1

Airfield Lighting DesignsSalt Lake City International

AirportJohn Burns, PE

Penn State/FAA Hershey Conference 2009

AcknowledgementsKevin Robbins, PE SLC Dir of Engineering

Mike Widdison, PE SLC Civil EngineerSteve Smith, PE SLC Civil Engineer

Doron Lean – Burns Engineering

2

Airport Background

• Four Runways (2 Parallel 12,600’, R/W 17-35, & R/W 14-32)

• Airport is FAA approved for CAT III-B Operations.

• 2 CAT III-B Lead-Across Stop Bars at H5 & H10.

• 4 CAT III-B Controllable Stop Bars at both ends of each of parallel runways.

• Majority of the SMCGS upgrade was performed under retrofit conditions.

3

Presentation Overview

• Due to complexity of SMCGS system and overall airport operations airfield lighting design is incorporated & coordinated early into the planning and conceptual design.

• Presentation will review three (3) sample projects of innovative Electrical coordination performed in the early design process.

• Result: Significant cost savings and optimization of construction budget.

4

Runway 34R-16L – Case Study 1• Airport’s main operational runway.

Closure significantly impact’s Airport’s operations.

• Runway inpavement lights (R/W CTL and TDZ) were originally retrofitted in existing asphalt in early 90’s.

• 2007: Due to deteriorating pavement, a 4” mill and overlay was required.

• Major issue: Majority (±400) of base cans were originally installed with short extensions that could not accommodate 4” mill.

• Several options:– Hand-mill. (Very expensive & time consuming).– Replace 400 base cans that do not

accommodate milling. – Cut base can and retrofit base new base can. No

guaranteed or warranted.– Raise runway elevation to accommodate cans.

5

Runway 34R-16L – Case Study 1• SLC Maintenance, Engineering, & Burns

developed a base can height profile to be overlayed on the mill/asphalt profile to analyze how much overlay is required and potential savings.

• 799 Base cans opened and measured over a 14 night period (11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.).

• Simple measurement system to quickly and accurately measure the base can height.

• Elevation profile was created across every base can for Runway Centerline & Runway TDZ.

6

Problem: Base cans in the way

R/W

CT

L #1

R/W

CT

L #2

R/W

CT

L #3

R/W

CT

L #4

R/W

CT

L #5

R/W

CT

L #6

R/W

CT

L #7

R/W

CT

L #8

R/W

CT

L #9

R/W

CT

L #1

0

R/W

CT

L #1

1

R/W

CT

L #1

2

R/W

CT

L #1

3

Challenge: • Can’t raise runway too much• Fix runway humps• Overlay as close to 4” as possible• Minimize disruption to operation or number of base

cans removed

Existing Grade New Grade

Milled Surface

Base Can Height

Ele

vati

on

7

Solution: Revise Profile

R/W

CT

L #1

R/W

CT

L #2

R/W

CT

L #3

R/W

CT

L #4

R/W

CT

L #5

R/W

CT

L #6

R/W

CT

L #7

R/W

CT

L #8

R/W

CT

L #9

R/W

CT

L #1

0

R/W

CT

L #1

1

R/W

CT

L #1

2

R/W

CT

L #1

3

Result: • Schedule impact significantly reduced• 350 fewer cans were removed, approximately

$400k savings• Efficient milling operation

Existing Grade New Grade

Milled Surface

Base Can Height

Ele

vati

on

Runway slightly raised in certain spots by no more than 1”

8

Runway 34R-16L – Case Study 1

Light base after milling Light base removal

9

Other Factors• To Meet Slope Requirements parts of shoulder were

milled and overlaid. • Navigational aids were analyzed such as

ILS/Glideslope/ALSF/PAPI to ensure impact of slight raise was within standards. Flight checked and passed as a precaution.

10

Coordination of T/W CTL and Concrete Joints – Case Study 2• Challenge:

– Reconstruct center four panels only with 20’ x 20’ panels– Old concrete panel size is 25’ by 25’.– Centerline light radius and spacing fixed in existing panels– Many joint conflict with new panel size, – Base cans must be at least 2.5’ from light center to concrete joint – Would require block-outs at Concrete Joints or Partial panel replacements.

Existing Panels (25’ x 25’)

New Panels (20’ x 20’’)

T/W L-852D @ 12.5’

11

Coordination of T/W CTL and Concrete Joints – Case Study 2• Solution: Proposed to use FAA’s L-852K fixture for

radius lights. – Fixture allows for 25’ (+/- 10%) spacing while still meeting

RVR <1,200’ requirements. – Fixture is toed in on both sides of fixture.– Photometrical L-852K can be seen from 25’ away as much

as L-852D fixture can be seen from 12.5’. (Refer to DOT/FAA/AR-TN06 for photometric data)

Pictures courtesy of DOT/FAA/AR-TN06

L-852D L-852K

12

Case Study #2 - Solution• L-852K fixtures: Improved coordination with concrete joint

panels. • Less maintenance due to fewer fixtures• Less construction cost due to fewer fixtures• Can be used in conjunction with L-852D, do not have to retrofit

entire Airport.Existing Panels (25’ x 25’)

New Panels (20’ x 20’)

T/W L-852K @ 25’

13

Light Intensity and Vault Capacity – Case Study 3• Issue #1:

– Delta Airline Pilots complained that:(a) lights are too bright at low intensity of 3 Step

Operation(b) Centerline are not energized all the time.

– Airport configured with 3 Step CCR for taxiway centerline lights.

– Centerline lights are only energized during RVR conditions requiring taxiway centerline lights

• Issue #2:– Existing Vault was approaching physical capacity and

could not accommodate future Airport growth. (Deicing Pads, Parallel Taxiway)

– Terminal Redevelopment location was unknown and building a new vault would not only be expensive but also might be in the way of future construction.

14

• Issue #1: Light Intensity– Decision was made to operate T/W CTL at all

times under 5 step operation. (Step 2 for VFR Conditions)

– Majority of existing CCRs were original “LC” type CCRs configured for 3 step operation. CCRs could not be readily converted to 5 step operation.

Light Intensity and Vault Capacity – Case Study 3

CCR 5 Step

Operation

Current

(Amps)

Photometric Value

Taxiway L-852C

(Measured Values CD)

5 6.6 400 cd

4 5.2 100 cd to 180 cd

3 4.1 20 cd to 40 cd

2 3.4 2.4 cd to 12 cd

1 2.8 0.6 cdto 6.6 cd.

CCR 3 Step

Operation

Current Intensity

Nominal Setting

(Amps)

Photometric Value

Taxiway L-852C

(Measured Values CD)

3 6.6 400 cd

2 5.5 120 cd to 200 cd

1 4.8 40 cd to 80 cd

15

• Agenda

• Issue # 2 – Vault Capacity– New 5 step Ferro type CCRs are larger than 3 step

LC CCRs– Physical space to build a second stack for CCRs

limited.– Physical modifications to enlarge vault not

practical. – New terminal location is not known. Airport

hesitant to build new vault because it might need to be razed within 10 years.

– Seismic #4 rated.

Light Intensity and Vault Capacity – Case Study 3

16

• Agenda

Main Vault Configuration• East and West Vault rooms are similar• Existing configuration has 4 rows of double-

stack CCRs• Also has 3 Rows of single, large Ferro CCRs• Siemens ACE Units.

17

• Cost to provide new CCRs to accommodate 5 Step Operation: $1.1 Million.

Directive:Design 5 step system and provide for

future expansion at or near $1.1 million budget.

Light Intensity and Vault Capacity – Case Study 3

18

• Agenda

Solution:

• Utilize switchgear CCR system on half of the rowsAdvantages: Minimizes space requirements. 14 CCRS can be

installed on 20’ long by 4’ wide by 8’ high space. Use stag connectors to pull CCR in/out and

replace easily. Minimizes overhead connection points as all

wiring goes into an incoming power bay and is transferred via bus bars to the powerpacks.

Dis-Advantages: Future upgrades are sole-sourced to mfg. that

wins initial project.

19

• Agenda

Sequential Phasing• 12 Phasing steps to ensure all circuits

remain energized during nightime operations (7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)

20

• Agenda

• Temporarily consolidate load on spare and other CCRs

• Remove CCRs to make space for switchboard CCRs

Early Phases

21

• Install Switchgear CCRs• Reconfigure circuits to new switchgear

regulators

Later Phases

22

Fu

ture S

GR

S

Fu

ture S

GR

S

• 5 step CCRs provided for T/W centerline lights

• Increased space for future regulators

Final Configuration

23

Result

# of Future CCRs

CapacityEast Side

# of Future CCRs

CapacityWest Side

Total # of Future Capacity Created By

Project

Future CCRs(All Sizes – All Types)

32 36 68Space for future CCRs before reconfiguration = 12

Reconfiguration will accommodate future growth for next 15 years at a fraction of the

cost to expand the vault

Switchgear project cost = $1.6 Million vs. New Vault Cost = $7 - $9 Million

• 5 step CCRs provided for T/W centerline lights

• Increased space for future regulators

24

• Investigate height of base can during design and coordinate with pavement overlay

• Use of L-852-K centerline light fixtures can reduce the concrete pavement joint conflicts

• Switchboard regulators can free up space in the vault and possibly eliminate the need to expand building

Summary