PNC PCR

DOT/FAA/TC-23/57
PCN–PCR Comparisons for

Federal Aviation Administration
William J. Hughes Technical Center Medium- and Large-Hub Airport
Runways
Aviation Research Division
Atlantic City International Airport
New Jersey 08405
Dr. David R. Brill
September 2023
Final Report
This document is available to the U.S. public

through the National Technical Information
Services (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This document is also available from the

Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes
Technical Center at actlibrary.tc.faa.gov.
U.S. Department of Transportation

NOTICE
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S.

Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The
United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use
thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or
manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear herein solely
because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. The
findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily represent the views of the funding agency. This document does
not constitute FAA policy. Consult the FAA sponsoring organization listed
on the Technical Documentation page as to its use.
This report is available at the Federal Aviation Administration William J.

Hughes Technical Center’s Full-Text Technical Reports page:
actlibrary.tc.faa.gov in Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF).
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
DOT/FAA/TC-23/57
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
PCN–PCR COMPARISONS FOR LARGE- AND MEDIUM-HUB AIRPORT September 2023

RUNWAYS
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Dr. David R. Brill

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
U.S. Department of Transportation

Airport Technology R&D Branch
William J. Hughes Technical Center, ANG-E262
Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08404
11. Contract or Grant No.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report

Airport Engineering Division
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20591
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
AAS-100
15. Supplementary Notes
The Federal Aviation Administration Airport Technology R&D Branch Manager is James Layton, ANG-E26.
16. Abstract
The Aircraft Classification Rating/Pavement Classification Rating (ACR/PCR) system was introduced in 2020 by the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as the standard method for reporting airport pavement bearing strength, replacing the previous
Aircraft Classification Number/Pavement Classification Number (ACN/PCN) system. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
compared Pavement Classification Numbers (PCN) and Pavement Classification Ratings (PCR) for a selection of runways at large-
and medium-hub airports for which as-built structural data and design traffic are available. Both flexible (asphalt-surfaced) and
rigid (concrete-surfaced) runway pavements were included. PCN was computed using the method of FAA Advisory Circular (AC)
150/5335-6C, while PCR used the method of AC 150/5335-6D and the computer program FAARFIELD 2.0. In contrast to the AC
150/5335-5C method, FAARFIELD 2.0 implements an algorithm that produces a single PCR number based on a defined critical
aircraft from the input traffic mixture. The comparisons demonstrate that the two systems (ACR/PCR and ACN/PCN), if used
correctly, result in similar restrictions on using aircraft traffic.
This report includes a brief summary of ACR/PCR concepts and a description of the PCR computation method as implemented in
FAARFIELD 2.0.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
ACR/PCR, ACN/PCN, Pavement Classification Number This document is available to the U.S. public through the
(PCN), Pavement Classification Rating (PCR), FAARFIELD National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield,
2.0, COMFAA, Large-hub and medium-hub airports; Runway Virginia 22161. This document is also available from the
pavement Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical
Center at actlibrary.tc.faa.gov.
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 112
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. ACR/PCR CONCEPTS 1
3. PAVEMENT CLASSIFICATION RATING METHOD 3
4. FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT RESULTS SUMMARY 8
5. RIGID PAVEMENT RESULTS SUMMARY 9
6. DETAILED FLEXIBLE RUNWAY PCN/PCR ANALYSES 9
6.1 Airport A—Large Hub 9
6.1.1 COMFAA 3.0 Analysis 10

6.1.2 FAARFIELD 2.0 Analysis (As-Built) 11
6.1.3 FAARFIELD 2.0 (Using FAARFIELD 2.0 Design Thickness) 11
6.2 Airport B—Medium Hub 14

6.2.2 FAARFIELD 2.0 Analysis 15
6.3 Airport B—Medium Hub 17

6.4 Airport C—Large Hub 20

6.5 Airport F—Medium Hub 23

7. DETAILED RIGID RUNWAY PCN/PCR ANALYSES 29
iii
7.1 Airport D—Large Hub 29

7.2 Airport E—Large Hub 33

7.3 Airport G—Large Hub 36

7.3.2 FAARFIELD 2.0 Analysis (As-Built Thickness) 37
7.3.3 FAARFIELD 2.0 (FAARFIELD Design Thickness) 37
7.4 Airport H—Medium Hub 40

7.5 Airport I—International 43
7.5.1 FAARFIELD 2.0 (As-Built Thickness) 43

7.5.2 FAARFIELD 2.0 (Design Thickness) 43
8. CONCLUSIONS 46
9. REFERENCES 46
Appendix A—FAARFIELD 2.0 PCR Reports
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 ACR Computational Scheme 2

2 Flowchart of FAARFIELD PCR Procedure 4
3 FAARFIELD 2.0 CDF Distribution in Example Problem 6
4 FAARFIELD 2.0 Graphical PCR Output for Example 7
5 FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structures for Airport A, Runway 10-28 12
6 Airport A, FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output 13
7 COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport B, Runway 10L-28R 16
8 FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport B, Runway 10L-28R 16
9 FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport B, Runway 10L-28R 17
10 COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport B, Runway 10R-28L 19
11 FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport B, Runway 10R-28L 19
12 FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport B, Runway 10R-28L 20
13 COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport C, Runway 01-19 22
14 FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport C, Runway 01-19 22
15 FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport C, Runway 01-19 23
16 COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport F, Runway 09-27 26
17 FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure for Airport F, RUNWAY 09-27 27
18 FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport F, Runway 09-27 28
19 FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport F, Runway 09-27 28
20 COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport D, Runway 10R-28L 31
21 FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport D, Runway 10R-28L 32
22 FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport D, Runway 10R-28L 32
23 COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport E, Runway 10C-28C 34
24 FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport E, Runway 10C-28C 35
25 FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport E, Runway 10C-28C 35
26 COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport G, Runway 16L-34R 38
27 FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport G, Runway 16L-34R 38
28 FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport G, Runway 16L-34R 39
29 COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport H, Runway 5R-23L 41
30 FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport H, Runway 5R-23L 42
31 FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport H, Runway 5R-23L 42
32 FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport I, Runway 17L-35R 44
33 FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport I, Runway 17L-35R 44
34 FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport I, Runway 17L-35R 45
35 FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport I, Runway 17L-35R 45
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Example Traffic Mix: 5

2 Flexible ACR of Traffic Mix Aircraft in Example 5
3 Steps in FAARFIELD Determination of PCR in Example Problem. 6
4 Summary of Flexible PCN/PCR Evaluations by AC 150/5335-5C and -5D Methods 8
5 Summary of Rigid PCN/PCR Evaluations by AC 150/5335-5C and -5D Methods 9
6 Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport A, Runway 10-28 10
7 Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport B, Runway 10L-28R 14
8 Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport B, Runway 10R-28L 18
9 Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport C, Runway 01-19 20
10 Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport F, Runway 09-27 24
11 Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport D, Runway 10R-28L 29
12 Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport E, Runway 10C-28C 33
13 Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport G, Runway 16L-34R 36
14 Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport H, Runway 05R-23L 40
15 Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport I, Runway 17L-35R 43
vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AC Advisory Circular
ACN Aircraft Classification Number
ACR Aircraft Classification Rating
ADM Aerodrome Design Manual
AIP Airport Improvement Program
AMR Airport Master Record
ATPB Asphalt-Treated Permeable Base
CBR California Bearing Ratio
CDF Cumulative damage factor
DSWL Derived single wheel load
EAPL Extended Airport Pavement Life
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAARFIELD FAA Rigid and Flexible Iterative Elastic Layered Design
GW Gross weight
HMA Hot-mix asphalt
HWD Heavy-weight deflectometer
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
LEA Layered elastic analysis
MAGW Maximum allowable gross weight
PCC Portland cement concrete
PCN Pavement Classification Number
PCR Pavement Classification Rating
pci pounds per cubic inch
psi pounds per square inch
SCI Structural Condition Index
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In April 2022, The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released an update to Advisory
Circular (AC) 150/5335-5, Standardized Method of Reporting Airport Pavement Strength – PCR.
The updated document mandates the use of the Aircraft Classification Rating/Pavement
Classification Rating (ACR/PCR) system, which was adopted in 2020 by the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) with an effective date of July 20, 2020. The ACR/PCR system will
be fully applicable in November 2024 and replaces the previous standard Aircraft Classification
Number/Pavement Classification Number (ACN/PCN) system. The new FAA guidance requires
the use of the FAA computer program FAARFIELD, version 2.0 or higher, to compute PCR.
This report includes a brief summary of ACR/PCR concepts and major differences from the
previous ACN/PCN system. One key difference is a change in definition of the derived single
wheel load (DSWL) that increases the scale of ACR/PCR values by one order of magnitude
relative to the equivalent ACN/PCN values. Due to the very different engineering models
underlying the ACN/PCN and ACR/PCR systems, there is no ability to convert directly from PCN
to PCR for any given case. Rather, it is important to compute PCR separately using the given
computational procedure, even if one has previously computed PCN for the same structure and
traffic. Due to the simplicity of the FAARFIELD PCR procedure, this is not a difficult requirement,
and if the data are available that were used to develop the previous PCN computation, then
computing PCR using FAARFIELD is straightforward. A second key difference is that the new
method using FAARFIELD always results in a single PCR value based on a critical aircraft
determined by the algorithm. This is in contrast to the previous method of AC 150/5335-5C, which
provided a range of possible PCN values depending on the user’s selection of critical aircraft.
Thus, the new procedure removes some of the inherent ambiguity of the older method.
This report includes detailed, step-by-step comparisons of PCR computations using FAARFIELD,
version 2.0, following the procedure outlined in AC 150/5335-5D, with the equivalent PCN
computations using the method of cancelled AC 150/5335-5C and the COMFAA 3.0 computer
program. All examples are taken from actual airports where the evaluation structures and traffic
data were available. Where applicable, the PCN values determined from COMFAA 3.0 were
compared with the actual PCN values reported in the Airport Master Record (AMR). Both flexible
(asphalt-surfaced) and rigid (concrete-surfaced) runway pavements were evaluated. The
comparisons demonstrate that (a) the FAARFIELD program is generally more robust than
COMFAA (particularly for very strong flexible structures for which FAARFIELD gave valid PCR
data while COMFAA returned exceptions); and (b) the two systems (ACR/PCR and ACN/PCN),
if used correctly, result in similar restrictions on using aircraft traffic.
viii
1. INTRODUCTION
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has adopted a method to replace the legacy
Aircraft Classification Number/Pavement Classification Number (ACN/PCN) method. The new
method, designated Aircraft Classification Rating/Pavement Classification Rating (ACR/PCR), is
incorporated in Amendment 15 to ICAO Annex 14, Volume 1 (ICAO, 2020), and elaborated in a
forthcoming update to the ICAO Aerodrome Design Manual (ADM) Part 3 (ICAO, 2022). The
ACR/PCR method became effective in July 2020, and is expected to fully replace ACN/PCN by
2024. During the transition period, both methods will remain available.
PCR reporting is the responsibility of airports. In the United States, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) supports the ACR/PCR method by requiring all public use airports that
receive Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants or other Federal funding to report PCR data
on the Airport Master Record (AMR). Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5320-5D, Standardized
Method of Reporting Airport Pavement Strength – PCR (FAA, 2022), provides guidance and
procedures for determining PCR using the FAA computer program FAARFIELD 2.0 (FAA,
2021a). The new procedures supersede those in cancelled AC 150/5320-5C (FAA, 2014), which
covered PCN.
This report aims to give a selection of real-world examples of PCR calculations on large- and
medium-hub airport runways using FAARFIELD 2.0 and to compare with the previous PCN
method. The results show that the methods are comparable, and that the PCR method is more
robust, returning valid PCR values where the older PCN method (based on FAA program
COMFAA 3.0) either failed or returned unusable data.
2. ACR/PCR CONCEPTS
The ACR/PCR procedures are covered in detail elsewhere (ICAO, 2022; FAA, 2022) and will not
be repeated here. However, a brief summary of key ACR/PCR concepts is necessary for a proper
understanding of what follows. The ACR/PCR system preserves the structure and reporting format
of ACN/PCN but changes the underlying calculation procedure. Figure 1 illustrates the basic
concept of ACR computation, in which the thickness requirement (t) for an evaluation aircraft is
equated to the thickness requirement for a standard single wheel load. The magnitude of the single
wheel load is the unknown quantity whose value is sought, and is, therefore, referred to as the
mathematically derived single wheel load (DSWL). ACR is proportional to DSWL. From Figure
1, the overall similarities to ACN computation are clear. The key changes from the ACN method
are as follows:
• All structural computations (for both flexible and rigid pavements) use layered elastic
analysis (LEA), instead of the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) method (for flexible
pavements) or Westergaard’s formulas (for rigid pavements). The method defines standard
LEA structures that must be used for the computation. A range of empirical adjustment
factors (i.e., load repetition (alpha) factor, layer equivalency factor, top-of-base k-factor),
previously used in the standard ACN/PCN method, are not required in ACR/PCR due to
the change to LEA-based computations.
1
• The ACR/PCR system retains the four standard subgrade categories (A, B, C, D), but the
categories are defined by limits on the subgrade elastic modulus E, rather than on subgrade
CBR (flexible) or top-of-base k-value (rigid). The same categories now apply to flexible
and rigid pavements.
• The procedure for computing flexible ACR has been changed so that it captures the strain
contribution of all wheels in a main landing gear. By contrast, the ACN procedure
considers only a single truck of multiple-truck main landing gears (such as the Boeing
B747 gear) as contributing to ACN.
• The standard tire pressure has been increased to 1.5 MPa from 1.25 MPa.
• The standard number of coverages for flexible ACR computations has been increased to
36,500 from 10,000.
Figure 1. ACR Computational Scheme
ACR is defined as two times the DSWL expressed in hundreds of kilograms, rather than in
thousands of kilograms as in the definition of ACN. This change in definition has the effect of
making the ACR value (and associated PCR value) approximately ten times higher in magnitude
than the ACN value (and associated PCN). This is strictly a matter of definition; it does not mean
that one can convert ACN to ACR (or PCN to PCR) by multiplying by ten. The reason for making
this change was to prevent the possibility of confusion in reporting (e.g., by accidentally comparing
ACR to PCN), especially during the transitional period when both systems are in use.
The PCR is defined as the ACR of a “critical” or reference aircraft at its maximum allowable gross
weight (MAGW). Thus, the essential function of a PCR method is to identify the critical aircraft
and to determine the MAGW. At that point, the ACR can be calculated using the standard ICAO
procedure and assigned to the PCR. The specific algorithm for computing PCR in the FAA method
is discussed in the following section.
2
3. PAVEMENT CLASSIFICATION RATING (PCR) METHOD
The following comparisons are between the PCN evaluation method in AC 150/5335-5C and the
new PCR approach in AC 150/5320-5D. As implemented in FAARFIELD 2.0, PCR is based on a
critical aircraft taken from the traffic list and uniquely determined by algorithm. This is in contrast
to the COMFAA method, which does not designate a specific critical aircraft, but treats each
aircraft in the list in turn as the critical aircraft, leaving the final selection of the PCN to the
engineer. The steps in the FAARFIELD implementation of PCR are as follows:
1. Compute the ACR of each aircraft in the traffic list at its operating weight. Identify the
aircraft with at least 10 annual departures in the traffic list that has the maximum ACR at
its operating weight.
2. Select the critical (or reference) aircraft for PCR computations. The critical aircraft is
defined as the aircraft in the FAARFIELD traffic list that makes the highest contribution
to the critical Cumulative Damage Factor (CDF) (i.e., the highest contributor to the CDF
evaluated on the strip at the critical offset).
3. The number of equivalent departures of the critical aircraft, for PCR computations, is
defined as the number of departures of the critical aircraft at operating weight that produces
the critical CDF (i.e., without considering the contributions of any other aircraft in the mix).
4. The MAGW of the critical aircraft is defined as the gross weight (GW) of the aircraft for
which the number of equivalent annual departures produces a CDF equal to 1.0.
5. Determine the ACR of the critical aircraft at the MAGW.
6. Check whether the critical aircraft is the maximum ACR aircraft identified in step 1. If so,
skip to step 8.
7. Eliminate the critical aircraft from the traffic list. Repeat steps 2 through 6 using the
reduced traffic list, applying the same definitions in 2 through 4 to the reduced traffic list.
The critical CDF for the reduced list is the same as computed for the original list.
8. The PCR is the maximum value of ACR computed in step 5.
A flowchart of the above process is shown in Figure 2. The purpose of additional step 7 is to
account for certain cases with large numbers of annual departures of a short-/medium-range
aircraft (such as the B737) and a relatively small number of departures of a long-range aircraft
(e.g., the B777). Without this step, the smaller aircraft would generally be critical, with the result
that PCR would require unreasonable operating weight restrictions on larger aircraft (unreasonable
because the design traffic already included the large aircraft). Note that if the initial critical aircraft
is also the aircraft in the list with the highest ACR at operating weight, then the above procedure
is completed in one iteration, with no reduction to the traffic list.
3
START
Compute ACR of all aircraft in

list at operating GW
Find maximum ACR.
i=1
Select critical aircraft

as aircraft with highest
i = I +1
contribution to CDF at critical
offset
Compute equivalent departures

of critical aircraft.
Compute maximum allowable

GW of critical aircraft
(CDF = 1.0)
PCR(i) = ACR of critical aircraft

at MAGW.
Remove critical
ACR of critical AC =
NO aircraft from
maximum ACR?
traffic list.
YES
PCR =
Report PCR
max (PCRi)
Figure 2. Flowchart of FAARFIELD PCR Procedure
4
The procedure shown in Figure 2 returns a uniquely determined PCR numerical value based on
the identified critical aircraft. The application of the procedure is illustrated with the following
example, using the traffic list in Table 1. While the example involves only six aircraft types, it is
nevertheless complicated by high levels of traffic for medium-range aircraft (B737 and Airbus
A320) and relatively fewer departures of several long-range/heavy aircraft types (A330, B777, and
A380).
Table 1. Example Traffic Mix
No. Aircraft Gross Weight (lb) Gross Weight (tonnes) Annual Departures
1 A330-300 WV022 515,650 233.9 52
2 B777-300ER 777,000 352.4 52
3 A380-800 WV002 1,258,850 571.0 52
4 B737-900 ER 188,200 85.4 10,950
5 A320-200 opt 172,850 78.4 10,950
6 A321-200 opt 207,025 93.9 1,560
Assuming a CBR 19 (196.5 MPa) subgrade, FAARFIELD 2.0 produces the following design for
a 20-year life:
• P-401 Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Surface, 4 in. (102 cm)

• P-403 HMA Base, 5 in. (127 cm)
• P-209 Crushed Aggregate High-Quality Subbase, 7.0 in. (179 cm)
• (16 in.-/ 407-mm total thickness on subgrade category A)
Table 2 gives the ACR values at operating weight of the mix aircraft on subgrade category A. Note
that the aircraft with the maximum operating weight ACR in the design mix is the B777-300 ER
(ACR 574.6/F/A). In Table 2, the percentages of aircraft gross weight on the main gear are those
associated with the critical aft center of gravity for ACR computation and differ from the value
(95%) used for thickness design. Likewise, the tire pressures in Table 2 are fixed values assigned
for ACR computation.
Table 2. Flexible ACR of Traffic Mix Aircraft in Example (Data from FAARFIELD 2.0 PCR
Report Results Table 3)
Percent
Gross Gross Tire ACR
Weight Weight on Pressure, Thickness,
No. Aircraft Name (lb) Main Gear (psi) (in.) (A) ACR/F/A
1 A330-300 WV022 515,650 95.70 206.0 19.8 570.4
2 B777-300 ER 777,000 92.46 218.0 19.9 574.6
3 A380-800 WV002 1,258,850 95.05 203.0 19.7 566.0
4 B737-900 ER 188,200 94.58 220.0 17.4 422.9
5 A320-200 opt 172,850 92.80 209.0 16.3 368.0
6 A321-200 opt 207,025 94.60 217.6 18.1 462.0
psi = pounds per square inch
5
Figure 3 shows the distribution of CDF using the ACR/PCR aircraft gear characteristics. As shown
in Figure 3, the maximum CDF offset is at 150 in. from the centerline, and the highest contribution
to the maximum CDF is from the B737-900 aircraft. Thus, the B737-900 becomes the critical
aircraft in the first iteration.
Figure 3. FAARFIELD 2.0 CDF Distribution in Example Problem
To compute PCR following the flowchart in Figure 1, FAARFIELD executes the sequence of steps
in Table 3.
Table 3. Steps in FAARFIELD Determination of PCR in Example Problem
Critical
Equivalent MAGW of Aircraft is
Departures Critical ACR Maximum
Iteration Critical of Critical Aircraft, Thickness ACR
No. Aircraft Aircraft (lb) (in.) ACR/F/A Aircraft?
1 B737-900 ER 20,234 188,534 17.41 423.7 No
2 A321-200 opt 4,467 207,516 18.17 463.2 No
3 B777-300 ER 300 779,763 19.91 576.8 Yes
Iteration No. 1. From Table 2, the B737-900 is not the aircraft with the maximum operating weight
ACR in the design mix. Thus, the next step in the procedure is to apply the first-level reduction
6
and remove the critical B737-900 from the mix. The critical aircraft for the remaining traffic is the
A321-200.
Iteration No. 2. Again, the A321-200 is not the aircraft with the maximum operating weight ACR
in the design mix. Therefore, the procedure applies a second-level reduction to the list, which
removes both the B737-900 and the A321-200. After the second-level reduction, the critical
aircraft is the B777-300 ER.
Iteration No. 3. As indicated in Table 3, the B777-300 ER is the aircraft with the maximum
operating weight ACR in the design mix. This is the stopping criterion for the iterations. Therefore,
jump to step 8 and compare the ACR values computed for all three iterations. The program
automatically selects the largest ACR value and reports PCR 577/F/A for the example, based on
the B777-300 ER as critical. Figure 4 shows the FAARFIELD 2.0 graphical output. Note that
reporting either of the first two values (based on the B737-900 or A321-200) would have imposed
severe operating weight restrictions on most aircraft in the design mix, which is not acceptable.
Since the PCR is based on the B777 as critical aircraft, it requires no weight restrictions and is
consistent with the thickness design.
Figure 4. FAARFIELD 2.0 Graphical PCR Output for Example
In Figure 4, all mix aircraft had non-negligible contributions to the total CDF. However, this is not
always the case, particularly when there is a mix of large and small aircraft. In the FAARFIELD
failure model, extremely small CDF contributions from light aircraft correspond to extremely long
7
theoretical structural life, and forcing the program to include these contributions can lead to
unrealistic numerical results. To avoid this problem, FAARFIELD disregards any CDF
contribution less than a threshold value set at CDF = 0.0001. If CDF contributions from all aircraft
are higher than the threshold, FAARFIELD follows the flowchart procedure in Figure 2 with no
change. Otherwise:
1. If the maximum CDF computed at step 2 is less than the threshold value, then skip steps 2
through 4. In this case, the critical aircraft is the aircraft with the maximum ACR from
step 1. Find the MAGW as the gross weight of the critical aircraft that gives CDF = 1.0 for
the actual number of passes of the critical aircraft. This situation could occur when the
pavement under consideration has significant excess structural capacity for the aircraft mix
using it (for example, where a pavement has received multiple overlays, or includes excess
base thickness for frost protection).
2. If the maximum CDF is greater than the threshold value, but the traffic mix still includes a
number of light aircraft, there are two possibilities. If the individual contributions of all
aircraft to maximum CDF are fewer than the threshold, follow the procedure in step 1.
Otherwise, compute the MAGW according to Figure 2, except:
a. At each iteration, check if the contribution to the maximum CDF of any particular
aircraft is less than 0.0001. If so, then disregard that aircraft when summing the
total CDF for equivalent passes. (Therefore, the CDF “target” might be slightly less
than the maximum total CDF in step 2.)
b. Compute the number of equivalent passes of the critical aircraft as the number of
passes of the critical aircraft at its operating GW, that gives the CDF in (a).
4. FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT RESULTS SUMMARY
PCN–PCR comparisons were made for five flexible runways taken from the FAA’s Extended
Airport Pavement Life (EAPL) database (Ashtiani, Murrell, Speir, & Brill, 2022). A summary is
presented in Table 4. For each airport, three numbers are presented:
• PCN as actually reported by the airport on the AMR

• PCN as computed by the method of AC 150/5335-5C, using the COMFAA 3.0 program
• PCR as computed by the method of AC 150/5335-5D, using FAARFIELD 2.0
Table 4. Summary of Flexible PCN–PCR Evaluations by AC 150/5335-5C and -5D Methods
PCN as reported on AC 150/5335-5C PCR

Airport Runway AMR PCN (COMFAA) (FAARFIELD 2.0)
A 10-28 105/F/A Not Valid 6620/F/A
B 10L-28R 61/F/C 71/F/C 570/F/C
B 10R-28L 77/F/C 78/F/C 780/F/C
C 01-19 57/F/B 65/F/B 680/F/B
F 9-27 65/F/D Not Valid 3770/F/D
8
5. RIGID PAVEMENT RESULTS SUMMARY
PCN–PCR comparisons were made for five rigid runways, three of which were taken from the
FAA’s EAPL database and two from other sources. A summary is presented in Table 5. For each
airport, three numbers are presented:
• PCN as actually reported by the airport on AMR

• PCN as computed by the method of AC 150/5335-5C, using the COMFAA 3.0 program
• PCR as computed by the method of AC 150/5335-5D, using FAARFIELD 2.0
Table 5. Summary of Rigid PCN–PCR Evaluations by AC 150/5335-5C and -5D Methods
PCN as reported on AC 150/5335-5C PCR

Airport Runway AMR PCN (COMFAA) (FAARFIELD 2.0)
D 10R-28L 74/R/B 77/R/B 1040/R/B
E 10C-28C 96/R/C 103/R/B 1140/R/C
G 16L-34R 92/R/B 96/R/B 1660/R/C
H 5R-23L 93/R/B/W/T 91/R/B 1040/R/B
I 17L-35R N/A 29/R/A 250/R/A
6. DETAILED FLEXIBLE RUNWAY PCN–PCR ANALYSES
6.1 AIRPORT A—LARGE HUB
Runway 10-28 is 10,500 ft long and 150 ft wide with 35-ft shoulders. The surface is HMA. The
currently reported PCN on the AMR is 105/F/A/W/T. The runway consists of a central part with a
base structure more than 50 years old, and two runway extensions constructed in 1993. The central
part has received several HMA overlays over the years, the most recent was a 2-in. HMA overlay
in 2011. The extensions also received a 2-in. HMA overlay in 2011. Considering all overlays, the
flexible structures can be taken as follows:
Runway 10-28—Central Sections:

• 21 in. HMA (P-401)
• 4 in. crushed aggregate base (P-209)
• 15.5 in. aggregate subbase (P-154)
• Subgrade: Silty sand with gravel, E = 36,500 psi / CBR 24 (subgrade category A)
Runway 10-28—Extensions:
• 11 in. HMA (P-401)
• 22 in. crushed aggregate base (P-209)
• 6 in. aggregate base (P-154)
• Subgrade: Silty sand with gravel, E = 36,500 psi / CBR 24 (subgrade category A)
Table 6 lists the design aircraft traffic.
9
Table 6. Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport A, Runway 10-28
No. Aircraft Gross Weight (lb) Annual Departures

1 A300-600 Std Bogie 375,000 1,383
2 A330-200 WV058 571,000 41
3 B767-300 ER/Freighter 409,000 15
4 B767-200 335,000 358
5 A310-300 337,000 303
6 B777-200 ER 662,000 320
7 B787-8 502,500 148
8 A318-100 std 130,100 446
9 A319-100 std 141,094 5,781
10 A320-200 std 162,040 10,291
11 A321-100 std 183,000 702
12 B717-200 HGW 110,100 15,700
13 B727-200 Advanced Option 209,000 1,476
14 B737-300 124,500 14,512
15 B737-700 171,000 75,464
16 B737-800 171,000 5,804
17 B737-900 174,200 19
18 B757-200 240,000 1,097
19 B757-300 270,000 2,577
20 B757-200 250,000 1,810
21 DC9-32 109,000 260
22 Learjet 35/36/35A/36A 18,300 1,273
23 MD-83 150,500 371
24 D-75 80,500 1,357
25 D-100 103,593 8,687
26 D-75 72,500 17,360
27 D-50 53,000 16,384
28 D-30 34,500 7,555
29 S-5 5,500 1,200
30 S-10 8,750 2,820
31 S-5 4,750 266
6.1.1 COMFAA 3.0 Analysis
Using the default layer equivalency factors embedded in the support spreadsheet, obtain the
following equivalent total thicknesses for analysis:
Central Sections: 58.7 in.

Extensions: 52.0 in.
For PCN computation, use weaker section (t = 52 in.)
10
Based on COMFAA 3.0 analysis, the runway structure has considerable excess capacity in relation
to the imposed aircraft loads. COMFAA PCN numbers on subgrade category A range from 442 to
more than 600 depending on the reference aircraft. However, these numbers are based on
unrealistically high maximum gross weights and essentially indicate unlimited life. In practice, the
airport published a PCN approximately 50 percent greater than the largest ACN of operating
aircraft in the mix (i.e., sufficient to allow unrestricted operations of any foreseeable using aircraft).
6.1.2 FAARFIELD 2.0 Analysis (As-Built)
The PCR method using FAARFIELD 2.0 gives PCR 6617/F/A/X/T, based on the A330-200 as
critical aircraft. Rounding to the nearest whole-value multiple of 10, the PCR could be reported as
6620/F/A. This value reflects the theoretical upper limit on ACR as computed by FAARFIELD,
but actually represents unlimited structural capacity, since it is much higher than the ACR value
of any existing or foreseeable aircraft. In practice, the airport would probably publish a PCR value
to accommodate the largest real aircraft that could conceivably use the feature. Figure 5(a) shows
the FAARFIELD structure, and Figure 6(a) shows the graphical program output. The complete
FAARFIELD PCR results tables are presented in Appendix A.
6.1.3 FAARFIELD 2.0 (Using FAARFIELD 2.0 Design Thickness)
The PCR analysis in 4.1.2 reveals that Runway 10-28 has considerable excess capacity. Figure 5(b)
shows the structure as designed by FAARFIELD 2.0 for the given traffic and subgrade properties.
A conventional pavement structure 16.5 in. thick above the subgrade would be sufficient to meet
the 20-year structural life requirement. (It would not meet FAA standards due to the lack of a
stabilized base layer.) Using an assumed total thickness t = 16.5 in. (4 in. P-401 surface and 12.5
in. P-209 base), obtain PCR 700/F/A, where the A330 is again the critical aircraft. For this case,
there would be no operating weight restrictions on any using aircraft (Figure 6(b)).
11
(a) As-Built
(b) FAARFIELD 2.0 Design
Figure 5. FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structures for Airport A, Runway 10-28
12
(a) As-Built
(b) FAARFIELD 2.0 Design
Figure 6. Airport A, FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output
13
6.2 AIRPORT B—MEDIUM HUB (RUNWAY 10L-28R)
Runway 10L-28R is 8,000 ft long and 150 ft wide. The surface is HMA. The currently reported
PCN on the AMR is 61/F/C/W/T. The runway consists of a central section (6,000 ft) with a base
structure more than 50 years old, and two runway extensions of 1,000 ft each. The central part has
received several HMA overlays over the years. Considering all overlays, the flexible structures
can be taken as follows:
Runway 10L-28R—Central Sections:

• 11.75 in.–18.5 in. HMA (P-401)
• 5-in. asphalt treated drainable base
• 11-in. aggregate subbase (unknown material)
• Subgrade: Lean Clay, E = 11,000 psi / CBR 7 (subgrade category C)
Runway 10L-28R—Extensions:
• 11-in. HMA (P-401)
• 17-in. crushed aggregate base (P-209)
• 12–24 in. #2 stone subbase (P-154)
• Subgrade: Lean Clay, E = 11,000 psi / CBR 7 (subgrade category C)
Table 7. Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport B, Runway 10L-28R
Year 1 Growth Avg. Annual

Gross Annual Rate Departures (over
No. Aircraft Weight (lb) Departures (percent) 20 years)
1 S-10 10,000 1 2.0 1
2 D-30 30,000 3 2.0 4
3 CRJ100/200 47,450 2,909 2.0 3,491
4 ERJ-145 XR 53,131 7,546 2.0 9,055
5 Q400/Dash 8 Series 400 60,198 742 2.0 890
6 CRJ700 72,500 1,461 2.0 1,753
7 Gulfstream-G-IV 74,600 2 2.0 3
8 CRJ900 80,500 218 2.0 262
9 EMB-175 STD 89,000 4,328 2.0 5,194
10 B737-200 128,600 9 2.0 11
11 EMB-190 STD 114,000 60 2.0 72
12 B717-200 HGW 121,000 874 2.0 1,049
13 DC9-51 122,000 60 2.0 72
14 B737-500 134,000 138 2.0 166
15 B737-300 140,000 1,691 2.0 2,029
16 A319-100 std 145,505 895 2.0 1,074
17 B737-400 150,500 10 2.0 12
18 B737-700 154,500 2,789 2.0 3,347
19 MD-83 161,000 1,339 2.0 1,607
14
Year 1 Growth Avg. Annual
Gross Annual Rate Departures (over
No. Aircraft Weight (lb) Departures (percent) 20 years)
20 MD-90-30 ER 168,500 100 2.0 120
21 B737-800 174,700 433 2.0 520
22 A321-100 std 183,000 1 2.0 1
23 B737-900 188,200 1 2.0 1
24 B727-200 Advanced 209,500 1 2.0 1
Option
25 B757-200 256,000 67 2.0 80
26 B767-200 ER 396,000 1 2.0 1
27 C-17A 585,000 233 2.0 280
28 S-3 3,000 579 1.0 637
29 S-5 5,000 2,314 1.0 2,545
30 D-15 10,000 165 1.0 182
31 D-20 20,000 661 1.0 727
32 D-30 30,000 2,892 1.0 3,181
In the previous sections, assume that asphalt-treated drainable base is structurally equivalent to
P-209 base. Assume that aggregate subbase is equivalent to P-154. For the central sections, the in-
place HMA thickness varies from 11.75 to 18.5 in. Assume 11.75 in. P-401. For the runway
extensions, the actual thickness of subbase varies between 12 and 24 in. Assume 12 in. P-154.
Using the default layer equivalency factors embedded in the support spreadsheet, obtain the
following equivalent total thicknesses for analysis:
Central Sections: 34.9 in.

Extensions: 51.0 in.
For PCN computation, use weaker (central) section (t = 34.9 in.). Based on COMFAA 3.0 analysis,
the technical PCN could be as high as 93/F/C, based on the B727 as the most demanding aircraft
(Figure 7). However, eliminating aircraft with very few annual departures (B727, B767, B737-
900, and A321 each have only 1 annual departure in the design traffic list), it is recommended to
report the PCN as 71/F/C/W/T (using the MD-90) or 68/F/C/W/T (using the B737-800).
6.2.2 FAARFIELD 2.0 Analysis
FAARFIELD 2.0 computes the PCR based on the ACR/PCR method. For the central section,
FAARFIELD computes PCR 572/F/C (reported as 570/F/C), based on the C-17A as reference
aircraft. For this analysis, the 5-in. asphalt-treated drainable base is represented by a user-defined
layer with a modulus equal to that for P-209 (Figure 8). The graphical output from FAARFIELD
is shown in Figure 9. Although the B727 has a higher ACR, it is not the critical aircraft because
there are fewer than 10 annual departures (see page 3). The complete FAARFIELD PCR results
tables are presented in Appendix A.
15
Figure 7. COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport B, Runway 10L-28R
Figure 8. FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport B, Runway 10L-28R

(Central Sections)
16
Figure 9. FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport B, Runway 10L-28R (Central Sections)
For comparison, if the newer runway extension sections are evaluated rather than the central
sections, then FAARFIELD would give PCR 1218/F/C (reported as 1220/F/C), with the C17 as
the critical aircraft. In this case, the pavement section has significant excess capacity compared to
the using traffic. Therefore, the choice of the central sections as the PCN evaluation section is the
correct one.
6.3 AIRPORT B—MEDIUM HUB (RUNWAY 10R-28L)
Runway 10R-28L is 10,125 ft long and 150 ft wide. The surface is HMA. The currently reported
PCN on the AMR is 77/F/C/W/T. The runway was constructed in 2013 using the following section:
• 5 in. HMA surface (P-401)

• 11 in. HMA base (P-401)
• 12 in. crushed aggregate subbase (P-209)
• 12 in. cement-stabilized subgrade (P-301)
Existing subgrade soils were of poor quality and potentially contaminated. The 12-in. cement-
stabilized soil layer was added to provide a higher CBR while minimizing disturbance of the
existing subgrade. A CBR value of 7 is assumed at the top of the cement-stabilized subgrade.
17
Table 8. Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport B, Runway 10R-28L

1 B767-300 317,000 365
2 B757-200 256,000 1,360
3 B737-900 188,200 1,360
4 B737-800 174,700 4,380
5 MD-83 161,000 365
6 B737-400 150,500 365
7 B737-300 140,000 17,885
8 B737-500 134,000 2,920
9 B717-200 HGW 122,000 35,310
10 CRJ900 84,500 6,570
11 CRJ700 75,000 18,615
12 ERJ-145 ER 48,500 32,405
13 S-10 8,750 550
14 S-3 2,300 600
15 D-30 30,000 6,525
16 S-10 10,000 15,225
17 D-50 50,000 40,400
The equivalent pavement thickness is computed using only the layers above the stabilized
subgrade. Assume the stabilized subgrade provides a CBR value of 7 for the flexible pavement.
Using the default layer equivalency factors embedded in the support spreadsheet that accompanies
AC 150/5335-5C, and using the reference section appropriate for heavier aircraft (5 in. P-401 and
8 in. P-209), obtain the equivalent total thickness for analysis: t = 43.2 in.
From COMFAA 3.0 analysis, the technical PCN is found to be 77.6/F/C, based on the B737-800
as the reference aircraft. (A higher value of 110/F/C could be reported based on the B737-900 as
the most demanding aircraft.) The COMFAA graphic output is shown in Figure 10.
FAARFIELD 2.0 computes PCR using the AC 150/5335-5D method. The FAARFIELD 2.0
analysis assumes that the stabilized subgrade provides a CBR value of 7 for the flexible pavement,
and all layers above the stabilized subgrade are included in the model (Figure 11). FAARFIELD
computes PCR as 775/F/C (reported as 780/F/C), based on the B737-900 ER as the critical aircraft.
The graphical output from FAARFIELD is shown in Figure 12. There are no operating weight
restrictions on the using aircraft. The complete FAARFIELD PCR results tables are presented in
Appendix A.
18
Figure 10. COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport B, Runway 10R-28L
Figure 11. FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport B, Runway 10R-28L
19
Figure 12. FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport B, Runway 10R-28L
6.4 AIRPORT C—LARGE HUB
Runway 01-19 is 7,170 ft long and 150 ft wide. The surface is HMA. The currently reported PCN
on the AMR is 57/F/B/X/T. The runway was originally constructed in 1990. In 2011–2012, a mill
and overlay were completed for the entire length, and a 300-ft-long extension was added to the 01
end. At the time of the rehabilitation, a pavement evaluation was performed, which identified
considerable variation in existing pavement layer thicknesses along the runway length. For
purposes of PCN evaluation, the weakest section is as follows:
• 14 in. HMA (P-401)

• 13.5 in. aggregate base (P-154)
• Subgrade: silty sand (SM)
The design CBR is 10. Table 9 lists the design aircraft traffic.
Table 9. Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport C, Runway 01-19

1 CRJ100ER/200ER 51,000 6,169
2 CRJ700 71,000 2,210
3 ERJ-145 ER 42,300 15,675
4 EMB-170 STD 85,100 5,626
5 EMB-190 STD 114,200 6,661
20
6 B717-200 HGW 121,000 7,493
7 B737-300 140,000 3,330
8 B737-700 153,500 10,032
9 B737-800 173,000 7,524
10 B737-900 174,200 209
11 MD-83 140,000 5,706
12 A319-100 opt 154,300 14,986
13 A320-200 std 162,000 10,407
14 A321-100 std 181,200 1,249
15 B757-200 240,000 8,031
16 B767-300 345,000 207
First, compute the equivalent pavement thickness using the COMFAA support spreadsheet. Due
to the high variability and deteriorated condition of the existing HMA, use conservative
equivalency factors on the low end of the FAA-recommended range. The equivalency factors are:
P-401 to P-209: 1.2

P-209 to P-154: 1.2
For the above structural thicknesses and equivalency factors, obtain an equivalent thickness
t = 29.9 in. Based on subgrade CBR = 10, the subgrade category is B. From the COMFAA analysis,
obtain PCN = 65/F/B/X/T, using the A321 as reference aircraft. The COMFAA graphic output is
shown in Figure 13.
FAARFIELD 2.0 computes PCR using the AC 150/5335-5D method. FAARFIELD computes
PCR 677/F/B (reported as 680/F/B), based on the A321-100 as critical aircraft. Figure 14 shows
the evaluation structure for FAARFIELD 2.0. Note that the subgrade category has changed from
the ACN/PCN method. The graphical output from FAARFIELD is shown in Figure 15. There are
no operating weight restrictions on the using aircraft. The complete FAARFIELD PCR results
tables are presented in Appendix A.
21
Figure 13. COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport C, Runway 01-19
Figure 14. FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport C, Runway 01-19
22
Figure 15. FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport C, Runway 01-19
6.5 AIRPORT F—MEDIUM HUB
Runway 9-27 is 9,500 ft long and 150 ft wide. The surface is HMA, except for a 1,155-ft length at
the intersection with a crossing runway, which is Portland cement concrete (PCC). The runway
was constructed in 1968 as a PCC pavement. At the time of initial construction, the PCC section
was 10 in., except for 500-ft long sections at each runway end, where the PCC thickness was
increased to 12 in. Subsequent overlays in 1981, 1997, and 2012 have increased the total HMA
thickness to approximately 10 in. The PCN for this composite pavement is reported on the AMR
as 65/F/D/W/T.
The composite pavement section is as follows:
• 10 in. HMA Overlay (P-401)

• 10 in. old PCC (P-501)
• 6 in. HMA base (P-403)
• 4 in. aggregate base (P-154)
Resilient modulus tests performed on soil borings from the center of the runway gave a low-end
value of approximately 7,400 psi. Therefore, using the approximate conversion CBR = E / 1500,
assume CBR 5 for evaluation. Table 10 lists the design aircraft traffic.
23
Table 10. Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport F, Runway 09-27
Gross Weight.
No. Aircraft (lb) Annual Departures
1 A300-600 Std Bogie 380,518 18
2 A318-100 opt 141,978 553
3 A320-200 std 150,796 170
4 A321-100 std 183,866 28
5 B717-200 HGW 122,000 111
6 B727-200 Advanced Basic 185,200 5
7 B737-300 140,000 651
8 B737-700 155,000 2000
9 B737-800 174,700 235
10 B737-900 ER 188,200 53
11 B757-200 256,000 137
12 B767-400 ER 451,000 4
13 B787-9 555,000 4
14 CRJ100/200 47,450 102
15 CRJ700 72,500 473
16 DC/MD-10-10/10F 458,000 10
17 DC9-32 109,000 9
18 Q400/Dash 8 Series 400 64,700 122
19 ERJ-145 ER 45,635 143
20 ERJ-145 XR 53,352 187
21 EMB-170 STD 79,697 864
22 EMB-190 STD 105,712 11
23 MD-11 633,000 17
24 MD-83 161,000 209
25 MD-90-30 ER 168,500 235
Assume a standard structure with 5 in. P-401, 8 in. P-209, and an equivalent thickness of P-154
subbase to be determined. Use the following equivalency factors to obtain the equivalent thickness:
P-401 to P-209: 1.6

P-501 to P-401: 2.5
P-209 to P-154: 1.4
P-401 to P-154: 2.2
Exist. 10 in. P-401 overlay à 5 in. P-401 + 8 in. P-209

Exist. 10 in. P-501 à 25 in. P-401 à 57.5 in. P-154
Exist. 6 in. P-401 base à 13.2 in. P-154
The resulting equivalent structure is as follows:
24
• 5 in. P-401
• 8 in. P-209
• 57.5 + 13.2 + 4 = 74.7 in. P-154
• Subgrade: CBR 5
The equivalent thickness for the given structure is t = 87.7 in. (subgrade category C).
Using COMFAA 3.0, with t = 87.7 in. on CBR 5, using the B757 as reference aircraft, obtain PCN
178/F/C. (The A319 is disregarded.) However, COMFAA also produces a warning message
indicating that the computation may not be meaningful due to the high strength relative to loading:
When computing the numbers of coverages to failure, the coverages for none of the aircraft
converged at a pavement thickness greater than 99 percent of the evaluation thickness.
This means that the life of the pavement is unlimited and the pavement is very strong in
relation to the aircraft loading. The relative aircraft load evaluations are also unreliable.
Consider reviewing the procedures used to determine the evaluation thickness and the
strength of the support.
The COMFAA graphical output is shown in Figure 16.
FAARFIELD 2.0 computes PCR using the AC 150/5335-5D method. In this case, the pavement
consists of a thick HMA overlay over old PCC, so it could plausibly be reported as either F or R,
depending on whether the PCC slab provides the primary structural contribution. The
FAARFIELD structure is shown in Figure 17(a). To represent the probable poor condition of the
existing PCC, the evaluation assumed the minimum Structural Condition Index (SCI), SCI = 67.
Using the option to “allow flexible computation for thick overlays on PCC,” FAARFIELD
automatically determined that the alternate flexible computation governs and, therefore, reports a
flexible (F) PCR.
FAARFIELD 2.0 computes PCR 3645/F/D, with the MD11ER as the critical aircraft. The B787-9
is the highest ACR aircraft but is not the critical aircraft because it has too few annual departures.
The graphical output from FAARFIELD is shown in Figure 18. There are no weight restrictions
on any of the design list aircraft. The complete FAARFIELD PCR results tables are presented in
Appendix A.
For clarity, Figure 17(b) shows the alternate structure used to compute flexible PCR, which
converts the PCC to a high-stiffness, user-defined layer. The alternate criteria are available only
for cases where the HMA overlay thickness equals or exceeds the base PCC layer thickness. This
example just meets that criterion. Provided the flexible option is enabled, FAARFIELD makes the
selection automatically, and never actually displays the “alternate” structure in Figure 17(b). By
contrast, if the FAARFIELD flexible option is disabled, then the PCR function returns PCR
770/R/D, based on the assumption of a rigid pavement structure (Figure 19). With this assumption,
the available rigid PCR is much lower, and requires operating weight restrictions on several
aircraft. Therefore, the airport should report the flexible PCR.
25
Figure 16. COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport F, Runway 09-27
26
(a) Evaluation Structure, Represented as HMA-on-Rigid Overlay
(b) Alternate Evaluation Structure (flexible)
Figure 17. FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure for Airport F, RUNWAY 09-27
27
Figure 18. FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport F, Runway 09-27
Figure 19. FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport F, Runway 09-27 (Rigid PCR)
28
7. DETAILED RIGID RUNWAY PCN–PCR ANALYSES
7.1 AIRPORT D—LARGE HUB
Runway 10R-28L is 8,000 ft long and 150 ft wide with 35-ft shoulders. The surface is PCC. At
the time of the evaluation, the runway was 2 years old and had not received any overlays. The
airport reported PCN 74/R/B/W/T on the AMR. Part of the runway consists of a bridge constructed
over a railroad track and adjacent major highway. Approaches to the bridge structure on both sides
are constructed on embankments. The fill material is compacted lime rock with soaked CBR
greater than 50. However, in non-fill sections the in-situ CBR used for design is CBR 13. The rigid
pavement section is as follows:
• 16.5 in. PCC (P-501), R = 675 psi

• 6 in. cement-treated base (P-304)
• Prepared subgrade: CBR 13
Table 11. Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport D, Runway 10R-28L
Avg. Annual
Year 1 Growth Departures
Gross Annual Rate (over 20
No. Aircraft Weight (lb) Departures (percent) years)
1 A300‐600 Std Bogie 380,518 48 3.88 67
2 A310‐200 315,041 22 -10 6
3 A310‐300 315,041 16 -10 4
4 A318‐100 std 124,341 9,531 .84 10,332
5 A320‐200 std 162,922 8,505 5.5 13,183
6 A321‐100 std 183,866 1,895 5.72 2,979
7 A330‐200 WV020 509,047 7 10 14
8 A330‐300 WV020 50,9047 23 10 46
9 A380‐800 WV000 1,239,000 12 0 12
10 B727‐200 Advanced 185,200 28 -10 7
Basic
11 B737‐200 Advanced 128,600 97 -10 24
QC
12 B717‐200 HGW 122,000 415 -10 104
13 B737‐300 140,000 571 -10 143
14 B737‐400 150,500 381 -10 95
15 B737‐500 134,000 74 -10 19
16 B737‐700 155,000 9,055 4.77 13,374
17 B737‐800 174,700 3,310 5.47 5,121
18 B737‐900 174,700 631 9.42 1,225
19 B747‐400ER 913,000 2 10 4
20 B757‐200 256,000 816 -2.63 601
29
Avg. Annual
Year 1 Growth Departures
Gross Annual Rate (over 20
No. Aircraft Weight (lb) Departures (percent) years)
21 B757‐300 273,500 247 -.91 225
22 B767‐200 ER 396,000 12 -10 3
23 B767‐300 413,000 125 -1.63 105
ER/Freighter
24 B767‐400 ER 451,000 28 10 56
25 B777‐200 ER 658,000 18 10 36
26 B787‐8 486,000 138 10 276
27 C‐130 155,000 182 -1.52 154
28 DC/MD‐10‐10/10F 458,000 159 0.48 167
29 D‐100 100,000 2,100 5.25 3,203
30 D‐20 20,000 6,263 1.63 7,284
31 D‐30 30,000 1,858 1.65 2,164
32 D‐50 45,000 744 7.83 1,327
33 D‐75 75,000 91 8.25 166
34 MD‐11 633,000 68 -2.49 51
35 MD‐83 161,000 527 -10 132
36 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 42 -10 11
37 CRJ100/200 47,450 1,257 10 2,514
38 CRJ700 72,500 616 2.43 766
The design subgrade CBR is 13. Plate load data are unavailable for the subgrade, so assume the
top of subgrade k-value according to the formula (FAA, 2021b):
k = 28.6926 × CBR0.7788 = 211.5 lb /in.3 (pci)
Using the support spreadsheet accompanying AC 150/5335-5C (FAA, 2014), obtain the following
equivalent top of subbase k-value:
k = 323 pci (subgrade category B)
Based on COMFAA 3.0 analysis, using k = 323 pci, t = 16.5 in., and concrete flexural strength
R = 675 psi, obtain PCN on B of 76.9, using the MD11 ER as reference aircraft. Report PCN as
77/R/B/W/T. The COMFAA graphical output is shown in Figure 20.
FAARFIELD 2.0 computes PCR using the AC 150/5335-5D method. The rigid pavement
subgrade was assigned a value of E = 19,500 psi using the approximate conversion formula
E = 1500 × CBR. The FAARFIELD structure is shown in Figure 21. FAARFIELD 2.0 computes
PCR 1036/R/B/W/T (reported as 1040/R/B), with the A380 as critical aircraft. The graphical
30
output from FAARFIELD is shown in Figure 22. There are no operating weight restrictions on the
aircraft that are used. The complete FAARFIELD PCR results tables are presented in Appendix A.
Figure 20. COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport D, Runway 10R-28L
31
Figure 21. FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport D, Runway 10R-28L
Figure 22. FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport D, Runway 10R-28L
32
7.2 AIRPORT E—LARGE HUB
Runway 10C-28C is 10,800 ft long and 200 ft wide. The surface is PCC. The runway was
constructed in 2013 and has not received any overlays. The currently reported PCN on the AMR
is 96/R/C/W/T.
The rigid pavement section is as follows:
• 18 in. PCC (P-501), flexural strength R = 700 psi

• 6 in. HMA stabilized base (P-403)
• 6 in. asphalt-treated permeable base (ATPB)
• 12 in. of stabilized subgrade on natural subgrade
The subgrade stabilization provides an estimated top-of-subgrade k-value = 150 pci. For design
purposes, the ATPB is assumed to be equivalent to P-209 granular base.
Table 12. Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport E, Runway 10C-28C

1 A330 469,000 81
2 A340-200/300 600,000 840
3 A380-800 (arrivals) 894,000 424
4 B747-400 873,000 2,722
5 B767-300 409,000 3,454
6 B777-300 Baseline 722,000 3,372
7 A300-600 375,000 1,019
8 DC-10-10 458,000 71
9 MD-11 621,000 606
10 B757 250,000 291
11 A320 150.000 24,656
12 B737-800 173,000 26,655
13 B727 172,000 1,346
14 DW-45 45,000 28,229
15 SW-30 22,500 3,808
The top of subgrade k-value = 150 pci. Using the support spreadsheet that accompanies
AC 150/5335-5C (FAA, 2014), obtain the equivalent top of subbase k-value:
From COMFAA 3.0, using k = 323 pci, t = 18.0 in., and R = 700 psi, obtain PCN on subgrade
strength category B of 103.4, using the B777-200 as reference aircraft. Report PCN as
33
103/R/B/W/T. (From the available data it is not clear why the AMR reports subgrade category C
rather than B.) The COMFAA graphical output is shown in Figure 23.
FAARFIELD 2.0 computes PCR using the AC 150/5335-5D method (FAA, 2022). The
FAARFIELD structure is shown in Figure 24. FAARFIELD 2.0 computes PCR 1138/R/C/W/T,
with the A380 as critical aircraft, which could be reported as PCR 1140/R/C/W/T. The graphical
output from FAARFIELD is shown in Figure 25. There are no operating weight restrictions on the
aircraft that is used. The complete FAARFIELD PCR results tables are presented in Appendix A.
Figure 23. COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport E, Runway 10C-28C
34
Figure 24. FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport E, Runway 10C-28C
Figure 25. FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport E, Runway 10C-28C (Design Traffic)
35
7.3 AIRPORT G—LARGE HUB
Runway 16L-34R is 12,000 ft long and 150 ft wide. The surface is PCC. The runway was
constructed in 1995 and has not received any overlays. The currently reported PCN in the AMR is
92/R/B/W/T.
• 17 in. PCC (P-501), R = 775 psi

• 8 in. cement stabilized base (P-304)
• Improved subgrade, k = 160 pci
Table 14 lists the design aircraft traffic. In past ACN/PCN workshops run by the FAA, this
example served to illustrate a case where high B737 traffic can drive the PCN calculation, forcing
operating weight restrictions on larger aircraft unless there is flexibility allowed in the selection of
the reference aircraft.
Table 13. Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport G, Runway 16L-34R

1 DC9-30/40 109,000 8
2 B717-200 122,000 301
3 A318-100 std 124,500 654
4 A319-100 std 142,500 13,002
5 A320-100 151,000 15,280
6 MD80/83/88 161,000 739
7 MD90 168,500 213
8 B727-200 Basic 185,200 111
9 B737-700 188,200 18,133
10 B757-300 271,000 10,079
11 DC8-60/70 358,000 79
12 A300-B4 STD 365,750 831
13 B767-300 413,000 2,521
14 DC10 458,000 115
15 B787-8 478,000 32
16 A330-200 std 509,000 88
17 A340-300 std 608,000 179
18 MD11 633,000 44
19 B747-400 877,000 754
20 A380-800 1,235,000 59
21 B777-200 Baseline 537,000 1,095
36
The top-of-subgrade k-value = 160 pci. Using the support spreadsheet that accompanies
AC 150/5335-5C (FAA, 2014), obtain the equivalent top of subbase k-value:
From COMFAA 3.0 analysis, using k = 323 pci, t = 17.0 in., and flexural strength R = 775 psi,
obtain PCN on subgrade strength category B of 95.8, using the MD-11 ER as reference aircraft.
Report PCN as 96/R/B/W/T. The COMFAA graphical output is shown in Figure 26.
7.3.2 FAARFIELD 2.0 Analysis (As-Built Thickness)
FAARFIELD 2.0 computes PCR using the AC 150/5335-5D method. The FAARFIELD structure
is shown in Figure 27. FAARFIELD 2.0 computes PCR 1661/R/C/W/T, with the A380 as critical
aircraft, which could be reported as PCR 1660/R/C/W/T. The graphical output from FAARFIELD
is shown in Figure 28(a). There are no operating weight restrictions on the using aircraft. The
complete FAARFIELD PCR results tables are presented in Appendix A. Based on Figure 28(a),
there are no operating weight restrictions on the design aircraft, as all aircraft have much lower
ACR. Note that, in the ACR–PCR system, the subgrade is classified as low- (C) rather than
medium-strength (B).
7.3.3 FAARFIELD 2.0 (FAARFIELD Design Thickness)
As revealed by the PCR analysis in Section 7.3.2, the as-built runway has considerable excess
capacity. For the given inputs, FAARFIELD 2.0 (in design mode) requires a concrete design
thickness t = 14.4 in. (i.e., 2.5 in. less than as-built). Using the assumed concrete thickness t = 14.5
in., obtain PCR 1108/R/C, where the A380 is the critical aircraft. Even at this drastically reduced
thickness, there would still be no operating weight restrictions on any of the using aircraft (Figure
28(b)).
This is an example of a case in which including the final step (step 5) in the PCR procedure
prevents having to report an unnecessarily low PCR number. The design traffic mix includes a
number of very heavy aircraft types, but a high number of departures of a relatively narrow-body
aircraft drives the initial section of the critical aircraft. Following the initial evaluation of the full
aircraft mix, the aircraft producing the highest CDF contribution is the B737-700. Taking the
B737-700 as the critical aircraft, with no further steps, the PCR would be 624/R/C. Reporting such
a low PCR would force weight restrictions on all of the larger aircraft that are used. The
FAARFIELD PCN procedure avoids this problem by selecting the A380 as the critical aircraft.
37
Figure 26. COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport G, Runway 16L-34R
Figure 27. FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport G, Runway 16L-34R

(As-Built Thickness)
38
(a) As-Built Thickness
(b) FAARFIELD 2.0 Design Thickness
Figure 28. FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport G, Runway 16L-34R
39
7.4 AIRPORT H—MEDIUM HUB
Runway 05R-23L is 10,000 ft long and 150 ft wide. The surface is PCC. The runway was
constructed in 1989 and has not received any overlays. The currently reported PCN on the AMR
is 93/R/B/W/T. The rigid pavement section consists of 18 in. PCC (P-501) on a 6-in. cement-
treated base (P-304).
Table 14. Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport H, Runway 05R-23L

1 B747-400 870,000 67
2 L-1011 483,500 1,809
3 B757-200 230,000 5,335
4 B767-200 357,000 1,509
5 DC-8-70 355,000 2,925
6 B727-200 190,500 7,135
7 B727-100 160,000 3,364
8 DC-9-10 90,700 318
9 DC-9-50 12,1000 3,528
10 MD-88 140,000 2,461
11 B737-300 150,000 5,414
12 B737-100 115,000 887
13 BAC 1-11 400 79,000 176
14 BAe-146-100 93,000 550
15 DHC-8-100 41,100 2,030
16 C130 155,000 441
17 F4 58,000 147
From analysis of heavy-weight deflectometer (HWD) test data using the AREA method (FAA,
2011), estimate the top-of-base k-value as 318 pci (subgrade category B). Based on COMFAA 3.0
analysis, using k = 318 pci, t = 18.0 in., and assuming R = 700 psi, obtain PCN on subgrade
category B of 91.3, taking the L-1011 as the reference aircraft. Report PCN as 91/R/B/W/T. The
COMFAA graphical output is shown in Figure 29.
FAARFIELD 2.0 computes PCR using the AC 150/5335-5D method. The FAARFIELD structure
is shown in Figure 30. To estimate k at the top of the subgrade, use Figure B-6 in Appendix B of
AC 150/5335-5C (FAA, 2014), which yields k (top of subgrade) = 204 pci. FAARFIELD
automatically converts this value to E = 18,614 psi. Alternatively, one could perform laboratory
tests (e.g., resilient modulus) on samples of subgrade material, or conduct HWD testing to estimate
40
the in-situ modulus. Using the estimated value E = 18,614 psi (128 MPa), the subgrade remains in
the medium strength (B) category. FAARFIELD 2.0 computes PCR 1037/R/B/W/T, with the B747
as critical aircraft, which could be reported as PCR 1040/R/B/W/T. The graphical output from
FAARFIELD is shown in Figure 31. There are no operating weight restrictions on any of the
aircraft used. The complete FAARFIELD PCR results tables are presented in Appendix A. Based
on Figure 35, there are no operating weight restrictions on the design aircraft.
Figure 29. COMFAA 3.0 Graphic Output, Airport H, Runway 5R-23L
41
Figure 30. FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport H, Runway 5R-23L
Figure 31. FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport H, Runway 5R-23L
42
7.5 AIRPORT I—INTERNATIONAL
Airport I is located in an Asian country. It has one runway, 17L-35R, which has both flexible and
rigid segments. The rigid segment of Runway 17L-35R was analyzed by the Boeing Company
using COMFAA 3.0 and assigned a PCN 29/R/A/W/T (Boeing, 2011).
• 10.2 in. PCC (P-501), R = 700 psi

• 3.9 in. gravel base (P-209)
• 13.4 in. mixed sand/gravel subbase (P-154)
• Subgrade, k = 440 pci
Table 15. Design Aircraft Traffic for Airport I, Runway 17L-35R
No. Aircraft Gross Wt., lbs. Annual Departures

1 B737 128,600 1,937
2 B737-800 174,700 52
3 B777 657,000 130
4 A319 142,000 52
5 A320 162,900 1,339
6 A320-100 150,800 3,744
7 A330-200 509,000 1,378
8 A330-300 515,700 104
9 B747-8 978,000 365
10 B787-8 503,500 730
7.5.1 FAARFIELD 2.0 (As-Built Thickness)
FAARFIELD 2.0 computes PCR using the AC 150/5335-5D method (FAA, 2022). The
FAARFIELD structure is shown in Figure 32. FAARFIELD 2.0 computes PCR 246/R/A/W/T,
with the A330-200 as critical aircraft, which could be reported as PCR 250/R/A/W/T. The
graphical output from FAARFIELD is shown in Figure 33. The complete FAARFIELD PCR
results tables are presented in Appendix A. Based on Figure 33, the section is inadequate for the
design aircraft, as all aircraft have higher ACR. This conclusion was also consistent with the
Boeing report (FAA, 2011).
7.5.2 FAARFIELD 2.0 (Design Thickness)
As revealed by the PCR analysis in 5.4.1, the as-built runway has insufficient PCC thickness for
the design traffic. For the given inputs, FAARFIELD 2.0 produces a concrete design thickness t
= 17.2 in. (437 mm) Using an assumed concrete thickness t = 17.3 in. (440 mm), obtain PCR
736/R/A, where the B747-8 is the critical aircraft. The FAARFIELD structure screen is shown in
43
Figure 34. The complete FAARFIELD PCR results tables are presented in Appendix A and the
output PCR chart in Figure 35. At design thickness, there are no operating weight restrictions on
any of the aircraft used.
Figure 32. FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport I, Runway 17L-35R (As-Built)
Figure 33. FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport I, Runway 17L-35R (As-Built)
44
Figure 34. FAARFIELD PCR Evaluation Structure, Airport I, Runway 17L-35R (Design
Thickness)
Figure 35. FAARFIELD PCR Graphical Output, Airport I, Runway 17L-35R (Design Thickness)
45
8. CONCLUSIONS
In anticipation of a requirement to publish PCR for public use paved runways at all 14 CFR Part
139-certificated airports by 2024, the FAA implemented a PCR computational procedure in its
FAARFIELD software program. The PCR determined by FAARFIELD can be reported on AMRs.
As demonstrated by the preceding examples, FAARFIELD returns a unique value of PCR for a
given pavement structure, design life, and aircraft traffic mix. The FAA computed PCR and PCN
for ten runways (five flexible and five rigid) where structural and traffic data were available. PCN
computations followed the requirements of cancelled AC 150/5335-5C and used computer
program COMFAA 3.0. Comparative PCR computations used FAARFIELD 2.0 and followed the
requirements of current AC 150/5335-5D.
FAARFIELD 2.0 returned a valid PCR for all five flexible PCR examples. For two of these cases
(designated Airport A and Airport F), COMFAA 3.0 failed to return a comparable numerical value
for the given inputs; and in both cases, this was because the evaluated structure had considerable
excess strength relative to the traffic that used it. In the three cases where COMFAA 3.0 did return
a flexible PCN, it was close to the PCN values actually reported in the AMR. In one case
(designated Airport F), the evaluated runway was a thick asphalt overlay on rigid pavement, which
should be reported as category “F” due to the dominant flexible pavement behavior. None of the
considered runways would require operating weight restrictions on the aircraft fleet using it based
on either the ACN/PCN or ACR/PCR systems.
Similarly, for all five rigid runway examples, the FAARFIELD-determined PCR was generally
comparable to the COMFAA-determined PCN. For the four rigid runways with PCN reported on
the AMR, COMFAA determined a value of PCN very close to the AMR value. In two cases
(designated Airports D and E), the assigned subgrade category changed from B to C. This is
possible because of the different definitions of subgrade strength categories in the ACN/PCN and
ACR/PCR systems. In the one case (Airport I) where ACN/PCN analysis found that the section
thickness was inadequate to support the design traffic, the ACR/PCR analysis came to the same
conclusion.
In certain cases where the numerical value of PCN could be determined by the COMFAA method,
the comparable value of PCR was close to 10 times PCN (e.g., Airport B, Runway 10R-28L).
However, in other cases, the computed PCR was as low as 8.0 times, or as high as 13.5 times,
PCN. In several cases the PCN and PCR numbers were not directly comparable because the
subgrade codes were different in the two systems. These comparative results show that it is always
necessary to compute PCR using the prescribed methods, and that PCR cannot be evaluated by
simple conversion from PCN.
9. REFERENCES
Ashtiani, A. Z., Murrell, S., Speir, R., & Brill, D. R. (2022, June). Machine learning solutions for
development of performance deterioration models of flexible airfield pavements. Paper
presented at the 11th International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways
and Airfields (BCRRA), Trondheim, Norway. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003222910-16
46
Boeing Company. (2011). Draft internal report, used by permission of Boeing Co. [e-mail dated
June 7, 2022].
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2011, September 30). Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5370-
11B, Use of nondestructive testing in the evaluation of airport pavements.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.info
rmation/documentID/1019535
FAA. (2014, August 14). AC 150/5335-5C (cancelled), Standardized method of reporting airport
pavement strength – PCN. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/
index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1025246
FAA. (2021a). FAARFIELD 2.0 [Computer software]. Retrieved from:

https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Products/Airport-Safety-Papers-Publications/Airport-
Safety-Detail/ArtMID/3682/ArticleID/2841/FAARFIELD-20
FAA. (2021b, June 7). AC 150/5320-6G, Airport pavement design and evaluation.
https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.curren
t/documentnumber/150_5320-6
FAA. (2022, April 29). AC 150/5335-5D, Standardized method of reporting airport pavement
strength – PCR. https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/
document.current/documentnumber/150_5335-5
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). (2020). Adoption of Amendment 15 to Annex

14, Volume I - Aerodrome design and operations (ICAO Ref. AP-ADO/TF/2 – WP/04).
https://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2020 APADOTF2/WP04, AI2 - Amdt 15 to
A14V1.pdf
ICAO. (2022). Doc 9157, Aerodrome design manual, Part 3 — Pavements, Third Edition –
2022. https://store.icao.int/en/aerodrome-design-manual-part-3-pavements-doc-9157-
part-3
47
APPENDIX A—FAARFIELD 2.0 PCR REPORTS
AIRPORT A
RUNWAY 10-28
Federal Aviation Administration FAARFIELD 2.0 PCR

Report
FAARFIELD 2.0.18a (Build 05/17/2022)
Job Name: PCR Comparisons 2
Section: Airport A RUNWAY 10‐28 Extension (as‐built)
This file name = PCR Results for HMA on Aggregate 2022‐05‐20 14:14:18
Evaluation pavement type is flexible and design program is FAARFIELD.
Section name: Airport A RUNWAY 10‐28 Extension (as‐built) in job file: PCR Comparisons
2.JOB.xml Units = US Customary
Analysis Type: HMA on Aggregate
Subgrade Modulus =36,500 psi (Subgrade Category is
A) Evaluation Pavement Thickness = 39.0 in.
Pass to Traffic Cycle (PtoTC) Ratio =
1.00 Maximum number of wheels per
gear = 6 CDF = 0.000
At least one aircraft has 4 or more wheels per gear.
A-1
Results Table 1. Input Traffic Data
Gross Weight Tire Pressure

No. Aircraft Name (lb) Percent Gross Weight (psi) Annual Departure 20 Years Coverage
1 A300‐600 Std Bogie 375,000 95.00 192 1,383 23,680
2 A330‐200 WV058 571,000 94.80 223 41 762
3 B767‐300 ER/Freighter 409,000 92.40 198 15 267
4 B767‐200 335,000 92.40 173 358 6,345
5 A310‐300 337,000 94.40 200 303 5,174
6 B777‐200 ER 662,000 91.80 206 320 5,733
7 B787‐8 502,500 91.40 228 148 2,698
8 A318‐100 std 130,100 90.40 155 446 7,600
9 A319‐100 std 141,094 92.60 172 5,781 98,343
10 A320‐200 std 162,040 93.80 199 10,291 175,093
11 A321‐100 std 183,000 95.60 196 702 12,008
12 B717‐200 HGW 110,100 94.40 148 15,700 246,725
13 B727‐200 Advanced Option 209,000 93.00 172 1,476 25,097
14 B737‐300 124,500 90.80 179 14,512 234,973
15 B737‐700 171,000 91.80 217 75,464 1,266,132
16 B737‐800 171,000 93.60 200 5,804 97,326
17 B737‐900 174,200 94.60 203 19 319
18 B757‐200 240,000 91.20 172 1,097 18,173
19 B757‐300 270,000 92.60 194 2,577 42,792
20 B757‐200 250,000 91.20 179 1,810 30,026
21 DC9‐32 109,000 92.40 155 260 4,074
22 Learjet 35/36/35A/36A 18,300 95.00 174 1,273 16,245
23 MD‐83 150,500 94.80 182 371 5,986
24 D‐75 80,500 95.00 118 1,357 20,627
25 D‐100 103,593 95.00 145 8,687 134,349
26 D‐75 72,500 95.00 106 17,360 262,507
27 D‐50 53,000 95.00 85 16,384 245,620
A-2
28 D‐30 34,500 95.00 98 7,555 104,412
29 S‐5 5,500 95.00 55 1,200 12,929
30 S‐10 8,750 95.00 44 2,820 31,311
31 S‐5 4,750 95.00 48 266 2,842
Results Table 2. PCR Value
Aircraft Critical Aircraft Total Equiv. Max. Allowable Gross Weight of critical ACR Thick at Max.
No. Name Departures Aircraft (lb) MGW (in.) PCR/F/A
A330‐200
1 41 2,873,867 61.2 6616.9
WV058
Results Table 3. Hot-Mix Asphalt on Aggregate ACR at Indicated Gross Weight and Strength
Tire
Gross Weight Percent Gross Weight on Main Pressure ACR Thick (in.)
No. Aircraft Name (lb) Gear (psi) (A) ACR/F/A
1 A300‐600 Std Bogie 375,000 95.00 192 17.3 418.4
2 A330‐200 WV058 571,000 94.80 223 20.8 626.7
3 B767‐300 ER/Freighter 409,000 92.40 198 17.7 437
4 B767‐200 335,000 92.40 173 15.8 348.6
5 A310‐300 337,000 94.40 200 16.2 365.2
6 B777‐200 ER 662,000 91.80 206 18.0 474.1
7 B787‐8 502,500 91.40 228 19.6 549.3
8 A318‐100 std 130,100 90.40 155 13.0 235.3
9 A319‐100 std 141,094 92.60 172 14.2 279.1
A-3
Tire
10 A320‐200 std 162,040 93.80 199 15.7 343.2
11 A321‐100 std 183,000 95.60 196 16.9 397.3
12 B717‐200 HGW 110,100 94.40 148 12.8 225.6
B727‐200 Advanced
13 209,000 93.00 172 17.6 434.1
Option
14 B737‐300 124,500 90.80 179 13.6 256.8
15 B737‐700 171,000 91.80 217 16.0 357.1
16 B737‐800 171,000 93.60 200 16.3 368.7
17 B737‐900 174,200 94.60 203 16.5 380.7
18 B757‐200 240,000 91.20 172 13.3 246
19 B757‐300 270,000 92.60 194 14.4 289.3
20 B757‐200 250,000 91.20 179 13.6 256.8
21 DC9‐32 109,000 92.40 155 12.5 215.5
22 Learjet 35/36/35A/36A 18,300 95.00 174 4.7 37.1
23 MD‐83 150,500 94.80 182 15.5 334
24 D‐75 80,500 95.00 118 10.0 139.2
25 D‐100 103,593 95.00 145 12.2 205.6
26 D‐75 72,500 95.00 106 9.4 123.6
27 D‐50 53,000 95.00 85 6.7 67
28 D‐30 34,500 95.00 98 5.5 47.2
29 S‐5 5,500 95.00 55 4.6 15.2
30 S‐10 8,750 95.00 44 4.6 20.1
31 S‐5 4,750 95.00 48 4.6 13.7
A-4
Federal Aviation Administration FAARFIELD 2.0 PCR Report
Section: Airport A RUNWAY 10‐28 Extension (design)
Section name: Airport A RUNWAY 10‐28 Extension (design) in job file: PCR Comparisons 2.JOB.xml
Units = US Customary
Subgrade Modulus =36,500 psi (Subgrade Category is A)
Evaluation Pavement Thickness = 16.5 in.
Pass to Traffic Cycle (PtoTC) Ratio = 1.00
Maximum number of wheels per gear = 6
CDF = 0.440
A-5

1 A300‐600 Std Bogie 375,000 95.00 192 1,383 17,709
2 A330‐200 WV058 571,000 94.80 223 41 462
3 B767‐300 ER/Freighter 409,000 92.40 198 15 177
4 B767‐200 335,000 92.40 173 358 4,092
5 A310‐300 337,000 94.40 200 303 3,819
6 B777‐200 ER 662,000 91.80 206 320 3,370
7 B787‐8 502,500 91.40 228 148 1,650
8 A318‐100 std 130,100 90.40 155 446 5,544
9 A319‐100 std 141,094 92.60 172 5,781 71,114
10 A320‐200 std 162,040 93.80 199 10,291 126,764
11 A321‐100 std 183,000 95.60 196 702 8,931
12 B717‐200 HGW 110,100 94.40 148 15,700 194,244
13 B727‐200 Advanced Option 209,000 93.00 172 1,476 20,156
14 B737‐300 124,500 90.80 179 14,512 176,746
15 B737‐700 171,000 91.80 217 75,464 957,226
16 B737‐800 171,000 93.60 200 5,804 73,398
17 B737‐900 174,200 94.60 203 19 242
18 B757‐200 240,000 91.20 172 1,097 13,104
19 B757‐300 270,000 92.60 194 2,577 31,200
20 B757‐200 250,000 91.20 179 1,810 21,791
21 DC9‐32 109,000 92.40 155 260 3,192
22 Learjet 35/36/35A/36A 18,300 95.00 174 1,273 10,495
23 MD‐83 150,500 94.80 182 371 4,810
24 D‐75 80,500 95.00 118 1,357 15,744
25 D‐100 103,593 95.00 145 8,687 104,125
26 D‐75 72,500 95.00 106 17,360 199,436
27 D‐50 53,000 95.00 85 16,384 185,177
A-6
28 D‐30 34,500 95.00 98 7,555 73,429
29 S‐5 5,500 95.00 55 1,200 6,962
30 S‐10 8,750 95.00 44 2,820 17,502
31 S‐5 4,750 95.00 48 266 1,514
Results Table 2. Pavement Classification Rating Value
Aircraft Critical Aircraft Total Equiv. Max allowable Gross Weight of Critical ACR Thick at Max.
No. Name Departures Aircraft (lb) MGW (in.) PCR/F/A
A330‐200
1 92 634,434 21.7 699.5
WV058
Tire
1 A300‐600 Std Bogie 375,000 95.00 192 17.3 418.4
2 A330‐200 WV058 571,000 94.80 223 20.8 626.7
3 B767‐300 ER/Freighter 409,000 92.40 198 17.7 437
4 B767‐200 335,000 92.40 173 15.8 348.6
5 A310‐300 337,000 94.40 200 16.2 365.2
6 B777‐200 ER 662,000 91.80 206 18.0 474.1
7 B787‐8 502,500 91.40 228 19.6 549.3
8 A318‐100 std 130,100 90.40 155 13.0 235.3
9 A319‐100 std 141,094 92.60 172 14.2 279.1
A-7
Tire
10 A320‐200 std 162,040 93.80 199 15.7 343.2
11 A321‐100 std 183,000 95.60 196 16.9 397.3
12 B717‐200 HGW 110,100 94.40 148 12.8 225.6
B727‐200 Advanced
13 209,000 93.00 172 17.6 434.1
Option
14 B737‐300 124,500 90.80 179 13.6 256.8
15 B737‐700 171,000 91.80 217 16.0 357.1
16 B737‐800 171,000 93.60 200 16.3 368.7
17 B737‐900 174,200 94.60 203 16.5 380.7
18 B757‐200 240,000 91.20 172 13.3 246
19 B757‐300 270,000 92.60 194 14.4 289.3
20 B757‐200 250,000 91.20 179 13.6 256.8
21 DC9‐32 109,000 92.40 155 12.5 215.5
22 Learjet 35/36/35A/36A 18,300 95.00 174 4.7 37.1
23 MD‐83 150,500 94.80 182 15.5 334
24 D‐75 80,500 95.00 118 10.0 139.2
25 D‐100 103,593 95.00 145 12.2 205.6
26 D‐75 72,500 95.00 106 9.4 123.6
27 D‐50 53,000 95.00 85 6.7 67
28 D‐30 34,500 95.00 98 5.5 47.2
29 S‐5 5,500 95.00 55 4.6 15.2
30 S‐10 8,750 95.00 44 4.6 20.1
31 S‐5 4,750 95.00 48 4.6 13.7
A-8
AIRPORT B
RUNWAY 10L-28R CENTRAL SECTIONS

Report
Section: Airport B RUNWAY 10L‐28R
This file name = PCR Results for New Flexible 2022‐05‐19 16:03:26
Section name: Airport B RUNWAY 10L‐28R in job file: PCR Comparisons
Analysis Type: New Flexible
Subgrade Modulus =11,000 psi (Subgrade Category is
C) Evaluation Pavement Thickness = 27.8 in.
gear = 6 CDF = 0.700
A-9

1 S‐10 10,000 95.00 50 1 11
2 D‐30 30,000 95.00 85 3 43
3 CRJ100/200 47,450 93.00 159 2,909 42,407
4 ERJ‐145 XR 53,131 95.00 174 7,546 112,274
5 Q400/Dash 8 Series 400 60,198 93.00 211 742 11,135
6 CRJ700 72,500 95.00 141 1,461 24,276
7 Gulfstream‐G‐IV 74,600 95.00 184 2 29
8 CRJ900 80,500 95.00 153 218 3,617
9 EMB‐175 STD 89,000 95.00 146 4,328 75,459
10 B737‐200 128,600 92.80 175 9 162
11 EMB‐190 STD 114,000 95.00 159 60 1,113
12 B717‐200 HGW 121,000 94.40 163 874 14,982
13 DC9‐51 122,000 94.00 172 60 1,026
14 B737‐500 134,000 92.20 194 138 2,465
15 B737‐300 140,000 90.80 201 1,691 30,193
16 A319‐100 std 145,505 92.60 177 895 17,018
17 B737‐400 150,500 93.80 185 10 180
18 B737‐700 154,500 91.80 196 2,789 51,711
19 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 1,339 23,734
20 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 94.00 193 100 1,777
21 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 433 8,072
22 A321‐100 std 183,000 95.60 196 1 19
23 B737‐900 188,200 94.60 220 1 19
24 B727‐200 Advanced Option 209,500 93.00 173 1 19
25 B757‐200 256,000 91.20 183 67 1,231
26 B767‐200 ER 396,000 90.80 190 1 19
A-10
27 C‐17A 585,000 95.00 138 233 5,385
28 S‐3 3,000 95.00 50 579 5,118
29 S‐5 5,000 95.00 50 2,314 21,245
30 D‐15 10,000 95.00 37 165 1,925
31 D‐20 20,000 95.00 65 661 8,107
32 D‐30 30,000 95.00 85 2,892 37,591
No. Name Departures Aircraft (lb) MGW (in.) PCR/F/C
1 C‐17A 444 598,037 27.8 571.9
Results Table 3. New Flexible ACR at Indicated Gross Weight and Strength
Gross Weight Percent Gross Weight on Main Tire Pressure ACR Thick (in.)
No. Aircraft Name (lb) Gear (psi) (C) ACR/F/C
1 S‐10 10,000 95.00 50 6.4 30.3
2 D‐30 30,000 95.00 85 10.3 67
3 CRJ100/200 47,450 93 159 14.0 118.4
4 ERJ‐145 XR 53,131 95.00 174 15.2 138.9
5 Q400/Dash 8 Series 400 60,198 93 211 16.1 155.6
6 CRJ700 72,500 95 141 16.8 170.2
7 Gulfstream‐G‐IV 74,600 95.00 184 20.1 255.4
8 CRJ900 80,500 95 153 18.0 196.2
A-11
9 EMB‐175 STD 89,000 95.00 146 18.4 205.3
10 B737‐200 128,600 92.80 175 21.6 310.2
11 EMB‐190 STD 114,000 95.00 159 20.2 260.7
12 B717‐200 HGW 121,000 94.40 163 22.0 325.6
13 DC9‐51 122,000 94.00 172 22.1 328.4
14 B737‐500 134,000 92.20 194 22.2 332.3
15 B737‐300 140,000 90.80 201 22.5 346.4
16 A319‐100 std 145,505 92.60 177 22.3 336.5
17 B737‐400 150,500 93.80 185 23.8 394.5
18 B737‐700 154,500 91.80 196 23.2 375.3
19 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 25.5 463.3
20 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 94.00 193 26.1 487.5
21 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 25.2 448.9
22 A321‐100 std 183,000 95.60 196 25.7 472.5
23 B737‐900 188,200 94.60 220 26.4 501.1
B727‐200 Advanced
24 209,500 93.00 173 27.7 557.5
Option
25 B757‐200 256,000 91.20 183 22.3 338.7
26 B767‐200 ER 396,000 90.80 190 26.6 508.7
27 C‐17A 585,000 95.00 138 27.4 553
28 S‐3 3,000 95.00 50 4.6 10.5
29 S‐5 5,000 95.00 50 4.6 15.7
30 D‐15 10,000 95.00 37 4.6 17.6
31 D‐20 20,000 95.00 65 8.2 44.8
32 D‐30 30,000 95.00 85 10.3 67
A-12
AIRPORT B
RUNWAY 10L-28R EXTENSION

Report
Section: Airport B RUNWAY 10L‐28R Extensions
Section name: Airport B RUNWAY 10L‐28R Extensions in job file: PCR Comparisons
Subgrade Modulus =11,000 psi (Subgrade Category
is C) Evaluation Pavement Thickness = 40.0 in.
gear = 6 CDF = 0.000
A-13

1 S‐10 10,000 95.00 50 1 14
2 D‐30 30,000 95.00 85 3 50
3 CRJ100/200 47,450 93.00 159 2,909 49,445
4 ERJ‐145 XR 53,131 95.00 174 7,546 130,291
5 Q400/Dash 8 Series 400 60,198 93.00 211 742 12,883
6 CRJ700 72,500 95.00 141 1,461 27,282
7 Gulfstream‐G‐IV 74,600 95.00 184 2 34
8 CRJ900 80,500 95.00 153 218 4,067
9 EMB‐175 STD 89,000 95.00 146 4,328 83,604
10 B737‐200 128,600 92.80 175 9 178
11 EMB‐190 STD 114,000 95.00 159 60 1,211
12 B717‐200 HGW 121,000 94.40 163 874 16,673
13 DC9‐51 122,000 94.00 172 60 1,142
14 B737‐500 134,000 92.20 194 138 2,712
15 B737‐300 140,000 90.80 201 1,691 33,218
16 A319‐100 std 145,505 92.60 177 895 18,387
17 B737‐400 150,500 93.80 185 10 198
18 B737‐700 154,500 91.80 196 2,789 56,276
19 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 1,339 26,177
20 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 94.00 193 100 1,959
21 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 433 8,770
22 A321‐100 std 183,000 95.60 196 1 21
23 B737‐900 188,200 94.60 220 1 20
24 B727‐200 Advanced Option 209,500 93.00 173 1 21
25 B757‐200 256,000 91.20 183 67 1,343
26 B767‐200 ER 396,000 90.80 190 1 21
A-14
27 C‐17A 585,000 95.00 138 233 5,467
28 S‐3 3,000 95.00 50 579 6,776
29 S‐5 5,000 95.00 50 2,314 27,775
30 D‐15 10,000 95.00 37 165 2,335
31 D‐20 20,000 95.00 65 661 9,688
32 D‐30 30,000 95.00 85 2,892 44,165
No. Name Departures Aircraft (lb) MGW (in.) PCR/F/C
1 C‐17A 233 936,975 38.4 1217.8
1 S‐10 10,000 95.00 50 6.4 30.3
2 D‐30 30,000 95.00 85 10.3 67
3 CRJ100/200 47,450 93 159 14.0 118.4
4 ERJ‐145 XR 53,131 95.00 174 15.2 138.9
5 Q400/Dash 8 Series 400 60,198 93 211 16.1 155.6
6 CRJ700 72,500 95 141 16.8 170.2
7 Gulfstream‐G‐IV 74,600 95.00 184 20.1 255.4
8 CRJ900 80,500 95 153 18.0 196.2
A-15
9 EMB‐175 STD 89,000 95.00 146 18.4 205.3
10 B737‐200 128,600 92.80 175 21.6 310.2
11 EMB‐190 STD 114,000 95.00 159 20.2 260.7
12 B717‐200 HGW 121,000 94.40 163 22.0 325.6
13 DC9‐51 122,000 94.00 172 22.1 328.4
14 B737‐500 134,000 92.20 194 22.2 332.3
15 B737‐300 140,000 90.80 201 22.5 346.4
16 A319‐100 std 145,505 92.60 177 22.3 336.5
17 B737‐400 150,500 93.80 185 23.8 394.5
18 B737‐700 154,500 91.80 196 23.2 375.3
19 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 25.5 463.3
20 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 94.00 193 26.1 487.5
21 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 25.2 448.9
22 A321‐100 std 183,000 95.60 196 25.7 472.5
23 B737‐900 188,200 94.60 220 26.4 501.1
B727‐200 Advanced
24 209,500 93.00 173 27.7 557.5
Option
25 B757‐200 256,000 91.20 183 22.3 338.7
26 B767‐200 ER 396,000 90.80 190 26.6 508.7
27 C‐17A 585,000 95.00 138 27.4 553
28 S‐3 3,000 95.00 50 4.6 10.5
29 S‐5 5,000 95.00 50 4.6 15.7
30 D‐15 10,000 95.00 37 4.6 17.6
31 D‐20 20,000 95.00 65 8.2 44.8
32 D‐30 30,000 95.00 85 10.3 67
A-16
AIRPORT B
RUNWAY 10R-28L

Report
Section: Airport B RUNWAY 10R‐28L
This file name = PCR Results for New Flexible 2022‐05‐19 16:18:48
Section name: Airport B RUNWAY 10R‐28L in job file: PCR Comparisons
Analysis Type: New Flexible
Subgrade Modulus =10,500 psi (Subgrade Category
is C) Evaluation Pavement Thickness = 28.0 in.
gear = 4 CDF = 0.000
A-17

1 B767‐300 317,000 92.40 176 365 5,652
2 B757‐200 256,000 91.20 183 1,360 20,870
3 B737‐900 188,200 94.60 220 1,360 21,261
4 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 4,380 68,176
5 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 365 5,404
6 B737‐400 150,500 93.80 185 365 5,498
7 B737‐300 140,000 90.80 201 17,885 266,731
8 B737‐500 134,000 92.20 194 2,920 43,563
9 B717‐200 HGW 122,000 94.40 164 35,310 505,950
10 CRJ900 84,500 95.00 161 6,570 91,337
11 CRJ700 75,000 95.00 146 18,615 258,967
12 ERJ‐145 ER 48,500 95.00 154 32,405 405,384
13 S‐10 8,750 95.00 44 550 4,861
14 S‐3 2,300 95.00 38 600 4,776
15 D‐30 30,000 95.00 85 6,525 77,404
16 S‐10 10,000 95.00 50 15,225 136,426
17 D‐50 50,000 95.00 80 40,400 537,250
Aircraft Critical aircraft Total equiv. Max allowable Gross Weight of critical ACR Thick at max.
No. Name departures aircraft (lb) MGW (in.) PCR/F/C
1 B737‐900 1,360 259,701 31.8 775.3
A-18
Results Table 3. New Flexible ACR at Indicated Gross Weight and Strength

No. Aircraft Name (lb) Percent Gross Weight on Main Gear (psi) ACR Thick (in.) (C) ACR/F/C
1 B767‐300 317,000 92.40 176 23.5 384.1
2 B757‐200 256,000 91.20 183 22.3 338.7
3 B737‐900 188,200 94.60 220 26.4 501.1
4 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 25.2 448.9
5 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 25.5 463.3
6 B737‐400 150,500 93.80 185 23.8 394.5
7 B737‐300 140,000 90.80 201 22.5 346.4
8 B737‐500 134,000 92.20 194 22.2 332.3
9 B717‐200 HGW 122,000 94.40 164 22.1 329.5
10 CRJ900 84,500 95 161 18.5 208.4
11 CRJ700 75,000 95 146 17.2 177.2
12 ERJ‐145 ER 48,500 95.00 154 14.2 121.5
13 S‐10 8,750 95.00 44 5.8 26.3
14 S‐3 2,300 95.00 38 4.6 8.4
15 D‐30 30,000 95.00 85 10.3 67
16 S‐10 10,000 95.00 50 6.4 30.3
17 D‐50 50,000 95.00 80 13.3 108.1
A-19
AIRPORT C
RUNWAY 01-19


Section: Airport C RUNWAY 01‐19
Evaluation pavement type is flexible and design program is FAARFIELD. Section
name: Airport C RUNWAY 01‐19 in job file: PCR Comparisons 2.JOB.xml Units =
US Customary

Subgrade Modulus =15,000 psi (Subgrade Category is B)
CDF = 0.000
A-20

1 CRJ100ER/200ER 51,000 93.00 172 6,169 74,640
2 CRJ700 71,000 95.00 138 2,210 30,480
3 ERJ‐145 ER 42,300 95.00 134 15,675 193,231
4 EMB‐170 STD 85,100 95.00 135 5,626 81,683
5 EMB‐190 STD 114,200 95.00 159 6,661 102,748
6 B717‐200 HGW 121,000 94.40 163 7,493 106,761
7 B737‐300 140,000 90.80 201 3,330 49,435
8 B737‐700 153,500 91.80 195 10,032 154,638
9 B737‐800 173,000 93.60 202 7,524 116,587
10 B737‐900 174,200 94.60 203 209 3,241
11 MD‐83 140,000 94.80 170 5,706 83,404
12 A319‐100 opt 154,300 91.40 185 14,986 237,021
13 A320‐200 std 162,000 93.80 199 10,407 164,395
14 A321‐100 std 181,200 95.60 194 1,249 19,869
15 B757‐200 240,000 91.20 172 8,031 122,354
16 B767‐300 345,000 92.40 191 207 3,208
No. Name Departures Aircraft (lb) MGW (in.) PCR/F/B
A321‐100
1 1,249 263,373 26.1 677.4
std
A-21

No. Aircraft Name (lb) Percent Gross Weight on Main Gear (psi) ACR Thick (in.) (B) ACR/F/B
1 CRJ100ER/200ER 51,000 93 172 11.7 118.2
2 CRJ700 71,000 95 138 13.3 151.7
3 ERJ‐145 ER 42,300 95.00 134 10.2 91.9
4 EMB‐170 STD 85,100 95.00 135 14.2 173.9
5 EMB‐190 STD 114,200 95.00 159 16.7 239.9
6 B717‐200 HGW 121,000 94.40 163 18.2 285.7
7 B737‐300 140,000 90.80 201 18.9 313.8
8 B737‐700 153,500 91.80 195 19.6 341.6
9 B737‐800 173,000 93.60 202 21.0 405.7
10 B737‐900 174,200 94.60 203 21.2 414.5
11 MD‐83 140,000 94.80 170 19.6 341.6
12 A319‐100 opt 154,300 91.40 185 19.3 330.1
13 A320‐200 std 162,000 93.80 199 20.2 365.6
14 A321‐100 std 181,200 95.60 194 21.4 424.2
15 B757‐200 240,000 91.20 172 17.7 268.9
16 B767‐300 345,000 92.40 191 20.6 386.1
A-22
AIRPORT D
RUNWAY 10R-28L


Section: Airport D RUNWAY 10R‐28L
This file name = PCR Results for New Rigid 2022‐05‐23 14:11:52 Evaluation
pavement type is rigid and design program is FAARFIELD.
Section name: Airport D RUNWAY 10R‐28L in job file: PCR Comparisons 2.JOB.xml
Analysis Type: New Rigid

CDF = 0.020
A-23

1 A300‐600 Std Bogie 380,518 95.00 194 48 395
2 A310‐200 315,041 93.20 193 22 30
3 A310‐300 315,041 94.40 187 16 22
4 A318‐100 std 124,341 90.40 148 9,531 55,394
5 A320‐200 std 162,922 93.80 200 8,505 70,884
6 A321‐100 std 183,866 95.60 197 1,895 17,295
7 A330‐200 WV020 509,047 94.80 228 7 141
8 A330‐300 WV020 509,047 95.80 206 23 491
9 A380‐800 WV000 1,239,000 38.00 218 12 63
10 A380‐800 WV000 Belly 1,239,000 57.00 218 12 57
11 B727‐200 Advanced Basic 185,200 96.00 148 28 48
12 B737‐200 Advanced QC 128,600 92.00 182 97 126
13 B717‐200 HGW 122,000 94.40 164 415 580
14 B737‐300 140,000 90.80 201 571 735
15 B737‐400 150,500 93.80 185 381 538
16 B737‐500 134,000 92.20 194 74 96
17 B737‐700 155,000 91.80 197 9,055 71,396
18 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 3,310 28,792
19 B737‐900 174,700 94.60 204 631 6,927
20 B747‐400ER 913,000 46.80 230 2 22
21 B747‐400ER Belly 913,000 46.80 230 2 22
22 B757‐200 256,000 91.20 183 816 3,009
23 B757‐300 273,500 92.60 197 247 1,134
24 B767‐200 ER 396,000 90.80 190 12 16
25 B767‐300 ER/Freighter 413,000 92.40 200 125 572
26 B767‐400 ER 451,000 94.00 215 28 308
27 B777‐200 ER 658,000 91.80 205 18 175
A-24
28 B787‐8 486,000 91.40 220 138 1,412
29 C‐130 155,000 95.00 105 182 660
30 DC/MD‐10‐10/10F 458,000 93.40 195 159 869
31 D‐100 100,000 95.00 140 2,100 18,020
32 D‐20 20,000 95.00 65 6,263 28,126
33 D‐30 30,000 95.00 85 1,858 8,854
34 D‐50 45,000 95.00 72 744 6,746
35 D‐75 75,000 95.00 110 91 924
36 MD‐11 633,000 77.60 206 30 163
37 MD‐11 Belly 633,000 17.00 180 30 199
38 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 527 770
39 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 94.00 193 42 63
40 CRJ100/200 47,450 93.00 159 1,257 9,267
41 CRJ700 72,500 95.00 141 616 3,623
Aircraft Critical Aircraft Total Equiv. Max. Allowable Gross Weight of Critical ACR Thick at Max.
No. Name Departures Aircraft (lb) MGW (in.) PCR/R/B
A380‐800
1 195 1,423,895 18.5 1036.1
WV000
A-25
Results Table 3. New Rigid ACR at Indicated Gross Weight and Strength
Tire Pressure
No. Aircraft Name Gross Weight (lb) Percent Gross Weight on Main Gear (psi)
1 A300‐600 Std Bogie 380,518 95.00 194
2 A310‐200 315,041 93.20 193
3 A310‐300 315,041 94.40 187
4 A318‐100 std 124,341 90.40 148
5 A320‐200 std 162,922 93.80 200
6 A321‐100 std 183,866 95.60 197
7 A330‐200 WV020 509,047 94.80 228
8 A330‐300 WV020 509,047 95.80 206
9 A380‐800 WV000 1,239,000 95 218
10 B727‐200 Advanced Basic 185,200 96.00 148
11 B737‐200 Advanced QC 128,600 92.00 182
12 B717‐200 HGW 122,000 94.40 164
13 B737‐300 140,000 90.80 201
14 B737‐400 150,500 93.80 185
15 B737‐500 134,000 92.20 194
16 B737‐700 155,000 91.80 197
17 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204
18 B737‐900 174,700 94.60 204
19 B747‐400ER 913,000 93.6 230
20 B757‐200 256,000 91.20 183
21 B757‐300 273,500 92.60 197
22 B767‐200 ER 396,000 90.80 190
23 B767‐300 ER/Freighter 413,000 92.40 200
24 B767‐400 ER 451,000 94.00 215
25 B777‐200 ER 658,000 91.80 205
26 B787‐8 486,000 91.40 220
27 C‐130 155,000 95.00 105
A-26
Tire Pressure
No. Aircraft Name Gross Weight (lb) Percent Gross Weight on Main Gear (psi)
28 DC/MD‐10‐10/10F 458,000 93.40 195
29 D‐100 100,000 95.00 140
30 D‐20 20,000 95.00 65
31 D‐30 30,000 95.00 85
32 D‐50 45,000 95.00 72
33 D‐75 75,000 95.00 110
34 MD‐11 633,000 94.60001 206
35 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195
36 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 94.00 193
37 CRJ100/200 47,450 93 159
38 CRJ700 72,500 95 141
Results Table 3. Continued
No. Aircraft Name (A) (B) (C) (D) ACR/A ACR/B ACR/C ACR/D
1 A300‐600 Std Bogie 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 538.1 633.2 705.6 783.1
2 A310‐200 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 395.1 464.6 522.7 586.4
3 A310‐300 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 398.2 470 529.7 594.8
4 A318‐100 std 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 281.4 302.8 318.4 334
5 A320‐200 std 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 448.6 470.3 485.7 501.5
6 A321‐100 std 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 528.2 553 570.3 588.6
7 A330‐200 WV020 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 623.5 710.1 791.2 889.2
8 A330‐300 WV020 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 610.6 702.4 787.8 889.3
9 A380‐800 WV000 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 641.3 815.3 976.2 1159.2
11 B727‐200 Advanced Basic 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 510.1 541.8 563 584.8
12 B737‐200 Advanced QC 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 344.6 363.5 375.7 389.3
13 B717‐200 HGW 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 347.5 366.7 378.3 391.3
A-27
No. Aircraft Name (A) (B) (C) (D) ACR/A ACR/B ACR/C ACR/D
14 B737‐300 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 386.5 403.8 416.7 429.3
15 B737‐400 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 429.7 450.3 464.2 478.8
16 B737‐500 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 370 388 400.2 413.4
17 B737‐700 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 420.8 441.8 455.6 470.4
18 B737‐800 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 502.6 524.8 539.3 555.7
19 B737‐900 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 509.1 530.9 546.2 562.7
20 B747‐400ER 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 646.5 751.1 833.7 920.8
22 B757‐200 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 313.4 373.2 421.1 472.7
23 B757‐300 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 362 428.3 479.3 533.9
24 B767‐200 ER 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 476.2 563.9 636.2 714.9
25 B767‐300 ER/Freighter 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 529.4 623.1 698.9 781.1
26 B767‐400 ER 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 636.8 745.4 829.3 917.2
27 B777‐200 ER 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 575 741.9 885.4 1042.6
28 B787‐8 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 640.8 745.8 831.2 922.7
29 C‐130 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 274.3 305.3 329.3 354.6
30 DC/MD‐10‐10/10F 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 539.6 631.5 712.9 805.6
31 D‐100 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 276.8 294 305.8 317.2
32 D‐20 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 32.7 39.3 43.9 48.6
33 D‐30 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 59.8 68.1 73.9 79.6
34 D‐50 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 83.6 96.7 105.7 114.5
35 D‐75 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 185.3 201.8 212.8 223.4
36 MD‐11 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 668.1 784.2 879.1 984.9
38 MD‐83 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 494.3 513.8 526.8 540.5
39 MD‐90‐30 ER 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 515.5 535.7 549.5 563.5
40 CRJ100/200 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 126.9 134.5 139.8 145.2
41 CRJ700 7.2 7.9 8.4 9 180.9 194.6 204.1 213.7
A-28
AIRPORT E
RUNWAY 10C-28C


Section: Airport E RUNWAY 10C‐28C
Section name: Airport E RUNWAY 10C‐28C in job file: PCR Comparisons 2.JOB.xml

Subgrade Modulus =12,542 psi (Subgrade Category is C)
CDF = 0.570
A-29

1 A330‐200 WV020 469,000 94.80 210 81 785
2 A340‐300 std 600,000 79.40 203 840 8,862
3 A340‐300 std Belly 600,000 15.20 156 840 5,462
4 A380‐800 WV000 894,000 38.00 157 424 1,884
5 A380‐800 WV000 Belly 894,000 57.00 157 424 1,697
6 B747‐400 873,000 46.60 199 2,722 15,527
7 B747‐400 Belly 873,000 46.60 199 2,722 15,551
8 B767‐300 ER/Freighter 409,000 92.40 198 3,454 18,778
9 B777‐300 722,000 94.80 234 3,372 17,023
10 A300‐600 Std Bogie 375,000 95.00 192 1,019 5,994
11 DC/MD‐10‐10/10F 458,000 93.40 195 71 370
12 MD‐11 621,000 77.60 202 606 3,262
13 MD‐11 Belly 621,000 17.00 177 606 3,989
14 B757‐200 250,000 91.20 179 291 1,439
15 A320‐200 std 150,000 93.80 184 24,656 127,254
16 B737‐800 173,000 93.60 202 26,655 149,152
17 B727‐200 Advanced Basic 172,000 96.00 137 1,346 8,914
18 D‐50 45,000 95.00 72 28,229 143,547
19 S‐30 22,500 95.00 56 3,808 10,436
No. Name Departures Aircraft (lb) MGW (in.) PCR/R/C
1 B777‐300 3,401 739,602 20.1 1137.8
A-30

No. Aircraft Name (lb) Percent Gross Weight on Main Gear (psi) ACR Thick (in.) (C) ACR/R/C
1 A330‐200 WV020 469,000 94.80 210 15.8 704.7
2 A340‐300 std 600,000 94.60001 203 16.4 762
3 A380‐800 WV000 894,000 95 157 14.1 565.8
4 B747‐400 873,000 93.2 199 16.4 762.6
5 B767‐300 ER/Freighter 409,000 92.40 198 15.6 688.2
6 B777‐300 722,000 94.80 234 19.7 1094
7 A300‐600 Std Bogie 375,000 95.00 192 15.6 691.7
8 DC/MD‐10‐10/10F 458,000 93.40 195 15.9 712.9
9 MD‐11 621,000 94.60001 202 17.4 855.3
10 B757‐200 250,000 91.20 179 12.0 406.8
11 A320‐200 std 150,000 93.80 184 12.5 440.7
12 B737‐800 173,000 93.60 202 13.7 532.5
B727‐200 Advanced
13 172,000 96.00 137 13.5 515.7
Basic
14 D‐50 45,000 95.00 72 6.0 105.7
15 S‐30 22,500 95.00 56 4.6 65.1
A-31
AIRPORT F
RUNWAY 9-27
(FLEXIBLE PCR)


Section: Airport F RUNWAY 9‐27
This file name = PCR Results for HMA on Rigid 2022‐05‐23 14:35:23
Evaluation pavement type is rigid and design program is FAARFIELD. Section
name: Airport F RUNWAY 9‐27 in job file: PCR Comparisons 2.JOB.xml Units
= US Customary
Analysis Type: HMA on Rigid

Subgrade Modulus =7,500 psi (Subgrade Category is D)
CDF = 0.000
A-32

1 A300‐600 Std Bogie 380,518 95.00 194 18 292
2 A318‐100 opt 141,978 89.20 169 553 8,868
3 A320‐200 std 150,796 93.80 185 170 2,727
4 A321‐100 std 183,866 95.60 197 28 454
5 B717‐200 HGW 122,000 94.40 164 111 1,622
6 B727‐200 Advanced Basic 185,200 96.00 148 5 81
7 B737‐300 140,000 90.80 201 651 9,883
8 B737‐700 155,000 91.80 197 2,000 31,462
9 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 235 3,715
10 B737‐900 ER 188,200 94.60 220 53 838
11 B757‐200 256,000 91.20 183 137 2,137
12 B767‐400 ER 451,000 94.00 215 4 67
13 B787‐9 555,000 93.60 223 4 58
14 CRJ100/200 47,450 93.00 159 102 1,280
15 CRJ700 72,500 95.00 141 473 6,712
16 DC/MD‐10‐10/10F 458,000 93.40 195 10 155
17 DC9‐32 109,000 92.40 155 9 130
18 Q400/Dash 8 Series 400 64,700 93.00 227 122 1,579
19 ERJ‐145 ER 45,635 95.00 145 143 1,833
20 ERJ‐145 XR 53,352 95.00 175 187 2,393
21 EMB‐170 STD 79,697 95.00 126 864 12,804
22 EMB‐190 STD 105,712 95.00 147 11 172
23 MD‐11 633,000 77.60 206 17 267
24 MD‐11 Belly 633,000 17.00 180 17 281
25 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 209 3,151
26 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 94.00 193 235 3,552
A-33
No. Name Departures Aircraft (lb) MGW (in.) PCR/F/D
1 MD‐11 17 1,496,246 70.8 3644.6
Results Table 3. Hot-Mix Asphalt on Rigid ACR at Indicated Gross Weight and Strength

No. Aircraft Name (lb) Percent Gross Weight on Main Gear (psi) ACR Thick (in.) (D) ACR/F/D
1 A300‐600 Std Bogie 380,518 95.00 194 37.2 808.2
2 A318‐100 opt 141,978 89.20 169 26.5 349.7
3 A320‐200 std 150,796 93.80 185 28.2 403.7
4 A321‐100 std 183,866 95.60 197 31.6 536.3
5 B717‐200 HGW 122,000 94.40 164 27.5 382.3
B727‐200 Advanced
6 185,200 96.00 148 32.2 564.6
Basic
7 B737‐300 140,000 90.80 201 27.8 390.6
8 B737‐700 155,000 91.80 197 28.7 422.9
9 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 30.9 509.5
10 B737‐900 ER 188,200 94.60 220 32.4 574.7
11 B757‐200 256,000 91.20 183 29.5 450.6
12 B767‐400 ER 451,000 94.00 215 38.8 891
13 B787‐9 555,000 93.60 223 40.3 977.3
14 CRJ100/200 47,450 93 159 18.6 141.7
15 CRJ700 72,500 95 141 21.0 196.9
16 DC/MD‐10‐10/10F 458,000 93.40 195 35.6 723.7
17 DC9‐32 109,000 92.40 155 25.7 327.5
18 Q400/Dash 8 Series 400 64,700 93 227 21.1 199.4
19 ERJ‐145 ER 45,635 95.00 145 18.1 132.3
A-34
No. Aircraft Name (lb) Percent Gross Weight on Main Gear (psi) ACR Thick (in.) (D) ACR/F/D
20 ERJ‐145 XR 53,352 95.00 175 19.7 166.4
21 EMB‐170 STD 79,697 95.00 126 21.3 203.5
22 EMB‐190 STD 105,712 95.00 147 23.5 266.6
23 MD‐11 633,000 94.60001 206 39.2 911.7
24 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 31.5 533.3
25 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 94.00 193 32.1 560.7
A-35
AIRPORT F
RUNWAY 9-27
(RIGID PCR – FLEXIBLE COMPUTATION OPTION DISABLED)


Section: Airport F RUNWAY 9‐27
This file name = PCR Results for HMA on Rigid 2022‐05‐23 15:36:56
Evaluation pavement type is rigid and design program is FAARFIELD. Section
name: Airport F RUNWAY 9‐27 in job file: PCR Comparisons 2.JOB.xml Units
= US Customary
Analysis Type: HMA on Rigid

Subgrade Modulus =7,500 psi (Subgrade Category is D)
CDF = 18.510
A-36

1 A300‐600 Std Bogie 380,518 95.00 194 18 107
2 A318‐100 opt 141,978 89.20 169 553 2,854
3 A320‐200 std 150,796 93.80 185 170 880
4 A321‐100 std 183,866 95.60 197 28 163
5 B717‐200 HGW 122,000 94.40 164 111 621
6 B727‐200 Advanced Basic 185,200 96.00 148 5 34
7 B737‐300 140,000 90.80 201 651 3,352
8 B737‐700 155,000 91.80 197 2,000 10,677
9 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 235 1,321
10 B737‐900 ER 188,200 94.60 220 53 299
11 B757‐200 256,000 91.20 183 137 685
12 B767‐400 ER 451,000 94.00 215 4 22
13 B787‐9 555,000 93.60 223 4 19
14 CRJ100/200 47,450 93.00 159 102 376
15 CRJ700 72,500 95.00 141 473 2,238
16 DC/MD‐10‐10/10F 458,000 93.40 195 10 52
17 DC9‐32 109,000 92.40 155 9 49
18 Q400/Dash 8 Series 400 64,700 93.00 227 122 438
19 ERJ‐145 ER 45,635 95.00 145 143 552
20 ERJ‐145 XR 53,352 95.00 175 187 710
21 EMB‐170 STD 79,697 95.00 126 864 4,425
22 EMB‐190 STD 105,712 95.00 147 11 57
23 MD‐11 633,000 77.60 206 17 92
24 MD‐11 Belly 633,000 17.00 180 17 113
25 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 209 1,222
26 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 94.00 193 235 1,407
A-37
No. Name Departures Aircraft (lb) MGW (in.) PCR/R/D
1 MD‐11 31 531,017 17.2 769.7
Results Table 3. Hot-Mix Asphalt on Rigid ACR at Indicated Gross Weight and Strength

No. Aircraft Name (lb) Percent Gross Weight on Main Gear (psi) ACR Thick (in.) (D) ACR/R/D
1 A300‐600 Std Bogie 380,518 95.00 194 37.2 808.2
2 A318‐100 opt 141,978 89.20 169 26.5 349.7
3 A320‐200 std 150,796 93.80 185 28.2 403.7
4 A321‐100 std 183,866 95.60 197 31.6 536.3
5 B717‐200 HGW 122,000 94.40 164 27.5 382.3
B727‐200 Advanced
6 185,200 96.00 148 32.2 564.6
Basic
7 B737‐300 140,000 90.80 201 27.8 390.6
8 B737‐700 155,000 91.80 197 28.7 422.9
9 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 30.9 509.5
10 B737‐900 ER 188,200 94.60 220 32.4 574.7
11 B757‐200 256,000 91.20 183 29.5 450.6
12 B767‐400 ER 451,000 94.00 215 38.8 891
13 B787‐9 555,000 93.60 223 40.3 977.3
14 CRJ100/200 47,450 93 159 18.6 141.7
15 CRJ700 72,500 95 141 21.0 196.9
16 DC/MD‐10‐10/10F 458,000 93.40 195 35.6 723.7
17 DC9‐32 109,000 92.40 155 25.7 327.5
18 Q400/Dash 8 Series 400 64,700 93 227 21.1 199.4
A-38
No. Aircraft Name (lb) Percent Gross Weight on Main Gear (psi) ACR Thick (in.) (D) ACR/R/D
19 ERJ‐145 ER 45,635 95.00 145 18.1 132.3
20 ERJ‐145 XR 53,352 95.00 175 19.7 166.4
21 EMB‐170 STD 79,697 95.00 126 21.3 203.5
22 EMB‐190 STD 105,712 95.00 147 23.5 266.6
23 MD‐11 633,000 94.60001 206 39.2 911.7
24 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 31.5 533.3
25 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 94.00 193 32.1 560.7
A-39
AIRPORT G
RUNWAY 16L-34R (AS-BUILT)


Section: Airport G RUNWAY 16L‐34R
Section name: Airport G RUNWAY 16L‐34R in job file: PCR Comparisons 2.JOB.xml

CDF = 0.000
A-40

1 DC9‐32 109,000 92.40 155 8 44
2 B717‐200 HGW 122,000 94.40 164 301 1,683
3 A318‐100 std 124,500 90.40 148 654 3,509
4 A319‐100 std 142,500 92.60 174 13,002 69,845
5 A320‐200 std 151,000 93.80 185 15,280 79,123
6 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 739 4,321
7 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 94.00 193 213 1,275
8 B727‐200 Advanced Basic 185,200 96.00 148 111 762
9 B737‐700 188,200 91.80 239 18,133 106,563
10 B757‐300 271,000 92.60 195 10,179 51,161
11 DC8‐63/73 358,000 96.20 196 79 469
12 A300‐B4/C4 Std Bogie 365,750 94.00 216 831 4,557
13 B767‐300 ER/Freighter 413,000 92.40 200 2,521 13,772
14 DC/MD‐10‐10/10F 458,000 93.40 195 115 599
15 B787‐8 478,000 91.40 216 32 162
16 A330‐200 WV020 509,000 94.80 228 88 889
17 A340‐300 std 608,000 79.40 206 179 1,901
18 A340‐300 std Belly 608,000 15.20 158 179 1,172
19 MD‐11 633,000 77.60 206 44 239
20 MD‐11 Belly 633,000 17.00 180 44 292
21 B747‐400 877,000 46.60 200 754 4,311
22 B747‐400 Belly 877,000 46.60 200 754 4,317
23 A380‐800 WV000 1,235,000 38.00 217 59 308
24 A380‐800 WV000 Belly 1,235,000 57.00 217 59 277
25 B777‐200 537,000 95.40 179 1,095 5,199
A-41
Aircraft Critical Aircraft Total Equiv. Max. Allowable Gross Weight of Critical ACR Thick at Max.
A380‐800
1 105 1,713,729 24.3 1660.5
WV000

1 DC9‐32 109,000 92.40 155 10.7 324.5
2 B717‐200 HGW 122,000 94.40 164 11.5 378.3
3 A318‐100 std 124,500 90.40 148 10.6 318.9
4 A319‐100 std 142,500 92.60 174 11.8 397.6
5 A320‐200 std 151,000 93.80 185 12.5 444.1
6 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 13.6 526.8
7 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 94.00 193 13.9 549.5
B727‐200 Advanced
8 185,200 96.00 148 14.1 563
Basic
9 B737‐700 188,200 91.80 239 14.2 571.7
10 B757‐300 271,000 92.60 195 12.9 473.1
11 DC8‐63/73 358,000 96.20 196 15.7 692.9
12 A300‐B4/C4 Std Bogie 365,750 94.00 216 15.4 667.3
13 B767‐300 ER/Freighter 413,000 92.40 200 15.7 698.9
14 DC/MD‐10‐10/10F 458,000 93.40 195 15.9 712.9
15 B787‐8 478,000 91.40 216 17.0 811.1
16 A330‐200 WV020 509,000 94.80 228 16.7 791.1
17 A340‐300 std 608,000 94.60001 206 16.6 776.5
A-42
18 MD‐11 633,000 94.60001 206 17.7 879.1
19 B747‐400 877,000 93.2 200 16.5 767.6
20 A380‐800 WV000 1,235,000 95 217 18.6 971
21 B777‐200 537,000 95.40 179 15.3 659.3
A-43
AIRPORT G
RUNWAY 16L-34R (DESIGN THICKNESS)


Section: Airport G RUNWAY 16L‐34R
Section name: Airport G RUNWAY 16L‐34R in job file: PCR Comparisons 2.JOB.xml

CDF = 0.180
A-44

1 DC9‐32 109,000 92.40 155 8 44
2 B717‐200 HGW 122,000 94.40 164 301 1,683
3 A318‐100 std 124,500 90.40 148 654 3,509
4 A319‐100 std 142,500 92.60 174 13,002 69,845
5 A320‐200 std 151,000 93.80 185 15,280 79,123
6 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 739 4,321
7 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 94.00 193 213 1,275
8 B727‐200 Advanced Basic 185,200 96.00 148 111 762
9 B737‐700 188,200 91.80 239 18,133 106,563
10 B757‐300 271,000 92.60 195 10,179 51,161
11 DC8‐63/73 358,000 96.20 196 79 469
12 A300‐B4/C4 Std Bogie 365,750 94.00 216 831 4,557
13 B767‐300 ER/Freighter 413,000 92.40 200 2,521 13,772
14 DC/MD‐10‐10/10F 458,000 93.40 195 115 599
15 B787‐8 478,000 91.40 216 32 162
16 A330‐200 WV020 509,000 94.80 228 88 889
17 A340‐300 std 608,000 79.40 206 179 1,901
18 A340‐300 std Belly 608,000 15.20 158 179 1,172
19 MD‐11 633,000 77.60 206 44 239
20 MD‐11 Belly 633,000 17.00 180 44 292
21 B747‐400 877,000 46.60 200 754 4,311
22 B747‐400 Belly 877,000 46.60 200 754 4,317
23 A380‐800 WV000 1,235,000 38.00 217 59 308
24 A380‐800 WV000 Belly 1,235,000 57.00 217 59 277
25 B777‐200 537,000 95.40 179 1,095 5,199
A-45
A380‐800
1 519 1,336,776 19.8 1107.8
WV000
Gross
Weight Tire Pressure
1 DC9‐32 109,000 92.40 155 10.7 324.5
2 B717‐200 HGW 122,000 94.40 164 11.5 378.3
3 A318‐100 std 124,500 90.40 148 10.6 318.9
4 A319‐100 std 142,500 92.60 174 11.8 397.6
5 A320‐200 std 151,000 93.80 185 12.5 444.1
6 MD‐83 161,000 94.80 195 13.6 526.8
7 MD‐90‐30 ER 168,500 94.00 193 13.9 549.5
B727‐200 Advanced
8 185,200 96.00 148 14.1 563
Basic
9 B737‐700 188,200 91.80 239 14.2 571.7
10 B757‐300 271,000 92.60 195 12.9 473.1
11 DC8‐63/73 358,000 96.20 196 15.7 692.9
12 A300‐B4/C4 Std Bogie 365,750 94.00 216 15.4 667.3
13 B767‐300 ER/Freighter 413,000 92.40 200 15.7 698.9
14 DC/MD‐10‐10/10F 458,000 93.40 195 15.9 712.9
15 B787‐8 478,000 91.40 216 17.0 811.1
16 A330‐200 WV020 509,000 94.80 228 16.7 791.1
17 A340‐300 std 608,000 94.60001 206 16.6 776.5
A-46
Gross
Weight Tire Pressure
18 MD‐11 633,000 94.60001 206 17.7 879.1
19 B747‐400 877,000 93.2 200 16.5 767.6
20 A380‐800 WV000 1,235,000 95 217 18.6 971
21 B777‐200 537,000 95.40 179 15.3 659.3
A-47
AIRPORT H
RUNWAY 5R-23L


Section: Airport H RUNWAY 5R‐23L
Section name: Airport H RUNWAY 5R‐23L in job file: PCR Comparisons 2.JOB.xml

CDF = 0.000
A-48

1 B747‐400 870,000 46.60 198 67 382
2 B747‐400 Belly 870,000 46.60 198 67 382
3 L‐1011 483,500 94.80 175 1,809 10,423
4 B757‐200 230,000 91.20 164 5,335 25,312
5 B767‐200 357,000 92.40 184 1,509 7,862
6 DC8‐63/73 355,000 96.20 194 2,925 17,310
7 B727‐200 Advanced Basic 190,500 96.00 152 7,135 49,690
8 B727‐100C Alternate 160,000 95.40 155 3,364 20,299
9 DC9‐32 90,700 92.40 129 318 1,580
10 DC9‐51 121,000 94.00 171 3,528 19,133
11 MD‐83 140,000 94.80 170 2,461 13,428
12 B737‐300 150,000 90.80 215 5,414 28,844
13 B737‐100 115,000 92.00 163 887 4,709
14 BAC 1‐11 400 (UDA) 79,000 92.00 122 176 775
15 BAe 146‐300/300QC/300QT 93,000 94.20 137 550 2,912
16 Q100/Dash 8 Series 100 41,100 94.40 155 2,030 7,812
17 C‐130‐57 155,000 95.00 105 441 1,887
18 F4 (UDA) 58,000 95.00 261 147 388
Aircraft Critical Aircraft Total Equiv. Max. Allowable Gross Weight of Critical ACR Thick at max.
No. Name Departures Aircraft (lb) MGW (in.) PCR/R/B
1 B747‐400 2,335 1,160,122 18.5 1037.1
A-49
No. Aircraft Name (lb) Gear (psi) (B) ACR/R/B
1 B747‐400 870,000 93.2 198 14.9 677.7
2 L‐1011 483,500 94.80 175 14.8 667.2
3 B757‐200 230,000 91.20 164 10.2 317.9
4 B767‐200 357,000 92.40 184 12.7 495.3
5 DC8‐63/73 355,000 96.20 194 14.2 616.5
6 B727‐200 Advanced Basic 190,500 96.00 152 13.5 560.5
7 B727‐100C Alternate 160,000 95.40 155 12.3 462.2
8 DC9‐32 90,700 92.40 129 9.0 250.5
9 DC9‐51 121,000 94.00 171 10.9 364
10 MD‐83 140,000 94.80 170 11.9 435.3
11 B737‐300 150,000 90.80 215 12.0 438.8
12 B737‐100 115,000 92.00 163 10.0 306.8
13 BAC 1‐11 400 (UDA) 79,000 92 122 7.9 195.3
BAe 146‐
14 93,000 94.20 137 9.1 253.7
300/300QC/300QT
15 Q100/Dash 8 Series 100 41,100 94.4 155 5.9 111.4
16 C‐130‐57 155,000 95.00 105 10.1 311.3
17 F4 (UDA) 58,000 95 261 5.6 100.5
A-50
AIRPORT I
RUNWAY 17L-35R (AS-BUILT)


Section: Airport I RUNWAY 17L‐35R
Section name: Airport I RUNWAY 17L‐35R in job file: PCR Comparisons 2.JOB.xml

CDF = 32458680.000
A-51

1 B737‐200 Advanced QC 128,600 92.00 182 1,937 10,102
2 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 52 292
3 B777‐300 657,000 94.80 213 130 626
4 A319‐100 std 142,000 92.60 173 52 279
5 A320‐200 std 162,900 93.80 200 1,339 7,199
6 A320‐200 std 150,800 93.80 185 3,744 19,375
7 A330‐200 WV020 509,000 94.80 228 1,378 13,915
8 A330‐300 WV022 515,700 95.80 206 104 1,117
9 B747‐8 978,000 47.40 218 365 2,042
10 B747‐8 Belly 978,000 47.40 218 365 2,048
11 B787‐8 503,500 91.40 228 730 3,800
Aircraft Critical Aircraft Total equiv. Max allowable Gross Weight of Critical ACR Thick at max.
No. Name Departures Aircraft (lb) MGW (in.) PCR/R/A
A330‐200
1 1,996 226,751 8.4 245.5
WV020
A-52

No. Aircraft Name (lb) Percent Gross Weight on Main Gear (psi) ACR Thick (in.) (A) ACR/R/A
1 B737‐200 Advanced QC 128,600 92.00 182 10.0 344.6
2 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 12.1 502.6
3 B777‐300 657,000 94.80 213 13.5 615.9
4 A319‐100 std 142,000 92.60 173 10.2 359
5 A320‐200 std 162,900 93.80 200 11.5 448.6
6 A320‐200 std 150,800 93.80 185 10.9 408.3
7 A330‐200 WV020 509,000 94.80 228 13.5 623.5
8 A330‐300 WV022 515,700 95.80 206 13.5 620.9
9 B747‐8 978,000 94.8 218 14.4 709.1
10 B787‐8 503,500 91.40 228 14.1 674.7
A-53
AIRPORT I
RUNWAY 17L-35R (DESIGN THICKNESS)


Section: Airport I Runway 17L‐35R
Section name: Airport I Runway 17L‐35R in job file: PCR Comparisons 2.JOB.xml

CDF = 0.520
A-54

1 B737‐200 Advanced QC 128,600 92.00 182 1,937 10,102
2 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 52 292
3 B777‐300 657,000 94.80 213 130 626
4 A319‐100 std 142,000 92.60 173 52 279
5 A320‐200 std 162,900 93.80 200 1,339 7,199
6 A320‐200 std 150,800 93.80 185 3,744 19,375
7 A330‐200 WV020 509,000 94.80 228 1,378 13,915
8 A330‐300 WV022 515,700 95.80 206 104 1,117
9 B747‐8 978,000 47.40 218 365 2,042
10 B747‐8 Belly 978,000 47.40 218 365 2,048
11 B787‐8 503,500 91.40 228 730 3,800
Aircraft Critical aircraft Total equiv. Max allowable Gross Weight of critical ACR Thick at max.
No. Name departures aircraft (lb) MGW (in.) PCR/R/A
1 B747‐8 658 1,002,251 14.7 735.6

1 B737‐200 Advanced QC 128,600 92.00 182 10.0 344.6
2 B737‐800 174,700 93.60 204 12.1 502.6
A-55
3 B777‐300 657,000 94.80 213 13.5 615.9
4 A319‐100 std 142,000 92.60 173 10.2 359
5 A320‐200 std 162,900 93.80 200 11.5 448.6
6 A320‐200 std 150,800 93.80 185 10.9 408.3
7 A330‐200 WV020 509,000 94.80 228 13.5 623.5
8 A330‐300 WV022 515,700 95.80 206 13.5 620.9
9 B747‐8 978,000 94.8 218 14.4 709.1
10 B787‐8 503,500 91.40 228 14.1 674.7
A-56

PNC PCR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PNC PCR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PNC PCR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOT/FAA/TC-23/57

PCN–PCR Comparisons for

Dr. David R. Brill

This document is available to the U.S. public

This document is also available from the

U.S. Department of Transportation

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S.

This report is available at the Federal Aviation Administration William J.

PCN–PCR COMPARISONS FOR LARGE- AND MEDIUM-HUB AIRPORT September 2023

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Dr. David R. Brill

U.S. Department of Transportation

U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii

3. PAVEMENT CLASSIFICATION RATING METHOD 3

4. FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT RESULTS SUMMARY 8

5. RIGID PAVEMENT RESULTS SUMMARY 9

6. DETAILED FLEXIBLE RUNWAY PCN/PCR ANALYSES 9

6.1 Airport A—Large Hub 9

6.1.1 COMFAA 3.0 Analysis 10

6.2 Airport B—Medium Hub 14

6.2.1 COMFAA 3.0 Analysis 15

6.3 Airport B—Medium Hub 17

6.3.1 COMFAA 3.0 Analysis 18

6.4 Airport C—Large Hub 20

6.4.1 COMFAA 3.0 Analysis 21

6.5 Airport F—Medium Hub 23

6.5.1 COMFAA 3.0 Analysis 24

7. DETAILED RIGID RUNWAY PCN/PCR ANALYSES 29

7.1.1 COMFAA 3.0 Analysis 30

7.2 Airport E—Large Hub 33

7.2.1 COMFAA 3.0 Analysis 33

7.3 Airport G—Large Hub 36

7.3.1 COMFAA 3.0 Analysis 37

7.4 Airport H—Medium Hub 40

7.4.1 COMFAA 3.0 Analysis 40

7.5 Airport I—International 43

7.5.1 FAARFIELD 2.0 (As-Built Thickness) 43

Appendix A—FAARFIELD 2.0 PCR Reports

1 ACR Computational Scheme 2

1 Example Traffic Mix: 5

Figure 1. ACR Computational Scheme

Compute ACR of all aircraft in

Select critical aircraft

Compute equivalent departures

Compute maximum allowable

PCR(i) = ACR of critical aircraft

Figure 2. Flowchart of FAARFIELD PCR Procedure

Table 1. Example Traffic Mix

• P-401 Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Surface, 4 in. (102 cm)

psi = pounds per square inch

Figure 3. FAARFIELD 2.0 CDF Distribution in Example Problem

Table 3. Steps in FAARFIELD Determination of PCR in Example Problem

Figure 4. FAARFIELD 2.0 Graphical PCR Output for Example

4. FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT RESULTS SUMMARY

• PCN as actually reported by the airport on the AMR

Table 4. Summary of Flexible PCN–PCR Evaluations by AC 150/5335-5C and -5D Methods

PCN as reported on AC 150/5335-5C PCR