A
P R
O N
T A
X
IW
A Y
F
TAXIWAY A
K
IO
W A
R A
M P
A H
A R
A M
P
M A
IN
T
E N
A N
C E
V O
R C
H E
C K
R A
M P
S
C A
L E
IN
F
E E
T
N
N O
R T
H T
A X
IW
A
Y
TAXIW
AY G
R A
M P
1.
.1 t o
.4
.4
N O
T E
V A
L U
A T
E D
G S
A B
H A
N G
A R
A P
R O
N
A A
C H
A N
G A
R A
P R
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 xvii
Ill us tr at io n
. A irf ie ld p av em en t s ec tio n id en tif ic at io ns a nd lo ca tio ns
S
C A
L E
IN
F
E E
T
N
O
O V
E R
R U
N
B
T Y
P E
B T
R A
F F
IC
A
T
Y P
E A
T R
A F
F
IC
C
T Y
P E
C T
R A
F F
IC
P C
C
P O
R T
L A
N D
C E
M E
N T
C
N
C R
E T
E
A C
A
S P
H A
LT
IC
C O
N C
R E
T E
A
A P
R O
N T
T
A X
IW
A
Y R
R
U N
W A
Y
S E
C T
IO
N
D E
S
IG
N A
T
IO
N S
U R
F A
C E
P A
V E
M E
N T
T Y
P E
A N
D T
H
IC
K N
E S
S
L E
G E
N D
T Y
P E
O F
S E
C T
IO
N
T Y
P E
O F
T R
A F
F
IC
A R
E A
T Y
P E
O F
P A
V E
M E
N T
T
A A
C 3.
in
A
B P
C C
8.
in
T
A A
C 4.
in
A
B
P C
C 8.
in
A
B P
C C
8.
in
T
A A
C 4.
in
T
A A
C 4.
in
T
A A
C
0.
in
T
C A
C
.2 in
R
1A A
C 7.
in
A
B P
C C
2.
in
A
4B P
C C
8.
in
A
B P
C C
8.
in
A
B P
C C
8.
in
T
1A A
C
.7 in
T
0A A
C /P
C C
.0 in
R
A A
C 7.
in
R
8C A
C
.2 in
R
C A
C 5.
in
R
4C A
C 5.
in
T
A
A C
.0 in
A
B A
C
.7 in
T
C A
C 4.
in
R
3C A
C
.2 in
R
A A
C
1.
in
T
A P
C C
7.
in
T
A A
C
.0 in
T
A
A C
.0 in
A
B A
C 9.
in
A
B P
C C
6.
in
T
A A
C 7.
in
T
A
A C
0.
in
A
2B A
C 8.
in
T
C
A C
.2 in
T
A
A C
0.
in
A
7B A
C 4.
in
A
B A
C 7.
in
T
A A
C 9.
in
R
A A
C
0.
in
T
A P
C C
7.
in
T
C A
C 7.
in
T
A A
C 4.
in
T
2A A
C 9.
in
A
3B A
C 4.
in
A
B
P
C C
2.
in
A
B
P
C C
2.
in
A
5B A
C
.7 in
A
B P
C C
2.
in
T
C A
C 6.
in
T
A
A C
9.
in
A
B P
C C
9.
in
T
A A
C
0.
in
A
9B P
C C
8.
in
A
B
P C
C 8.
in
T
5C A
C 6.
in
T
C P
C C
7.
in
R
5C A
C
.0 in
R
C A
C
1.
in
R
1A A
C 7.
in
T
C A
C 4.
in
T
C A
C 4.
in
T
A A
C 9.
in
A
B
A C
.7 in
A
B
A
C 7.
in
6.
in
A
B
P
C C
A
B
P C
C
A
B
P
C C
A
9B P
C C
A
B
P C
C 8.
in
8.
in
8.
in
8.
in
8.
in
DRAFT
gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 xviii
Table ES-1. PCI and maintenance strategies.
Section
PCI
ACN/
PCNb
Combined
ISR
Ratingc
Work Classificationa Branch Do
Nothing Maintenance Repair Major Repair
RW0725R R02A 76 0.3 Green X
R03C 76 0.3 Green X
R04C 78 0.3 Green X
R05C 80 0.3 Green X
R06A 75 0.3 Green X
R08C 77 -----d Green X
R09C 77 -----d Green X
R10C 76 -----d Green X
RW0725L R11A 85 0.4 Green X
TWA T01A 53 0.6 Red X
T02A 52 0.4 Red X
T03A 63 0.5 Amber X
T28A 70 1.3 Amber X
T09A 73 0.3 Green X
TWSOUTH T04A 56 1.2 Amber X
T05A 53 0.4 Red X
T06A 62 0.4 Amber X
T07A 50 0.7 Red X
T08A 49 0.3 Red X
TWNORTH T10A1 72 0.3 Green X
T10A2 77 0.4 Green X
T11A 79 0.6 Green X
T12A1 81 0.3 Green X
T12A2 70 0.3 Green X
TWB T13C 73 0.3 Green X
TWCNORTH T14C 71 0.7 Green X
TWC T15C 56 0.3 Amber X
TWDNORTH T16C 65 0.4 Amber X
TWD T17C 52 0.4 Red X
TWE T18A 62 1.5 Red X
T19A 72 0.6 Green X
T20A 57 0.3 Amber X
T21A 66 0.3 Amber X
T22A 56 0.9 Amber X
TWF T23C 90 0.3 Green X
T24C 65 1.2 Amber X
TWG T25C 93 0.4 Green X
TWPOL T27C 81 0.4 Green X
PASMOKEJUM A01B 71 0.5 Green X
(Sheet 1 of 2)
DRAFT
gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 xix
Section
PCI
ACN/
PCNb
Combined
ISR
Ratingc
Work Classificationa Branch Do
Nothing Maintenance Repair Major Repair
A27B 81 0.6 Green X
PACHINRAMP A02B 74 0.5 Green X
APHGR1 A04B 43 8.8 Red X
PABLKHWK A05B 75 0.3 Green X
APGLDRAMP A07B 96 0.7 Green X
PAKIOWA A09B 80 0.9 Green X
PABLKHWKS A10B1 74 0.8 Green X
A10B2 100 -----d Green X
APREFUEL A12B 70 1.0 Amber X
A13B 61 0.9 Amber X
A14B 71 0.7 Green X
A15B 53 0.4 Red X
A16B 60 0.9 Amber X
PAMEDIVAC A18B1 62 0.8 Amber X
A18B2 87 -----d Green X
A19B 44 1.3 Red X
APVORCHKPT A21B1 87 0.3 Green X
A21B2 25 0.4 Red X
PAMAINT A22B 75 0.9 Green X
APPOL A23B 67 0.8 Amber X
A24B1 63 0.7 Amber X
A24B2 24 1.0 Red X
A25B 73 0.9 Green X
A26B 82 0.9 Green X
APAACHGR A28B1 99 -----d Green X
A28B2 100 -----d Green X
APGSABHGR A29B 100 -----d Green X
(Sheet 2 of 2) a Work is categorized for preliminary planning purposes only. Classification of work for administrative approval is an installation responsibility. Policy guidance for airfield pavements is provided in AR 420-1. Maintenance is usually performed on paved areas with a PCI greater than the minimum required and encompasses primarily the day-to-day routine work. Maintenance includes items such as sealing cracks and joints, repairing potholes, patching, repairing spalls, and applying rejuvenators. Repair is the restoration of a failed or rapidly deteriorating section of pavement to a satisfactory or good condition such that it may be utilized for its designated purpose. Repair is usually applied to pavements with a PCI less than the minimum required. Examples are recycling, overlays, slab replacement, and repairing drainage structures. Major repair (construction) relates to the alteration, extension, replacement, or upgrading of an existing facility. Major repair examples include widening or lengthening a surfaced area, f f b Determined for design aircraft from 2012 evaluation.
c Based on the PCI and ACN/PCN ratio of the pavement section.
d Was not evaluated for load.
DRAFT
gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 1
1 Introduction
Background
In May 1982, the Department of the Army initiated a program to determine and evaluate the physical properties, the load-carrying capacity for various aircraft, and the general condition of the pavements at major U.S. Army airfields (AAFs). This program was established at the request of the Major Army Commands (FORSCOM, TRADOC, and AMC).
Headquarters, Installation Management Command (IMCOM) sponsors a program for the periodic evaluation of AAF facilities in accordance with AR 420-1 (Headquarters, Department of the Army 2008). All Category 1 AAFs and instrumented U.S. Army heliports are included in the IMCOM program. The IMCOM, Fort Sam Houston, Texas provided funding for the investigation at Ladd AAF (LAAF), Fort Wainwright, Alaska.
This report describes the pavement condition survey performed at LAAF, Fort Wainwright, Alaska. Results of this investigation will provide current information for maintenance and repair requirements and designing upgrades to the pavement facilities.
Objective and scope
The primary objectives of this investigation were to determine the pavement condition index (PCI) of the airfield pavements, update the MicroPAVER database, and provide the Directorate of Installation Support (DIS) and Directorate of Public Works (DPW) with locations of areas needing maintenance and repairs at LAAF. The condition survey data were input into the MicroPAVER pavement management system database. The inclusion of the data from this condition survey into the MicroPAVER database allows the installation to determine the amount of deterioration that has occurred since the previous survey and assists the installation in making future pavement management decisions. These objectives were accomplished by:
a. Performing a condition survey to determine pavement distresses (type, severity, and magnitude) in accordance with ASTM D 5340-10.
b. Inputting the condition survey data into the MicroPAVER database to calculate the PCI of the pavement sections.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 2
c. Producing detailed drawings of the pavement sections to ensure that future condition surveys will be performed on the same locations identified in previous surveys.
d. Identifying pavement sections requiring maintenance or repairs and recommending alternatives for pavement improvements.
This report provides a general description of the airfield, construction history, PCI of the existing pavement sections, and recommended alternatives for maintenance, repair, or construction.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 3
2 Background Data
Description of the airfield
Ladd Army Airfield (LAAF) is located at Fort Wainwright, Alaska immediately east of Fairbanks, and north of the Richardson Highway. The area occupied by the airfield lies on the alluvial deposits of the northern limits of the Tanana River floodplain. The terrain is extremely flat with no significant variance in the elevation over the entire area.
The approximate elevation of the airfield is 445 ft above the mean sea level. The alluvium consists of water-laid silts, sand, and gravel. The typical soil profile includes a top deposit of silt ranging in depth usually from 2 to 10 ft, but in some locations, extending to depths of 50 ft or more.
Beneath the silts are strata of sand, sandy gravel, and gravel of unknown depth.
In June 2016, the airfield consisted of two east-west runways (Runways 07L-25R and 07R-25L), two parallel taxiway systems (Taxiway N and Taxiway S, including Taxiway A), one perimeter connecting taxiway (Taxiway F), six connecting taxiways (Taxiway B, Taxiway C, Taxiway D, Taxiway E, Taxiway G, and the POL Taxiway), fourteen parking ramps (Smoke Jump, Hangar 1, Blackhawk, Chinook, Glider, Kiowa, Blackhawk South , Chinook South, Medivac, Maintenance, VOR Check Point Ramp, GSAB Hangar Apron, AAC Hangar Apron, and POL Aprons) and five refueling aprons (1 through 5).
Runway 07L-25R is 150 ft wide and 8,575 ft long. Runway 07R-25L is 75 ft wide and 7,280 ft long. Taxiway A varies from 80 to 125 ft wide and 3,095 ft long. The South Taxiway varies from 75 to 125 ft wide and 6,955 ft long.
The North Taxiway varies from 75 to 80 ft wide and 9,600 ft long. A layout of the airfield pavements is shown in Figure 1.
Previous reports
Previous reports pertaining to the airfield facilities are listed below, and pertinent data were extracted for use in this condition report.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 4
a. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, “Airfield Pavement Evaluation, Ladd Army Airfield, Fort Wainwright, Alaska,” ERDC/GSL APB AAF-12-07, July 2012, Vicksburg, MS.
b. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, “Airfield Pavement Condition Survey, Ladd Army Airfield, Fort Wainwright, Alaska,” ERDC/GLS APB AAF-08-13, August 2008, Vicksburg, MS.
c. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, “Airfield Pavement Evaluation, Wainwright Army Airfield, Fort Wainwright, Alaska,” ERDC/GL SR-05-2, July 2005, Vicksburg, MS.
d. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, “Airfield Pavement Evaluation, Wainwright Army Airfield, Fort Wainwright, Alaska,” ERDC/GL SR-00-1, February 2000, Vicksburg, MS.
e. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, “Airfield Pavement Evaluation, Wainwright Army Airfield (Fort Wainwright), Fairbanks, Alaska,” Miscellaneous Paper GL-94-41, September 1994, Vicksburg, MS.
f. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, “Condition Survey, Wainwright Army Airfield (Fort Wainwright), Fairbanks, Alaska,” Miscellaneous Paper GL-90-16, September 1990, Vicksburg, MS.
g. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, “Airfield Pavement Evaluation, Wainwright Army Airfield (Fort Wainwright), Fairbanks, Alaska,” Miscellaneous Paper GL-86-11, March 1986, Vicksburg, MS.
h. U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska, “Report on Airfield Pavement Evaluation, Fort Wainwright, Alaska,” March 1974, Anchorage, AK.
i. U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska, “Report on Airfield Pavement Evaluation, Fort Wainwright, Alaska,” July 1970, Anchorage, AK.
j. U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska, “Report on Airfield Pavement Evaluation, Fort Wainwright, Alaska,” August 1968, Anchorage, AK.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 5
k. U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska, “Report on Airfield Pavement Evaluation, Fort Wainwright, Alaska,” April 1964, Anchorage, AK.
l. U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska, “Report on Airfield Pavement Evaluation, Ladd Air Force Base, Alaska,” March 1959 (revised August 1959), Anchorage, AK.
m. U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska, “Airfield Pavement Evaluation Study, Ladd Air Force Base, Alaska,” May 1949, Fairbanks, AK.
Prepared by Fay, Spofford, and Thorndike Architect-Engineer, Boston, MA.
Design and construction history
The Corps of Engineers constructed the original pavements at LAAF in 1941. Upgrading of the pavements, including new construction and reconstruction or strengthening of the existing facilities, was performed at various periods from 1942 to 2012.
Figure 1 presents a layout of the airfield facilities. Figure 2 presents a layout of the airfield pavements, showing the locations of the various pavement sections. Table 1 includes the history of the major construction activities at LAAF. Table 2 contains a summary of the physical property data of the various sections.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 6
3 Pavement Condition Survey and Results
Pavement condition survey
A pavement condition survey is a visual inspection of the airfield pavements to determine the present surface condition. The condition survey consists of inspecting the pavement surface for various types of distress, determining the severity and the extent of each distress. The estimated severity and extent of each distress type are used to compute the pavement condition index (PCI) for each section. The PCI is a numerical indicator based on a scale from 0 to 100. Pavement condition ratings (from ‘good’ to ‘failed’) are assigned to different levels of PCI values.
Figure 3 includes pavement ratings and their respective PCI value definitions. The distress severity and extent and PCI are determined for each section. The information is based on inspection of a selected number of sample units. Sample units are subdivisions of a section and used exclusively to facilitate the inspection process and, thus, reduce the effort needed to assess section overall conditions. The distress types, severity levels, methods of survey, and PCI calculations are described in ASTM D 5340-10.
Each section was divided into sample units. The sample units for AC pavement sections were approximately 5,000 sq ft, and the sample units for the PCC pavement sections contained approximately 20 slabs. A statistical sampling technique was used to determine the number of sample units to be inspected to provide a 95 percent confidence level.
Sample units were chosen along the centerline of the runway and taxiways and randomly on the aprons. Figures 4 through 16 show the sample unit locations for the runway, taxiways, and apron sections. In each figure, the circled number indicates the inspected sample units.
The shoulder pavement associated with the pavement sections was also surveyed. A general rating of good, fair, or poor was applied to represent the current condition. A summary of the shoulder pavements with the material type and condition rating is shown in Table 3.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 7
Analysis of PCI data
The distress information collected during the survey was used with the MicroPAVER computer program to estimate the quantities of distress types for each section. This information is presented along with the PCI, general rating, recorded distresses, and distress mechanism (load, climate, or other) in Appendix A, Table A2. Photos 1 through 23 show various types of distresses observed during the current PCI survey.
AR 420-1 (Headquarters, Department of the Army 2008) requires that all airfield pavements be maintained at or above the following PCI ranges:
All runways > 70 All primary taxiways 60 All aprons and secondary taxiways 55
The AR 420-1 (Headquarters, Department of the Army 2008) also requires that the following PCI range for airfield pavements shall be used for the Installation Status Report (ISR) rating:
70 < PCI 100 equals an ISR Green rating 55 < PCI 70 equals an ISR Amber rating 0 < PCI 55 equals an ISR Red rating
The PCI for each sample unit inspected was calculated and stored in a MicroPAVER file for LAFF. For each section, the mean PCI was then cal-culated to determine the general condition or rating of the section, as in Figure 3. A comparison of the 2008, 2012, and 2016 PCI results is summarized in Table 4. The June 2016 pavement condition survey results are in Figure 17.
MicroPAVER Maintenance Type Definitions
The type of maintenance and repairs which are included in MicroPAVER are classified as Localized Maintenance and Rehabilitation (M & R), Global M & R, and Major M & R. In relation to the pavement (flexible or rigid), the type of repair to restore the pavement functional or structural condition may fall under different categories. In MicroPaver, the following M & R types are used to define maintenance recommendations and the estimated costs.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 8
Localized M & R
(1) Diamond grinding (PCC)
(2) Full-depth patch (PCC, AC)
(3) Partial-depth patch (PCC, AC)
(4) Crack sealing (PCC, AC)
Global M & R
(1) Joint sealing (PCC)
(2) Fog-seal (AC)
(3) Rejuvenators (AC)
(4) Slurry seal (AC)
(5) Aggregate surface treatment (AC)
Major M&R
(1) Cold milling (PCC, AC)
(2) Cold recycling (AC)
(3) Hot recycling (AC)
(4) Heater scarifying (AC)
(5) Cracking and Seating (PCC)
(6) AC overlay (on AC or PCC)
(7) PCC overlay (on AC or PCC)
(8) Reconstruction (PCC, AC)
Maintenance and rehabilitation policy
Maintenance and rehabilitation (M & R) policies must be implemented in relation to the pavement functional and structural conditions. The AR 420-1 (Headquarters, Department of the Army 2008) includes the minimum PCI requirements (PCIreq) for all the airfield pavements that must be used as reference value:
All runways, PCIreq > 70 All primary taxiways, PCIreq ≥ 60 All aprons and secondary taxiways, PCIreq ≥ 55
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 9
The following M & R recommendations are based on the combined analysis of pavement PCI and pavement structurally adequacy (PCN) to support the mission traffic.
If the pavement PCI is greater than PCIreq and the pavement is structurally adequate, the recommended repairs for medium and high severity distresses include Localized M & R to preserve the pavement life. In case that the pavement PCI is greater than PCIreq but the pavement is structurally inadequate, structural improvements are recommended in terms of Localized M & R (for medium and high severity distresses) or Major M & R, based to the type of pavement.
If the pavement PCI is greater than 40 and lower than PCIreq (40 < PCI < PCIreq) and the pavement is structurally adequate, the recommended repairs for medium and high severity distresses include Localized M & R to increase the PCI to the required value. In case the pavement is structurally inadequate, structural improvements are recommended to increase the PCI to the required value. Repairs include Localized M & R (for medium and high severity distresses) or Major M & R, based to the type of pavement.
If the pavement PCI is greater than 25 and lower than 40 (25 < PCI < 40) and the pavement is structurally adequate but is functionally inadequate, the recommended repairs for medium and high severity distresses include Localized M & R, Global M & R, or Major M & R. The repairs may comprise half- or full-depth patching, mill and replace, crack/joint sealing, or surface treatment based on the type of pavement.
If the pavement PCI is greater than 25 and lower than 40 (25 < PCI < 40) and the pavement is structurally inadequate, the recommended repairs are for load- and climate-related distresses after an evaluation of the subsurface layers. If subsurface layers are adequate, patching or Major M & R as mill and overlay can be executed to improve the pavement structural adequacy. If subsurface layers are structurally failed (inadequate), reconstruction is recommended (Major M & R).
Note. For PCI lower than 40, a 25% reduction in allowable load is applied during evaluation.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 10
If the pavement PCI is lower than 25 and the pavement is structurally adequate but is clearly functionally inadequate, load- and climate-related distresses may be repaired through Localized M & R, Global M & R, or Major M & R in relation to the type of pavement.
If the pavement PCI is lower than 25 and the pavement is structurally inadequate, the recommendation is to proceed with full reconstruction (Major M & R).
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 11
4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
The PCIs of ten (10) taxiway sections (T01A, T02A, T04A, T05A, T07A, T08A, T15C, T17C, T20A, and T22A) and five (5) apron sections (A04B, A15B, A19B, A21B2, and A24B2) fail to meet the minimum PCI outlined in AR 420-1, Chapter 7.
The PCIs of the remaining sections evaluated meet the minimum PCI outlined in AR 420-1, Chapter 7.
For sections rating good, satisfactory, fair, or poor (PCI > 40), approximately $1,902,000 (FY16) is required for localized maintenance and repair. This includes seven (7) runway sections (R02A, R03C, R06A, R08C, R09C, R10C, and R11A), twenty-three (23) taxiway sections (T01A through T08A, T10A1, T10A2, T11A, T12A1, T12A2, T15C, T16C, T17C, T18A, T19A, T20A, T21A, T22A, T24C, and T28A), and twenty-one (21) apron sections (A01B, A02B, A04B, A05B, A09B, A10B1, A12B, A13B, A14B, A15B, A16B, A18B1, A18B2, A19B, A22B, A23B, A24B1, A25B, A26B, A27B, and A28B1.). Maintenance and repair should be performed in the near future to preserve the performance of these sections. The cost summary details for localized maintenance and repair for these sections is given in Appendix A (Table A1).
For the sections rated as serious (PCI 10-25) and failed (PCI 0-10), reconstruction is recommended; however, an estimated cost of $266,000 (FY16) is required to conduct maintenance and repair in lieu of reconstruction. This includes two (2) apron sections (A21B2 and A24B2).
The cost summary for maintenance and repair of these sections is shown in the major repair column in Appendix A (Table A1).
The costs provided in this report are estimated costs for material and labor only and do not include other contractual costs. A project site investigation is required before major work is initiated.
The maintenance and repair alternatives recommended for the existing surfaces were selected from the alternatives listed for the various
DRAFT
gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight gordon.morey Highlight
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 12
distresses in Table 5 and Table 6. In many instances, the performance of a specific alternative is dependent upon local conditions and contractors.
Installation Status Report (ISR) ratings for the airfield pavements based on the PCI from the 2016 pavement survey and the load-bearing capacity in terms of the aircraft classification number divided by the pavement classification number (ACN/PCN) determined from the 2012 structural pavement evaluation are shown in Illustrations 1 and 2, respectively.
Recommendations
The severity level in which distress types are classified during a pavement condition survey is a controlling factor in determining the condition rating of the pavement. By performing proper maintenance on the airfield pavements, the severity levels can be kept in the low-severity classification.
Table 7 summarizes the recommended maintenance and repair alternatives suggested for the existing airfield pavement sections. This summary is based on actual pavement distresses observed by the evaluation team. It is the responsibility of the airfield management team to determine if aircraft operations are acceptable without implementing these recommendations. However, it is recommended that these maintenance and repair items be performed as soon as possible to retain the full benefit of the structural capacity of the existing pavements. A global summary of the pavement distresses that require maintenance and repair are included in Table 8 based on facility use. DRAFT
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 13
References
American Society for Testing and Materials. 2010. Standard Test Method for Airport Pavement Condition Index Surveys. Designation:
D 5340-10, West Conshohocken, PA.
Headquarters, Department of the Army. 2007. Airspace, Airfields /Heliports, Flight Activities, Air Traffic Control, and Navigational Aids. Army Regulation 95-2, Washington, D.C.
———. 2008. Chapter 7, Transportation Infrastructure and Dams. Army Regulation 420-1, Washington, D.C.
Headquarters, Departments of the Army and the Air Force. 1993.
Standard Practice for Sealing Joints and Cracks in Rigid and Flexible Pavements. Technical Manual 5-822-11/AFM 88-6, Chap 7, Washington, D.C.
Headquarters, Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.
2001a. Airfield Pavement Evaluation. Unified Facilities Criteria 3-260-03, Washington, D.C.
———. 2001b. Pavement Design for Airfields. Unified Facilities Criteria 3-260-02, Washington, D.C.
———. 2001. Asphalt Maintenance and Repair. Unified Facilities Criteria 3-270-01, Washington, D.C.
———. 2001. Asphalt Crack Repair. Unified Facilities Criteria 3-270-02, Washington, D.C.
———. 2001. Concrete Crack and Partial-Depth Spall Repair. Unified Facilities Criteria 3-270-03, Washington, D.C.
———. 2001. Concrete Repair. Unified Facilities Criteria 3-270-04, Washington, D.C.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 14
Fi gu re
. L ay ou t o f a irf ie ld a nd fa ci lit y id en tif ic at io ns
S H
O U
L D
E R
G L
ID
E
R R
A M
P
T A
X
IW
A Y
N
T A
X
IW
A Y
D
N O
R T
H
TAXIWAY D
R U
N W
A Y
7L
-2 5R
B L
A C
K H
A W
K A
P R
O N
H A
N G
A R
A
P R
O N
C H
IN
O
O K
R A
M P
S M
O K
E J
U M
P R
A M
P
T A
X
IW
A Y
B T
A X
IW
A
Y C
N
O R
T H
TAXIWAY C
R U
N W
A Y
R -2
5L
R E
F U
E L
IN
G
A P
R O
N S
T A
X
IW
A Y
S
B L
A C
K H
A W
K S
O U
T H
R A
M P
M E
D
IV
A C
R A
M P
T A
X
IW
A Y
E
P O
L T
A X
IW
A
Y
P O
L A
P R
O N
T A
X
IW
A Y
F
TAXIWAY A
K
IO
W A
R A
M P
A H
A R
A M
P
M A
IN
T
E N
A N
C E
V O
R C
H E
C K
R A
M P
S
C A
L E
I N
F E
E T
N
N O
R T
H T
A X
IW
A
Y
TAXIW
AY G
R A
M P
G S
A B
H A
N G
A R
A P
R O
N
A A
C H
A N
G A
R A
P R
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 15
gu re
. A irf ie ld p av em en t s ec tio n id en tif ic at io ns a nd lo ca tio ns
S
C A
L E
IN
F
E E
T
N
O
O V
E R
R U
N
B
T Y
P E
B T
R A
F F
IC
A
T
Y P
E A
T R
A F
F
IC
C
T Y
P E
C T
R A
F F
IC
P C
C
P O
R T
L A
N D
C E
M E
N T
C
N C
R E
T E
A C
A
S P
H A
L T
IC
C
O N
C R
E T
E
A
A P
R O
N T
T
A X
IW
A
Y R
R
U N
W A
Y
S E
C T
IO
N
D E
S
IG
N A
T
IO
N S
U R
F A
C E
P A
V E
M E
N T
T Y
P E
A N
D T
H
IC
K N
E S
S
L E
G E
N D
T Y
P E
O F
S E
C T
IO
N
T Y
P E
O F
T R
A F
F
IC
A R
E A
T Y
P E
O F
P A
V E
M E
N T
T
A A
C 3.
in
A
B P
C C
8.
in
T
6A A
C 4.
in
A
B
P C
C
.0 in
A
B P
C C
8.
in
T
A A
C 4.
in
T
2A A
C
.5 in
T
A A
C
0.
in
T
7C A
C
.2 in
R
A A
C
.0 in
A
B P
C C
.2 in
A
B P
C C
8.
in
A
B P
C C
.5 in
A
B P
C C
8.
in
T
A A
C
.7 in
T
0A A
C /P
C C
.0 in
R
A A
C
.0 in
R
C A
C
.2 in
R
C A
C
.0 in
R
C A
C
.0 in
T
2A
A C
.0 in
A
B A
C
.7 in
T
C A
C 4.
in
R
C A
C
.2 in
R
A A
C
.0 in
T
8A P
C C
7.
in
T
9A A
C
1.
in
T
A
A C
.0 in
A
B A
C 9.
in
A
B P
C C
6.
in
T
1A A
C
.5 in
T
0A
A C
.5 in
A
B A
C 8.
in
T
C
A C
.2 in
T
A
A C
0.
in
A
B A
C
.0 in
A
B A
C
.0 in
T
9A A
C
.5 in
R
A A
C
0.
in
T
A P
C C
7.
in
T
C A
C 7.
in
T
3A A
C
.5 in
T
2A A
C
.5 in
A
B A
C
.0 in
A
B
P C
C
.2 in
A
B
P C
C
2.
in
A
B A
C
.7 in
A
B P
C C
2.
in
T
C A
C 6.
in
T
1A
A C
9.
in
A
B P
C C
.0 in
T
8A A
C
.2 in
A
B P
C C
8.
in
A
B
P C
C 8.
in
T
5C A
C 6.
in
T
C P
C C
.2 in
R
C A
C
1.
in
R
C A
C
1.
in
R
A A
C 7.
in
T
C A
C 4.
in
T
5C A
C
.5 in
T
7A A
C 9.
in
A
B
A C
.7 in
A
B
A C
.0 in
.0 in
A
B
P C
C
A
B
P C
C
A
B
P C
C
A
B P
C C
A
B
P C
C
.0 in
.0 in
8.
in
.0 in
.0 in
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 16
Figure 3. Scale for pavement condition rating.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 17
gu re
. S am pl e
U ni t l ay ou t, R un w ay
L-
R
, S ec tio ns
R
A, R
C, R
C, R O
C, R
A, R
C, R
C, a nd
R
C.
23 12 24
25 1 3 26
27 14 28
29 15 30
31 16 3 2
33 1 7 3 4
35 18 3 6
37 19 3 8
39 20 4 0
41 21 4 2
43 22 4 4
45 23 46
47 24 48
49 25 50
51 26 52
53 27 54
5 5 28 56
57 29 58
5 9 30 60
6 1 31 62
6 3 32 64
6 5 33 66
67 34 68
69 35 70
7 1 36 72
73 37 74
7 5 38 76
77 39 78
R
C R
C
2 1 2 4
2 7
1 0
1 1 2
3 2 4
5 3 6
7 4 8
9 5 10
11 6 12
13 7 14
15 8 16
17 9 18
1 9 10 20
21 11 22
79 40 8 0
81 41 82
83 42 84
85 4 3 86
87 44 88
89 4 5 90
91 4 6 92
93 4 7 94
95 48 96
97 49 98
1 1 2
3 2 4
5 3 6
7 4 8
9 5 10
11 6 12
13 7 14
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10 1 1 12
13 1 4 15
16 1 7 18
19 20 21
22 23 24
25 26 27
R
C R
C
R
C R
C
R
C R
C
R
A
R
A R
C
R
C
S
A M
P L
E U
N
IT
S U
R V
E Y
E D
0+00-
67+50-
-75+50
-85+38
-17+50
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 18
3 3 3 4
3 5
1 0
1 2
1 4
6 3 6 4
6 5 6 6
R
A
R
A
R
A
S
A M
P L
E U
N
IT
S U
R V
E Y
E D
-75+28
-0+00
Fi gu re
. S am pl e
U ni t l ay ou t, R un w ay
R -2
L, S ec tio n
R
A.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 19
21 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
T
A
T
A
T
A
T
A
T
A
T
C
T
C
T
A T
A
S
A M
P L
E U
N
IT
S U
R V
E Y
E D
-0
-1 5+
-1 3+
-4
18 -7
0+00-
11+73-
-0 +0
-8 +4
-23+02
-30+02
-0
Fi gu re
. S am pl e
U ni t l ay ou t, Ta xi w ay
A , E
, F , a nd G
, S ec tio ns
T
A, T
2A , T
A, T
A, T
A, T
A, T
A, T
C, a nd T
5C
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 20
A
B
T
A
A
B A
B
A
B
T
A
T
A
T
A T
A
A
B
T
A
T
A
S A
M P
L E
U N
IT
S
U R
V E
Y E
D
1 1
Fi gu re
. S am pl e
U ni t l ay ou t, Ta xi w ay
S a nd R ef ue l A pr on , S ec tio ns T
A, T
A, T
6A , T
A, T
A, A
B , A
B , A
B , A
B , a nd A
B
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 21
T
A
T
A T
A
46+83-
37+40-
31+40-
26+62-
T
A
2 4
T
A
26+62-
5+90-
S
A M
P L
E U
N
IT
S U
R V
E Y
E D
T
A
8 7
0+
5+90-
T
A
T
A
Fi gu re
. S am pl e
U ni t l ay ou t, Ta xi w ay
N , S ec tio ns T
A, T
A1 , T
A2 , T
A, T
A1 , a nd T
A2
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 22
T17C
T16C
T13C
T14C
T15C
T17C
T15C
8 SAMPLE UNIT SURVEYED
0+00-
17+00
4+22-
0+00 0+00-
3+84-
0+00-
16+92-
4+60-
0+00
Figure 9. Sample Unit layout, Taxiway B, C, and D, Sections T13C, T14C, T15C, T16C, and T17C.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 23
2 1 3
0 1 123
4 5
5 3
T
A T
A
T
C
S
A M
P L
E U
N
IT
S U
R V
E Y
E D
Fi gu re
. S am pl e U ni t l ay ou t, Ta xi w ay A
, E , a nd F
, S ec tio ns
T
A, T
4C , a nd T
A.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 24
8 1 6
1 5 1 4
1 0
2 4
2 2
2 1
1 8
3 0
3 7
3 4
4 4
4 5
5 2
5 7
7 14
7 15 23
13 21
12 20
10 18
8 16 24
4 5 6
2 3
8 7
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
T
C A
B
S
A M
P L
E U
N
IT
S U
R V
E Y
E D
Fi gu re
. S am pl e U ni t l ay ou t, PO
L Ta xi w ay , M ai nt en an ce R am p, a nd
P O
L R am p, S ec tio ns
T
C, A
B
, A
B
, A
B
, A
B
, A
B
, a nd
A
B
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 25
28 17 6
A
B
A
B
A
B
S
A M
P L
E U
N
IT
S U
R V
E Y
E D
Fi gu re
. S am pl e U ni t l ay ou t, Sm ok e
Ju m p R am p an d
Ch in oo k
R am p, S ec tio ns A
B
, A
B
, a nd
A
B
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 26
91112
13 10
A
B
A
B A
B
S
A M
P L
E U
N
IT
S U
R V
E Y
E D
Fi gu re
. S am pl e U ni t l ay ou t, H an ge r 1 A pr on
, B la ck ha w k
R am p, a nd G lid er
R am p, S ec tio ns A
4B
, A
B
, a nd
A
B
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 27
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
S
A M
P L
E U
N
IT
S U
R V
E Y
E D
1 2 3 4 5 6
16 15 1
13 12 11
17 18 19 20 21 22
33 32 31 30 29 28
40 41
47 48 49 50 51 52 5
37 36
46 60 59
22 23
3 4
Fi gu re
. S am pl e U ni t l ay ou t, K io w a R am p, B la ck ha w k
R am p So ut h, a nd
G
SA
B H an ga r A pr on , S ec tio ns A
B , A
B
, A
B
, A
B
, a nd
A
B
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 28
15 2630
17 14
5 7
12 3 4
10 2
16 6 8 1
1 2 3 4 5
7 8 9 10 11
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 32 33
34 35 36 37 38 39
40 41 42 43 44 45
46 47 48 49 50 51
52 53 54 55 56 57
58 59 60 61 62 63
64 65 66 67 68 69
A19B
A21B2
A21B1
A18B1
A18B1
8 SAMPLE UNIT SURVEYED
A18B2
1 2
Figure 15. Sample unit layout, Medivac Ramp and VOR Check Point Ramp, Sections A18B1, A18B2, A19B, A21B1, and A21B2.
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 29
A
B
A
B
1 53 54 10
2 52 55 10
3 51 56 10
4 50 57 1
5 49 58 10
6 48 59 10
7 47 60 10
8 46 61 99 11
9 45 62 98 11
10 44 63 97 11
11 43 64 96 11
12 42 65 95 11
13 41 66 94 11
14 40 67 93 12
15 39 68 92 1
16 38 69 91 12
17 37 70 90 12
18 36 71 89 1
19 35 72 88 1
20 34 73 87 12
21 33 74 86 12
22 32 75 85 1
23 31 76 84 1
24 30 77 83 1
25 29 78 82 1
26 28 79 81 13
27 80
3 2
1 171
S
A M
P L
E U
N
IT
S U
R V
E Y
E D
Fi gu re
. S am pl e U ni t l ay ou t, AA
C H an ga r A pr on , S ec tio ns A
B a nd
A
B
ERDC/GSL APB AAF-16-06 30
G L
ID
E
R R
A M
P
T A
X
IW
A Y
N
T A
X
IW
A Y
D
N O
R T
H
TAXIWAY D
R U
N W
A Y
7L
-2 5R
B L
A C
K H
A W
K A
P R
O N
H A
N G
A R
A
P R
O N
C H
IN
O
O K
R A
M P
S M
O K
E J
U M
P R
A M
P
T A
X
IW
A Y
B T
A X
IW
A
Y C
N
O R
T H
TAXIWAY C
R U
N W
A Y
7R
-2
L
R E
F U
E L
IN
G
A P
R O
N S
T A
X
IW
A Y
S
B L
A C
K H
A W
K S
O U
T H
R A
M P
M E
D
IV
A C
R A
M P
T A
X
IW
A Y
E
P O
L T
A X
IW
A
Y
P O
L A
P R
O N
T A
X
IW
A Y
F
TAXIWAY A
K
IO
W A
R A
M P
A H
A R
A M
P
M A
IN
T
E N
A N
C E
V O
R C
H E
C K
R A
M P
S
C A
L E
IN
F
E E
T
N
N O
R T
H T
A X
IW
A
Y
TAXIW
AY G
R A
M P
G O
O D
S A
T
IS
F A
C T
O R
Y
F A
IR
P O
O R
V E
R Y
P O
O R
S E
R
IO
U S
F A
IL
E
D
N O
T E
V A
L U
A T
E D
G S
A B
H A
N G
A R
A P
R O
N
A A
C H
A N
G A
R A
P R
O N Fi gu re
. P av em en t c on di tio n ra tin g su m m ar y.
ERDC/GSL APB…
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .