GRAVEL RUNWAY SURFACE STRENGTH MEASUREMENTS AND AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Roman A. Marushko Flight Test Engineer Transport Canada Aircraft Certification with the assistance of: Bruce Denyes Airport Pavement Engineer Transport Canada Aerodrome Safety Issue 1 June 30, 1997

Issue 1 June 30, 1997

GRAVEL RUNWAY SURFACE STRENGTH MEASUREMENTS AND AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................5 2.0 GRAVEL RUNWAY ............................................................................................................6 2.1 Gravel Runway Construction - General ......................................................................6 2.2 Gravel Runway Design Methodologies ......................................................................7 2.3 Frost Effects on Gravel Runways ................................................................................7 2.4 Gravel Runway Strength ..............................................................................................8 2.5 Soil Properties - Effect on Surface Strength ................................................................9 2.6 Indications and Effects of Gravel Runway Failures ....................................................9 2.7 Operational Problems ................................................................................................11 3.0 MEASURING SURFACE STRENGTH ............................................................................12 3.1 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) ................................................................................12 3.2 ASTM D4429 (U.S. Corps of Engineers) CBR Test Method (Appendix A)..............................................................................................................12 3.3 Boeing High Load Penetrometer (Appendix B) ........................................................13 3.4 Shock Penetrometer (Appendix C) ............................................................................14 3.5 Comparison of CBR Strength Measurement Methods ..............................................15 3.6 Survey of Several Runway CBR Measurements (Appendix D)..............................................................................................................16 4.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT ON GRAVEL RUNWAYS ..................................................................................................18 4.1 General........................................................................................................................18 4.2 Rolling Coefficient of Friction ..................................................................................18 4.3 Braking ......................................................................................................................19 4.4 Estimation of Maximum Allowable Tire Pressure ....................................................20 4.5 Protection of Aircraft..................................................................................................21 5.0 AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION TEST PROGRAM FOR OPERATIONS ON GRAVEL RUNWAYS ..................................................................................................24 5.1 General........................................................................................................................24 5.2 Test Surfaces ..............................................................................................................24 5.3 Performance................................................................................................................25 3

5.4 Handling ....................................................................................................................26 5.5 Structural Integrity and Systems Operation ..............................................................26 5.6 Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) ..................................................................................26 5.7 Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL................................................................28 6.0 SUMMARY 29 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................30 8.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................31 FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Cross Section of Flexible Pavement Classification of Soils for Airport Pavement Applications Approximate Relationship of Soil Classification and Bearing Values Gravel Runway Loss of Material Gravel Runway Segregation of Material Gravel Runway Wheel Rutting Gravel Runway Poor Surface Drainage Gravel Runway Poor Sub-surface Drainage Gravel Frost Action Damage Gravel Runway Roughness Gravel Runway Vegetation Growth California Bearing Ration Test Set-Up (ASTM METHOD) Boeing High Load Penetrometer Test Set-up A.M.D. Shock Penetrometer CBR vs Soil Reaction Pressure for THree Penetrometer Test Methods Example of Penetrometer Test Locations Modification of Boeing High Load Penetrometer Test to incorporate a small flat plate for the determination of Soil Failure Pressure Rolling Coefficient of Friction related to Tire Pressure and Runway CBR Subgrade Spring Reduction Factors Based on Soil Composition Rolling Coefficient of Friction vs Tire Pressure ASTM D4429 Standard Test Method for CBR of Soils in Place Boeing High Load Penetrometer Soil Strength Tester Aerospatiale Method for CBR (Shock Penetrometer) Summary of Selected Runway CBR Measurements Boeing Approvals Product Information and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)

FIGURE 18 FIGURE 19 FIGURE 20 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F

Issue 1 June 30, 1997

GRAVEL RUNWAY SURFACE STRENGTH MEASUREMENTS AND AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (Issue 1 of this report dated June 30, 1997 has been produced by Transport Canada Aircraft Certification Flight Test Division to reflect experience gained and problems encountered during gravel runway certification of transport category aircraft.) 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The take-off and landing distance requirements of FAR Part 25 require that (in the case of land planes) take-off and landing distance data be based on a smooth dry hard surfaced runway. This report will review the characteristics of gravel surfaced runways, which by definition are not smooth or hard surfaced. Because of these characteristics, the problems involved with the measurement and definition of these surfaces will be discussed and the effects on aircraft certification and operations will be examined. This report will limit itself to gravel runway surfaces composed of coarse gained soils and aggregates rather than unpaved surfaces of all soil types. Of particular interest in this report, will be an examination of the adequacy of expressing runway surface strength in terms of California Bearing Ratio (CBR). The test methods used to measure CBR will be examined including an indication of their adequacy for this task. The other problem that will be addressed is the difficulty in providing a suitable description of the surface condition of the gravel runway for operational use. The effects of surface characteristics on CBR values will be examined.

2.0
2.1

GRAVEL RUNWAY CONSTRUCTION

GRAVEL RUNWAY - GENERAL

A runway pavement is defined as a structure consisting of one or more layers of processed materials. A flexible pavement consists of layers of material classified as surface course, base course and subbase course, resting on a prepared subgrade layers. In a flexible pavement a relatively thin surface layer transmits its load to the base layer. Figure 1 is a cross section of a typical flexible runway pavement. A gravel runway is essentially a flexible pavement with a surface layer of unbound granular material. Granular materials include coarse grained soils such as sands and gravels. Material availability near the runway site often dictates the specific composition of the pavement layers. a) Surface Course

Surface courses include hot mix asphaltic-concrete (AC) for flexible pavements. The primary purpose of the surface course is to prevent the penetration of water to the base course, provide a smooth well bonded surface free from loose particles, to resist the shearing stresses imposed by aircraft loads and transmit bearing loads to the pavement structure. The surface course must provide texture for skid resistance yet not cause undue wear on the tires. For a gravel surfaced runway, moisture penetration becomes a significant factor in the pavements strength and resistance to frost action. The relatively lower shear strength of gravel runway surfaces, especially when wet, may limit aircraft loads imposed on the runway. Aircraft must also be protected against the hazards of loose particles. Tire wear may increase because of the rough texture of the gravel surface and the presence of sharp stones. b) Base Course

The base course has the major function of distributing the imposed wheel loadings to the pavement foundation, the subbase and/or subgrade. The base course is composed of well compacted granular aggregates meeting high standards with respect to stability, durability, and frost susceptibility. c) Subbase Course

The function of the subbase is similar to that of the base course. Because this layer is further removed from the surface, the subbase is subject to lower loading intensities, and the material requirements are not as strict as for the base course. The design thickness of this layer varies as a function of the bearing strength of the subgrade; a lower subgrade bearing strength requiring a greater thickness. d) Subgrade

The subgrade is that soil beneath the pavement structure which forms the foundation for the pavement. The subgrade soil ultimately provides support for the pavement static loads, and imposed aircraft and ground vehicle loads. The pavement layers serve to distribute 6

the aircraft and vehicle loads over an area on the subgrade greater than the tire contact area. Deformation (or deflection) of the subgrade layer must be controlled so as to remain within acceptable limits. As in the subbase, the bearing strength of the subgrade influences the pavement thickness. The subgrade consists of in-situ soils or imported common material in fill sections. Soils having the best characteristics in grading and excavation operations are incorporated into the subgrade. The ability of a particular soil to resist shear and deformation varies with its density and moisture content. 2.2 GRAVEL RUNWAY DESIGN METHODOLOGIES

The methodology applied to the design of flexible pavements at Canadian airports is based on the use of plate strength test results. The methodology used in the United States determines the required thickness of the pavement by the use of CBR strength values. The Canadian design methodology is described in the Public Works Canada, Manual of Pavement Structural Design, ASG-19 (AK-68-12). This methodology determines the minimum thickness of the flexible pavement based on bearing strength values of pavement components. These requirements dictate the pavement thickness to be the greater of the thickness required for structural strength or for frost protection. For granular surfaced pavements, the total depth of pavement required is divided into base and subbase courses. Structural thickness requirements consider the subgrade bearing strength, pavement materials used, planned aircraft design load ratings and tire pressures. Based on the aircraft loading and the bearing strength of the subgrade soil, an equivalent granular thickness of the pavement is selected so that the subgrade soil will not be overstressed. The equivalent granular thickness is proportioned into surface, base and subbase layers to ensure that layer stability requirements will be met. Design base course thickness ranges from a minimum of 15 cm (6 in) for tire pressures less than 0.5 Mpa (75 psi) to 30 cm (12 in) for tire pressures greater than 1.0 Mpa (145 psi). FAAAdvisory Circular AC 150/5320-6D describes the CBR method of design curves which provide the total required thickness of flexible pavement (surface, base and subbase) needed to support a given weight of aircraft over a particular subgrade. The CBR method of design was developed by the California Division of Highways in 1928. The method was subsequently adopted for military airport use by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, shortly after the outbreak of World War II. The CBR method still remains in wide spread use today. 2.3 FROST EFFECTS ON GRAVEL RUNWAYS

Gravel pavements are found in regions subject to seasonal frost penetration and are usually the preferred surface type in permafrost areas. Gravel pavements often exhibit considerable distortion due to frost heave, but are easily regraded. The absence of a waterproof surface is usually not a problem in arctic regions because these areas usually have low precipitation.

The detrimental effects of frost action may be manifested by non-uniform heave and loss of soil strength during frost melting. Other effects include loss of compaction, development of roughness, restriction of drainage and deterioration of the surface. Three conditions must be met for detrimental frost action to occur; the soil must be frost susceptible, freezing temperatures must penetrate the frost susceptible soil and there must be sufficient free moisture to form ice. Soils are categorized into groups for their frost susceptibility. Generally, coarse grained soils such as gravels and sands have low frost susceptibility, whereas fine grained soils such as silts have high frost susceptibility. The depth of frost penetration is a function of the thermal properties of the pavement and soil mass, the severity of air/surface temperatures and the temperature of the pavement and soil mass at the start of the freezing season. For pavements exposed to seasonal frost, pavement deformations resulting from frost action are controlled by providing a sufficient combined thickness of non-frost susceptible material to limit frost penetration into the subgrade. Adequate pavement load carrying capacity may also have to be provided during the critical frost melting period when load carrying capacity is reduced. Permafrost soils occur in arctic regions, where soils are often frozen to considerable depths year-around. Seasonal thawing and refreezing of the upper layer can lead to severe loss of bearing strength and/or differential heave and settlement. In areas with permafrost at shallow depths, satisfactory pavements are assured by containing seasonal thawing within the pavement and underlying non-frost susceptible layers. This is intended to prevent thawing of the permafrost layer. Pavement design for permafrost areas must consider the depth of seasonal thaw penetration. 2.4 GRAVEL RUNWAY STRENGTH

The deflection of the surface of a gravel runway under an applied load depends on the strength of the surface and the strength of the underlying layers. The strength of the gravel surface depends on the interlock of the aggregates, particle friction and cohesion. The surface strength also depends on the properties of the surface materials under the influence of moisture. This results in the surfaces of gravel runways being susceptible to shear failures, particularly in wet conditions. While it is the subgrade strength and overall thickness of the pavement structure that controls the amount of surface deflection, the most common cause of operational problems on gravel pavements is the failure of the surface layers due to shear caused by high aircraft tire loading. Surface shear strength can be estimated by measuring the force required to deflect or penetrate the surface to a specified depth. This force divided by the area over which it is applied can be taken as the soil failure pressure. This pressure can be obtained from flat plate or penetrometer type measurement devices and is often correlated to CBR. Pavements with higher surface strengths have higher soil reaction pressures and higher CBR values.

2.5

SOIL PROPERTIES - EFFECT ON SURFACE STRENGTH

Granular runway surfaces are typically non-homogeneous in composition, and may contain various types of soils. The standard method of classifying soils for engineering purposes is ASTM D 2487 commonly called the Unified System. Figure 2 is an example of soil classification based on the Unified System. One of the purposes of soil classification is to predict the probable behavior of soils under the influence of frost and moisture. A soil classification system could also be useful for the identification and definition of the gravel runway surface for certification and operational use. The Unified System classifies soils first on the basis of grain size (coarse grained and fine grained soils), then further subgroups soils based on the plasticity constants. Soils are expressed by soil group symbols (e.g. GW; which is described as Well graded gravel and gravel sand mixtures, little or no fines). In Figure 3, the bearing strengths of soils identified by Unified System group symbols may be estimated in terms of CBR values. AC 150/5320-6D Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation states that field CBR values range from 60-80 for well graded gravel soils and 20-40 for well graded sands. The potential for frost action of these soils is minimal, with almost no compressibility and expansion and the drainage characteristics are generally excellent. The presence of clay soils can result in a marked reduction of the strength values and frost properties of these soils. The use of a soil classification system may be useful for the estimation of the surface strength of a gravel runway or as a check on the validity of specific CBR measurements. 2.6 INDICATIONS AND EFFECTS OF GRAVEL RUNWAY FAILURES

The definition of runway failure is somewhat arbitrary but in the case of gravel runways it is typically identified by the formation of ruts, increasing roughness in the surface or permanent deformation. Aircraft operations that overload the gravel runway pavement structure can result in surface deformations which may adversely affect aircraft performance and could cause structural damage. Some of the indications of gravel runway failures are discussed below. a) Loss of Material (Figure 4)

Indications of surface material loss are bare spots, base, subbase or subgrade material appearing on the surface, and a buildup of granular material at the edge of the runway. The primary causes are loss of material during snow removal, tire action or infiltration of lower layer material into the surface layer. This condition results in a reduction of the surface strength of the runway and reduced braking action as a result of the loss of coarse material. This condition can be corrected by adding new material and compacting.

b)

Segregation (Figure 5)

Segregation is the accumulation of loose non-cohesive aggregates on the surface. Causes are the loss of finer materials due to jet or propeller blast, tire action and weathering. Adverse performance effects and increased landing gear loads from the accumulation of loose materials may occur. The potential for damage to the aircraft from debris is increased. This condition is corrected by regrading and adding new material. c) Rutting (Figure 6)

Rutting is defined as longitudinal deformation in the wheel path. Rutting without shoving of adjacent material is an indication of failure in deeper layers of the pavement due to inadequate foundation strength. Rutting with shoving indicates a shear failure in the surface layer due to poor cohesion (low surface shear strength). Poor cohesion may be the result of high moisture content, poor gradation, segregation or poor compaction. Rutting may cause reduced acceleration and braking performance, directional control problems and higher landing gear loads. Rutting is corrected by regrading of the runway surface. d) Drainage (Figures 7 & 8)

Poor surface drainage is indicated by damp surface areas persisting after rainfall or snowmelt, without rutting. Soft areas with rutting and shoving during spring thaw or wet conditions and frost heaving during winter are indications of poor subsurface drainage. Areas of wetness may result in decreased acceleration, especially when rutting is occurring. Damp areas may have an adverse effect on braking performance. Dampness can usually be corrected by improving drainage. e) Frost Action, Roughness (Figure 9 & 10)

Frost action is indicated by differential heaving of the surface or depressions which appear in the same place yearly during the frozen season. Inadequate drainage of the subgrade and inadequate granular thickness over frost susceptible material may be the cause of frost heave. Frost action may raise boulders in the subgrade. Roughness may be caused by loss of material, frost action or settlement. Runway roughness may result in decreased acceleration, increased landing gear loads as well as the possibility of damage from larger debris. Repair of the damaging effects of frost action may require more substantial work, including runway rehabilitation and the improvement of drainage. Roughness can be corrected by regrading. f) Vegetation (Figure 11)

Uncontrolled vegetation growth may occur on the gravelled operational surface itself and/or in the graded area at the runway edge. Vegetation growth may be caused by poor 10

drainage or accumulation of organic soils (earth) in the surface. Low traffic volume may also encourage the growth of vegetation. Vegetation will result in uneven surface characteristics, which may adversely affect the acceleration and braking performance of the aircraft. Vegetation may be reduced by regrading, improving drainage and introducing chemical growth inhibitors. 2.7 OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS

Report AK-67-09-280 Gravel Runways Condition Reporting Procedures and Surface Stability Test Methods, lists anecdotal evidence of the types of operational problems which may be encountered during gravel runway operations. An operator of medium sized propeller and jet aircraft reported that the aircraft would occasionally get stuck during the spring or after rainy periods because of inadequate surface hardness. Poor drainage was noted as a cause of rutting during wet conditions and severe roughness occurred after the surface dried. There were also periods when runways were closed during the spring thaw. One operator noted that gravel runway conditions change almost daily with the weather and season. All of the operators reported problems with fine materials damaging propellers and engines. Procedures to minimize damage included revising power application techniques. One operator painted the propellers of their aircraft each day to identify new nicks at the end of the day. Another operator suggested the use of chemical additives on the runway surface to prevent the raising of dust and the loss of fine soils. Vegetation was noted by a small aircraft operator as being difficult to brake on with sand being the best surface for braking. One operator would vary tire pressure on their Boeing 737 seasonally, or use low pressure tires on specific runways. Prohibition of Boeing 737 operations during the spring thaw was cited. For Boeing 737 operation, Boeing commented that surfaces must be hard enough over the entire runway length and the use of an average strength value was not permissible. Bumps that are visible on a runway are often too severe for aircraft operation. The ride quality in a pickup truck driven at automobile highway speeds can be used to check the smoothness of the runway for the suitability of aircraft operations. It was also noted that jet exhaust from one typical Boeing 737 takeoff can result in the loss of up to two cubic yards of material. The material may blow off unevenly causing the formation of bare spots and hollows. This can become the mechanism for the start of longer term damage to the runway. This problem can be corrected by regular grading, the addition of new material, and compacting.

11

3.0
3.1

MEASURING SURFACE STRENGTH

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATION (CBR)

The CBR is the ratio of the load bearing capability of a given sample of soil to that of crushed limestone. The bearing strength of crushed limestone has been adopted as one of the criteria to which other types of soils are compared. Limestone has a CBR value of 100, which is expressed as CBR 100. A soil with CBR 10 has 10% of the bearing strength of crushed limestone. The CBR test is basically a penetration test conducted at a uniform rate of strain. The CBR test is considered to be a measure of the confined strength of a soil. CBR tests may be conducted in the laboratory or the field. ASTM D 1883 Bearing Ratio of Laboratory Compacted Soils is the laboratory CBR test method. ASTM D 4429, Standard Test Method for the Bearing Ratio of Soils in Place is the field CBR test method. (Appendix A) The laboratory method is useful at the design stage of a pavement, but is of limited use for operational purposes. The ASTM D 4429 method is of greater interest for the measurement of gravel runway surface strength and may be considered to be the definitive CBR test method. Field CBR tests are intended for the measurement of pavement foundations that have been in place for several years, where moisture has been allowed to reach an equilibrium condition. Field CBR tests can also used to measure the strength of the surface layer of the gravel pavement. 3.2 ASTM D4429 (U.S. C ORPS OF ENGINEERS) CBR TEST METHOD (APPENDIX A)

This method is the standard test method used to determine the CBR of soils in place. This method shall be referred to as the ASTM method in the context of this report. Figure 12 is al illustration of the test setup. The ASTM method is essentially the determination of the load required to cause the uniform rate of penetration of a piston into the soil. This method is applicable to sub-base and base course materials. A test pit may have to be opened for the measurement of these layers. This method is also applicable to the measurement of a granular surface layer for which CBR is the desired parameter. The ASTM method requires that consideration be given to moisture content. If the CBR results are to be used without any correction for moisture, then the test must be conducted under the following conditions: 1. The degree of soil saturation (percentage of voids filled with water) must be 80% or greater; 2. Materials must not be significantly affected by moisture. Such materials include coarse grained or cohesionless soils;

12

3. The soil must not have been modified by construction activity in the two years prior to the test. Construction activities such as compacting or grading subsequent to the bearing test will invalidate the test. The test apparatus consists of a mechanical screw jack, proving rings, penetration piston, dial gauges, surcharge weights, jacks and a large reaction load (Figure 12). Reaction loads used are typically large vehicles or construction equipment. The ASTM method measures the soil reaction pressure when a 2 inch diameter (nominally 3 sq in) piston is driven up to 0.5 inches deep into a confined soil sample. The test procedure involves preparation of a test area, placing the apparatus under the reaction load, and applying a load to the penetration piston to achieve a 0.05 inch per minute rate of penetration. Penetration is recorded at .025 inch increments to a depth of 0.50 inches. Penetration stress is computed at each increment of penetration. This value is the applied force (as measured on load cell) divided by the piston area. A curve is derived of penetration stress versus depth of penetration. The CBR is calculated by dividing the penetration stress at a 0.1 in and 0.2 in depth to the same penetration stress for the standard material (crushed limestone). This test method allows for tolerances in CBR value. Tolerances increase with increasing CBR values. Normally the CBR is in the value derived from 0.1 penetration but 0.2 in may be used if the resulting CBR value is higher and results are more consistent. The test points for the ASTM method should be spaced at a minimum of 7 in apart for cohesive soils and 15 in for non-cohesive soils. Test results may be invalidated by the presence of a rock or voids beneath the penetration piston. At the end of the test, a soil sample is obtained to determine the water content. 3.3 BOEING HIGH LOAD PENETROMETER (APPENDIX B)

The Boeing High Load Penetrometer test is used for the measurement of surface strength and may also be used to measure the subgrade strength of paved and unpaved runways. This measuring device consists of a hydraulic cylinder to provide a large penetration force at a test probe (Figure 13). The test probe is a conical projection at the end of a cylinder. This method is not a confined test as is the case with the ASTM method. The test apparatus is similar to that of the ASTM method. A hand pump is used instead of a mechanical screw jack. Pressure is read off of the hand pump to calculate the load applied on the penetrometer. Unlike the ASTM method, the Boeing High Load Penetrometer test method does not provide any guidance on the correction of soil strength due to moisture, soil disturbance or construction activity. In this test procedure, the cone reference point is driven at a steady rate to a four inch depth into the surface, by the application of pressure through the hand pump. Penetrometer pressure is taken when a condition of equilibrium is reached between the hydraulic pressure and the surface reaction pressure. Generally a pressure reading is taken 30 seconds after movement of the penetrometer has stopped at the 4 inch depth. Soil failure pressure is derived from the penetrometer force divided by the projected area of the 2 inch diameter penetrometer cone point. Friction and shear forces at the side of the 13

cone point are included in the total force. The CBR value is determined by a formula relating the CBR to the soil failure pressure. For the Boeing test method the surface material must be homogeneous to a depth beyond the cone point tip. the presence of large stones may introduce errors, but Boeing states that the presence of a large stone will be clearly evident to the operator during measurement. This is indicated by a sudden large increase in penetrometer pressure readings during pressure application. Relocation to another test position several feet away is recommended. Inaccuracies may also result from friction in the jack and sides of the penetrometer if any tilting occurs. This method does not specify the spacing of test points. Boeing has provided a curve of the CBR versus Soil Failure Pressure (Boeing High Load Penetrometer) which indicates that the CBR value derived from the Boeing Penetrometer generally corresponds to that of the ASTM method at a penetration of 0.50 inches (Figure 15). However it is noted that the ASTM method normally requires the CBR to be calculated at a depth of 0.1 or 0.2 in. The CBR values from the Boeing method are on the average 10% less than that of the ASTM method for the same soil reaction pressure. Boeing claims that this method has the advantages of accuracy, versatility, speed of use and may be performed by relatively untrained personnel. 3.4 SHOCK PENETROMETER (APPENDIX C)

The shock penetrometer has been employed by Avions Marcel Dassault - Breguet Aviation (AMD-BA) and Aerospatiale for the determination of runway CBR. Both methods are similar, but because of available information, the Aerospatiale method is described here in greater detail. (Figure 14) The manufacturer states that this test method is applicable to laterite, grassed or gravel runways. The range of CBR values derived by this method are from a CBR of 2.5 to 15. The assumption behind this method is that the minimum depth of soil for aircraft operation is 10 cm (4 in). This test method does not provide any correction to CBR values due to moisture or soil disturbance. The shock penetrometer consists of a long rod with a cone in contact with the soil and a sliding weight. The penetrometer is driven into the soil to a depth of 10 cm by the release of a sliding drop weight along a handle. The soil strength is indicated by the number of drops required to achieve the 10 cm penetration. CBR is read off of a calibration chart as a function of the number of drops. This test method determines a soil reaction pressure derived from the number of drops of the falling weight divided by the projected surface area of the cone. The CBR is read from a chart of CBR versus Soil Reaction Pressure. When this curve is compared against a similar curve produced by the Boeing method, the CBR values from this method are approximately 70% of those of the Boeing method for the same soil reaction pressure (Figure 15). As an example, a CBR value of 10 by this method corresponds to a CBR of 14 by the Boeing method. The soil reaction pressure to CBR conversion appears to be only applicable to soils having CBR values below 20.

14

3.5

COMPARISON OF CBR STRENGTH MEASUREMENT METHODS

For the purposes of this discussion, the CBR value derived from the ASTM method will be considered as the standard to which the other methods will be compared. The ASTM method using a 3 sq in piston directly measures the bearing strength of the soil. Shear reaction to this test method is minimal because of the confinement of the soil and the small depth of penetration. The Boeing penetrometer and Shock penetrometer have cones of similar projected areas (3.14 sq in vs. 3.25 sq in) being driven into the soil to an approximate depth of 4 in. The geometry of these cone penetrometers are different from each other, however, the principle forces reacting against these cone penetrometers are the shear strength and bearing reaction of the soil. The ASTM method and Boeing penetrometer also work on the principle of a steady application of pressure to drive the piston/cone into the soil. The shock penetrometer is driven into the soil by a series of impacts. Figure 15 is a plot of CBR versus oil reaction pressure provided by Boeing to show the correlation of their penetrometer to the ASTM method. Aerospatiale provides a similar chart for their Shock penetrometer, which is overlaid on this chart. Here, the soil reaction pressure is the penetration force divided by the contact area of the penetrometer device. This chart indicates that for soils with CBRs less than 40, the Boeing High Load Penetrometer will yield CBR estimates that agree very closely with results of the ASTm method (0.5 inch penetration). CBR values estimated from Shock penetrometer do not correlate closely to either the ASTM or Boeing methods. The Shock penetrometer may not correlate well to CBR because it is an impact test, rather than a constant rate of loading, like the other two penetrometer methods. A comparison of surface strength measurements using the Shock penetrometer has identified significant discrepancies in CBR values as compared to the Boeing penetrometer when measured on the same runways. (See paragraph 3.6 and Appendix D) Figure 15 suggests that the application of CBR values for operational use without stating the test method may be misleading. For example, if the soil reaction pressure is 500 psi, the ASTM method and Boeing penetrometer test methods would yield a CBR value of approximately 14, whereas the Shock penetrometer derivation of soil failure pressure would give a CBR value in the range of 10. Because of the errors associated with using the results of various test equipment and methods to estimate the standard CBR value of the soil, it is important that the test method be identified. Current practice is to state a minimum CBR value in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), but the method of measurement is usually not indicated. Without knowing the method, aircraft operations may take place on a surface that is weaker than expected. For this reason the AFM should state the measuring technique associated with CBR value. For example, CBR would be expressed as CBR 14 as determined by the Boeing Penetrometer. Similarly, if any other units or methods are used to express the strength of a runway, they should be clearly stated along with the strength value and the layer of the runway to which they apply.

15

The Boeing and Shock penetrometer methods do not provide any CBR correction factors to account for soil moisture content. As an unpaved surface may be significantly weaker following spring thaw or heavy precipitation, the condition under which the measurements were made should be recorded and provided in the AFM. These should be similar to those specified for the ASTM method and include, the degree of soil saturation, the materials in the surface and the date of measurement. The above test methods do not specify where the tests should be performed on the runway. The locations specified for the Transport Canada plate test, AK-68-31-000 Airport Pavement Evaluation - Bearing Strength, where measurements are taken in the aircraft wheel tracks at specified intervals, appears to be reasonable. Figure 16 is an example of a strength survey conducted at Baker Lake by Boeing using their penetrometer. The Boeing and Shock penetrometer test methods also do not provide any information on the precision and bias of the CBR results. The Boeing penetrometer has been calibrated by making tests on various soil samples for which the CBR has been determined using conventional CBR test methods. CBR correlation data should be obtained from other equipment manufacturers to qualify their equipment, before performing any tests. Report AK-67-09-280 discusses the modification of a Boeing penetrometer by replacing the cone point with a small flat plate. Figure 17 is an illustration of the test set-up. The plate diameter proposed is 150mm (6 in), and is sized to approximate the wheel loads imposed by a single aircraft tire. The plate diameter may be varied to account for the failure criteria of the soil and the available size of the reactive load. The contact area should equate as closely as possible to the tire contact area of a typical aircraft operating on the gravel surface. Soil failure would be expressed as the pressure required to indent the soil to a specified depth. This proposal would require further investigation and testing, as the definition of soil failure is a critical consideration. Soils in general, do not have well defined failure points. 3.6 SURVEY OF SEVERAL RUNWAY CBR M EASUREMENTS (APPENDIX D)

Appendix D is a summary of CBR measurements of various runways in support of Canadian runway measurement and aircraft certification programs. CBR values are presented as average for the runway and the range from minimum to maximum. The range indicates the variability of CBR values for a particular runway. Details are also provided (if available) on the date of the measurement, dry or wet conditions and lateral location with respect to the centerline. More detailed information may be obtained by review of the references used. The composition of the various runways tested was found to vary considerably. Only a few runways such as Rankin Inlet were composed entirely of gravel. Many runways were composed of sand and fine gravel such as Churchill (Manitoba) or sand, clay and fine gravel such as Hall Beach (NWT). The CBR measurements taken by the Canadian DOT Gravel Runway Survey did not specify the measurement method used although it is believed it was the Boeing High Load Penetrometer. The DOT surveys provided an average CBR measurement and did not provide a range of measurements. 16

Test results for Churchill (Manitoba), Kuujuaq (Quebec) and Nanivisik (NWT) provided CBR values for wet and dry runways. At Churchill, wet and dry CBR values varied by a factor 2. Kuujuaq and Nanisivik showed no apparent reduction in CBR for wet runways as compared to dry. These particular runways are all composed of sand and gravel. There were no wet runway CBR values obtained at Hall Beach, which would have been interesting considering the presence of clay in this runway. CBR measurements taken were consistent in value with the exception of those taken by AMD-BA for the Falcon 900 program using the Shock penetrometer. CBR measurements recorded by AMD-BA were approximately one third of the magnitude of those recorded by other agencies. The Shock penetrometer CBR measurements for the Kuujuarapik runway gave an average CBR of 10. AMD-BA explains that the low CBR values were attained at Kuujuarapik because the runway was composed of sandy soil with a lot of free gravels. This same test method gave an average CBR of 15 for the Kuujuaq runway which appeared to be more highly compacted. Based on approximate CBR strengths of materials present in these runways, the AMD derived values for Kuujuaq would still be low for either poorly graded sand or gravel runways (See figure 3). As a comparison, the runway at Lake Havasu, Arizona was described by one manufacturer as being composed of soft sandy areas on a runway constructed of deep loose gravel with large stones. A low CBR would be expected here but measurements taken by the Boeing penetrometer on different occasions had indicated a minimum single CBR value of 34 and minimum average CBR of 50.

17

4.0
4.1

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR OPERATIONS OF AIRCRAFT ON GRAVEL RUNWAYS

GENERAL

Operation of aircraft from gravel runways should be as safe as that from paved runways. This includes consideration of aircraft performance, handling, structure, systems and powerplant operation, as well as the effect of damage from debris. 4.2 ROLLING COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION

The relatively weaker surface of gravel runways have an adverse effect on aircraft rolling resistance. Excessive tire pressures may cause shear failures of the surface and deflections in the form of rutting. This action extracts energy from the wheel motion and causes an increased rolling coefficient of friction. The result is reduced aircraft acceleration on takeoff from a gravel surface resulting in increased take-off and accelerate-stop distances. For a given aircraft tire pressure, the lower the strength of the surface, then the higher the rolling coefficient of friction. A useful parameter against which to correlate rolling friction is the ratio of aircraft tire pressure divided by the runway surface CBR value (Figure 18). A reduction in tire pressure reduces this ratio and in turn the rolling coefficient of friction. The minimum permissible tire pressure is constrained by limits on tire size and tire deflection for a given wheel load. Reducing wheel load (aircraft weight) is a method of limiting tire pressure without exceeding tire deflection limits. Another method of reducing this ratio is by the selection of oversize tires inflated to a lower pressure. This results in the wheel load being distributed over a larger surface area, thereby reducing shear stresses in the runway surface. Tire rigidity should also be considered in its effect on the rolling coefficient of friction. A less rigid tire tends to flatten when under load allowing it o create shallower rolling tracks which results in reduced rolling friction. Ideally, it is desirable to have a combination of low tire pressure and reduced tire rigidity on surfaces having a low CBR value. On weak runway surfaces, the rolling coefficient of friction varies with moisture depending on the specific soil. Loose sandy soils exhibit a decrease in rolling coefficient of friction with increasing moisture content, because when dry, more effort is required to push sandy soils away by the tires. This characteristic is independent of tire pressure. The rolling coefficient of friction is increased considerably with moisture for clay and silt soils because these soils tend to stick to tires and increase their rolling friction. Reducing tire pressure when on these soils has little effect. The rolling coefficient of friction may also be a function of tire rotation speed for soft soils. On a soft soil, the static equilibrium is disturbed on initial motion resulting in the total load being distributed over a smaller area. This causes an increase in tire contact pressure causing the tire to sink deeper into the soil thereby increasing the rolling coefficient of friction. Once in motion, the soil beneath a wheel has little time to move which prohibits the tire from sinking in, and results in a reduction in the rolling coefficient of friction with tire speed increase.

18

Wheel arrangement has an effect on the rolling coefficient of friction. Tandem wheels have a lower rolling coefficient of friction when compared to side by side wheels. In tandem arrangements, the front wheel does the main work in forming a track. The rear wheel runs on a smoothed level track and experiences less rolling resistance. The wheel configuration of the aircraft will be fixed prior to certification for unpaved runway operations. Initial design configurations may not anticipate future gravel runway operations. Figure 20 is a graph of tire pressure versus the rolling coefficient of friction from test results conducted by Boeing and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. For surfaces having CBR values ranging from 10 to 20, the rolling coefficient of friction increases as the tire pressure increases to a value of about 0.075, at a tire pressure of 150 psi. On surfaces having a CBR of 30 and above, the rolling coefficient of friction remains fairly constant as the tire pressure increases and may actually trend slightly downwards. 4.3 BRAKING

Test results indicate that the braking coefficient is a function of the surface characteristics and is independent of runway CBR. Soil properties and moisture are the primary factors affecting the adhesion between the surface and the tire, which directly affects the braking coefficient of friction. Significant degradation in braking was reported by one manufacturer for tests conducted on a wet gravel runway which had experienced considerable loss of gravel due to weathering. Similarly, accumulations of loose and smooth gravel particles may reduce tire adhesion. Tire adhesion may improve under some conditions such as frozen well graded gravel surfaced runways, when the surface layer is bonded by frozen moisture. Accumulations of fine sandy soils may also cause a reduction in the braking coefficient. Fine soils tend to be more slippery than coarse grained soils and may plug tire treads, resulting in reduced adhesion to the surface. Generally, low pressure tires have better adhesion on wet soil surfaces than high pressure tires and also adhere better to surfaces containing any vegetation. Surface slipperiness is also significant when the upper layers of a frozen runway thaw, while the lower layers remain frozen. In all cases, reduced adhesion increases the possibility of skidding during braking, especially for aircraft without effective anti-skid systems. Anti-skid systems are desirable on gravel runways since they compensate for changes in tire adhesion to the runway surface and result in shorter deceleration distances. Uneven surfaces however will degrade anti-skid response. One manufacturer has concluded that the response of aircraft anti-skid performance is a function of runway surface condition rather than the CBR strength. The dependence of braking performance on surface characteristics requires that the surface be defined to ensure that predicted braking response will be achieved. The Unified soil classification system may represent a method of identifying runway surfaces for aircraft performance charts. Because of the variability of gravel runway surfaces, a worst case surface should be used during performance testing to obtain conservative flight manual data. 19

4.4

ESTIMATION OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TIRE PRESSURE

Report AK-67-09-280 provides some general guidelines for estimating the maximum allowable tire pressure for a gravel surfaced pavement. An essential step is to define and determine the soil failure pressure which provides an indication of the shear strength of the surface. This may be measured in place by a small 150 mm (6 in) diameter static plate load test or by the Boeing penetrometer test. In the case of the plate load test, it would be necessary to standardize the test deflection which would constitute the failure for the size of the plate used. The failure load could then be determined and the failure pressure calculated as the failure load divided by the contact area of the test plate. The plate contact area should approximate closely as possible to the aircraft tire contact area. The allowable tire pressure may be estimated by applying a factor of two to the soil failure pressure. The factor of safety is to account for the effects of tire motion which are not present in the static test. Tire motion effects such as tire scrub, braking, localized tire contact pressure, uneven wheel loads and surface degradation can produce shear stresses 30% greater than those of the average tire contact pressure. Regardless of whether a plate load or CBR procedure is employed, a series of tests should be made along the length of the runway, generally in the aircraft wheel paths; the results should be averaged and a statistical measure such as lower quartile point or standard deviation applied to account for strength variations along the runway length. Depending on the surface and/or subgrade soil type, it may also be necessary to apply a further strength reduction factor to account for weakening of the pavement during spring thaw. Suggested spring reduction factors based on soil type are given in Figure 19. An example calculation for the estimation of allowable tire pressure on a gravel surfaced pavement is given below:

Parameter
Soil Failure Pressure

Value
400 psi

Note
as measured from a plate load test or converted from a CBR value factor of safety of 2 applied Spring Reduction Factor of 25% applied for a soil of type GC -Gravel with Clay fines

Allowable Tire Pressure Allowable Tire Pressure (Spring)

400/2 = 200 psi 200*(1.0-0.25)=150 psi

The estimated maximum allowable tire pressure for the gravel surface would therefore be 150 psi. As this value is only a static approximation, aircraft testing is still necessary to ensure that this value is adequate. In another approach, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have applied a method of estimating allowable tire pressure based on the rolling coefficient of friction on a low 20

strength surface. A criteria was established for determining a tire pressure to give a rolling coefficient of friction of .075. The .075 value was based on the typical thrust to weight ratio of .3 of a transport category aircraft and 25% of maximum thrust required to start the aircraft rolling from a stopped condition on a weak surface. (.075 is calculated as the product of .3 and 25%). In the tests conducted by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, a range of tire pressures were evaluated to establish this rolling coefficient of friction on surfaces with varying CBR. For a given tire pressure, the thrust required to start the aircraft moving was measured. Test results are shown in Figure 20. For example assuming a rolling coefficient of friction of .075 and a CBR of 20, the allowable tire pressure would be 1.03 Mpa (150 psi). Note however that the slope of the variation of the rolling coefficient of friction with tire pressure is relatively flat at higher CBR values and hence small differences in CBR may result in an optimistic value of the maximum allowable tire pressure. Tire deflection depends on the ratio of aircraft weight to tire pressure. Aircraft weight may have to be reduced in proportion to tire pressure to satisfy tire deflection limitations. If test surfaces have a different strength than the minimum proposed, then individual tire pressures for each surface strength tested will have to be established. Maximum allowable aircraft weight will correspond to the tire pressure tested. 4.5 PROTECTION OF AIRCRAFT

Operations on gravel runway surfaces require protecting the aircraft from the effects of flying dust, debris and stones. Protection systems are typically characterized as Gravel Runway Kits and are comprehensive modifications to minimize the adverse effects of gravel runway operations. a) Reduction of Gravel Spray from Landing Gear

The debris spray in the wake of the rolling wheels may be reduced by the installation of gravel deflectors, which are typically flat plate shields attached to the landing gear between, around or behind the wheels. On retractable landing gear, mechanisms may be necessary for the fairing of these deflectors into the profile of the aircraft to reduce aerodynamic drag. Other methods include the installation of tires with chines facing inboard to prevent the debris spray from impinging on the gear struts. One manufacturer has employed mud guard type nose wheel deflectors on their aircraft. b) Protection of Aircraft Surfaces

The gravel kit may require the installation of protective panels or the bonding of materials to the skin of the aircraft to protect surfaces from the effects of flying debris. Areas to be protected include belly surfaces, inboard flap panels, cables and pipes routed on the landing gear, external lights and antennas. External light protection may include the requirement that belly lights be retractable or covered in a protective wire mesh. Flap extension angles may have to be decreased for take-off and landing to minimize damage caused by debris spray from the wheels.

21

c)

Protection of Engines

Jet and propeller driven aircraft have unique protection requirements for operation on gravel surfaces. Both types of propulsion must avoid the ingestion of debris, especially gas turbine engines because of the possibility of severe engine damage occurring. Propeller driven aircraft are susceptible to impact damage caused by the close proximity of the blade tip to the runway surface, especially for engines mounted close to the ground. The most critical condition for blade damage generally occurs at high propeller RMP and a low aircraft ground speed, but may also occur during static operation at ground idle. In these conditions, the suction effect from the propeller has the greatest possibility of raising debris. Damage is minimized by gradual application of power until the aircraft achieves a minimal ground speed. Power levers may also have to be set to fine pitch during taxi. Jet engines are primarily susceptible to the ingestion of debris from wheel spray. Gravel deflectors may be required to prevent this. Jet engines mounted close to the ground have suction effects similar to those found on propeller driven aircraft. The Boeing 737 gravel kit incorporates engine vortex dissipators, which are probes at the front of the engine designed to destroy a vortex created by low pressure at the engine intake. The vortex tends to raise debris especially at low ground speeds. The probes extract engine bleed air and direct it at the vortex to destroy it. The ability to apply maximum takeoff thrust while the aircraft is stationary is usually not possible on an unpaved runway. Take-off distances will increase when the application of take-off power or thrust is scheduled by a gradual rate of application or a rolling take-off is performed. Devices such as vortex dissipators which extract bleed air may also reduce available take-off thrust. d) Tires

Increased tire wear is common on unpaved surfaces because of the rough texture of unpaved surfaces. Tires are also vulnerable to cutting and penetration from sharp stones that may be found on gravel surfaced runways. Braking application may have to be reduced to minimize tire damage from inadvertent skidding which in turn will have an adverse effect on braking performance. This may be more critical at lower speeds. e) Effects of Dust and Debris on Systems

Flying debris and dust may result in the gradual blockage of intakes, ducts, drains and air data sources, and may eventually increase the possibility of flight controls jamming. The abrasive qualities of dust may promote the erosion of paint surfaces and the crazing of windows if correct cleaning procedures are not applied. The infiltration of dust into mechanical linkages may promote increased wear. Limitation against the operation of air conditioning systems or the prohibition of specific bleed air configurations while on the ground may be required. f) Increased Structural Loading

Aircraft landing gear and tire structures will likely be exposed to greater static and dynamic loadings on gravel runways as compared to hard surfaced runways. The relatively rougher surfaces of gravel runways may allow large forces to be transmitted to landing gear. 22

Lateral loads are considerably higher on low CBR runways, especially during turning manoeuvres and during the passage of the nose gear through deposits of softer materials. Since tire deflection will be increased under the influence of a reduced tire pressure for a given weight, it may be necessary to limit aircraft weight. Along with a weight restriction, loads on the nose landing gear may have to be reduced by applying a limitation to the forward centre of gravity range. g) Inspection and Maintenance

Increased inspection requirements are necessary for gravel runway operations. Propellers, engine intakes, compressor blades, aircraft surfaces, landing gear systems, tires, filters and proturbances should be checked more frequently for dust and debris damage. It may be necessary to perform an inspection before each flight for any damage from the previous flight. Minor paint touch-ups and repairs in the field may be necessary before more permanent repairs can be made at a maintenance base. The frequency of cleaning of the aircraft and the lubrication of linkages should also be increased because of the increased dust in the gravel runway environment. Operations on gravel runways require maintenance programs to be modified and approved for such operations. An approved Maintenance Manual Supplement or specific maintenance instructions may be necessary, depending on the aircraft basis of certification.

23

5.0
5.1

AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION TEST PROGRAM FOR OPERATIONS ON GRAVEL RUNWAYS

GENERAL

The objective of a certification test program is to produce a set of limitations, procedures and performance appropriate to operation on gravel runways. If it is intended that performance data cover all likely operating conditions, then the tests must cover worst case conditions. For conservative aircraft performance data, the strength of the surface should be measured prior to conducting any aircraft gravel runway performance testing, since the passage of the aircraft during the test program may further weaken the surface. For the purpose of certifying aircraft for operation on gravel surfaces, restricting measurement to the shear strength to the surface, rather than the bearing strength of the entire foundation, is generally sufficient. It will however still be necessary to ensure that the pavement has sufficient overall strength to support the load of the aircraft, without causing subgrade failure. Construction records or other sources giving the maximum pavement strength load ratings (such as the ICAO ACN/PCN system) should be referred to at this stage. Strength of the gravel runway surface measured in the summer and fall may also be higher than the spring because of moisture from the spring thaw. It is therefore important to note the time and conditions under which the strength measurements were obtained. Flight test demonstrations should be conducted on both wet and dry runway surfaces because of the effects of moisture on rolling resistance and braking performance. Criteria may have to be established on the exact definition of a wet surface; whether it is wetness following spring thaw conditions or as a result of long lasting precipitation. The tire pressure will be constrained by the strength of the surface proposed for operation. The first step is to establish a minimum surface strength and determine the maximum allowable tire pressure for this strength level. Section 4.4 discusses the determination of maximum allowable tire pressure. 5.2 a) TEST SURFACES Measurement of Runway Strength

Surface strength for each test surface should be measured at the start of the test program. The method used to measure the surface strength should be recorded as well as the locations of the test measurements. The date of the measurement, the moisture conditions, runway conditions, presence of frost and other effects should also be recorded. b) Soil Analysis

A soil analysis of each test surface should be conducted using a standard method such as the Unified system. This data would be used to define the composition of the runway surface tested for the AFM and for the determination of seasonal reduction factors for tire pressure. Braking performance may also be affected by the soil composition of the surface. 24

5.3 a)

PERFORMANCE Rolling Coefficient of Friction

Rolling coefficient of friction is a function of tire pressure and runway surface strength. Data for testing should be obtained for the worst case of tire pressure divided by runway strength (CBR) ratio. As mentioned before, maximum aircraft weight may be constrained by deflection limits of the tire. Therefore a limiting configuration should be defined by the aircraft weight over tire pressure ratio. It may not be possible to find a gravel runway with the minimum strength proposed for the operation. Tests should then be conducted on two runways of differing strength using corresponding tire pressures to obtain the rolling coefficient of friction for each surface strength. The higher of the two rolling friction values obtained should be applied to the proposed runway strength for conservative results. Tests may be conducted by accelerate-coasts or landing on the unpaved runway using takeoff flap setting. The aircraft should be allowed to decelerate to the lowest practical speed with the engines at an idle setting and without using brakes, spoilers or reverse thrust. b) Braking Coefficient of Friction

Braking performance is primarily a function of the characteristics of the braking surface rather than the surface strength. Braking tests should therefore be conducted on surfaces having the characteristics that will result in the worst braking performance. Surface characteristics of the test runway should be defined in terms of a soil classification system, such as the soil group descriptions found in the Unified soil classification system (Figure 3). Testing under wet conditions may result in the worst possible braking performance. Factors may have to be applied to braking distance to account for reduced braking performance under wet conditions. In general the braking performance of at least three different runways typical of expected operation, should be assessed. Braking coefficient data should be collected for the take-off and landing configurations. Braking data may be obtained during accelerate-stop and/or landing tests with spoilers deployed and full braking. c) Performance Take-offs and Landings

Performance take-offs and landings should be conducted to verify the performance data. Weights should be varied from minimum to the maximum for the gravel runway. Tests should also be conducted to establish procedures for scheduling thrust or power and establish limits for thrust reverse. Landing touchdown characteristics should be evaluated during the landing performance tests. d) Drag from Gravel Kit Installation

Tests to determine drag polars and assessment of handling qualities due to the addition of gravel kits should be conducted. Performance data for takeoff distance and climb performance may require adjustment. Indicated airspeed and altitude may also require calibration, depending on the external configuration. 25

5.4 a)

HANDLING Ground Handling Characteristics

Taxi tests should be conducted to determine lowest runway strength and minimum allowable tire pressures necessary for acceptable handling characteristics. Any limits on taxi operation should be determined. The ground handling characteristics should be checked on the various types of surfaces on which they are intended to operate. Particular attention should be made to ground handling with low pressure or oversized tires for controllability during the take-off and landing rolls, and turns while taxiing. 5.5 a) STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND SYSTEMS OPERATION Protection

Functional performance of protection equipment must be tested including the effectiveness in minimizing debris spray and satisfactory operation during gear retraction and extension. Water trough testing may be employed in some cases, by using water to simulate the debris spray pattern. Flight testing of deflectors includes determining any increase in the drag coefficient caused by the installation of these devices, and checking that there are no adverse effects on the handling qualities of the aircraft. Increased gear retraction time as a result of the installation of gravel deflectors may require adjustments to take-off performance data. 5.6 AIRCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL (AFM)

Aircraft Flight Manual information will be required for aircraft gravel runway airworthiness approval. Transport Canada Airworthiness Manual Advisory (AMA) 525/4, Operations from Unpaved Surfaces provides guidance for information to be included in the AFM. Normally, the information is included in an AFM supplement. The AFM should include the following information as applicable: a) Limitations Section

1. Weight and centre of gravity limitations 2. Approved take-off and landing configurations 3. Minimum and maximum tire pressures and tire types 4. Specified gravel protection system installed and operative 5. Minimum strength of runway surface and approved types of unpaved runways 6. Prohibition of reduced thrust take-offs 7. Wheel brakes, spoilers/lift dumpers and anti-skid to be operative for take-off and landing 8. Continuous ignition on for take-off and landing 9. Nose wheel steering operative 10. Any other applicable limitation

26

b) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. c)

Normal Procedures Section Procedures for taxiing, take-off, rejected take-off and landing on gravel runways Setting of thrust or power on take-off Selection of reverse thrust on landing and minimum speeds for operation Procedures for operation of braking system Note on minimum turn radius available Note that engine runups should be avoided over surfaces composed of loose material Abnormal Procedures and Emergency Procedures Section

There are typically no changes to the emergency procedures section with the incorporation of gravel runway kits or for gravel runway operations. Abnormal procedures may however require a review. For example, the failure of the bleed source to an engine vortex dissipator may require diversion to another airport having a paved runway. d) Performance Section

This section includes all applicable charts pertaining to aircraft field performance and other parameters affected by the gravel kit installation. The application of distance factors may be necessary for wet gravel runways especially those with standing water. No credit for clearway and/or stopway should be allowed. The surface definition of gravel runways has been typically specified in the performance section of the AFM supplement instead of the limitations section. The following are examples of surface definitions applied in some AFM supplements: 1. 2. Take-off and landing field lengths shown in this section were determined on a wet gravel runway The runway surface should have a uniform covering of gravel that is graded smooth and kept free from ruts to avoid collection of undrained water during periods of precipitation; Surface material at least 6 inches thick, well compacted and with a California Bearing Ratio of at least 30, and no areas of deep loose gravel deficient in fines; The subbase strength at a depth of 8 inches below the runway surface capable of supporting 260 psi at 0.1 inch penetration when tested by the in place CBR method or by equivalent method; Runway subsurfaces constructed of materials impervious to water should be graded to facilitate water drainage; Gravel runway should be inspected at a frequency dictated by local conditions to assure that it is in a satisfactory condition.

3. 4.

5. 6.

It is pertinent to consider the preceding examples on their degree of usefulness for operational use. The use of soil classification system group symbols to describe gravel 27

runway surfaces in AFM performance charts may be clearer in providing a definition of the type of surface the performance chart is based on. Acceptable soil types as defined by the Unified group symbols would be listed and described here. The AFM supplement may include accompanying information on the corresponding properties of gravel runways. This would provide flight crews and operators with general information of the probable behavior of gravel runway surfaces under varying conditions affecting aircraft performance. This would also provide a link between the identification of gravel runway surfaces used during certification testing to those used operationally. 5.7 MASTER MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LIST (MMEL)

Specific gravel protection equipment will usually lack redundancy for dispatch with failures. Unless specifically evaluated there should be no dispatch with inoperative equipment. It is recognized that a certain amount of damage from gravel runway operations may occur as long as this does not affect flight safety.

28

6.0

SUMMARY

A gravel runway is essentially a flexible pavement with a surface course of unbound granular material. Performance data based on a hard surfaced smooth dry runway is usually not valid when applied to a gravel runway. The lower strength and less uniform properties of gravel surfaces results in significant differences in rolling friction and braking performance. Braking performance is usually most affected by surface soil properties rather than surface strength. Although there is a minimum surface strength requirement for a given aircraft weight and tire loading, the most common operational problems result from the shear failure of the surface (rutting) caused by excessive aircraft tire loading. Gravel runway surface strength depends on the surface composition, moisture content, gradation, compaction and aggregate interlock. Gravel surfaces are susceptible to weakening from moisture penetration and frost action. Loose material associated with gravel runway surfaces also results in the requirement to protect the aircraft from debris. The rough texture of gravel surfaces contribute to increased tire wear. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is a common parameter used to express soil bearing strength. CBR also indicates runway surface shear strength if a penetrometer method is used. On a given runway, the CBR value is dependent on the test method used. Large discrepancies in measured CBR values have been identified dependent on measurement technique. The specific CBR method used for gravel runway certification testing should be identified in the AFM. The same CBR method should be applied for operational measurements. Airworthiness approval requires consideration of aircraft performance, handling, structural and systems aspects, and the provision of AFM limitations, procedures, and performance information. Test programs are necessary to determine aircraft performance, handling characteristics and systems operation on gravel runway surfaces. For conservative performance data, tests should be conducted on surfaces having the most adverse effects on rolling resistance and braking performance. Measurement of surface shear strength, rather than the bearing strength of the entire foundation is generally sufficient for certification testing. Because of the variability of gravel runways, a description of the surface composition is an important parameter to relay to the operator/crew to ensure that the performance data obtained during testing is appropriate for aircraft operations. The AFM should describe the characteristics of the gravel runway surface for which the performance testing was conducted. This information must be presented in a manner, that will provide a practical aid in the identification of the runway surface for operational use.

29

7.0

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Safe gravel runway operation requires an airworthiness approval because of significant effects on performance, handling, structural integrity and systems operation. Airworthiness approval should be a prerequisite for any operational approval. 2. The AFM should express the strength of the runway using a strength classification system that can be easily interpreted by the flight crew and aircraft operator. The method of strength measurement used for certification testing should be stated. This should include the conditions under which the testing was conducted and the specific runway layers on which measurements were taken. 3. The ASTM method and Boeing High Load Penetrometer should be the only approved methods for determining gravel runway surface CBR for the time being. The Shock penetrometer results may be unreliable in predicting CBR and should not be approved for use until differences can be resolved 4. The AFM performance section should provide a description of the gravel runway surface on which performance testing was conducted. This information must be presented in a manner, that will aid in the identification of the runway for operational use. 5. The AFM should include a description of the soil types tested. This would serve as an aid in identifying gravel surfaces for the operator when performing their own assessment. The terminology used to identify soil types should be such that it is readily understandable. Information regarding the influence of moisture, frost and weathering of specific soil types on the performance and handling of the aircraft should be provided. 6. The establishment of an approved Maintenance Manual Supplement or specific aircraft maintenance instructions should be considered for gravel runway airworthiness approval. 7. Operational approval should consider the need for gravel runways to undergo continued inspection and maintenance to ensure that runway thickness, material and strength specifications continue to be met for operational use. 8. Airworthiness Manual Advisory, AMA 525/4, Operations on Unpaved Runways should be reviewed and updated to incorporate the above recommendations, and the material discussed and referenced in this report. Specific tests, aircraft configurations and acceptable criteria should be provided in this document.

30

8.0
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

REFERENCES
AGARDograph 45; Operations from Unprepared and Semi-prepared Airfields; September 1960. Aircraft Landing Gear Design; Principles and Practices; Norman S. Currey; Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company Marietta, Georgia. ASTM D 4429-93; Standard Test Method for CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Soils in Place. Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation report; Mystere-Falcon 900; Operation on Unpaved Runways, September 15, 1988. Boeing Model 737 Advanced Low Pressure Tire Gravel Runway Certification Program; Forest W. Worthington, The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington. Boeing Document No. D6-24555, High Load Penetrometer Soil Strength Tester, Rev. E, dated 4/5//84. Boeing Model 737-200 Document No. D6-32021, Section or Addendum No. 15-1, Gravel Runway Certification Results, dated 11-5-68. Canadair Challenger, MAA 601-138: Performance and Handling of the CL-601 Equipped to Operate on Gravel Runways, dated 15 February 1985. F.A.A. Advisory Circular AC No. 150//5335-5; Standardized Method of Reporting Airport Pavement Strength-PCN.

10. F.A.A. Advisory Circular, AC No: 150//5320-6D; Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation; Jan. 30, 1996. 11. F.A.A. Advisory Circular AC 25-7-X, Flight Test Guide for the Certification of Transport Category Airplanes. 12. MIL-STD-612A Method 101, California Bearing Ratio of Soils. 13. Public Works Canada, Manual of Pavement Structural Design; ASG-a9 (AK-69-12); Public Works Canada; Architectural and Engineering Services; Air Transportation; July 1992. 14. Transport Canada Air, Airports and Construction; AK-67-09-280, Gravel Runways Condition Reporting Procedures and Surface Stability Test Methods, dated June 1984. 15. Transport Canada Airports; Safety and Technical Services; Airport Pavement Evaluation - Bearing Strength; AK-68-31-000; September 1987. 16. Transport Canada Airworthiness Manual Advisory, AMA 525/4, Operations on Unpaved. 31

32