1

1

2

Guided by, Presented by,

Ms. SARITHA JASWANT CHINNU MOHANAN

Asst. Professor Reg No: 11134435

Civil Department S7 Civil

KVM CE & IT KVM CE & IT

CONTENTS3

INTRODUCTION

MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS

MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF ARRESTOR BED

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

ARRESTOR BED GEOMETRY

THEORY OF OPERATION

EMAS INSTALLATIONS

SUCCESS RECORDS

CASE STUDIES

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCE

4Aircraft overruns are a frequent occurrence during

landing & takeoff.

It is reported to be the 4th largest cause of airline

fatalities.

Overrun : • Occurs when aircraft passes beyond the end of

runway during aborted takeoff or while landing

• Responsible for 97% runway accidents

• 30% of all aircraft accidents

To minimize the hazards of overruns, FAA put

forward the concept of a safety area beyond the

runway end into airport design standards.

5

Continued…

But construction of RESA becomes impracticable inairports where there is no area available due to naturalobstacles.

EMAS is a crushable concrete that is placed at the end ofrunways in order to stop the failed takeoff or landing of afully loaded airliner.

The EMAS bed is composed of blocks of foamed cementconcrete that are joined and sealed on top.

EMAS has an outstanding success record on all incidentsoccurred in past years.

Continued…

1

6

7

Engineered Material Arrestor System (EMAS)

8

MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS

Water-resistant.

Not attract birds, wildlife or other creatures.

Constant strength and density characteristics.

Resistant to deterioration. (Salts, aircraft fuels, water and UV rays.)

Non sparking and non combustable.

Should not promote any plant growth.

Non flammable.

MATERIAL COMPOSITION

Component Quantity

Cement type II A-LL 42,5 R [kg] 05

Limestone filler [kg] 10

Expanded polystyrene [L] 42

Water [L] 07.90

Air entraining agent [g] 81.75

w∕c ratio 01.58

9

Recommended by the FAA advisory circular (FAA 2005)

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

Based on:

Weight of the biggest aircraft served by the airport.

Aircraft parameters like type, landing gear configuration and

tyre pressure.

Available runway safety-area space.

10

1. Concept 4. Drainage

2. Location 5. Width

3. Design 6. Base

Concept:

Designed to stop overrunning aircrafts by exerting

predictable deceleration forces on its landing gear as the

EMAS materials deforms.

Must be designed for 20 year service life.

Location:

Located beyond the end of the runway and centered on the

extended runway centerline.

Usually begin at some setback distance from the end of the

runway to avoid damage due to jet blast and undershoots.1

11

Design:

EMAS performance is dependent not only on aircraft

weight, but also on landing gear configuration and tyre

pressure.

Design method must be derived from field or lab tests.

Testing may be based either on passage of an actual

aircraft or an equivalent single wheel load through a test

bed.

Drainage:

The EMAS must be designed to prevent water from

accumulating on the surface of the EMAS bed, the runway

or the runway safety area. 1

12

ARRESTOR-BED GEOMETRY

The arrestor system is constructed above paved material.

The arrestor bed begins with a 229mm thickness.

The bed is sloped to attain a 610mm thickness over a 42.7m

length.

13

A constant thickness of 610 mm for 42.7m.

Bed sloped from 610mm to 762mm over a 7m length.

762mm thickness for remaining portion of the arrestor-bed

length.

Arrester bed geometry14

15

THEORY OF OPERATION

As an aircraft enters the bed, wheel crushes the

EMAS material creating a wheel-tire interface.

This interface provides resistive loads to decelerate

the aircraft.

Drag forces are induced on the landing gear.

As the aircraft transition from the rigid pavement

lead to the arrestor bed, landing gear strut

experiences a vertical force drop at the arrestor bed

start.

16

Landing gear- Arrestor bed interaction.17

1

18

Continued…

The 610mm arrestor-bed section for lighter

weight aircraft.

The 762mm arrestor-bed section for heavier

aircraft.

Maximum drag force developed at 762-mm

arrestor-bed section.

19

Landing gear crushed the EMAS

1

20

21

EMAS INSTALLATIONS

o Installations constructed only by FAA approvedsupplier- ESCO.

o Suited for airports that don’t have adequate space tomeet the required dimensions set forth by FAA.

o 1st in JFK,1996.

o 74 EMAS installed since 1996. (47 U.S. airports)

o 15 EMAS installations remain to be completed during2015-2016.

o Average of 4 installations yearly occurs in U.S.

o After an EMAS arrestment, only the damaged blocksneed to be replaced.

1

22INSTALLATIONS OUTSIDE U.S

In China, Spain, Taiwan

Jiuzhai Huanglong Airport, Sichuan Province,

China

Madrid-Barajas International Airport, Madrid,

Spain

Songshan Airport, Taipei City, Taiwan

1

23

ESCO Projects currently under contract

N0:

Boston Logan International Airport, Boston, USA24

25

1

26

SUCCESS RECORDS27

80 EMAS installed around the world.

Majority in US. (about 74 in 47 airports)

9 aircrafts arrested.

More than 240 people have been protected

from serious injury only due to EMAS.

No negative result is reported yet.

1. John F-Kennedy Airport incident may-30,2003

28CASE STUDIES

McDonnell Douglas MD-11F ,operated by Gemini

Air Cargo.

Due to a late touchdown in normal night visibility , a

runway overrun was resulted.

Only minor damage occurred to the air craft.

All the occupants were uninjured.

29 1. John F-Kennedy Airport incident

May-30, 2003

2. Charleston (CRW) Airport Arrestment30

Bombardier CRJ 200 , operated by PSA

Airlines

High speed rejected take off in normal day

visibility.

None of the 34 occupants were injured.

312. Charleston Airport Arrestment,

19 Jan. 2010

32

3. Teterboro Airport incident on October 1 , 2010

Gulfstream G-IV , operated by Jennifer

Friedberg (General Aviation Flying Service)

Due to a deep landing in normal day

visibility, aircraft overran the end of the

runway at a high speed.

None of the occupants were injured.

333. Teterboro Airport incident on Oct 1, 2010

1

34

ADVANTAGES

The EMAS material is non-threatening to

Aircraft engines

Avoid foreign-object damage (FOD)

Non-combustible

Highly energy absorbent

Has predictable load-deflection behaviour

Avoids over cost

Avoids environmental issues

Enhance airport and aircraft safety

35

DISADVANTAGES

The main disadvantage of the EMAS is its

less durability.

Has only 20 year service life with a

maintenance after every 10 year.

36

DEVELOPMENTS IN EMAS

Lot of researches are carried out in account of the

improvement, cost reduction, durability..

“EMASMAX” is the third generation upgrade of

the EMAS .

37

38

EMASMAX arrestor beds are composed of blocks of

light weight, crushable cellular cement material.

Easy and quick to install.

Improved durability and less cost.

Maximizes the runway safety.

EMASMAX

CONCLUSIONS

The issues of risk of safety related to the available RESA inairports can be solved by EMAS.

Ideal solution for the aircraft overrun problem is the FAAapproved Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS).

EMAS is highly economic while considering the life cost and aircraft cost.

Research should be conducted to improve the service life of EMAS.

EMAS should be installed in more airports to avoid the overrun and RESA issues.

39

REFERENCE

Wail N. Al-Rifaie , Nabeel I. Al-Sarraj, Salama G. Sulaiman,

‘‘Development of an Engineered Material Arresting System to

Protect Overrun Aircraft” , September 4, 2014.

Matthew A. Barsotti, John Mark Howard Puryear, David J.

Stevens ,“Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting

Systems” , ACRP report 29, 2013.

Ernest Heymsfield, W. Micah Hale, Tyler L. Halsey, “Aircraft

Response in an Airfield Arrestor System during an Overrun”

ASCE library, 15 March 2012.

E. Heymsfield, W. M. Hale and T. L. Halsey, “Optimizing Low

Density Concrete Behaviour for Soft Ground Arrestor

Systems”, 2012.

40

1

41 Continued..

Chun- shui JIANG, Hong- yu YAO, Xian- bo

XIAO1, Xiang- jun KONG, Ya- jie SHI ,

“Phenomena of Foamed Concrete under Rolling of

Aircraft Wheels”, Science Tech 2014.

Marco Bassani, Emanuele Sacchi and Fulvio

Canonico, “ Performance Prediction for Innovative

Crushable Material Used in Aircraft ArrestorBeds” ,

2011.

Ernest Heymsfield, “Sensitivity Analysis of

Engineered Material Arrestor Systems to Aircraft

and Arrestor Material Characteristics”, 2014.

42

43

THANK U