Q

XIV Seminario ALACPA de Pavimentos AeroportuariosXII Taller Federal Aviation AdministrationVII Curso Rápido de Mantenimiento de Pavimentos de Aeródromos28/05 al 01/06 2018 – Ciudad de Quito - Ecuador

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability

of IRI as a Runway Roughness Indicator

Dr. Samuel Hautequest Cardoso, Ph.D., Int’l Consultant & ICAO TCBAntônio C. Pinto, Engineering Director, RIOgaleãoAntonio Noronha, Engineering Manager, RIOgaleãoEduardo Arruda, Projects, Runways and PMS CoordinatorRonaldo Hércules, Engineering – Projects, Runways and PMSAlessandro Santos Oliveira, Airport Infrastructure Manager

Quito, Ecuador, 29 May 2018

Q

Introduction

Regulation Requirements

Tom Jobin International Airport Information

Field Investigation

Comparison Between IRI and rms

Summary & Lessons

Q

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

Introduction

✓ Aircraft & car/truck responses are ≠✓ Demonstration of the erratic results that

can be obtained with IRI (IT IS NOT GOOD)

✓ IRI: NON surface profile characteristics

✓ Some aviation agencies require IRI

✓ IRI application in airfield is a big concern

✓ IRI is a pavement index for roads/highways

Q

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

Introduction

✓ Best tool is rod & level

✓ It takes time but it is worthwhile

✓ Obtained with the sensitive of 1 mm

✓ True information of runway surface profile

✓ rms: direct measurement of roughness

rms (“root mean square”)

Q

✓ Runway Roughness Studies Start 1950’s

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

Regulation Requirements

Q

✓ ANAC – National Agency for Civil Aviation

✓ RBAC – Brazilian Regulation for

Civil Aviation (RBAC 154)

✓ IRI ≤ 2.5 m/Km reported every 200 m

✓ For Code D, E or F at 3 m & 6 m from each

side of the runway centerline

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

✓ ANAC is severe, but it works as a partner

Tom Jobin Int´l Airport Information

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

✓ Operated by RIOgaleão

✓ Concessionaire formed by:

51 % of

Changi

Airports

Int´l (CAI)

49 % of

INFRAERO

Q

PMS – RioGaleãoTom Jobin inT’l AirporT

Information

Runway 10/28

Tom Jobin Int´l Airport Information

Q

Field Investigation (Runway Profile)

Q

✓ Runway surface profiles (rod & level)

✓ Greater max. deformations → End 10

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

✓ rms measured at center of each slab

& centerline

✓ Detected 30 deformation basins

✓ Smaller max. def. End 28, but critical

✓ Boeing Roughness Criteria

Q

✓ IRI obtained in 30 June 2017 (after

1st recuperation) – entire runway

✓ rms measured in 2017 (after 1st

recuperation) - entire runway

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

Field Investigation

Q

Slab Bravo

Slab Charlie

RWY CL

Slab Delta

Slab Echo

Pavement Surface Recuperation

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

2016

2017

&

Field Investigation (Runway Profile)

Longitudinal view

18.75

mCL

11.25

mCL

3.75

mCL

CL

3.75

mCL

11.75

mCL18.75

mCL

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

Ma

x.

de

f. (

cm

)

Transverse view

18.75

mCL

11.25

mCL

3.75

mCL

CL

3.75

mCL

11.25

mCL

18.75

mCL

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

Ma

x. d

ef. (

cm

)

Transverse vew

Q

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

Field Investigation (Runway Profile)

Close by End 28

Q

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0 20 40 60 80

Bu

mp h

eig

ht

H, c

m

Bump length L, meters

Unacceptable Excessive

Temporarily

acceptable

Acceptable

Field InvestigationICAO-BOEING Roughness Criteria

Scale of Runway Roughness vs. IRI

You do not need to be an engineer!!!

Q

A high school student, may be?

Aircraft MTOW (lb) Ratio

( 3000)

Tire Presure

(psi)

Tire φ

(in)

EMB 190 110,861 37.0 131 104

B/737-800 155,456 51.8 185 121

A320 171,383 57.1 178 124

B/747-400F 909,745 303.2 230 127

A380 1,267,300 422.4 205 140

Vehicle Weight (lb) Ratio

( 3000)

Tire Pressure

(psi)Tire φ (in)

Chevrolet Spark 3,000 1.0 30 58

Ford Expedition 6,100 2.0 36 80

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

Scale of Runway Roughness vs. IRI

Yes, you do need to be an engineer!!!

Q

Vehicle/Aircraft Weight (lb)Frequency of

Response (c/s)

Ratio

( A380)

Chevrolet Spark 3,000 4.90 20.4

Ford Expedition 6,100 3.44 14.3

F5-B 15,275 2.17 9.0

Embraer 190 110,861 0.81 3.4

B737-800 155,456 0.68 2.8

A320 171,383 0.65 2.7

B747-400F 909,745 0.28 1.2

A380 1,261,569 0.24 1.0

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

Q

0

10

20

30

40

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

rm

s (

mm

)

Distance from End 10 (m)

3.75mL - rms Entire Runway

rms values rms limit 1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

IRI

(m/K

m)

Distance from End 10 (m)

Average IRI at 6 m left CL

Slab C IRI limit

1

2

3

4

5

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

IRI

(m/K

m)

Distance from End 10 (m)

Average IRI at 3 m Left CL

Slab C IRI limit

Same Slab (“C”)

Same Slab (“C”)

Q

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

IRI

(m/K

m)

Distance from End 10 (m)

Average IRI at 6 m right CL

Slab D IRI limit

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

IRI

(m/K

m)

Distance from End 10

Average IRI at 3 m right CL

Slab D IRI limit

Same Slab (“D”)

Same Slab (“D”)

21.8315.27

0

10

20

30

40

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

rm

s (

mm

)

Distance from End 10 (m)

3.75mR - rms – Entire Runway

After correction (2017)

rms below and above 9.15 mm

IRI below and above 2.50 m/Km

6m left

CL

6m right

6m left

3m left

6m right

3m right

Q

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

Comparison Between IRI and rms

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Runway 15/33

Q

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

rms below and above 9.15 mm

IRI below and above 2.50 m/Km6 mL cL

3 mL cL3 mR cL6 mR cL

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

3.75 m L cL

3.75 m R cL

Comparison Between IRI and rmsRunway 10/28

Q

Summary & Lessons

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

✓ IRI is not an adequate indicator for

runway roughness

✓ IRI results do not match those of true

profiles

✓ IRI does not pick up runway deformations

and/or distortions

✓ IRI indicates that the runways are rough,

although they have good ride qualities

Q

0

5

10

15

20

0 2000 4000rm

s (

mm

)

Distance End 10 (m)

Centerline

Summary & Lessons

0

10

20

0 2000 4000

rm

s (

mm

)

Distance End 10 (m)

3.75mL

Vertical Curves

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

Runway 10/28 after 2017

Q

0

5

10

15

20

0 2000 4000rm

s (

mm

)

Distance from End 10 …

11.75mR

0

5

10

15

20

0 2000 4000

rm

s (

mm

)

Distance from End 10 (m)

3.75mR

Summary & Lessons

Vertical Curves

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

Runway 10/28 after 2017

Q

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

2017

Q

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

2017

Q

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

2017

Q

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator

2018

Thank you

Q

Demonstration of the Non-Applicability of IRI

as a Runway Roughness Indicator