<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>EXTENDING THE LIMITS, SAN JOSE RUNWAY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483025</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In 1991 the San Jose International Airport (SJIA) faced an almost impossible task.  American Airlines required 396 m (1,300 ft) in additional runway length to accommodate its daily flight to Japan.  The airport was convinced it wanted a concrete extension on each end of the active runway, plus adjacent taxiway improvements.  However, the airport had 800 aircraft operations per day, navigational aids at each end, and virtually no room to expand in a very constrained site.  This paper describes the process of finding ways to make it work which extended the limits of traditional design concepts while providing for the runway to remain open during construction.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483025</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>APRON RECONSTRUCTION AT KANSAS CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483026</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Kansas City International Airport currently accommodates nearly 90,000 annual airline departures.  The three circular passenger terminals and apron were constructed in 1972.  A pavement management system was implemented in 1992 and recommended reconstruction of the aprons.  The primary distresses of the concrete apron pavement were durability and fatigue cracking. The reconstruction focused on three major issues:  uninterrupted airline service, radial slab geometry of the circular aprons, and hydraulic design of the cement treated permeable base layer.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483026</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>REHABILITATION OF TAXIWAY "NB" AT IAH WITH CONCRETE OVERLAY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483027</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A large and ever increasing portion of the airport pavement system at Houston Intercontinental Airport is past the 20 year design life.  By 1995 over 80% of all Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements in the Houston Airports System had been in service for 20 or more years.  Because of budget constraints and user impacts, the "proper fix" for the aging and distressed PCC pavements was not completely obvious.  Total reconstruction is costly; successful and documented PCC pavement rehabilitation techniques are few in number.  All alternatives result in facility user delays.  This paper discusses the rehabilitation design for Taxiway NB; presents expected reconstruction versus rehabilitation costs, including life cycle costs; and incorporates a subjective rating matrix developed to encompass construction, design, performance, and cost factors.  The project was initiated to determine the effectiveness of the procedures selected for the rehabilitation of the PCC pavements and to serve as a demonstration project.  The long-term outcome of the project will determine the viability of using similar options for future PCC pavement rehabilitation within the Houston Airports System.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483027</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PAVEMENT DESIGN AT LOUISVILLE: OPTIMIZING LOCAL PRACTICE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483028</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Louisville International Airport at Standiford Field has for much of its recent history used aggregate materials for subgrade stabilization and construction of subbases for roadway and airfield pavements.  An aggressive expansion effort, the Louisville Airport Improvement Program, will require approximately 630,000 sq m (750,000 sq yd) of airfield pavement construction before the program's completion later this decade. The design of the pavement sections warranted a review of the techniques employed and an assessment of other techniques that may prove cost-effective for stabilizing the sensitive fine-grained soils prevalent in the area.  The pavement design evaluated technical issues with particular consideration for local construction practice.  Other considerations included the length of the construction period and selected materials that were not highly price-sensitive to fluctuations in economic conditions.  This paper presents the evaluation of materials used, design parameters and past performance of pavement sections at Standiford Field.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483028</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>JOINT DEVELOPMENT PLANNING FOR INNER CITY AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483029</link>
      <description><![CDATA[State and local agencies, working with the Federal government have provided the United States with the most extensive and best equipped airport system in the world.  But due to unpredictable and oftentimes inconsistent financial support from the states and Federal government, and declining direct airport revenues in the past two decades, our airports have continued to experience operating deficits and deferred maintenance/facilities renewal problems.  It is obvious that the basic financing problem of inner city airports today stems from the inability to convince the public and its legislative representatives that our airports need support.  Since the magnitude and scope of the funds which are required to make major capital improvements at our inner city airports preclude financing out of current revenues, other ways of financing capital improvements of the nation's airport system must be found.  In such scheme of things, public-private partnerships (joint development), a concept that has been very successful in highway and transit facilities development, but very rarely used in airport development, is introduced as a potential provider of necessary monies to improve our airports. A strategy and process for successfully realizing the potential for non-governmental and private sector involvement is enunciated; and a framework for an airport joint development program is developed.  Since the overall financial condition of the state and Federal governments in the years ahead is likely to impose extreme stringency as a result of the budget balancing axe, this approach for airport development should be pursued more vigorously by airport administrators and planners.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483029</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SOLVING AVIATION AND INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION RELATED ISSUES: "A NEW PROTOTYPE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY"</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483030</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper describes a comprehensive and innovative approach by The National Aviation and Transportation (NAT) Center, in the area of aviation and intermodal transportation education, training and applied research.  Through national and international partnerships, the Center's efforts focus on the analysis of aviation and intermodal transportation systems; airport and environs simulation and modeling; human factors; fiscal and administrative issues; energy and the environment; conflict resolution; and other areas essential to creating an integrated transportation system which is seamless, yet sensitive to both the needs of the public (government) and private (business) sectors and their customers.  The NAT Center's 105 acres (adjacent to Brookhaven Calabro Airport), including an over $100 million construction program, is dedicated to providing a facility to the study of aviation and intermodal transportation and giving the United States the ability to lead in the next crucial area of international competition, moving prople, products and information faster, cheaper, smarter and safer.  This Long Island, New York facility provides a broad-based educational platform in academic instruction, training and applied research and the first of three buildings opened on September 1, 1994.  When the master plan is fully implemented and all construction is completed, 3,000 students will be part of the first international campus dedicated to the study of aviation and intermodal transportation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483030</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GROUNDED BY HISTORY: AIRPORTS AND HISTORIC RESOURCES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483031</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 required federal agencies, for the first time, to consider the impact of their activities on historic structures.  Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 prohibits projects that damage historic sites unless there is "no feasible and prudent alternative".  Projects funded or licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration fall under both regulations, which generally define "historic" properties as those listed, or eliglble for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places.  The National Register is administered by the National Park Service, part of the U.S. Department of the Interior.  The aviation industry is relatively young, and rapid technological change has led to the demolition of many hangars, terminals and other buildings that reflected previous eras.  The decreasing number of older structures increases the significance of those that survive.  Any aviation-related structure more than fifty years old, including those produced during World War II, might be eligible for listing in the National Register.  In addition, expansion of modern airport facilities can affect historic properties not related to the aviation industry.  As a result, airport planners and engineers are wise to consider historic resources when initially contemplating construction or renovation.  In order to begin a Section 106/4(f) assessment, the Areas of Potential Effect must be delineated.  The area is surveyed to identify archaeological, architectural, and historic resources.  The impact of the project on these resources is then evaluated, and efforts made to avoid or minimize adverse effects.  Appropriate mitigation is established to compensate for any unavoidable damage to historic resources.  The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are responsible for overseeing Section 106 compliance, and are typically involved with Section 4(f) review as well.  A cultural resources assessment of the impact of alternatives to expand or relocate the Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport illustrates the necessary steps in the Section 106/4(f) compliance process.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483031</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR MINIMIZING THE DISTURBANCE OF AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION (SFIA CASE STUDY)</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483032</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Due to the complex nature of airport systems, renovation can become a challenging problem especially when construction interferes with ongoing aircraft operations.  In this paper, a new concept called the "disturbance concept" is developed along with a modeling methodology for managing airfield renovation. The methodology consists of a conceptual model represented by a Disturbance Matrix (DM), and a Total Disturbance Cost (TDC) model.  A prototype Airport Renovation Decision Support System (ARDSS) is developed to adopt the disturbance model, analyze disturbance, and evaluate hybrid construction/operation scenarios by integrating stochastic airport simulation such as SIMMOD and project management packages such as Primavera.  The disturbance model is validated in a major case study, a runway reconstruction at San Francisco International Airport.  As a result, ARDSS is found invaluable for minimizing disturbance and providing airport authorities, airlines, air traffic controllers, and contractors with insights and recommendations, which may eventually lead to reduced cost associated with both construction and airport operations and improve their overall performance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483032</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AIR TRANSPORTATION: A SYSTEMS APPROACH</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483033</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The complexity of air transportation dictates the need for a wide variety of technical and non-technical personnel.  Such an intricate interplay of disciplines requires a substantial amount of cooperation and coordination in order to make air transportation work effectively for the users as well as for the operators.  Those involved in the planning, design, and improvement of air transportation facilities must approach their tasks with a full understanding of the total system.  This paper expresses the author's concept of the air transportation system and discusses his philosophy of system engineering as it applies to the problems encountered.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483033</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE MODELS FOR PMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483034</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The cost-effective management of an agency's infrastructure is one of the most significant reasons for using a Pavement Management System (PMS).  Although PMS is no longer mandated for roads on the National Highway System (NHS), the recently enacted Public Law 103-305 requires the use of pavement maintenance management systems for federal contributions on airport replacement and reconstruction projects.  In both road and airport agencies, pavement management is now accepted as a useful tool to assist with the identification and prioritization of multi-year plans for pavement preservation.  At the present time, there are few standards that exist in PMS terminology or practices.  This is clearly illustrated in the differences that exist in state highway agencies for PMS data collection activities.  For the most part, each of the 50 states utilize different condition survey assessment techniques for determining current pavement condition.  These differences have a tremendous impact on the types of deterioration models that can be developed for forecasting future pavement conditions in a PMS. The airport community is much more standardized than the highway agencies in terms of pavement condition assessment.  In most cases, the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is the industry standard for evaluating current condition at airports.  Because of the objectivity and repeatability of the PCI survey procedures the development of airport deterioration models can be greatly enhanced.  The objective of this paper is to discuss the types of deterioration models that have been used by highway agencies to forecast future pavement conditions for pavement management purposes.  The applicability of these models to airports using the PCI is discussed.  In addition, recommendations are made for the development of pavement deterioration models depending on the types and extent of historical information available.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483034</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AVIATION OFFICE STATEWIDE PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483035</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Since January 1, 1995, Congress has required that the Federal Aviation Administration include in the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant assurances, for pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction projects, a certification, furnished by the airport sponsor, that the airport has implemented an effective airport pavement maintenance program.  Since 1993, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has been working towards providing a pavement management system for all public airports, statewide.  This system includes information on maintenance requirements for all airside pavements inspected under the program.  The report furnished to all airports lists these maintenance requirements as they exist on the airport.  It is recognized that many airports do not have an active preventative pavement maintenance program, and only make emergency repairs or delay required maintenance tasks until the pavement is ready for reconstruction or upgrading.  With this in mind, the FDOT Aviation Office is helping interested airports establish a pavement maintenance program.  The goal of this plan is to guarantee the continuation of Federal participation in airport capital improvement programs; specifically those projects dealing with airfield pavement.  The plan includes the detailing of the annual pavement maintenance required.  Maintenance contracts, containing local pavement maintenance requirements, will be let by the Sponsor under a 50% State, 50% local grant.  It is envisioned this program will be expanded to provide statewide maintenance contracts to be available as early as FY 97/98.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483035</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE O'HARE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483036</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The entire pavement system at O'Hare International Airport covers an area of 4,647,253 sq m.  It is estimated that it would cost over $442,000,000 just to reconstruct the pavements at O'Hare.  To protect this large investment and to ensure that the pavements continue to accommodate safe and efficient operations at O'Hare, the City of Chicago began evaluating the feasibility of implementing a pavement management system (PMS) in 1989.  In 1991, the City fully implemented a PMS for all airside and landside pavements at O'Hare International Airport and has been using and updating the program since that time.  This paper summarizes the implementation process and the updates that have been made to the PMS program over the past 5 years.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483036</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THREE-DIMENSIONAL FINITE-ELEMENT SIMULATION OF FWD LOADING ON PAVEMENT SYSTEMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483037</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Results of three-dimensional finite-element dynamic analyses of uncracked and deteriorated pavements subjected to a standard falling weight deflectometer (FWD) loading are presented in this paper.  Specifically, simulation models of a jointed plain concrete in-service pavement were developed following a detailed visual distress survey, coring, and nondestructive evaluation of selected sections.  Moduli for an uncracked pavement, for pavements having cracks and for a cracked pavement with voids beneath the concrete layer are backcalculated by matching finite-element simulation results to FWD deflection measurements.  The backcalculated moduli agree reasonably well with the laboratory data.  Although the results and conclusions of this study are based on FWD data collected on highway pavements, the nondestructive evaluation methodology is also applicable to airport or other heavy duty concrete and asphalt pavements.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483037</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING SMOOTH AIRPORT PAVEMENTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483038</link>
      <description><![CDATA[It is important to monitor airport pavements for smoothness for several reasons.  First, smooth pavements last longer.  Studies show that the dynamic loading of pavements can significantly reduce their life.  Second, smooth pavements cause less fatigue damage to aircraft and reduce pilot and passenger complaints. Dynamic loading is caused by pavement surface irregularities. These irregularities cause the aircraft to bounce and rebound on the pavement again and again causing premature pavement failure and aircraft fatigue damage.  The question arises, how rough is too rough and how do you measure it?  Aircraft "ride quality" is the best measure of pavement roughness.  Ride quality is generally measured as the vertical acceleration or "g's" experienced at the pilot's seat (PSA) and at the aircraft's center of gravity (CGA).  If the acceleration exceeds +/- 0.4 g, the ride quality is considered to be in the area of human discomfort.  Determining the ride quality of a pavement can be done by measuring the pavement profile and simulating aircraft dynamic response operating on that pavement.  Aircraft simulation is a mature technology, and high-speed surveying devices are available.  This aircraft simulation technology can be applied in several ways including isolation and repair of reported rough areas, as a pavement management tool and for paving quality control.  In summary, tracking and maintaining smooth pavements is cost effective and is a technology ready for engineering and management use.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483038</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RECONSTRUCTION OF BERGSTROM AIR FORCE BASE TO AUSTIN-BERGSTROM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/483011</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The City of Austin chose to investigate converting Bergstrom Air Force Base to the new airport for the city after learning that the Air Force was going to close the base.  Existing Robert Mueller Airport had limited capacity for expansion.  The city had preliminary analyses and feasibility studies completed for the conversion.  After determining that the conversion was viable, the city retained a consultant team for program management and development of a master plan for the new airport. This paper addresses several issues involved in the planning and design of the new airport including:  airport planning, cooperation among government agencies, water quality, storm water runoff, deicing, infrastructure renovation and expansion, and clean up of old waste sites.  During preparation of the Master Plan, the city retained additional consultant teams to prepare the detailed design for different portions of the new airport.  Examples of several of these distinct design efforts in the spring of 1995 included the terminal apron area and midfield cross taxiway, the east runway system, the terminal, the west runway system, and the cargo apron area.  The detailed design was an ongoing effort, with additional design projects scheduled to make the proposed opening in 1998.  Portions of the new airport including the terminal apron and the northern storm drain trunk lines of the east runway system began construction in the summer of 1995.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/483011</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>