Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
ACRP AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 29 Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems

OCR for page R1
ACRP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE* TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* CHAIR OFFICERS James Wilding CHAIR: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Independent Consultant VICE CHAIR: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington VICE CHAIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board Jeff Hamiel MinneapolisSt. Paul MEMBERS Metropolitan Airports Commission J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY MEMBERS Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg James Crites Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson DallasFort Worth International Airport Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Richard de Neufville Norfolk, VA Massachusetts Institute of Technology William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles Kevin C. Dolliole Unison Consulting David S. Ekern, Commissioner, Virginia DOT, Richmond John K. Duval Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Beverly Municipal Airport Virginia, Charlottesville Kitty Freidheim Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN Freidheim Consulting Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC Steve Grossman Jacksonville Aviation Authority Randell H. Iwasaki, Director, California DOT, Sacramento Tom Jensen Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City National Safe Skies Alliance Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka Catherine M. Lang Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Federal Aviation Administration Pete K. Rahn, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City Gina Marie Lindsey Los Angeles World Airports Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Carolyn Motz Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Regional General Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA Hagerstown Regional Airport Rosa Clausell Rountree, CEOGeneral Manager, Transroute International Canada Services, Inc., Richard Tucker Pitt Meadows, BC Huntsville International Airport Steven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO EX OFFICIO MEMBERS C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Sabrina Johnson Linda S. Watson, CEO, LYNXCentral Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Steve Williams, Chairman and CEO, Maverick Transportation, Inc., Little Rock, AR Richard Marchi Airports Council International--North America Laura McKee EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Air Transport Association of America Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC Henry Ogrodzinski National Association of State Aviation Officials Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT Melissa Sabatine J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT American Association of Airport Executives Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA Robert E. Skinner, Jr. George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York Transportation Research Board University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC James E. Caponiti, Acting Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT SECRETARY Cynthia Douglass, Acting Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Christopher W. Jenks Administration, U.S.DOT Transportation Research Board LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC Rose A. McMurry, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Ronald Medford, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT Polly Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC *Membership as of October 2009. *Membership as of October 2009.

OCR for page R1
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP REPORT 29 Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems Matthew A. Barsotti John M. H. Puryear David J. Stevens PROTECTION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC Austin, TX Subject Areas Aviation Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2009 www.TRB.org

OCR for page R1
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP REPORT 29 Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans- Project 07-03 portation of people and goods and in regional, national, and inter- ISSN 1935-9802 national commerce. They are where the nation's aviation system ISBN 978-0-309-11813-2 connects with other modes of transportation and where federal respon- Library of Congress Control Number 2009941761 sibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and operate most 2009 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. airports. Research is necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the airport industry. The Airport Coopera- COPYRIGHT INFORMATION tive Research Program (ACRP) serves as one of the principal means by Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining which the airport industry can develop innovative near-term solutions written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously to meet demands placed on it. published or copyrighted material used herein. The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon- Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The ACRP carries understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB or FAA endorsement out applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the agencies and are not being adequately addressed by existing federal material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate research programs. It is modeled after the successful National Coopera- acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of tive Highway Research Program and Transit Cooperative Research Pro- the material, request permission from CRP. gram. The ACRP undertakes research and other technical activities in a variety of airport subject areas, including design, construction, mainte- nance, operations, safety, security, policy, planning, human resources, NOTICE and administration. The ACRP provides a forum where airport opera- tors can cooperatively address common operational problems. The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Airport Cooperative Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the The ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary partici- Board's judgment that the project concerned is appropriate with respect to both the pants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP purposes and resources of the National Research Council. Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and to review Department of Transportation with representation from airport oper- this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration ating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions such as the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA), expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), and the Air Transport necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Association (ATA) as vital links to the airport community; (2) the TRB as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel according to (3) the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. contract with the National Academies formally initiating the program. The ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials, Council, and the Federal Aviation Administration (sponsor of the Airport Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research orga- names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the clarity and nizations. Each of these participants has different interests and respon- completeness of the project reporting. sibilities, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort. Research problem statements for the ACRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to the TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the AOC to formulate the research program by iden- tifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport pro- fessionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels pre- pare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and Published reports of the selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooper- AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP are available from: project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the Transportation Research Board Business Office intended end-users of the research: airport operating agencies, service 500 Fifth Street, NW providers, and suppliers. The ACRP produces a series of research Washington, DC 20001 reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other interested parties, and industry associations may arrange for work- and can be ordered through the Internet at shops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore results are implemented by airport-industry practitioners. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS CRP STAFF FOR ACRP REPORT 29 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Michael R. Salamone, ACRP Manager Marci A. Greenberger, Senior Program Officer Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Doug English, Editor ACRP PROJECT 07-03 PANEL Field of Design Kevin B. Bleach, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, New York, NY (Chair) Efren T. Gonzalez, Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, Roanoke, VA Antonio A. Trani, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA Gary Warren, Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN Xiaosong "Sean" Xiao, Xcel Energy, Substation Engineering and Design, Eden Prairie, MN Michel Hovan, FAA Liaison Ryan E. King, FAA Liaison Richard Marchi, Airports Council International - North America Liaison Christine Gerencher, TRB Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under ACRP Project 07-03 by Protection Engineering Consultants (PEC). Mr. Matthew A. Barsotti, M.S., Principal at PEC, was the Principal Investigator (PI). The other authors of this report were Mr. John M. H. Puryear, M.S., Project Engineer at PEC; and David J. Stevens, Ph.D., P.E., Senior Principal and Co-PI at PEC. Testing and evaluation support was provided by Mr. Jason Pat- ton, Research Engineer at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI). Supporting research was provided by Timothy Walilko, Ph.D., Senior Engineer at Applied Research Associates (ARA); Subhash Narang, Ph.D., Principal at Shakti Technologies; Eric B. Williamson, Ph.D., P.E., Associate Professor at the University of Texas at Austin; and Maria C. Garci Juenger, Assistant Professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Air- port operations consultation was provided by Gordon S. Chace, A.A.E., C.A.E. The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance provided by Engineered Arresting Systems Corpora- tion (ESCO), which provided valuable data and information regarding the EMAS system. The authors would also like to acknowledge the companies that generously provided design concepts and materials for evaluation: Grid Technologies, Inc.; Norsk Glassgjenvinning AS; Pittsburgh Corning; and Tensar International. The informative airport survey results would not have been possible without the participation of the many airport management personnel, who painstakingly gathered information regarding their facilities and expe- riences. The Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airport Commission and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey provided site tours and ongoing information to the research team. Many individuals at the FAA provided valuable references and insight, including David Rathfelder, E.C. Hunnicutt, and Ryan King. Jim Day, P.E., Nielen Stander, Ph.D., and Willem Roux, Ph.D. (Livermore Software Technology Cor- poration) have continually provided outstanding technical help and advice with various LS-DYNA and LS-OPT questions and issues. Oleh Baran, Ph.D. (DEM Solutions) provided ongoing assistance with Dis- crete Element Modeling (DEM) facets of the project.

OCR for page R1
FOREWORD By Marci A. Greenberger Staff Officer Transportation Research Board ACRP Report 29: Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems is a report that evalu- ates alternative materials that could be used for an engineered material arresting system (EMAS), as well as potential active arrestor designs for civil aircraft applications. Currently, there is only one manufacturer that has been approved by the FAA. This report provides an evaluation of (1) cellular glass foam, (2) aggregate foam, (3) engineered aggregate, and (4) a main-gear engagement active arrestor system. Airport operators will find the updated cost information and performance considerations useful, airport planning firms will be aided by evaluating future options with respect to runway dimensions and land requirements, and man- ufacturers of alternative products will be encouraged to see the performance characteristics of other materials and the potential process by which they may be able to gain approval. There are many airports today that are land constrained and therefore unable to comply with FAA design standards to ensure that there is adequate room at runway ends for over- runs. There can be many reasons why an airport does not have the space and would wish to pursue an alternative. An EMAS is one such alternative. However, there is currently only one system that meets the FAA standards for arresting civil aircraft. The cost associated with acquiring and installing the cellular material is high, installation is labor-intensive, and there are no tests with which to verify the durability and integrity over time. There have been several ideas for alternative civil aircraft arresting sys- tems submitted to the FAA; however, none have undergone testing or been submitted with the appropriate data necessary for approval. Under ACRP 07-03, Protection Engineering Consultants was asked to (1) identify and evaluate the most promising alternatives, (2) identify the steps that must be taken to have those alternatives approved for use within the United States, (3) conduct a sensitivity analy- sis of the FAA's design and performance parameters for civil aircraft arresting systems and the potential effects on system design that result from varying one or more of the parame- ters (e.g., aircraft leaving the runway at 60 knots rather than 70 knots), and (4) document the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. This report provides alternatives to the current system, the steps required to pursue approval, and the performance characteristics of the candidate materials. The research team accomplished these objectives in part by (1) conducting a literature review, (2) surveying airport operators with installed systems, (3) reviewing FAA design parameters and holding discussions with the FAA, and (4) conducting an in-depth engineering evaluation of the arresting capabilities for the candidate systems.

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS 1 Summary 19 Chapter 1 Introduction 19 1.1. Project Background 19 1.2. EMAS Nomenclature 20 1.3. EMAS Description 20 1.4. Research Approach 22 Chapter 2 Literature Review 22 2.1. General 22 2.2. Historical Aircraft Arrestor Research and Development 23 2.3. Recent Arrestor Research 23 2.4. Landing Gear and Aircraft Dynamics 23 2.5. Airport Operations 24 2.6. Accidents and Incidents 24 2.7. Financial 24 2.8. Patents 25 Chapter 3 Survey of U.S. Airport Operators 25 3.1. Site Visits 27 3.2. Participating Survey Airports 27 3.3. Standard EMAS 27 3.4. FAA Requirements 28 3.5. Installation 31 3.6. Maintenance 32 3.7. Observations for Survey Regarding EMAS 32 3.8. Perception of Active Arrestor 33 3.9. Observations for Survey Regarding Active Arrestors 34 Chapter 4 Review and Documentation of FAA Parameters 34 4.1. Relevant Literature 34 4.2. Parameter Diagram 34 4.3. Parameter Relationships 35 4.4. Critical Parameters 39 Chapter 5 Sensitivity Analysis 39 5.1. Introduction 39 5.2. Results and Discussion 43 Chapter 6 Approval and Commercialization Study 43 6.1. Approval Process for New Arrestor Development 43 6.2. Normal Approval Process 43 6.3. Equivalent Approval Process 44 6.4. Updating of the ARRESTOR Code

OCR for page R1
46 Chapter 7 Identification and Initial Assessment of Alternatives 46 7.1. General Approach 46 7.2. Vendor-Developed Alternatives 46 7.3. Classification of Alternatives 48 7.4. Initial Assessment of Alternatives 48 7.5. Crushable Material Systems 55 7.6. Displaceable Material Systems 58 7.7. Cable/Net Active Systems 60 Chapter 8 Experimentation Overview 60 8.1. Scope and Emphasis 60 8.2. Evaluation Process 60 8.3. Order of Discussion 63 Chapter 9 Glass Foam Arrestor Concept 63 9.1. Concept Description 63 9.2. Testing and Modeling Approach 66 9.3. Testing Effort 72 9.4. Modeling Effort 80 9.5. Arrestor Performance Predictions 84 9.6. Estimated System Cost and Upkeep 85 9.7. Transition to a Fielded System 86 9.8. Summary 87 Chapter 10 Engineered Aggregate Arrestor Concept 87 10.1. Concept Description 87 10.2. Modeling and Testing Approach 89 10.3. Testing Effort 94 10.4. Modeling Effort 103 10.5. Arrestor Performance Predictions 104 10.6. Estimated System Cost and Upkeep 108 10.7. Transition to Fielded System 108 10.8. Summary 110 Chapter 11 Aggregate Foam Arrestor Concept 110 11.1. Concept Description 111 11.2. Testing and Modeling Approach 113 11.3. Testing Effort 118 11.4. Modeling Effort 125 11.5. Arrestor Performance Predictions 132 11.6. Estimated System Cost and Upkeep 134 11.7. Transition to a Fielded System 135 11.8. Summary 137 Chapter 12 Depth-Varying Foam Material 137 12.1. Depth-Varying Foam Concept 137 12.2. Depth-Varying Profiles Considered 137 12.3. Modeling Approach 140 12.4. Metamodel Analysis 142 12.5. Transition to Fielded System 143 12.6. Summary

OCR for page R1
144 Chapter 13 Summary of Passive System Candidates 144 13.1. Overview 144 13.2. Performance Comparison 145 13.3. Environmental Performance Comparison 146 13.4. Cost Comparison 147 13.5. Summary Comparison 148 Chapter 14 Main-Gear Engagement Active System Concept 148 14.1. Overview of Active System Deployment 148 14.2. Prediction of Arresting Loads 150 14.3. Landing Gear Engagement 153 14.4. Summary 155 Chapter 15 Conclusions 155 15.1. Study Phase 156 15.2. Experimentation Phase 157 15.3. Final Conclusions 158 References 160 Appendix A Bibliography 162 Appendix B Survey Details 174 Appendix C EMAS Calculations 178 Appendix D Active Arrestor Calculations 181 Appendix E Human Injury Study 184 Appendix F Tire Models 188 Appendix G Arrestor Prediction Code 195 Acronyms and Abbreviations