PowerPoint Presentation

1

12

ENGINEERED MATERIAL ARRESTOR SYSTEM (EMAS)

Guided by, Presented by,Ms. SARITHA JASWANT CHINNU MOHANAN Asst. Professor Reg No: 11134435Civil Department S7 CivilKVM 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

4

Aircraft 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 landingResponsible for 97% runway accidents30% 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 in airports where there is no area available due to natural obstacles.

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

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

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

Continued

16

7Engineered Material Arrestor System (EMAS)

8MATERIAL REQUIREMENTSWater-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 COMPOSITIONComponentQuantityCement type II A-LL 42,5 R [kg]05Limestone filler [kg]10Expanded polystyrene [L]42Water [L]07.90Air entraining agent [g]81.75wc ratio01.58

9

Recommended by the FAA advisory circular (FAA 2005)

DESIGN REQUIREMENTSBased 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

Concept 4. DrainageLocation 5. WidthDesign 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.

112

ARRESTOR-BED GEOMETRYThe 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 OPERATIONAs 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

118

ContinuedThe 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

120

21EMAS INSTALLATIONSInstallations constructed only by FAA approved supplier- ESCO.Suited for airports that dont have adequate space to meet the required dimensions set forth by FAA.1st in JFK,1996.74 EMAS installed since 1996. (47 U.S. airports) 15 EMAS installations remain to be completed during 2015-2016.Average of 4 installations yearly occurs in U.S.After an EMAS arrestment, only the damaged blocks need to be replaced.

122 INSTALLATIONS OUTSIDE U.S

In China, Spain, Taiwan

Jiuzhai Huanglong Airport, Sichuan Province, China

Madrid-Barajas International Airport, Madrid, Spain

Songshan Airport, Taipei City, Taiwan

123ESCO Projects currently under contract

N0:

Boston Logan International Airport, Boston, USA

24

25

126

SUCCESS RECORDS

27

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 DouglasMD-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.291. John F-Kennedy Airport incident May-30, 2003

2. Charleston (CRW) Airport Arrestment

30

BombardierCRJ 200, operated by PSA Airlines

High speedrejected take offin normal day visibility.

None of the 34 occupants were injured.312. Charleston Airport Arrestment, 19 Jan. 2010

323. 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 runwayat a high speed.

None of the occupants were injured.333. Teterboro Airport incident on Oct 1, 2010

134

ADVANTAGES The EMAS material is non-threatening to Aircraft engines Avoid foreign-object damage (FOD)Non-combustibleHighly energy absorbentHas predictable load-deflection behaviourAvoids over costAvoids environmental issuesEnhance airport and aircraft safety35

DISADVANTAGESThe 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

CONCLUSIONSThe issues of risk of safety related to the available RESA in airports can be solved by EMAS.

Ideal solution for the aircraft overrun problem is the FAA approved 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

141

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

ANY QUESTIONS???...

THANK U