DDR Aircraft Pavements 2 20-01-06

Detailed Design Report Aircraft Pavements 1
New Hyderabad International Airport Airside and Landside Works
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................3
2 DATA CONFIRMED BY HIAL....................................................................................................3

2.1 Horizontal Geometric Design.................................................................................................3
2.2 Vertical Geometric Design......................................................................................................4
2.3 Aircraft Traffic Analysis and Aircraft Pavement Design........................................................5
3 HORIZONTAL GEOMETRIC DESIGN....................................................................................6
3.1 General Layout.......................................................................................................................6
3.2 Movement Area Dimensions..................................................................................................6
3.2.1 Runway 09/27....................................................................................................................6
3.2.2 Taxiway A..........................................................................................................................7
3.2.3 Other Connecting Taxiways...............................................................................................7
3.2.4 Aprons and Apron Taxiways..............................................................................................8
3.2.5 Aircraft Turning Arcs and Fillet Design............................................................................9
3.2.6 Runway Turn Pads.............................................................................................................9
3.3 Separation Distances.............................................................................................................10
4 VERTICAL GEOMETRIC DESIGN.........................................................................................11
4.1 Design Methodology............................................................................................................11
4.2 Master Grading.....................................................................................................................11
4.2.1 Runway 09/27 & RESA....................................................................................................11
4.2.2 Taxiway A........................................................................................................................12
4.2.3 Taxiway B........................................................................................................................12
4.2.4 Cross Connecting Taxiways.............................................................................................12
4.2.5 Main Apron & Taxiway E................................................................................................13
4.2.6 Cargo Apron....................................................................................................................13
4.2.7 Low Cost Carrier Apron & Taxiway J.............................................................................13
4.2.8 Maintenance Apron.........................................................................................................13
4.3 Phase 1 Grading....................................................................................................................14
4.4 Building Levels.....................................................................................................................14
5 BASIS OF PAVEMENT DESIGN...............................................................................................15
6 AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS...........................................................................................15

6.1 Total Aircraft Traffic Volumes..............................................................................................16
6.2 Aircraft Fleet Mix.................................................................................................................16
6.2.1 Brief.................................................................................................................................17
6.2.2 SH&E Report...................................................................................................................17
6.2.3 Doha International Airport.............................................................................................17
6.2.4 Sydney International Airport...........................................................................................17
6.2.5 Agreed Aircraft Fleet Mix................................................................................................18
6.3 Taxiway Utilization Model...................................................................................................18
6.3.1 Departure Traffic Utilization Model................................................................................18
6.3.2 Arrival Traffic Utilization Model.....................................................................................19
6.4 Apron Utilization Model......................................................................................................20
6.4.1 Southern Code F Parking Stands....................................................................................21
6.4.2 Southern Code C Parking Stands....................................................................................21
6.4.3 Northern Code C Parking Stands....................................................................................21
6.4.4 Cargo Apron....................................................................................................................22
6.4.5 Maintenance Apron.........................................................................................................22
6.4.6 Isolation Bay....................................................................................................................22
6.5 20 Year and Annual Aircraft Traffic Movements..................................................................22
6.6 Aircraft Flight Schedules......................................................................................................23
6.7 Aircraft Operating Weights...................................................................................................24
6.7.1 Maintenance Facility.......................................................................................................24
6.7.2 Landing Weights..............................................................................................................25
Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

6.7.3 Reduced Departure Weights............................................................................................25
6.7.4 Summary of Aircraft Operating Weights.........................................................................26
7 PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN.........................................................................................27
7.1 LEDFAA Results..................................................................................................................27
7.1.1 LEDFAA Design Methodology........................................................................................27
7.1.2 Runway and Taxiway Elements.......................................................................................28
7.1.3 Runway & Taxiway Shoulders and Blast Pads................................................................29
7.1.4 Apron Elements................................................................................................................30
7.2 Adopted Pavement Structures..............................................................................................30
7.3 APSDS Check.......................................................................................................................31
7.4 Subgrade Preparation............................................................................................................32
7.4.1 Areas in Cut.....................................................................................................................32
7.4.2 Areas in Fill.....................................................................................................................33
7.5 Proof Rolling........................................................................................................................33
7.6 RESA and Runway Strip Preparation...................................................................................33
7.7 PCN Determination..............................................................................................................34
8 DUCTS FOR UTILITIES...........................................................................................................37
9 Appendices.....................................................................................................................................38

Detailed Design Report

Aircraft Pavement Design
1 Introduction
This report includes all elements of the aircraft pavement design, including horizontal
geometric design, vertical geometric design, aircraft traffic analysis and aircraft pavement
thickness design.
Airside and landside roads, airfield ground lighting including MAGS, aviation fuel reticulation,
airfield drainage and airfield markings are provided in separate volumes.
A series of design workshops were conducted between L&T ECC, the Employer and the
Employers Engineer throughout the detailed design period. The following is a summary of the
workshops conducted:
- 04/10/05 Pavement Design workshop.
- 07/11/05 Master Grading Workshop.
- 25/11/05 Master Grading Workshop.
- 30/11/05 Master Grading & Pavement Design Review Meeting.
- 11/01/06 Review of Draft Detailed Design Report
2 Data Confirmed by HIAL

The following section provides extracts from Employer Responses to Contractor Site Queries
received from HIAL. These Responses in places enhance the Employers Requirements while
others change the Requirements. Note that some of the text listed in the following section is
not exactly verbatim. Readers are encouraged to reference the actual Employer Responses
to obtain exact wording.
2.1 Horizontal Geometric Design

- The coordinates shown on the Phase 1 layout drawing shall be used, not the coordinates
shown on the Phase 3 layout drawing.
- The distance between the centreline of Taxiway E and the rear of the aircraft parking
stands shall be 57.5m.
- Taxiway A should be prepared as an emergency take-off runway and it is not meant for
landings. The concept of Taxiway A and Taxiway B separation has been elaborated in the
Master Plan.
- The drain between Runway 09/27 and Taxiway A shall be located outside a line 105m
offset from the centreline of the runway [Verbal response].
- Taxiways M1, M2, K1 and K2 shall be designated as aircraft stand taxilanes for Code C
aircraft. The Aircraft stand taxilane centreline to object distance is 24.5m. If half of the
max. wingspan for Code C aircraft is deducted, a safety distance of 6.5m is available.
This gives for two parallel taxilanes: 18+6.5+18 = 42.5m.

- Appropriate fillets are to be used to widen taxiways to achieve the specified wheel
clearance for taxiing aircraft. Taxiing aircraft shall include aircraft currently in service (eg
A340-600) and those envisaged (eg A380).
- The pavement edges pertaining to a fillet shall be symmetrical. The meaning of the words
the pilots eye position shall be used is that the designer shall use the datum point of
aircraft, which is a point on the longitudinal axis of aircraft which follows the guideline on
the ground. In most Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning manuals issued by
manufacturers this point is named pilots eye position.
2.2 Vertical Geometric Design

- The transverse gradients within the non graded portion of the runway strip shall not
exceed 5% as stated in ICAO Annex 14. Taxiway A can be lowered to achieve the
required transverse gradients, however, it is not an Employers Requirement. A minimum
transverse gradient of 1% in the graded strip is acceptable provided there is a significant
corresponding longitudinal slope to assist in effective drainage.
- The ICAO Annex 14 recommendation that states that the maximum permissible
transverse grade within the runway strip is 5% does not have to be met with respect to
the drain. It is recognised that the side slopes of the drain will exceed 5% and will be
within the non-graded portion of the runway strip [Verbal response].
- The Employer has no comment on the introduction of 300m long uniform longitudinal
slope from THR 27, however, it is not an Employers Requirement.
- The longitudinal profile of the runway shown on the Employers drawings is preliminary.
The 1% gradient on the profile between Ch2620m and Ch3080m can be reduced to
produce a more uniform gradient over the entire runway length, however, such a
reduction is not an Employers Requirement.
- The level of Taxiway A can be reduced, however, it is not an Employers Requirement.
- The relative level between the head of stand and Taxiway E shall be kept constant.
- To accommodate the crossfield taxiways the future Taxiway B may be higher than the
Taxiway E at the junction with Taxiway K and lower at the junction with Taxiway A4.
- A twist in the graded area bounded by the Taxiway A, Taxiway A4, Taxiway B and
Taxiway K is acceptable to the Employer and the drain line for this area will not be parallel
to Taxiway A. The twist will also occur along the longitudinal profile of future Taxiway B.
- A 0.25% longitudinal (west/east) gradient for the future remote parking stands beyond
the line of the future passenger terminal building is acceptable, provided the resultant
slope does not exceed the 1% maximum slope stated for aprons in ICAO Annex 14.
- The cargo apron shall be sloped to provide effective drainage as required by ICAO Annex
14. The maximum slope shall not exceed 1% as stated in Annex 14. Note a longitudinal
(west/east) gradient of 0.25% will be acceptable for the cargo apron, provided the
resultant gradient does not exceed the 1% maximum slope for aprons.
- At the workshop the following was established: a) the level of the cargo apron and
associated taxiways shall accommodate the future planned expansion. b) the use of a
longitudinal gradient approaching the maximum permissible gradient in ICAO Annex 14 is
acceptable to the Employer for the future Taxiway B between the future extended
passenger terminal apron and the cargo apron. c) the height difference between the

future extended passenger terminal apron and the cargo apron does not result in
unacceptable gradients in the graded area, including the satellite crash fire rescue station
between the two elements. d) the height difference can be reduced by the adoption of a
longitudinal (west/east) gradient for the future remote stands. e) a longitudinal (west/east)
gradient may also be adopted for the cargo apron.
- A vertical curve with radius of curvature 1,700m (ICAO recommends 3,000m), and
allowing the vertical curve to encroach onto the runway edge by up to 10m is acceptable
to the Employer to transition the relative vertical height difference of 2m between Runway
09/27 and Taxiway A given on the Employers Drawings.[Verbal response].
- The Master Grading concept of providing nil east-west gradient at the face of the cargo
terminal by maintaining a 0.25% east-west gradient on Taxiway B, and by increasing the
north-south gradient from 1% to 1.5% between Taxiway B and the rear of the aircraft
parking stands is acceptable to the Employer. [Verbal response].
- The main fire & rescue facility shall be lowered to match with the future proposed levels of
Taxiway B and the low cost carrier apron or moved to the east a maximum of 400m, in
accordance with the Master Grading concept developed for the future low cost carrier
apron and Taxiway B. [Verbal response].
- The Emergency Runway, Taxiway A is to comply with all the geometric requirements for
runways as stated in ICAO Annex 14. Where taxiways cross this emergency runways,
instantaneous grade changes will be accepted so as to maintain a uniform profile for the
emergency runway. (Verbal response only to site query. Written response awaited).
2.3 Aircraft Traffic Analysis and Aircraft Pavement Design

- The pavement design life for all pavements, including all flexible and rigid type
pavements, shall be 20 years.
- The structural design of aircraft pavements is to be based on the Traffic Forecast Report.
This will be enhanced by the use of an agreed fleet mix, taxiway utilisation model and
schedule of destinations. The latter will allow the use of calculated rather than maximum
takeoff weights. This design method shall be subject to a sensitivity analysis.
- The passenger terminal apron aircraft parking stands south of the building shall be
designed to withstand Code F aircraft loadings.
- Confirmation of reply is awaited on this query. The traffic volumes for the Cargo Taxiway
and Maintenance Taxiway are typically the expected traffic volumes that will utilize the
cargo and maintenance facilities within the design life. The Master Grading process has
highlighted that in the future some portions of these taxiways will form part of the major
taxiway network for the airfield. As such, we recommend that such taxiway portions be
designed to cater for the future traffic.
- The Maintenance Apron and Taxiway will not be given a PCN due to limited use and the
Cargo apron is to have a PCN of 50/R/W/C/T while the Cargo taxiway is to have a PCN of
44/F/W/B/T. (Verbal response only to site query. Written response awaited).

3 Horizontal Geometric Design

3.1 General Layout
The New Hyderabad International Airport has generally been designed as a Code 4F facility.
The aircraft parking stands to the north of the PTB, and associated taxiways M1, M2, K1 & K2
are designed for use by Code C aircraft. The Maintenance Facility has been sized for use by
Code C aircraft however the pavements have been designed structurally to facilitate use by
Code F aircraft in the future.
The layout design for this airport has been based on the Master Planned Phase 3 layout, in
order to ensure that future planned expansion is achievable without significant modification of
the Phase 1 layout.
The agreed coordinates adopted for the setout of the airport are provided in Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1 Agreed Coordinates for Runway Ends and ARP

Point Easting Northing
Runway 09 225041.336 1906423.664
Runway 27 229301.336 1906423.664
ARP 226817.526 1907749.084
The Phase 1 layout consists of Runway 09/27, main parallel Taxiway A, cross connecting
Taxiways A4, A5, A6, A8 and A9, passenger terminal apron with aircraft parking stands on
both the southern and northern sides of the PTB, Cargo Apron, Maintenance Apron and
Isolation Bay. Taxiway A can also be operated as an emergency departure runway if required,
although it is not equipped with any runway visual aids.
All pavements on the airport will be constructed as flexible pavements except for the following
rigid pavements:
- Runway 09 and Runway 27 Turn Pads;
- Southern and northern aircraft parking stands;
- Cargo Apron aircraft parking stands;
- Maintenance Apron; and
- Isolation Bay.
3.2 Movement Area Dimensions
3.2.1 Runway 09/27
Runway 09/27 and associated areas will be constructed with the dimensions specified in
Table 3.2 below.

Table 3.2 Dimensions of Runway 09/27

Area Dimensions
Runway 4,260m x 60m
Runway Turn Pads Overall* 164m x 110.5m
Shoulders 7.5m Wide
Blast Pads 60m x 75m
RESA 240m x 150m
Runway Strip Graded Portion 210m Wide
Runway Strip Overall 300m Wide
*Note: The geometric design of the Runway Turn Pads is discussed in detail later in this
section.
3.2.2 Taxiway A
Taxiway A has been dimensioned for use an emergency, non-instrument, departure runway
and will be designed with the dimensions specified in Table 3.3 below.
Table 3.3 Dimensions of Taxiway A

Area Dimensions
Taxiway 3,006.5m x 45m
Shoulders 7.5m Wide
Runway Strip Graded Portion 150m Wide
Runway Strip Overall 150m Wide
3.2.3 Other Connecting Taxiways
The other connecting taxiways at the airport will be constructed with the widths specified in
Table 3.4 below.
Table 3.4 Width of Other Connecting Taxiways

Area Width
Taxiways A4, A5, A6, A8, A9, B, E 25m
6.5m Paved. 11m blast
Shoulders
resistant grass.
Maintenance Taxiway 18m
Maintenance Taxiway Shoulders 3.5m Paved
Taxiways M1, K1 18m
Apron Shoulders 3.5m Paved
Taxiway Strip Graded Portion 60m
Taxiway Strip Overall 115m

Unpaved shoulders are acceptable under the requirements of ICAO Annex 14, subject to the
surface being blast resistant and resistant to ingestion of FOD. Grass is considered to be a
suitable blast resistant surfacing provided that good quality, uniform turf mat free from patches
and soil outcrops. Provided that the turf mat is properly maintained and is kept in a uniform
condition, the area will not present FOD ingestion problems. Grass clippings are not
considered to be a FOD hazard to aircraft. This form of construction is widely used in
Australia and Singapore.
The cross connecting taxiways will intersect with Runway 09/27 at the chainages specified in
Table 3.5 below. Note that chainages are measured from Threshold 09.
Table 3.5 Chainages of Cross Connecting Taxiways

Taxiway Chainage
Taxiway A4 1,019.224m
Runway holding positions will be located on each of these cross connecting taxiways, and will
be positioned 112.5m from the centreline of Runway 09/27. ICAO Annex 14 requires the
holding positions to be located 107.5m from the runway centreline plus an additional 5m for
every 1m that the holding position is higher than the runway.
3.2.4 Aprons and Apron Taxiways
The dimensions of each of the apron areas are specified in Table 3.6 below.
Table 3.6 Dimensions of Apron Areas

Apron Area Dimensions
Southern Parking Stands 886.455m x 86m
North Western Parking Stands 264.313m X 67.9m
North Eastern Parking Stands 312.132m x 67.9m
Cargo Apron - Overall 190m x 275m
Cargo Apron Parking Stands 190m x 110.5m
Maintenance Apron 195m x 130m
Isolation Bay 90m x 87.5m
The geometric layout of the Main Apron, including the southern, north western and north
eastern aircraft parking stands is being designed by the TP3 contractor.
The southern aircraft parking stands have a depth of 86m to facilitate parking of all Code E
and F aircraft whilst being connected to Passenger Boarding Bridges (PBB). A uniform depth
has been provided for all aircraft parking stands, including remote stands, in order to facilitate
future connection of PBBs and future use by longer aircraft. A 10m head of stand road is
located in front of the aircraft parking stands. No tail of stand road has been provided.

The southern aircraft parking stands have been sized to accommodate either 19 narrow body
aircraft or 3 wide body and 13 narrow body aircraft at the same time. The Phase 1 design
includes contact stands that can accommodate either 10 narrow body aircraft or 3 wide body
and 4 narrow body aircraft at the same time. The remaining 9 stands will be constructed as
remote stands.
The north western and north eastern aircraft parking stands will be constructed as remote
stands as part of the Phase 1 development, but will be provided with PBBs in future phases
of development. The north western aircraft parking stands have been sized to accommodate
up to 5 narrow body aircraft, whilst the north eastern aircraft parking stands have been sized
to accommodate up to 6 narrow body aircraft.
The Cargo Apron has been designed to accommodate two wide body or four narrow body
aircraft. The preliminary design of the Maintenance Apron is to accommodate up to six narrow
body aircraft, however the detailed design of the parking layout for this facility is not yet
finalised. The Isolation Bay has been designed to accommodate a single Code F aircraft with
its nose facing north.
3.2.5 Aircraft Turning Arcs and Fillet Design
Runway to taxiway intersections have been designed with an aircraft turning arc of radius
75m, and taxiway to taxiways intersections have been designed with an aircraft turning arc of
radius 60m. Taxiway to taxilane and taxilane to taxilane intersections have been designed
with an aircraft turning arc of radius 45m, due to the slow moving nature of aircraft traffic on a
parking apron.
An aircraft traffic analysis has been performed on all intersections in order to define the outer
edge of fillets required on each of the aircraft pavements. The aircraft tracking analysis was
performed using Path Planner, and the analysis used the datum point of the aircraft to track
over the centreline of each turning arc. As such, all fillets are symmetrical on both sides of
each intersection. . This method of design is considered more accurate than the manual
method included in the ICAO Aerodrome Design Manual as it truly reflects the exact aircraft
wheel paths as the turn is negotiated.
A sample tracking for the critical aircraft around a 60m radius curve is included as Appendix P.
All pavements have been designed to ensure that the outer main landing gear maintains a
4.5m clearance to the edge of pavement, in accordance with the requirements of ICAO Annex
14.
The aircraft tracking analysis has been performed by tracking aircraft in both the forward and
reverse directions around each curve. The aircraft tracking analysis has determined that the
A340-600 is the most critical aircraft for the majority of the curve, whilst the A380 aircraft is
the most critical aircraft at the start and end of the curve.
3.2.6 Runway Turn Pads
Runway Turn Pads have been provided adjacent to both Threshold 09 and Threshold 27, and
are both located on the northern side of the runway. The basis of the geometric layout of the
Turn Pad is such that all aircraft can make a 180 turn before take-off and after landing
without the use of differential breaking or asymmetric engine thrust.
The Runway Turn Pads have also been designed using Path Planner. The Turn Pads have
been designed to ensure that the aircraft nose wheel and main gear maintain a 4.5m
clearance to the edge of pavement, and to ensure that the aircraft use a nose wheel steering
angle less than 45, in accordance with the requirements of ICAO Annex 14. To achieve these
requirements, an aircraft turning arc of 50m radius has been used.

3.3 Separation Distances
The separation distances adopted between each of the aircraft movement areas are specified
in Table 3.7 below.
Table 3.7 Separation Distances Between Aircraft Movement Areas

Movement Areas Separation
Runway 09/27 Taxiway A 225m
Taxiway A Taxiway B 175m
Taxiway B Taxiway E 97.5m
Taxiway E Tail of Stand 57.5m
Taxilanes M1/K1 Tail of Stand 24.5m
Maintenance Taxiway
120m
Isolation Bay Centreline

4 Vertical Geometric Design

4.1 Design Methodology
It is important with any green field airport development that a Master Grading concept is
developed for the site to ensure that the initial phase infrastructure is positioned and graded
to not only allow for future expansion, but to allow for the most optimal grading of that future
expansion.
A Master Grading has been developed for the New Hyderabad International Airport and
includes all of the Master Planned airside development to the south of the Main Access Road.
A Master Grading concept has not been prepared for any infrastructure to the north of the
Main Access Road.
The grading adopted for the Phase 1 development is consistent with the Master Grading, to
the extent that future planned taxiway and apron connections have been included in the
Phase 1 Grading. The following sections detail the Master Grading concept and how this
concept has been used to finalise the Phase 1 Grading.
4.2 Master Grading
4.2.1 Runway 09/27 & RESA
The longitudinal section of Runway 09/27 provided in the Employers Requirements

Drawings has been adopted as a baseline and has only been amended in order to improve
runway sight distance and to facilitate connection of cross connecting taxiways. Vertical
curves with a minimum radius of curvature of 1,800m have been included between changes
of grade within the RESA.
The runway profile has been raised and lowered in areas between chainages 1,860m and
4,260m by up to 420mm in order to satisfy the sight distance requirements of ICAO Annex 14.
Taxiway A is not provided as a full length parallel taxiway therefore under the
recommendations of Clause 3.1.16 we have adopted the line of sight requirement for the full
runway length. Appendix M contains advice from ICAO to confirm that the sight distance
requirement is applicable to the centreline only and not from edge to edge on opposite sides
of the runway.
As a result of the minor changes in the runway profile, a uniform gradient of over 300m has
been provided from Threshold 27. Whilst this was not an objective of the design, and is not an
Employer Requirement, it is considered to be advantageous and is mandatory in some
countries including Australia.
The maximum longitudinal gradient on the runway is 0.95%, the average gradient between
the runway ends is 0.4%, and a minimum radius of curvature of 30,000m has been provided
between changes in grade. All of these gradients comply with the requirements of ICAO
Annex 14. The transverse gradient along the runway has generally been set at 1.5%, but has
been reduced to 1% in the vicinity of the runway thresholds to allow for the future connection
of Taxiways A1, A2, A9 and A10.
Shoulders have been provided with a gradient of 2.5%. The graded portion of the runway strip
has generally been provided with a gradient of 2.5%, however in some cases this gradient
has been reduced to as low as 1% as instructed by the Employer to facilitate a relative height
difference of 2.1m between Runway 09/27 and Taxiway A. Note that a 1% gradient within the
runway strip may cause ponding of water on the shoulder and grassed areas, particularly at
the downstream location adjacent to cross connecting taxiways.

A 10m wide drainage channel has been located between Runway 09/27 and Taxiway A, and
commences at an offset of 105m from the runway centreline. The side slopes of the drainage
channel exceed the ICAO recommended 5% maximum slope for any portion of the runway
strip. The remainder of the runway strip is graded upwards at a maximum gradient of 5%, in
accordance with the requirements of ICAO Annex 14.
4.2.2 Taxiway A
The longitudinal section of Taxiway A provided in the Employers Requirements Drawings

has been adopted as a baseline but has been amended to comply with ICAO Annex 14 sight
distance requirements. The ER Drawings only provided a longitudinal profile for the portion of
Taxiway A being constructed in Phase 1, hence a profile similar to the runway profile has been
adopted for the remaining portions.
The taxiway profile has been lowered by up to 270mm between chainages 2,060m and
3,840m, and has been raised by up to 1.75m between chainages 3,840m and 4,260m in
order to satisfy the sight distance requirements of ICAO Annex 14. We have adopted the line
of sight requirement for half the master planned taxiway length.
Taxiway A has been graded as an emergency Code 4 runway. The maximum longitudinal
gradient on Taxiway A is 0.971%, the average gradient between the runway ends is 0.42%,
and a minimum radius of curvature of 30,000m has been provided between changes in grade.
All of these gradients comply with the requirements of ICAO Annex 14.
The transverse gradient along Taxiway A has been set at 1.5%. It is noted that this will
produce a bump in each of the cross taxiways that connect between Runway 09/27 and
Taxiway B.
The shoulders and the emergency runway strip have been provided with the maximum
allowable gradient of 2.5%.
4.2.3 Taxiway B
Taxiway B is utilised as an apron edge taxiway along the Cargo Apron and Main Apron, and
as such the longitudinal profile for Taxiway B has been designed to tie in with these apron
areas, and also to tie in with the Maintenance Apron and the future Low Cost Carrier Apron.
Taxiway B has also been graded to ensure connectivity with the cross connecting taxiways
from Taxiway A.
The maximum longitudinal gradient along Taxiway B is 1.5%, and the minimum radius of
curvature used to transition between changes of grade is 3,000m.
The transverse gradient along Taxiway B has generally been set at 1.5%, however this has
been flattened and transitioned to a one way cross fall in some areas to facilitate connection
of cross taxiways. This produces a wandering crown. Transverse gradients between 1% and
1.5% have been adopted in areas where Taxiway B serves as an apron edge taxiway.
4.2.4 Cross Connecting Taxiways
The longitudinal profiles for each (Phase 1 and future) of the cross connecting taxiways A2,
A3, A4, A5, A6, A8, A9 and A10 have been designed to ensure connectivity between Runway
09/27, Taxiway A and Taxiway B. A minimum radius of curvature of 1,700m has been utilised
on the cross connecting taxiways. Note that this radius does not meet the minimum radius of
3,000m specified in ICAO Annex 14, but has been directed via an Employers Response to a
Contractors Site Query.

Taxiways A3 and K have been graded with an upwards longitudinal gradient of 1.5% to
ensure that sufficient clearance is achievable between the future taxiway bridges and the
Main Access Road.
4.2.5 Main Apron & Taxiway E
The vertical geometry of the southern parking stands on the Main Apron has been agreed
with the TP3 contractor. In accordance with ICAO Annex 14 and NFPA requirements, the
apron slopes away from the PTB at 1% for at least 15m. The level at the head of stand has
been set at 607.0m. The gradient along the face of the PTB is flat, and aircraft parking stands
slope from front to back with a gradient of 0.95%.
An apron strip drain occurs behind the aircraft parking positions and is located in a valley line.
The apron slopes up from the valley line at 1%. A moving crown has been introduced on the
apron, whereby the ridge line gradually moves from the centreline of Taxiway E to the
centreline of Taxiway B. Transverse gradients of 1% occur on both sides of the moving crown
ridge line.
A 0.25% longitudinal (west/east) gradient has been adopted along the remote aircraft parking
stands, on both the eastern and western ends of the Main Apron. This longitudinal grade
combined with the transverse gradient of 0.95% ensures that the resultant gradient on the
aircraft parking stands does not exceed 1% as specified in ICAO Annex 14.
At the time of writing this report, the vertical geometry for the northern aircraft parking stands
has not been finalised by the TP3 contractor.
4.2.6 Cargo Apron
The gradient along the front of the cargo terminal facility is flat, to ensure functionality of this
facility. A valley line has been incorporated into the apron at the rear of the aircraft parking
stands, and the parking stands generally grade downwards from front to back at 1%. A 0.25%
(west/east) longitudinal gradient occurs along the centreline of Taxiway B, and the maximum
transverse gradient between Taxiway B and the apron valley line is 1.5%. All of these
gradients comply with the requirements of ICAO Annex 14.
4.2.7 Low Cost Carrier Apron & Taxiway J
The centrelines of the future Low Cost Carrier Apron and Taxiway J have been graded.
Taxiway J forms an extension to Taxiway A8 north of Taxiway B. In order to match in with the
Master Graded levels of the Maintenance Apron and the proposed levels of the DG Yard
facilities and the Ground Handling Maintenance facilities, Taxiway J grades down from the
centreline of Taxiway B at approximately 1.1%, and the level of the intersection of Taxiway J
and the Low Cost Carrier Apron has been set at approximately 610.3m. This results in a
longitudinal (west/east) grading along the aircraft parking positions on the future Low Cost
Carrier Apron of 0.25%, which is considered to be acceptable by the Employer.
It is noted that the Phase 1 levels specified in the Employers Requirements Drawings for
the Main Crash Rescue Fire Facility are not consistent with the Master Grading requirements
for the adjacent Taxiways B and J. As agreed with the Employer, the Main Crash Rescue Fire
Facility has been moved to the east by approximately 385m in order to reduce earthworks
and ensure connectivity with adjacent aircraft movement areas.
4.2.8 Maintenance Apron
The detailed parking layout concept for the Phase 1 of the Maintenance Apron has not yet
been confirmed by the Employer. As such, the vertical geometry for this apron is only
preliminary and may be subject to change.

The preliminary grading concept provides a flat longitudinal gradient across the apron, and
transverse gradients between 1% and 1.5% sloping down from the southern side towards the
maintenance hangar. A valley line with apron strip drain has been located 50m from the front
face of the maintenance hangar, which corresponds to a distance of 15m from the front face
of the future planned maintenance hangars. This ensures that a single apron strip drain can
be provided along the extended Maintenance Apron which complies with the requirements of
ICAO Annex 14 and NFPA. The apron slopes up from the apron valley drain to the face of the
maintenance hangar at 1%.
4.3 Phase 1 Grading
The Phase 1 grading adopted for construction is consistent with the Master Grading for future
phases of development. This will ensure that all infrastructure constructed as part of the
Phase 1 development will be at elevations which allow for a tie-in of the planned future
infrastructure without the need for reconstruction of any of the Phase 1 works.
The future planned intersections between Runway 09/27 and Taxiways A1, A2, A10 as well as
intersections between Taxiways A/A7, Taxiways A/A8N, Taxiways B/A9 and the Main Apron
edges have been graded in accordance with the Master Grading concepts. This results in
localised changes in the cross sections of the Phase 1 taxiways, and it is noted that the
location of the future taxiways can therefore not be altered without a reconstruction of some
Phase 1 elements. Given the level of detailed Master Planning that has been performed by
the Employer, it is considered unlikely that the location of future taxiways will alter, hence this
methodology is considered to be acceptable.
Whilst the shoulder pavements will be constructed as full strength pavements in the location
of future taxiway intersections, all shoulders have been graded downwards at 2.5% as part of
the Phase 1 works. Accordingly, some minor shape correction by way of an asphalt overlay
will be required as part of the construction process for the future cross connecting taxiways.
Areas of the runway strip in the location of future cross connecting taxiways will be uniformly
graded from the edge of shoulder to the drainage channel as part of the Phase 1 works, and
culverts will not be installed in the location of future cross connecting taxiways. Accordingly,
some earthworks and drainage works will be required within the runway strip as part of the
construction process for the future cross connecting taxiways.
4.4 Building Levels
The design surface level (ground level) at the location of buildings adjacent to aircraft
pavements has been calculated from the Master Grading and Phase 1 Grading drawings. The
design surface level of the ground adjacent to these buildings is shown in Table 4.1 below.
Table 4.1 Design Surface Level Adjacent to Airside Buildings

Building Design Surface Level
Maintenance Hangar (TBC) 612.0
Maintenance Substation (TBC) 610.5
DG Yard 610.0
Ground Handling Maintenance Facility 610.35
Main Crash Rescue Fire Facility 613.2
Satellite Crash Rescue Fire Facility 604.0
Cargo Terminal Facility 602.39

5 Basis of Pavement Design

The structural design of aircraft pavements has been performed using the LEDFAA program
(Layered Elastic Design by the FAA). The pavement structures for flexible pavements have
been checked using the APSDS program (Aircraft Pavement Structural Design System). It is
not possible to check the pavement structures for rigid pavements using APSDS as the
programme was only developed to cater for flexible pavements.
The following design properties have been adopted for flexible and rigid pavement materials:
- Subgrade CBR - 12%.
- Subgrade Density 95% of Maximum Modified Dry Density.
- Subgrade k-value under rigid pavements - 44 kPa/mm.
- Fine Crushed Rock Modulus of Elasticity - 689 MPa (Max), = 0.30.
- Crushed Granular Subbase Modulus of Elasticity - 300 MPa (Max), = 0.30.
- Dry Lean Concrete Modulus of Elasticity 5,000 MPa, = 0.35.
- Asphalt Modulus of Elasticity 1,400 MPa, = 0.40.
- Portland Cement Concrete Flexural Strength 4.5 MPa.
6 Aircraft Traffic Analysis

The aircraft traffic model used for the structural design of aircraft pavements has been
developed from historical data obtained from the SH&E Air Traffic Forecasts report dated
March 2004. Aircraft fleet mix alternatives have also been studied from other selected
international airports including Doha and Sydney.
The following list identifies each of the steps utilised in the aircraft traffic analysis process.
Each of these steps will be detailed in the following sections of this report.
- Confirm total aircraft traffic volumes.
- Develop aircraft fleet mix alternatives, including a single fleet mix to be adopted for the
detailed design.
- Develop a Taxiway Utilisation Model (TUM) for the airport layout in order to predict the
relative usage of each of the aircraft movement areas.
- Develop an Apron Utilisation Model for each of the apron areas.
- Calculate the 20 year and annual aircraft traffic movements on each of the movement
areas, in accordance with the fleet mix alternatives and the TUM.
- Confirm future aircraft flight schedules and destinations.
- Confirm aircraft operating weights, including maximum takeoff and landing weights of
each of the aircraft in the fleet mix, takeoff weights for various aircraft in accordance with
the flight schedule, and operating weights for various apron areas.

6.1 Total Aircraft Traffic Volumes
The total traffic volumes for the first 20 years as stated in the Employers Requirement are
provided in Table 6.1 below.
Table 6.1 Traffic Volume for first 20 Years

Aircraft size Take-offs Landings
Cat 1 58,000 58,000
Cat 2 117,000 117,000
Cat 3 663,000 663,000
Cat 4 195,000 195,000
The total traffic volumes are used as a basis for developing the aircraft loading model for each
pavement element on the airfield. In order to complete the pavement thickness design for
each of the pavement elements on the airfield, the total traffic volumes within each category
are split into aircraft types according to the agreed aircraft fleet mix, and are distributed
around the airfield in accordance with the TUM.
6.2 Aircraft Fleet Mix
The aim of the aircraft fleet mix is to provide a distribution of aircraft that utilise the airfield
during the design life. An agreed aircraft fleet mix has been developed for the New Hyderabad
International Airport, and is a representation of the expected aircraft usage of the airport. A
number of aircraft fleet mix alternatives have also been developed to enable a sensitivity
analysis to be performed during the pavement thickness design process, and are based on
the SH&E report and the usage patterns of other international airports. The agreed aircraft
fleet mix and the aircraft fleet mix alternatives are presented in Table 6.2 below. Also
contained in the table is the fleet mix as given in the Employers Requirements. The
development of each of the fleet mix alternatives is discussed in detail below.
Table 6.2 Agreed Aircraft Fleet Mix and Aircraft Fleet Mix Alternatives
Category Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4
A321
Aircraft Learjet ATR-72 CRJ A319 A320 B737 A300 A310 A330 A340 A380 B747 B767 B777
**
Emp.
100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Req.
SH&E 100% 60% 40% 2% 41% 0% 57% 25% 38% 28% 0% 4.5% 4.5% 0% 0%
Doha 100% 60% 40% 22% 22% 22% 34% 29% 0% 12% 7% 4% 7% 29% 12%
Sydney 100% 60% 40% 22% 22% 22% 34% 0% 0% 5% 10% 24% 50% 0% 11%
Agreed 100% 60% 40% 22% 22% 22% 34% 15% 0% 26% 7% 4% 7% 29% 12%
** Note Although listed in this table as a Cat 3 aircraft, the newer stretch version of the A321
will carry in excess of 185 persons thus fall into the category of Cat 4 aircraft as defined in the
employers Requirements.

6.2.1 Brief
The Employer Requirement contains details of the total forecast aircraft traffic volumes for the
20 year design life, and a reference aircraft is provided for each of the four categories. The
aircraft fleet mix based on the Employer Requirement assumes usage of the airport by the
four reference aircraft only.
The aircraft fleet mix alternative based on the Employer Requirement is considered to be very
simplistic, and is used during the pavement thickness design process for comparison
purposes only.
6.2.2 SH&E Report
The SH&E Air Traffic Forecasts Report contains details on air traffic movements for the
existing Hyderabad Airport at Begumpet. The report lists aircraft movements by aircraft type,
and the movements are based on historical figures for a single month of operation of the
existing airport. No figures were provided for Cat 1 aircraft, hence the Learjet was again used
as a single reference aircraft. The report detailed a 9% usage of the existing airport by B747
aircraft. In order to account for future usage by the A380 aircraft, this 9% usage has been split
evenly between the B747 and A380 in the aircraft fleet mix.
The aircraft fleet mix alternative based on the SH&E report is considered to be simplistic
because it is based on historical usage of the existing airport, and does not account for the
change in usage patterns expected for the new airport. This aircraft fleet mix alternative is
used during the pavement thickness design process for comparison purposes only.
6.2.3 Doha International Airport
This aircraft fleet mix alternative is based on figures provided by COWI, and represents the
aircraft fleet mix used for pavement designs for a recent project at Doha International Airport.
The figures provided by COWI are for Cat 4 aircraft only. The Cat 1 and 2 fleet mix has been
carried over from the SH&E fleet mix alternative, and the Cat 3 fleet mix has been based on
an expected future uniform usage of the A320 family members, and a slightly higher usage of
the B737. Note that in comparison, however the B737 usage is only around half of the usage
of the A320 family. The usage pattern for Cat 3 aircraft is considered to be slightly
conservative due to the high proportion of A321 and B737 aircraft, as these aircraft are known
to be the most critical narrow bodied aircraft for pavement thickness design.
The aircraft fleet mix for Cat 4 aircraft includes a relative high proportion of A300 and B767
aircraft, which reflects that Doha is used extensively as a short medium haul destination
from European and Middle Eastern countries.
The aircraft fleet mix alternative based on the Doha International Airport usage is somewhat
representative of Hyderabad as a predominantly short medium haul destination, but does
not account for the phase-out of the A300 aircraft. This aircraft fleet mix alternative is used
during the pavement thickness design process to check the sensitivity of the agreed fleet mix.
6.2.4 Sydney International Airport
This aircraft fleet mix alternative is based on figures provided by Sinclair Knight Merz, and
represents the aircraft fleet mix used for pavement designs for a recent project at Sydney
International Airport. The figures provided by SKM are for Cat 4 aircraft only. The Cat 1 and 2
aircraft fleet mix has been carried over from the SH&E fleet mix alternative and the Cat 3
aircraft fleet mix has been carried over from the DOHA fleet mix alternative.

The aircraft fleet mix for Cat 4 aircraft includes a relative high proportion of B747 and A380
aircraft which reflects that Sydney is used extensively as a long haul destination from Asia,
Europe and the Americas. Note that the aircraft fleet mix has accounted for the phase-out of
the A300 aircraft.
The aircraft fleet mix alternative based on the Sydney International Airport usage is not
considered to be representative of Hyderabad as a predominantly short medium haul
destination, hence this aircraft fleet mix alternative is used during the pavement thickness
design process for to check the sensitivity of the agreed fleet mix.
.
6.2.5 Agreed Aircraft Fleet Mix
The agreed aircraft fleet mix is based on the expected future usage of the New Hyderabad
International Airport. The agreed aircraft fleet mix draws heavily on the Doha short to medium
haul scenario, but also recognises the expected change in usage with the growing aviation
market, and the expected change in usage due to the phase-out, historical traffic at the
existing Hyderabad Airport and the introduction of certain new future aircraft.
The Cat 1and 2 aircraft fleet mix has been carried over from the SH&E fleet mix alternative,
as these are considered to be an accurate, yet slightly conservative, representation of the
future narrow bodied aircraft usage for the New Hyderabad International Airport.
The Cat 3 & 4 aircraft fleet mix is similar to the Doha aircraft fleet mix, due to their similar
nature as a predominantly short medium haul destination. As such, the mix includes a
relative high proportion of A330 and B767 sized aircraft. Note that the agreed fleet mix has
accounted for the phase-out of the A300 aircraft by reducing its usage by 14% from the Doha
mix. Whilst the usage of the B767 is expected to reduce in the future as production of this
aircraft is phased out, the introduction of the B787 Dreamliner (similar sized medium haul
aircraft) is expected to yield similar numbers of departures of aircraft of this size thus we have
maintained the B767 in the fleet mix.
6.3 Taxiway Utilization Model
A Taxiway Utilization Model (TUM) has been developed for the airport layout in order to
predict the relative usage of each of the aircraft movement areas. The TUM assigns a
percentage of aircraft movements to each portion of runway and taxiway on the airfield and is
based on the likely usage patterns of each individual aircraft on both departure and arrival.
The HIAL Master Plan cites runway usage as 50% from the east and 50% from the west. As
such we have adopted a traffic distribution of 50:50 between both runway ends and allowed a
10% margin for sensitivity. The nominal usage is therefore taken to be 55% of the total traffic
from each runway end.
The TUM for departure and arrival traffic is presented in Appendix A. A detailed explanation of
each of the elements of the TUM is provided in the following paragraphs.
6.3.1 Departure Traffic Utilization Model
The Phase 1 development does not provide a full length parallel taxiway for Runway 09/27.
The westernmost and easternmost access taxiways are Taxiway A4 and Taxiway A9
respectively. It is assumed that the majority of smaller aircraft will takeoff using an intersection
departure from either Taxiway A4, A8 or A9, and that 50% of Cat 3 aircraft and all Cat 4
aircraft will backtrack to the end of the runway for departure. The TUM therefore distinguishes
between the runway and runway backtrack elements.

The departure TUM for the runway element assumes that all aircraft will rotate before the mid
point of the runway, and therefore each portion of the runway element will only ever receive a
pass by aircraft from either runway end, not both. The departure TUM for the runway
backtrack element assumes that no Cat1 or Cat 2 aircraft will backtrack for departure, due to
the very long runway length. The departure TUM assumes that 50% of Cat 3 aircraft and all
Cat 4 aircraft will backtrack for departure, and given that each departure of the backtrack
portion represents two passes of each aircraft, the usage is represented as 55% and 110%
for Cat 3 and Cat 4 aircraft respectively.
The Phase 1 development includes two taxiway connections between Taxiway A and the main
parking apron. It is assumed that the access taxiways will be predominantly used as part of a
circuit for departing and arriving aircraft. In this case, the elements of Taxiway A and Taxiway
A5 will each receive a pass from aircraft departing from Runway 09, and the elements of
Taxiway A and A6 North (A6N) will each receive a pass from aircraft departing from Runway
27. The resulting usage of these taxiways is therefore 55%. Arguably, the portion of Taxiway A
between Taxiways A5 and A6N will receive nil departure traffic, however for simplicity this
element has been modelled as per the remainder of Taxiway A. Taxiway E provides the entry
to the aircraft parking stands, and its usage will also form part of the circuit. The usage of
Taxiway E is therefore equal to that of Taxiway A, and is taken as 55%.
It is assumed that aircraft will not perform an intersection departure from Taxiway A6S, due to
its proximity to the midpoint of Runway 09/27 and the associated low takeoff run available.
Aircraft departing from Runway 09 must therefore access the runway via Taxiway A4S, and
hence the usage of this taxiway is taken as 55%. Aircraft departing from Runway 27 may elect
to access the runway via either Taxiway A8 or A9, depending on the takeoff distance required
and depending on whether they need to backtrack. It is assumed that aircraft that need to
backtrack will enter the runway via Taxiway A9. The usage of Taxiway A9 has been taken as
55%, which is considered to be slightly conservative. The usage of Taxiway A8 has been
taken as 55% for all aircraft except the large long haul B747, B777, A340 and A380 aircraft.
The usage of these aircraft on Taxiway A8 has been taken as only 10%, as it is recognised
that the majority of these aircraft will backtrack to the runway end for departure.
The Employer Requirement provided usage figures for the Cargo Apron and Maintenance
Apron, in terms of aircraft numbers. It is recognised, however that the entry taxiways to these
aprons form part of the major taxiway network for the Phase 2 development, and hence
should be designed based on expected future traffic. Whilst it is unknown exactly when the
airport development will result in these taxiways being subjected to through traffic, the usage
figure of 40% adopted for these elements is considered to be conservative. In the TUM, these
taxiways are designated Taxiway A4N, B and A9N.
Taxiways K1 and M1 provide access to the northern parking stands on the eastern and
western sides of the apron respectively. The usage for these taxiways has been calculated to
be 35%, which equates to an average of 5 departures per day for 8 aircraft parking stands,
every day for the 20 year design life. The usage of these taxiways is for Cat 1, 2 and 3 aircraft
only.
6.3.2 Arrival Traffic Utilization Model
In order to be conservative, it is assumed that all aircraft touch down at the end of the runway.
It is assumed that all Cat 1, 2 and 3 aircraft will exit the runway via Taxiway A6S, and
therefore each portion of the runway element (including backtrack portions) will only ever
receive a pass by aircraft from either runway end, not both. It is assumed that two thirds of all
Cat 4 aircraft will roll past Taxiway A6S on arrival, and will depart via either Taxiway A4S or
Taxiway A8. The backtrack elements will therefore not receive backtracking traffic on arrival.
The usage of backtrack elements is therefore taken as 55% for all aircraft, whilst the usage of
the remaining portion of the runway is taken as 55% for Cat 1, 2 and 3 aircraft and 90% for
Cat 4 aircraft (Note: 90% = 55% + 2/3 x 55%).

As discussed above, all Cat 1, 2 and 3 aircraft are assumed to exit via Taxiway A6S, and two
thirds of Cat 4 aircraft are assumed to roll past Taxiway A6S on arrival. The usage of Taxiways
A4S, A8 and A9 is therefore taken as 0% for Cat 1, 2 and 3 aircraft and 36% for Cat 4 aircraft.
The usage of Taxiway A is identical to these connecting taxiways, however to add some
conservatism to the model it is assumed that 10% of Cat 1, 2 and 3 aircraft utilise Taxiway A
on arrival.
The usage for Taxiway A6S is taken as 100% for Cat 1, 2 and 3 aircraft. Whilst we have
assumed that two thirds of Cat 4 aircraft will roll past Taxiway A6S on arrival, for conservatism
a 36% Cat 4 usage has been adopted.
As for the departure model, the arrival model assumes that the apron entries will be used in a
circuit configuration, and therefore the usage of Taxiways A5, A6N and E will be 55% for all
aircraft.
The usage of the entry taxiways to the Cargo Apron and Maintenance Apron under the Phase
2 development will be similar to those of Taxiways A4S and A9 respectively. An identical
usage has therefore been adopted, including 0% usage by Cat 1, 2 and 3 aircraft and 36%
usage by Cat 4 aircraft. As for the departure TUM, these taxiways are designated Taxiways
A4N, B and A9N.
The usage of Taxiways K1 and M1 on arrival is identical to that of the departure TUM. A usage
of 35% for Cat 1, 2 and 3 aircraft has therefore been adopted.
6.4 Apron Utilization Model
An Apron Utilization Model (AUM) has been developed for each of the apron areas on the
airport. The AUM assigns a number of parkings to each of the aircraft parking stands on an
apron area, and is based on the likely usage patterns of each individual aircraft. A single
parking is taken as one arrival at Maximum Landing Mass and one departure at Maximum
Take Off Mass. For the maintenance apron, a single parking is taken as one arrival and one
departure both at reduced mass.
The Employer Requirement contains details on the usage regime for the Maintenance Apron,
the Cargo Apron and the apron to the south of the Passenger Terminal Building (PTB). No
details were given for the apron areas to the north of the PTB or for the Isolation Bay. The
usage for these two aprons areas has therefore been estimated.
A summary of the total number of parkings for the 20 year design life for each aircraft parking
stand is provided in Table 6.3 below. The AUM, including differing loading scenarios for each
of the apron areas, is discussed in the following sections and a summary table of the AUM is
provided in Appendix B.
Table 6.3 Total Parkings for Aircraft Parking Stands for First 20 Years
Cat 3 Cat 4
Aircraft Parking Stand
Parkings Parkings
Southern Stands 36,500 36,500
Northern Stands 56,940 -
Cargo Apron 1500 1000
Maintenance Apron 22,000 7,500
Isolation Bay 1500 1000

6.4.1 Southern Code F Parking Stands
The apron to the south of the PTB contains a number of stands that are equipped to cater for
Code F aircraft. These stands are also equipped to cater for the smaller Cat 3 aircraft, but
with differing lead-in line alignments. It is therefore assumed that both Cat 3 and Cat 4
parkings can occur on any single parking stand, but that the loading associated with the
parkings do not overlap. The AUM for the southern Code F parking stands caters for 36,500
parkings by either Cat 3 or Cat 4 aircraft, but not both.
The AUM considers a number of different loading scenarios for the southern Code F parking
stands in order to provide a sensitivity analysis for the pavement thickness designs. The two
realistic loading scenarios are based on a full Cat 3 aircraft fleet mix and a full Cat 4 aircraft
fleet mix, taken from the agreed aircraft fleet mix presented above. Three worst case,
unrealistic loading scenarios based on all A321 aircraft, all A340-600 aircraft and all A380
aircraft are provided for a sensitivity comparison only.
6.4.2 Southern Code C Parking Stands
The Employer has confirmed that the southern Code C parking stands are to cater for
occasional use by Code F aircraft. The AUM for the southern Code C parking stands
considers two realistic loading options. The first option is based on 5 parkings per day using
the full Cat 3 aircraft fleet mix. The second option is based on 3 parkings per day using the full
Cat 3 aircraft fleet mix, and 2 parkings per day using the worst case Cat 4 aircraft, namely the
A340-600.
6.4.3 Northern Code C Parking Stands
The Employer Requirement does not contain a usage regime for the northern Code C parking
stands. A conservative estimate of the usage regime for these parking stands has been
generated, and is outlined in Table 6.4 below. The usage regime recognises the planned
incremental upgrade of the northern parking stands to include passenger boarding bridges,
and also recognises the planned usage growth over the 20 year design period. The 56,940
parkings adopted for the pavement design is based on the worst case loading scenario of 3
parkings / day for years 1-4, 7 parkings / day for years 5-8, 9 parkings / day for years 9-12,
and 10 parkings / day for years 13-20.
Table 6.4 Usage Regime for Northern Code C Parking Stands for First 20
years
Year Stands Equipped with PBBs Remote Stands
6 Remote Stands.
1-4 No PBBs.
3 Parkings / day.
2 PBBs. 4 Remote Stands.

5-8
7 Parkings / day. 3 Parkings / day.
4 PBBs. 2 Remote Stands.

9 - 12
9 Parkings / day. 3 Parkings / day.
6 PBBs.
13 - 20 No Remote Stands.
10 Parkings / day.
The AUM for the northern Code C parking stands considers two loading options. The first is a
realistic option and is based on the full Cat 1, 2 and 3 aircraft fleet mix. The second option is
less realistic and is based only on the full Cat 3 aircraft fleet mix.

6.4.4 Cargo Apron
Two loading options have been considered for the Cargo Apron. The realistic option is based
on the full Cat 3 and Cat 4 agreed aircraft fleet mix. The unrealistic option is based on use by
A321 and A340-600 aircraft only, and is provided for a sensitivity comparison only.
6.4.5 Maintenance Apron
As for the Cargo Apron, two loading options have been considered for the Maintenance
Apron. The realistic option is based on the full Cat 3 and Cat 4 agreed aircraft fleet mix. The
unrealistic option is based on usage by A321 and A340-600 aircraft only, and is provided for a
sensitivity comparison only.
The centre portion of the Maintenance Apron will be utilised as an access taxiway, and hence
its usage regime will differ from the Maintenance Apron aircraft parking stands. As such, this
element is analysed separately and is referred to as Maintenance Taxiway in the AUM.
The Employers Requirement indicates that six parking stands are required on the
Maintenance Apron. Whilst on average this equates to 16.6% usage by each parking stand,
we have adopted a 50% usage for each parking stand.
6.4.6 Isolation Bay
The Employer requirement does not contain a usage regime for the Isolation Bay. The
Isolation Bay is intended for use by stand off aircraft for emergency and quarantine purposes,
and is not considered to be a high use facility. It is possible that the facility may be used to
conduct engine runs in the future.
As a conservative approach, the usage regime for the Cargo Apron has been adopted for the
Isolation Bay.
6.5 20 Year and Annual Aircraft Traffic Movements
The aircraft traffic inputs into the pavement thickness design software include aircraft type,
annual departures and arrivals, aircraft weight on departure and arrival, and design period.
This section of the report describes how the 20 year and annual departure and arrivals figures
have been calculated for input into the pavement design software. The design life has been
previously discussed in this report, and aircraft operating weights will be discussed later.
The total annual movements of each aircraft for each element of pavement on the airport is
calculated based on the total traffic volumes for each category of aircraft, the aircraft fleet mix
distribution within each category of aircraft, the Taxiway Utilization Model and the design
period. The following formula represents the calculation of total annual aircraft movements for
any given pavement element and for any given aircraft type:
T t Pfm Ptum
T1
DL
Where: T1 = Annual movements of particular aircraft type.
Tt = Total traffic volume for particular aircraft category.
Pfm = Percentage of aircraft fleet mix applicable to aircraft category.
Ptum = Percentage of Traffic Utilization Model applicable.
DL = Design life in years.

For example, the annual departures of the A330 on Taxiway A, based on the agreed aircraft
fleet mix is as follows:
T1
195000 26% 55%
20
T1 1394
Appendix C provides a summary of the 20 year traffic volumes for each of the runway and
taxiway pavement elements for each of the five aircraft fleet mix alternatives.
Appendix D provides a summary of the annual traffic volumes for each of the runway and
taxiway pavement elements for each of the five aircraft fleet mix alternatives.
The figures provided in the Apron Utilization Model are already presented as 20 year traffic
volumes, but are presented as the number of parkings rather than being presented separately
as the number of departures and arrivals. The total annual parkings for each aircraft is
obtained by dividing the total number of parkings by the design life, however a multiplication
factor must be applied to compensate for channelized traffic on aircraft parking stands.
Aircraft parking stands on aprons use electronic Nose In Guidance Systems (NIGS) or
marshallers to guide aircraft along the lead in line. This results in aircraft tracking directly
along the lead in line with a very small degree of aircraft wander. The computer program
LEDFAA calculates the Pass to Coverage Ratio (PCR) for each aircraft, depending on its
undercarriage configuration, mass and known degree of wander. On apron areas where
aircraft traffic is highly channelized, it is therefore necessary to multiply the number of annual
parkings by the actual PCR in order to simulate a PCR of 1:1. The PCR for various aircraft at
Maximum Take Off Mass are presented in Table 6.5 below.
Note that the Maintenance Taxiway pavement element is not subject to the PCR multiplication
factor, as the aircraft utilising this element are not marshalled and will exhibit a standard
degree of aircraft wander.
Table 6.5 LEDFAA Pass to Coverage Ratios for Various Aircraft at MTOM
Aircraft Learjet ATR-72 CRJ A319 A320 A321 B737 A300 A310 A330 A340 A380 B747 B767 B777
PCR 8.82 3.79 3.88 3.66 3.62 3.24 3.55 3.4 3.63 1.86 1.88 3.62 3.47 3.46 4.18
Appendix E provides a summary of the annual number of parkings for each of the apron
elements for each of the apron loading scenarios, as well as a summary of the annual number
of parkings including the PCR adjustment.
6.6 Aircraft Flight Schedules
As explained previously in this report, the agreed aircraft fleet mix for the New Hyderabad
International Airport has been developed with the understanding that the airport will
predominantly operate short and medium haul flights within the Indian, South Asian, Middle
Eastern and European regions.

Due to the nature of the estimated flight schedules for the new airport, it is anticipated that a
proportion of the larger aircraft that fly on short and medium haul routes will depart Hyderabad
at a reduced take off mass. We have taken a conservative approach in the estimation of
aircraft take off mass, whereby we have assumed that all aircraft depart at Maximum Zero
Fuel Weight (MZFW) plus enough fuel to service the destination, including reserves. It is
therefore necessary to predict the mass of fuel carried by each aircraft in order to service the
required destination.
The SH&E Traffic Forecast Report contains theoretical flight schedules for the period until
2030. The theoretical schedules are derived directly from the provisional timetable and the
ATM forecasts for the New Hyderabad International Airport. The flight schedules include an
expansion of the number of destinations serviced from Hyderabad, at the rate of
approximately one international and one domestic destination per year until 2030.
In order to simplify the calculation of fuel weights required to service each destination, we
have grouped the destinations into a series of zones. Table 6.6 below provides a summary of
the ranges applicable and some typical destination examples for each zone.
Table 6.6 Summary of Departure Zones

Zone Range Example Destinations
Delhi
1 < 1,000 nm
Colombo
Singapore
2 1,000 to 2,500 nm Dubai
Nairobi
London
3 2,500 to 5,500 nm Frankfurt
Tokyo
4 > 5,500 nm Toronto
Appendix F contains a full list of international and domestic departure destinations by zone,
including the introduction date of each destination and the estimated number of weekly
departures to each destination. Note that the SH&E report provided figures in 5 year
increments; the tables in Appendix F interpolate between these figures to provide annual
departures.
6.7 Aircraft Operating Weights
The operating weights for all aircraft in the aircraft fleet mix are presented in Table 6.9 at the
end of this section.
6.7.1 Maintenance Facility
Aircraft utilising the maintenance facility typically do so with little or no passengers or cargo,
and a minor amount of on board fuel. The pavement thickness designs for the maintenance
facility have been based on entry and exit at a reduced mass, taken as being equal to the
operating empty mass of the aircraft plus 40% usable fuel.

6.7.2 Landing Weights
The pavement thickness designs for all movement areas excluding the maintenance facility
have been performed using the arrival mass of all aircraft equal to the maximum landing
mass. This is considered to be conservative, as the majority of aircraft that land at the airfield
will do so with operating weights mid way between the operating empty mass and maximum
landing mass.
6.7.3 Reduced Departure Weights
The pavement thickness designs for all movement areas excluding the maintenance facility
have been performed using a departure mass consistent with their intended destination. For
some aircraft, this departure mass is equal to the maximum take off mass for the aircraft, and
for other aircraft this departure mass is reduced below the maximum take off mass.
In order to provide a sensitivity comparison, pavement thickness designs have also been
performed with all departing aircraft at maximum take off mass.
The reduced departure mass concept follows on from the analysis of departure zones from
the previous section in this report. As stated previously, it is anticipated that a proportion of
the larger aircraft that fly on short and medium haul routes will depart Hyderabad at a reduced
take off mass, equal to the maximum zero fuel weight plus enough fuel to service the
destination, including reserves.
Cat 1, 2 and 3 aircraft will be used to service the domestic and short haul international
destinations in departure zones 1 and 2. As these aircraft have short range capabilities in
comparison to the Cat 4 aircraft, we have assumed that all Cat 1, 2 and 3 aircraft will always
depart Hyderabad at maximum take off mass.
In order to be conservative, we have assumed that Cat 4 aircraft will service zones 2, 3 and 4
only, and will not be used to service the largely domestic market within departure zone 1. A
summary of the international departures taken over the 20 year design life from 2008 to 2027
has been taken from the SH&E report (replicated in Appendix F) and is presented in Table 6.7
below.
Table 6.7 Summary of International Departures within Design Life

International
Zone Range
Departures
1 < 1,000 nm 17,940
2 1,000 to 2,500 nm 165,152
3 2,500 to 5,500 nm 33,852
4 > 5,500 nm 0
The total traffic volume presented in the Employers Requirement indicates that 195,000
departures will be performed in the 20 year design life by Cat 4 aircraft. This roughly equates
to the calculated departures for zones 2 and 3 in Table 6.7, and equates to 83% of Cat 4
departures to Zone 2 and 17% of Cat 4 departures to Zone 3. In order to be conservative, we
have assumed that 20% of Cat 4 departures will occur to Zone 3.
Of the Cat 4 aircraft, we have assumed that the A300, A310 and B767 can only service zone
2 at maximum take off mass. We have also assumed that all aircraft servicing the long haul
destinations in departure zone 3 depart Hyderabad at maximum take off mass. It follows,
therefore, that the only reduced mass departures occur by the larger Cat 4 aircraft that
service departure zone 2.

Most long haul aircraft cruise at around 850-950 kph, thus for a 2,500 nm (Zone 2) flight and
30 minutes cruise allowance, the aircraft fly for around 6 hours. Table 6.8 below provides a
summary of the fuel burn rates and adopted reduced departure weights for the larger Cat 4
aircraft. Note that no fuel burn rates were available for the A380, hence to be conservative we
have adopted the fuel burn rate of the B747-400.
Table 6.8 Calculation of Reduced Departure Mass for Some Cat 4 Aircraft
Fuel Burn Zero Fuel ZFM + Usable
Aircraft MTOM (t)
Rate (t/hour) Weight (t) Fuel (t)
A330 5.8 175 210 230
A340 7.9 251 298 368
A380 11.5 361 430 560
B747 11.5 256 325 397
B777 6.9 225 266 298
6.7.4 Summary of Aircraft Operating Weights
A summary of the operating weights for all aircraft in the aircraft fleet mix are presented in
Table 6.9 below.
Table 6.9 Aircraft Operating Weights
Aircraft Learjet ATR-72 CRJ A319 A320 A321 B737 A300 A310 A330 A340 A380 B747 B767 B777
MTOM 9.3 22 38 75.5 77 89 79 171 150 230 368 560 397 159 298
MLM 8.7 21.85 30.4 61 64.5 75.5 71 140 123 185 259 386 274 136 225
OEM - - - 39 44 47.5 42.9 87 79 129.6 175 270.3 178.8 86 160.6

Fuel
- - - 18.8 18.8 18.8 20.9 51.3 48.2 77.3 153 247.5 173.4 50.7 135.9
Mass
OEM +
- - - 46.5 51.5 55.0 51.3 107.5 98.3 160.5 236.2 369.3 248.2 106.3 215.0
40% Fuel
Reduced
Takeoff - - - - - - - - - 210 298 430 325 - 266
Mass
Appendix G provides a summary of the annual traffic volumes for each of the runway and
taxiway pavement elements for each of the five aircraft fleet mix alternatives, including
reduced departure weights.

7 Pavement Thickness Design

7.1 LEDFAA Results
7.1.1 LEDFAA Design Methodology
Pavement thickness designs have been performed using LEDFAA 1.3 for each of the
pavement elements for both the maximum take off mass and the reduced take off mass
loading cases.
The US FAA specifications and design standards form the basis for LEDFAA. These
standards require that the top 150mm of base be stabilised to cater for the heavy wheel loads
of modern aircraft. This requirement can be waived subject to the material being used for
base course being of sound unweathered rock, tightly and uniformly graded and of a CBR of
at least 100%. We believe these requirements can be easily achieved subject to material
production being controlled closely by L&T. As such, the design does not include stabilisation
of the top 150mm of base course. This methodology has successfully been implemented in
Hong Kong and throughout Australia.
The design methodology adopted for the LEDFAA analysis is as follows:
- Input traffic data, including aircraft type, operating weights and number of annual
movements;
- Set design life equal to 20 years;
- Define pavement structure. For flexible pavements we have adopted P-401 AC Surface,
P-209 Crushed Aggregate Base, P-154 Uncrushed Aggregate Subbase and Subgrade
CBR 12%. For rigid pavements we have adopted PCC Surface, P-306 Econocrete
Subbase, and Subgrade K 44 kPa/mm.
- For rigid pavements, set subbase layer thickness to 200mm, and design PCC surface
thickness;
- For flexible pavements, design base course using a simulated subgrade of bearing
strength CBR 20% with no subbase layer, then add subbase layer and design this layer
using a bearing strength of CBR 12%;
- For the agreed aircraft fleet mix, repeat the previous step but using a simulated subgrade
of bearing strength CBR 30% to design the base course layer (See Note below); and
- For the agreed aircraft fleet mix, adopt a base course thickness of 350mm, then design
the subbase layer using a subgrade bearing strength of CBR 12% (See Note below).
Note:- FAA guidelines suggest that the base course layer be designed using a simulated
subgrade strength of CBR 20%, which equates to a subbase material with a Modulus of
approximately 200MPa. The 200MPa Modulus is applicable to low quality subbase materials,
such as natural gravel and uncrushed river gravel. The subbase material for this project is
crushed from hard, sound, unweathered granite from the same rock source as the base
course, and as such will exhibit a Modulus well in excess of 300MPa. As such, we have
adopted a simulated subgrade Modulus of 300MPa, but have limited the thickness of the base
course layer to a minimum of 350mm to promote some conservatism in the design and to aid
in the constructability of the base course layers.

LEDFAA uses properties for pavement materials from FAA construction specifications,
detailed in FAA AC 150/5370-10B Standards For Specifying Construction of Airports (April
2005). The specification for P501 Portland Cement Concrete is based on 90% of flexural
strength test results exceeding 0.93 x specified flexural strength. For this project we have
adopted a specified flexural strength of 4.72MPa, hence LEDFAA assumes that 90% of test
results will exceed a flexural strength of 4.4MPa. Construction specifications will be prepared
for this project to ensure that this requirement is met.
It should be noted that the default specified flexural strength used by LEDFAA is 4.83MPa. By
adopting a specified flexural strength of 4.72MPa our design is considered to be more
conservative than standard FAA designs.
7.1.2 Runway and Taxiway Elements
A summary of the LEDFAA generated pavement thicknesses for runway and taxiway
elements, based on the reduced take off mass loading case, is presented in Appendix H.
Prints of the LEDFAA runs for the agreed loading case using 350mm base course are
presented in Appendix N.
With the exception of Taxiway A9N, M1 and K1, all pavement elements have been designed
using an asphalt thickness of 125mm. Taxiways A9N, M1 and K1 have been designed using
an asphalt thickness of 75mm, which has been modelled in LEDFAA as an undefined layer
with Modulus 1,400 MPa.
The base course and subbase layers for Taxiways A4N and B have been designed using an
asphalt thickness of 125mm, however these pavement elements have been reported with as
asphalt thickness of 75mm. Albeit the Employers requirements list traffic volumes for these
taxiways, they have been designed according to future predicted traffic expected when they
will both form part of the major taxiway network in future phases of development of the airport.
We have assumed that these taxiways will be overlaid with an additional 50mm of asphalt at
the time of construction of the future connecting taxiways to coincide with the introduction of
the additional traffic.
The traffic given in the Employers Requirements is considerably lower, and the 75mm asphalt
is sufficient to cater for this loading, as demonstrated by the Cumulative Damage Factor
check results in Table 7.1 below.
Table 7.1 CDF Checks for Taxiways A4N and B, with 75mm AC Surface
AC Base Subbase
Taxiway CDF
(mm) (mm) (mm)
A4N 75 350 215 0.14
B 75 350 215 0.14
In order to provide a sensitivity comparison, pavement thickness designs have also been
performed with all departing aircraft at maximum take off mass. A summary of the LEDFAA
generated pavement thicknesses for runway and taxiway elements, based on the maximum
take off mass loading case, is presented in Appendix I. Note that because this loading case is
only provided for comparison purposes, the base course layer has only been designed based
on a simulated subgrade bearing capacity of CBR 20%.

7.1.3 Runway & Taxiway Shoulders and Blast Pads
Shoulders to runways are required by ICAO Annex 14 to be structurally capable of

accommodating an occasional pass of an aircraft and to be structurally capable of supporting
maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles.
The runway shoulders for this project have been designed to accommodate 2 coverages of
the A380 aircraft, 2 coverages of the A320 aircraft and unlimited use by fire tender and
emergency vehicles on any given section. We have adopted maximum take off mass for the
A380 and A320 aircraft, and four axle groups each of 14t for the fire tender. The number of
movements input into LEDFAA for all vehicles have been adjusted for PCR.
The blast pads have been designed to the same structural requirements as the runway
shoulders.
Another requirement for runway shoulder under ICAO Annex 14 is that the shoulder
pavement must not be less than half of the thickness of the runway pavement. We have
checked that the shoulder pavements comply with this requirement.
Shoulders to taxiways are required by ICAO Annex 14 to be structurally capable of supporting

maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles. There is no structural requirement to hold
aircraft loads nor is there a requirement for the shoulders to be paved.
The taxiways shoulders for this project have been designed to accommodate unlimited use by
fire tender and emergency vehicles. The inner 6.5m of taxiways shoulders have been paved
to aid in debris becoming a FOD hazard.
All runway and taxiway shoulders will be constructed to full depth pavement to facilitate future
taxiway connections. Localised shoulder thickening occurs at the locations detailed in Table
7.2.
Table 7.2 Location of Shoulder Thickening
Movement Area Area of Shoulder to be Thickened
Northern shoulder of 09 Turn Pad and 27 Turn Pad to facilitate

connection of Taxiways A1, A2, A10, A11. To be thickened using
Runway 09/27 Transition Pavement.
Northern shoulder of Runway 09/27 to facilitate connection of
Taxiways A5, A6, A7.
Northern shoulder of Taxiway A to facilitate future connection of
Taxiways K, A8N.
Taxiway A
Southern shoulder of Taxiway A to facilitate future connection of
Taxiways A5, A6, A7.
Western shoulder of Taxiway A4 to facilitate future connection of
Taxiway A4
Taxiway A.
Eastern and western shoulders of Taxiway A9 to facilitate future
Taxiway A9
connection of Taxiways A, B.
Eastern and western shoulders of Main Apron to facilitate future
Main Apron
apron extensions.
Cargo Apron / Western shoulder of Cargo Apron to facilitate future connection of
Taxiway B Taxiways A3, B.

7.1.4 Apron Elements
A summary of the LEDFAA generated pavement thicknesses for apron elements, for all
loading cases, is presented in Appendix J. Prints of LEDFAA runs for the adopted loading
cases are presented in Appendix N.
The LEDFAA results indicate that the southern Code F stands, southern Code C stands and
northern Code C stands on the main apron all require 410mm PCC on 200mm DLC for the
recommended loading options.
The relatively thick requirement for the various Code C stands is due to the damage imparted
by the A321 aircraft. Whilst this aircraft is light in comparison to the large Code E and Code F
aircraft, its mass is supported only on a dual wheel undercarriage, and this loading case is
typically critical for PCC pavements.
The results also show a difference in the PCC thickness requirements for the Maintenance
Taxiway and Maintenance Apron. This is due to the varying degree of aircraft wander applied
to these pavements. Accordingly, the centre portion of the apron will be constructed in the
thinner taxiway pavement, whilst the areas intended for use as aircraft parking stands will be
constructed in the thicker apron pavement.
7.2 Adopted Pavement Structures
The pavement structures adopted for all flexible and rigid pavement elements are presented
in Appendices K and L respectively. A summary of the pavement structures adopted for
flexible and rigid pavement elements are presented in Tables 7.3 and 7.4 below.
Table 7.3 Flexible Pavement Structures Adopted for Construction

Pavement AC Base Subbase
Pavement Element
Type (mm) (mm) (mm)
Type 1** 125 350 230 Runway
Type 2** 125 350 250 Runway Backtrack Portions
Type 3 125 350 230 Taxiways A, A4S, A5, A6N, A8, A9S, E
Type 4 75 350 215 Taxiways A4N, B
Type 5 125 350 160 Taxiway A6S
Type 6 75 350 135 Taxiway A9N
Type 7 75 350 265 Taxiways M1, K1
Type 8 50 200 120 Runway Shoulders and Blast Pads
Type 9 50 200 115 Taxiway Shoulders
**Note - FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320-6D permits a reduction of pavement thickness to

0.7T on the extreme outer edges of a runway. This enables the construction of a keel section.
The Circular mandates a 15m central full strength section and then permits a tapered keel
over the next 7.5m each side matching into the remainder of the pavement which is at a
constant thickness of 0.7T. The permitted reduction in pavement thickness is based on FAA
Report No. FAA-RD-36, Field Survey Information and Analysis of Aircraft Distribution. The
runways pavements for this project will be constructed with a tapered keel section, however
where future taxiway exits are proposed based on the Master Plan, full strength pavements
will be constructed up to the edge of shoulder. Figure 3-1 in the Advisory Circular is attached
as Appendix O, and details a minimum asphalt thickness of 50mm in the extreme outer edges
of the runway. Conservatively, we have adopted 100mm asphalt in such areas.

Table 7.4 Rigid Pavement Structures Adopted for Construction

Pavement PCC DLC
Pavement Element
Type (mm) (mm)
Rigid Type 1a 420 200 Rigid Runway End
Rigid Type 1b 435 200 Rigid Runway End thickening at Backtrack Portions**
Rigid Type 2 410 200 Southern Code F, Southern Code C, Northern Code C
Rigid Type 3 340 200 Cargo Apron, Isolation Bay
Rigid Type 4 300 200 Maintenance Taxiway & Apron
**Note Backtrack portions occur near the start of the Runway Turn Pad where aircraft wheel
tracks overlap when entering and when exiting the turn
7.3 APSDS Check
A check of the aircraft pavement thickness designs for flexible pavements was performed
using the computer program Airport Pavement Structural Design System (APSDS). Standard
taxiway wander of 773mm was utilised for the analysis.
APSDS has been calibrated against test pavements constructed by the US Corps of
Engineers and does not contain a calibration for 6 wheel bogies. As such, APSDS gives
erroneous results for pavement designs with aircraft containing 6 wheel bogies. Bruce
Rodway has previously advised that A380 and B777 aircraft should be modelled using B747
aircraft with an equivalent ACN. Table 7.5 below provides a summary of the ACN conversion
used for the B747 equivalencies.
Table 7.5 B747 ACN Equivalencies for A380 and B777 Aircraft
Mass 560t 386t 430t
A380
ACN 68 42 48
Mass 412t 290t 322t
B747 Equiv
ACN 68 42 48
Mass 298t 225t 266t
B777
ACN 58 39 49
Mass 370t 275t 325t
B747 Equiv
ACN 58 39 49
Table 7.6 details the results from the APSDS analysis versus the adopted pavement
structures results obtained from LEDFAA. The results indicate that in all cases the APSDS
gives a thinner subbase layer thickness, hence all of the pavement thicknesses adopted for
construction are suitable when checked with APSDS.

Table 7.6 APSDS Versus LEDFAA Results
Pavement Base Subbase
Pavement Element Program AC (mm)
Type (mm) (mm)
LEDFAA 125 350 230
Type 1 Runway
APSDS 125 350 145
Runway Backtrack LEDFAA 125 350 250
Type 2
Portions APSDS 125 350 160
Taxiways A, A4S, A5, LEDFAA 125 350 230
Type 3
A6N, A8, A9S, E APSDS 125 350 145
LEDFAA 75 350 215
Type 4 Taxiways A4N, B
APSDS 75 350 135
LEDFAA 125 350 160
Type 5 Taxiway A6S
APSDS 125 350 75
LEDFAA 75 350 135
Type 6 Taxiway A9N
APSDS 75 350 60
LEDFAA 75 350 265
Type 7 Taxiways M1, K1
APSDS 75 350 175
7.4 Subgrade Preparation
7.4.1 Areas in Cut
The cut embankment for this project has been provided by the employer at a minimum
density of 95% MMDD, and a bearing strength of CBR 12% minimum.
FAA Advisory Circular AC 5320-6D Airport Pavement Design & Evaluation requires the
subgrade to be prepared to minimum compaction requirements as specified in Table 7.5
below. Note that the figures provided in Table 7.7 are for the B747 aircraft only at 365 tonne.
Table 7.7 FAA Requirements for Subgrade Compaction for B747 at 365
tonne
Depth (In) Depth (mm) Compaction
0-9 0-225 95% MMDD
9-18 225-450 90% MMDD
18-27 450-675 85% MMDD
27-36 675-900 80% MMDD
The figures provided in Table 7.7 have not been updated by the FAA following the introduction
of Triple Dual Tandem undercarriage configurations, such as those used by the B777 and
A380 aircraft, and has not been updated for heavier Dual Tandem leg loads, such as those of
the A340-600 and B747-400 aircraft.
To guard against future compaction under aircraft loads, L&T ECC recommend a minimum
subgrade compaction standard as listed in Table 7.8 below. We however note that the
Employer has confirmed that the subgrade at handover to L&T ECC will be at a minimum
compaction of 95%.

Table 7.8 Subgrade Compaction Requirements New Hyderabad

International Airport
Depth (mm) Compaction
0-250 98% MMDD
250-500 95% MMDD
500-750 90% MMDD
750-1000 85% MMDD
7.4.2 Areas in Fill
The fill embankment for this project has been prepared by others but will be raised by L&T
ECC. The Employer will provide the embankment compacted to a minimum of 95% MMDD,
and filled with material having a bearing strength of CBR 12% minimum.
Filling by L&T will be compacted to a minimum of 95% MMDD. The top 250mm of subgrade
will be compacted to 98% MMDD.
7.5 Proof Rolling
The Employers Requirements includes proof rolling as part of the compliance testing of the
airfield pavements.
Proof rolling will be performed at the top of subgrade and at the top of unbound granular
pavements for high strength aircraft pavements. Proof rolling will be performed after final
compaction and with the material at a uniform moisture condition close to optimum.
Proof rolling will be conducted in accordance with the requirements listed in Table 7.9 below.
Table 7.9 Proof Rolling Requirements New Hyderabad International

Airport
Layer Wheel Load Tyre Pressure Coverages
Top of Subgrade 7.5t 800 kPa 8
Top of Unbound Granular 12.5t 850 1000 kPa 8
Proof rolling will commence at one edge of the area being rolled and will be executed in a
systematic manner such that the entire area being rolled is uniformly subjected to the required
proof rolling and such that not more than four (2) passes of a roller are applied on any line
before the roller is moved to the next line.
The proof rollers will be guided along pre-determined parallel lines using markers, sighting
poles or other suitable devices and will be controlled to ensure that the entire surface receives
the 8 coverages specified.
7.6 RESA and Runway Strip Preparation
ICAO Annex 14 requires that the Runway End Safety Area (RESA) and the portion of the
runway strip within 75m of the runway centreline both be prepared such that the areas can be
trafficked by aircraft whilst minimising structural damage to the aircraft.

These areas will be prepared using natural material with a minimum bearing strength of CBR
12%, and will be prepared as stated in Table 7.10 below.
Table 7.10 Preparation Requirements for RESA and Runway Strip Areas
Depth Material Compaction
0-75mm Topsoil and Rough Turf -
75mm-375mm Natural Material, Min CBR 12% 98% MMDD
>375mm Natural Material, Min CBR 12% 95% MMDD
The remainder of the graded portion of the runway strip will be compacted to 95% MMDD and
will be turfed with 75mm topsoil and rough turf. The non-graded portion of the runway strip
and taxiway flanks will be compacted to 90% MMDD and will not be turfed.
7.7 PCN Determination
The ICAO ACN/PCN system is used by airport operators as a pavement management tool,
whereby aircraft that operate at Aircraft Classification Numbers (ACN) less than the Pavement
Classification Number (PCN) for a particular pavement can do so without weight restriction
without undue damage occurring to the pavement. Whilst the term without weight restriction
implies that an aircraft can perform an unlimited number of movements if its weight is such
that the ACN of the aircraft is less than the published PCN, it is important to note that the
ICAO ACN/PCN system is only based on 10,000 coverages of the design aircraft. It is also
important to note that the system was designed as a management tool only, and was not
meant to be used for pavement design for large international airports where the expected
traffic and fleet mix can be better defined and would be expected to far exceed the design
parameter of 10000 coverages.
FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5335-5, Standardized Method of Reporting Airport Pavement

Strength PCN, Paragraph 6 states The PCN value is for reporting pavement strength only.
The PCN value expresses the results of pavement evaluation in relative terms and cannot be
used for pavement design or as a substitute for evaluation. Pavement design and evaluation
are complex engineering problems, which require detailed analyses. They cannot be reduced
to a single number.
The aircraft pavements for the New Hyderabad International Airport have been designed
based on a rigorous analysis of the actual number of aircraft that are likely to utilize each
element of pavement on the airport within the design period, and a rigorous analysis of the
likely operating weights of those aircraft.
Since the basis of design for the aircraft pavements are published in this report, it is
anticipated that the airport operator will track usage of the airport pavements throughout the
design period, and will use the aircraft traffic analysis contained in this report as a baseline in
which to manage aircraft operations at the airport. In this regard, it can be argued that the
management of specific aircraft usage with specific operating weights is far more important
than pavement management based on the ACN/PCN system.
An airport owner has the flexibility and freedom to publish any PCN value for the airport
pavements, regardless of the actual structural capacity and the basis of design of those
pavements. For example, an aircraft pavement may be designed for only 500 coverages of a
particular large aircraft, but the airport owner may choose to publish the PCN of the pavement
at a higher value than the technical evaluation suggests in order to promote commercial
usage by that larger aircraft, and to save administration resources in administering the
Pavement Concession System.
A technical evaluation of the aircraft pavement elements for the New Hyderabad International
Airport has been conducted as part of the pavement design process, whereby the adopted

pavement structures were subjected to 10,000 coverages of individual aircraft using the FAA
computer program COMFAA.
For flexible pavements, the Pavement Thickness mode in COMFAA was used to determine
the aircraft gross weight (up to the maximum all up weight of that aircraft) that would result in
a pavement reference thickness equal to the pavement thickness adopted for construction
using a subgrade CBR 12%. Conservatively, we have not applied equivalency factors to the
reference thickness for any of the pavements. This gross weight was then used in the ACN
Computation mode for subgrade category B in order to determine the ACN of the aircraft. The
maximum ACN value from each of the aircraft was selected as the PCN for the pavement.
The A380 was modelled with 10 wheels (single side) and an alpha factor of 0.69 was used in
order to produce ACN values of the aircraft consistent with those contained in the aircraft
characteristics manual.
The PCN for Runway 09/27, main taxiway system and the Cargo Taxiway has been
calculated as 69/F/W/B/T and all design aircraft can operate on these movement areas
without weight restriction.
For rigid pavements, the Pavement Thickness mode in COMFAA was used to determine the
aircraft gross weight (up to the maximum all up weight of that aircraft) that would result in a
pavement reference thickness equal to the pavement thickness adopted for construction
using a subgrade k=44kPa/mm and a concrete flexural strength of 4.5MPa. This gross weight
was then used in the ACN Computation mode for subgrade category C in order to determine
the ACN of the aircraft. The maximum ACN value from each of the aircraft was selected as
the PCN for the pavement.
Note that the ACN Computation mode in COMFAA calculates stresses based on the centre
slab loading case, whereas the Pavement Thickness mode calculates stresses based on the
edge slab loading case, in accordance with FAA design procedures. Note also that COMFAA
does not allow the user to specify a subbase.
The PCN values calculated for each of the rigid pavement areas exceed the PCN
requirements specified in the Employers Requirement.
The results of the evaluation are provided in Table 7.11 below.

Table 7.11 PCN Calculation for 10,000 Coverages of Aircraft at Given AUM
ACN at PCN Achieved at
Pavement Employers PCN
Movement Area Aircraft @ AUM given Design Pavement
Structure Requirement
AUM Thickness
A321-200 @ MAUM 52
125mm AC A340-600 @ MAUM 69
Runway & Main
350mm FCR 69/F/W/B/T A380-800 @ MAUM 69 69
Taxiway System
230mm GSB B747-400 @ MAUM 66
B777-300 @ MAUM 58
A321-200 @ MAUM 52
75mm AC A340-600 @ MAUM 69
Cargo Taxiway 350mm FCR 44/F/W/B/T A380-800 @ MAUM 69 69
215mm GSB B747-400 @ MAUM 66
B777-300 @ MAUM 58
Maintenance
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Taxiway
Minor Taxiways N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
A321-200 @ MAUM 62
A340-600 @ MAUM 77
410mm PCC
Main Apron 80/R/W/C/T A380-800 @ MAUM 88 88
200mm DLC
B747-400 @ MAUM 77
B777-300 @ MAUM 85
North Remote 410mm PCC A321-200 @ MAUM 62
55/R/W/C/T 62
Aprons 200mm DLC B737-800 @ MAUM 55
A321-200 @ 71t 48
B737-800 @ 64.5t 43
340mm PCC A340-600 @ 280t 56
Cargo Apron 50/R/W/C/T 56
200mm DLC A380-800 @ 495t 72*
B747-400 @ 318t 55
B777-300 @ 253t 65*
Maintenance
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Apron
Isolation Bay N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Note: COMFAA appears to give erroneous results using the Pavement Thickness mode for 6
wheel bogies. As such the high ACN results given by COMFAA for the A380 and B777 aircraft
have been ignored.

8 Ducts for Utilities

Ducts for utilities will be provided at the locations listed in Table 9.1 below. All duct banks will
consist of 300mm diameter Class NP4 RCC pipes and will be encased in concrete. The duct
banks listed in Table 8.1 will be utilised for all services crossings, including all AGL, electrical
and communications cabling.
The duct banks provided will have spare capacity for future use, and will be terminated in
RCC pits for ease of future use and maintenance.
Table 8.1 Location of Ducts

Movement Area Location Number of Ducts
Ch 300m, Ch 900m, Ch 1500m,
Runway 09/27 3 Nos at 6 locations
Ch 2300m, Ch 3100m, Ch 3960m
Taxiways A4, A6, A8, A9 75m from Runway Centreline 3 Nos at 4 locations
Taxiways B/A4 x 1
Taxiways A4/A x 2
Taxiway Taxiway Taxiways A5/A x 2
3 Nos at 12 locations
Junctions Taxiways A6/A x 3
Taxiways A8/A x 2
Taxiways A9/A x 2

9 Appendices
A Taxiway Utilization Model.
B Apron Utilization Model.
C 20 Year Traffic Volumes.
D Annual Traffic Volumes - MAUM.
E Annual Apron Parkings.
F Domestic & International Departures by Zone.
G Annual Traffic Volumes - Reduced Departure Weights.
H LEDFAA Results for Reduced Take Off Mass Loading Case.
I LEDFAA Results for Maximum Take Off Mass Loading Case.
J LEDFAA Results for Aprons.
K Adopted Flexible Pavement Structures.
L Adopted Rigid Pavement Structures.
M Advice from ICAO Regarding Runway Sight Distance
N Prints of LEDFAA Runs
O Figure 3-1 from FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320-6D

DDR Aircraft Pavements 2 20-01-06

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

DDR Aircraft Pavements 2 20-01-06

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Detailed Design Report Aircraft Pavements 1

New Hyderabad International Airport Airside and Landside Works

2 DATA CONFIRMED BY HIAL....................................................................................................3

6 AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS...........................................................................................15

Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

Detailed Design Report

- 04/10/05 Pavement Design workshop.

- 07/11/05 Master Grading Workshop.

- 25/11/05 Master Grading Workshop.

- 30/11/05 Master Grading & Pavement Design Review Meeting.

- 11/01/06 Review of Draft Detailed Design Report

2 Data Confirmed by HIAL

2.1 Horizontal Geometric Design

Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

2.2 Vertical Geometric Design

- The level of Taxiway A can be reduced, however, it is not an Employers Requirement.

Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

2.3 Aircraft Traffic Analysis and Aircraft Pavement Design

Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

3 Horizontal Geometric Design

Table 3.1 Agreed Coordinates for Runway Ends and ARP

- Runway 09 and Runway 27 Turn Pads;

- Southern and northern aircraft parking stands;

- Cargo Apron aircraft parking stands;

- Maintenance Apron; and

3.2 Movement Area Dimensions

3.2.1 Runway 09/27

Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

Table 3.2 Dimensions of Runway 09/27

Table 3.3 Dimensions of Taxiway A

3.2.3 Other Connecting Taxiways

Table 3.4 Width of Other Connecting Taxiways

Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

Table 3.5 Chainages of Cross Connecting Taxiways

3.2.4 Aprons and Apron Taxiways

Table 3.6 Dimensions of Apron Areas

Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

3.2.5 Aircraft Turning Arcs and Fillet Design

3.2.6 Runway Turn Pads

Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

3.3 Separation Distances

Table 3.7 Separation Distances Between Aircraft Movement Areas

Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

4 Vertical Geometric Design

4.2 Master Grading

4.2.1 Runway 09/27 & RESA

The longitudinal section of Runway 09/27 provided in the Employers Requirements

Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

The longitudinal section of Taxiway A provided in the Employers Requirements Drawings

4.2.4 Cross Connecting Taxiways

Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

4.2.5 Main Apron & Taxiway E

4.2.6 Cargo Apron

4.2.7 Low Cost Carrier Apron & Taxiway J

4.2.8 Maintenance Apron

Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

4.3 Phase 1 Grading

4.4 Building Levels

Table 4.1 Design Surface Level Adjacent to Airside Buildings

Prepared By: PM Checked By: LM

5 Basis of Pavement Design

- Subgrade CBR - 12%.

- Subgrade Density 95% of Maximum Modified Dry Density.