4dogs, as you've said, the PCN (pavement strength) is predicated on static bearing capacity alone.
However not so at the time of landing, since the maximum downwards force on landing is desirably close to zero. That is because just at touchdown, almost all the lift should still be taken by the wings, apart from occasional Heavy Landing. Longitudinal and lateral forces due to tyre spinup exist but are not calculated. Instead the type of surfacing (asphalt, concrete, chip seal) is chosen according to the size and frequency of aircraft and based on experience. The effects of dynamic loading are not computed for aircraft pavements yet because we're still learning how to - give it a few years.
The maximum effect of the aircraft on the pavement is when it is stopped. This is mainly because asphalt is responsive to the time of loading - if it is loaded/unloaded quickly (like in the fast lane of a road) it is elastic in nature and rebounds quickly. If it is loaded/unloaded slowly (like on an apron) it is more viscous in nature and it can flow. That is why most of the surfacing damage, ruts and bumps appear on aprons.
Some engineers will take that into account, and use concrete for aprons and runway ends, with asphalt on the rest of the runway and on taxiways.
All engineers look at the expected frequency and weight in choosing pavement thickness. Design wise - pavements for departing aircraft on aprons, holding areas and the centre of taxiways and runways are full design thickness. Pavements for [lighter] arriving aircraft such as high speed taxiway turn-offs are 90% of full depth, and pavements in areas of little traffic such as the outer edges of taxiways and runways are 70% depth.
Lower PCN for parking areas? Well if it is the normal apron, it will get as much traffic as the runway and it should be the same as the runway or higher. It will have as many heavy [full of fuel and pax] aircraft as light [empty] aircraft.
If it is an infrequently used parking area, then some overload should be permitted. Anything from 10% to 30%. If the aircraft is restricted to using the apron when empty/light, it can use a weaker apron. We've parked impossibly big aircraft on near-rubbish by requiring them to park empty and refuel/load on another area.
As an example, a 737-400 is PCN 37 full and PCN 17 when totally empty (flexible pavement, B subgrade strength). So it could park and load on an apron of say PCN 28 or higher if this was a once-off, and it could park on apron of PCN 17-20 if it was required to park empty, and refuel and load elsewhere. Hey, and if it gets stuck, we'd just hook up a couple of the big airport fire engines - they'll pull anything out.
Mr Moto "My company says …grooved is treated as Dry"
I think that your company may need to re-examine its treatment of grooved runways, because their texture depth is no better than that of most roads. And if highway authorities treat the wet weather characteristics of a surface differently to the dry weather characteristics, perhaps your company should too.
[This message has been edited by OverRun (edited 13 April 2001).]