Airfield Lighting Designs Salt Lake City International Airport

1. Airfield Lighting DesignsSalt Lake City International Airport John Burns, PE Penn State/FAA Hershey Conference 2009 Acknowledgements Kevin Robbins, PE SLC Dir of Engineering Mike Widdison, PE SLC Civil Engineer Steve 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. • 4 CAT III-B Controllable Stop Bars at both ends of each of parallel runways. • 2 CAT III-B Lead-Across Stop Bars at H5 & H10. • 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 Existing Grade New Grade Elevation Base Can Height Milled Surface R/W CTL #11 R/W CTL #13 R/W CTL #10 R/W CTL #12 R/W CTL #1 R/W CTL #2 R/W CTL #3 R/W CTL #4 R/W CTL #5 R/W CTL #6 R/W CTL #7 R/W CTL #8 R/W CTL #9 • 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

7. Solution: Revise Profile Runway slightly raised in certain spots by no more than 1” Existing Grade New Grade Elevation Milled Surface Base Can Height R/W CTL #11 R/W CTL #13 R/W CTL #10 R/W CTL #12 R/W CTL #1 R/W CTL #2 R/W CTL #3 R/W CTL #4 R/W CTL #5 R/W CTL #6 R/W CTL #7 R/W CTL #8 R/W CTL #9 • Result: • Schedule impact significantly reduced • 350 fewer cans were removed, approximately $400k savings • Efficient milling operation

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’) T/W L-852D @ 12.5’ New Panels (20’ x 20’’)

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) L-852D L-852K Pictures courtesy of DOT/FAA/AR-TN06

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’) T/W L-852K @ 25’ New Panels (20’ x 20’)

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. Light Intensity and Vault Capacity – Case Study 3 • 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.

15. Light Intensity and Vault Capacity – Case Study 3 • 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. • Agenda

16. 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. • Agenda

17. Light Intensity and Vault Capacity – Case Study 3 • 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.

18. Solution: • Utilize switchgear CCR system on half of the rows • Advantages: • 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. • Agenda

19. Sequential Phasing • 12 Phasing steps to ensure all circuits remain energized during nightime operations (7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) • Agenda

20. Early Phases • Temporarily consolidate load on spare and other CCRs • Remove CCRs to make space for switchboard CCRs • Agenda

21. Later Phases • Install Switchgear CCRs • Reconfigure circuits to new switchgear regulators

22. Final Configuration • 5 step CCRs provided for T/W centerline lights • Increased space for future regulators Future SGRS Future SGRS

23. Result • 5 step CCRs provided for T/W centerline lights • Increased space for future regulators Space for future CCRs before reconfiguration = 12 Switchgear project cost = $1.6 Million vs. New Vault Cost = $7 - $9 Million Reconfiguration will accommodate future growth for next 15 years at a fraction of the cost to expand the vault

24. Summary • 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