airfield lighting designs salt lake city international airport l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Airfield Lighting Designs Salt Lake City International Airport PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Airfield Lighting Designs Salt Lake City International Airport

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 24

Airfield Lighting Designs Salt Lake City International Airport - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 418 Views
  • Uploaded on

Airfield Lighting Designs Salt 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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Airfield Lighting Designs Salt Lake City International Airport' - johana


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
airfield lighting designs salt lake city international airport
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

airport background
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.
presentation overview
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.
runway 34r 16l case study 1
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.
runway 34r 16l case study 15
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.
problem base cans in the way
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
solution revise profile
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
slide8

Runway 34R-16L – Case Study 1

Light base after milling

Light base removal

other factors
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.
coordination of t w ctl and concrete joints case study 2
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’’)

coordination of t w ctl and concrete joints case study 211
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

case study 2 solution
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’)

light intensity and vault capacity case study 3
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.
light intensity and vault capacity case study 314
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.
slide15

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
main vault configuration
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
slide17

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.

solution
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
sequential phasing
Sequential Phasing
  • 12 Phasing steps to ensure all circuits remain energized during nightime operations (7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
  • Agenda
slide20

Early Phases

  • Temporarily consolidate load on spare and other CCRs
  • Remove CCRs to make space for switchboard CCRs
  • Agenda
slide21

Later Phases

  • Install Switchgear CCRs
  • Reconfigure circuits to new switchgear regulators
final configuration
Final Configuration
  • 5 step CCRs provided for T/W centerline lights
  • Increased space for future regulators

Future SGRS

Future SGRS

result
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

summary
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