NAVFAC Airfield Spraying (TPD0807034)

Tri-Service Position

• The U.S. Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, after consulting with the Army ERDC, and the Air Force HQ AFCESA detailed the Tri-Service opposition to the use of such products to cover a runway due to the following concerns:

1. 1. Loss of skid resistance
   2. Unknown effect on foreign object debris
   3. Safety risk to aircraft and personnel,
   4. Extrapolation of test results to higher pressure tires
   5. Usage of untested products not developed for asphalt
   6. The apparent belief that the spraying would increase bearing capacity

Spray Application for Car Tests

• Prep (clean) surface
• Sand is broadcast by shaking it out of cans
• Product is sprayed

Car Tests on Sprayed Area

The product seemed to:

• • Not cure for long periods of time
  • Significantly reduce skid resistance
  • Have no apparent effect on foreign object debris.
• To compensate for skid resistance loss, sand was broadcast over the pavement, however,
  • required sand application rate was unknown
  • actual sand application rate was unknown
  • effect of sand on generating foreign object debris was unknown.

• The car skidded on the sprayed area and stopped on the untreated area
• The sprayed area had previously been thoroughly cleaned/scrubbed, whereas the unsprayed area had not – even then, only 1 (one) very small aggregate was found to dislodge from the untreated area – this was called SUCCESS ! (i.e. proof that sprayed polymer prevented FOD)

Aircraft Tests on Sprayed Area

• Guam airfield
• Sand broadcasted
• Polymer sprayed
• Since loss of skid resistance was a concern, no landings were completed, only touch-and-go
• 72 touch-and-go on sprayed area, 2 on untreated area

Results of Aircraft Tests

“Proof” that spraying worked:

1 (one) aggregate came out of untreated surface

“Slight” problem: Significant amounts of sand delaminated from a heavily sanded sprayed area that received insufficient quantities of product (worse FOD potential)