Prof2MDA
Unfortunately I'm also away from the reference books and high-speed connections, but at least I'm at the beach while doing so.
As indicated by Noise Unit above, some web sources are:
FAA site which has some of the required aircraft information in AC150 - their 150/5300-13 Airport Design. Warning - this is a large file and the latest aircraft variants are not included:
http://www2.faa.gov/arp/150acs.cfm?A...rport_Planning
and the excellent Boeing site which has the individual airport planning guides for their various aircraft:
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/...n_manuals.html
I also came across a USA study on The Operational and Economic Effects of New Large Airplanes on United States Airports (halfway down the page at
http://www2.faa.gov/arp/engineering/...RPnav=engineer
It seems that they have looked at some of the runway cost implications for the new large aircraft at USA airports and quite a few runways have to be widened . . . .
Interesting to learn about the rational method of determining runway width. JT - if you could send a copy of the report my way, I'd also be very interested to read it.
I presume runway width devolves to at least four issues:
OPERATIONAL the foundation issue of aircraft travelling at high speed just above or on the runway, including sideways drift due to crosswind, differential braking and/or differential friction, and width to cope with aircraft wander.
RUNWAY EXIT/ENTRY including pilot sight lines and the fillets (widening of the corners at the taxiway/runway intersection because the larger aircraft cut the corner in the turn). Most people use aircraft tracking/turning software to "drive" the aircraft through a turn and the necessary widening of corners/fillets can be easily found. The A340-600, for example, requires quite a lot of work in widening fillets because its long wheelbase increased the tendency to 'cut the corner'.
FOD protecting engines overhanging the runway strip of grass/soil/sand. Tackled in part by requiring additional sealed/surfaced width each side - often called sealed shoulders. Runways with 747 operations typically have additional [low strength] sealed pavement along the edges. So the 45m wide runway very often has 60m or more of surfaced/sealed width.
180 DEGREE TURN on the runway. Aircraft maximum steering angle and cockpit sight should play a role here, as would the provision (or absence) of turning nodes. Even though most aircraft can turn sharply (the 767-400 will get around in something like 42.5 metres width at maximum steering angle if memory serves me), it is not so easy to see what is happening from the cockpit, and I would suggest that some slight misjudgement of positioning can be expected in practice. This could easily lead to running off the high strength runway and bogging (no-one mention a pukka 747 at Perth - or should that come under the heading of inadequate shoulder delineation). The use of maximum steering angle in geometric design for determining runway width is asking for trouble.