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 147
147 providing the most expensive alternative. The costs in the which would likely improve multi-aircraft bed performance figures denote the total cost to establish such a system and (Chapter 12). do not include life-cycle costs of bed replacement and Aggregate foam provided a novel approach that featured maintenance. excellent multi-aircraft bed performance due to its depth- varying crushable material; this would effectively lead to shorter arrestor beds. Its cost was the lowest of the alternatives, combin- 13.5. Summary Comparison ing an inexpensive material with a simple installation process. Glass foam provided equivalent dynamic behavior to the Engineered aggregate features the most durable candidate currently approved EMAS system. Its performance, cost, and arrestor material, much of which could be reused after an arrest- construction are also similar to the current EMAS. However, ing event. It has a cost that falls between the other concepts. Its use of glass foam with a monolithic construction offers reduced speed-dependent nature produces weaker multi-aircraft per- maintenance and a longer service life. Additionally, glass foam formance, which would require longer arrestor beds to obtain the could be constructed using a stratified depth-varying layup, same exit speed ratings.