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 R2
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 R3
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 R4
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 R5
OCR for page R6
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 R7
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 R8
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 R9
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 R10
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
