journal article·2019-07-03Open access

Comparison of methods for evaluating airport pavement roughness

Giuseppe Loprencipe, Pablo Zoccali

Abstract

The correct and timely assessment of the airport pavements surface quality is fundamental to verify the presence of any irregularities that could be detrimental to aircraft operations. Furthermore, a rough runway can increase the maintenance costs of both pavements and aircrafts landing gears, due to the increment of dynamic loads and fatigue phenomena on airplanes structural elements, reducing their service life. Nowadays, the maintenance budget available by airport agencies is very restricted, thus, it is necessary to define properly the type and the extension of interventions able to restore runway evenness. In this paper, the roughness assessment of real runway profiles is carried out using first of all BBI and IRI but also ProFAA simulation model, with particular attention to Cockpit Vertical Accelerations, underling the different impact on airport pavement management of the results provided by them. In particular, very low correlations for the whole sample of examined profiles were found between IRI and BBI (R 2 = 0.11) and between IRI and cockpit vertical acceleration (R 2 = 0.03), while a better correlation was obtained between BBI and cockpit vertical acceleration (R 2 = 0.59). Neglecting runway profiles characterised by long wavelengths roughness, a very high correlation between IRI and BBI (R 2 = 0.91) was found, that underlines their different sensitivity to long wavelengths. In particular, it was found that for roughness characterised by low wavelengths, the IRI method seems to be more conservative than BBI. In addition, two different IRI acceptance thresholds were taken into account, one used in South Africa (2 m/km) and one adopted in Canada (2.7 m/km). For the whole profiles sample, little differences were found in their runway sections evaluation (about 4%) compared to BBI method; while, considering the reduced sample where profiles characterised by long wavelengths roughness were excluded, the use of IRI limit of 2 m/km would seem to be too conservative.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring · Surface Roughness and Optical Measurements · Image and Signal Denoising Methods

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Civil, Constructional and Environmental Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome , Rome, Italy

References (38)

Show source-provided references
1. ASTM E1926 · 2008
2. ASTM E867 · Terminology relating to vehicle-pavement systems · 2002
3. ASTM E950 · 1998
4. Bonin G. · Industria Italiana del Cemento · 2007 · 77 · 590
5. 10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.000014310.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000143 ↗
6. Cardoso S.H. · Practical manual on the aircraft-pavement interaction and runway roughness evaluation · 2002
7. Cardoso, S. H. , 2007a. Aircraft-based pavement surface roughness assessment. Washington, DC: Transport Research Board, 104–110.10.3141/2007-13 ↗
8. CROW · 2006
9. CROW · 2007
10. 10.1109/18.5719910.1109/18.57199 ↗
11. DeBord K. J. · Boeing Document No. D6-81746. Seattle: Boeing · 1995
12. Emery S · 2015
13. ENAC · LG 2015/003-APT – Ed. n.1 del 1 Ottobre 2015 (in Italian) · 2015
14. FAA · 2009
15. FAA · 2014
16. Feighan K · Paper presented at 6th International Conference on Managing Pavements · 2004
17. Gerardi T · Rep. IPRF 01-G-002-02-4 · 2007
18. González Saucedo B . and Rodriguez Parra M . 2007. Estrategias para optimizar el mantenimiento de los diferentes tipos de pavimentos utilizados en aeropuertos de México (Master’s Thesis). Available from: https://tesis.ipn.mx/handle/123456789/11907 (in Spanish).
19. Haynoe, G.F. , 2016. Airport pavement rideability rating for maintenance evaluation . 2016 Airports Conference. Hershey, PA: Hershey Lodge, 22 March. Available from: https://airports.outreach.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Airport-Pavement-Rideability-Rating-for-Maintenance-Evaluation.pdf
20. ICAO · Aerodrome Design and Operations · 2013 · 1
21. 10.1080/1029843090331179210.1080/10298430903311792 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.jsv.2005.02.01510.1016/j.jsv.2005.02.015 ↗
23. 10.5539/mas.v7n8p110.5539/mas.v7n8p1 ↗
24. 10.1007/s40534-017-0122-110.1007/s40534-017-0122-1 ↗
25. McNerney, M. T. , and Harrison, R. , 1995. Full-cost approach to airport pavement management . D. Jenkins , ed. Washington, DC: McGraw-Hill, 121–130.
26. Merritt D. K · Best practices for achieving and measuring pavement smoothness, a synthesis of state-of-practice · 2015
27. Mesher D. · 2015
28. 10.3141/2300-1410.3141/2300-14 ↗
29. 10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.000041710.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000417 ↗
30. 10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.000029710.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000297 ↗
31. PIARC · 1987
32. ProFAA · 2004
33. Sayers, M.W . 1995. On the calculation of international roughness index from longitudinal road profile . Transportation Research Record1501, TRB, Washington, DC: National Research Council, 1–12.
34. Sayers M.W · Guidelines for conducting and calibrating road roughness measurements · 1986 · 46 · 87
35. Sayers, M.W . and Karamihas, S.M. , 1998. The little book of profiling . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute. Available from: https://www.umtri.umich.edu/content/LittleBook98R.pdf
36. Transport Canada · Civil Aviation, Standards. Advisory Circular AC 302-023 · 2015
37. Van Gelder P.A · Technology Representative, NLR-TP-2009-190 · 2009
38. Woods J · In Transportation Research Board 88th Annual Meeting (No. 09-0558) · 2009