Fuel-resistant airfield pavements – material suitability Which statements about fuel-resistant pavement materials for airfields are correct?

Introduction / Context:
Aircraft aprons, refuelling areas, and runway thresholds may be exposed to hydrocarbon fuels and hot exhaust. Standard asphalt binders can be softened or stripped by fuels; hence, special binders and modifiers are used to ensure durability.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Exposure to jet fuel spillage and hot blast is anticipated in some apron and threshold zones.
• We compare binder systems: coal-tar binders, rubber-modified tars, and epoxy-modified asphalts.

Concept / Approach:
Coal-tar binders are inherently more resistant to petroleum derivatives than conventional asphalt cements, making tar-concrete suitable where fuel spillage is expected. Rubberised tar improves elasticity and thermal resilience, offering better resistance to thermal cycling and hot blast. Epoxy asphalt systems combine asphalt with epoxy resins to produce a fuel-resistant, high-modulus yet elastic composite that also cures rapidly.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess each material against the exposure (fuel and heat).Tar-concrete: good hydrocarbon resistance → suitable.Rubberised tar: improved elasticity and heat tolerance → suitable.Epoxy asphalt: resistant to jet fuels and cures quickly → suitable.Therefore, all statements are correct.

Verification / Alternative check:
Airfield pavement specifications list fuel-resistant binders for hydrant pits, stands, and hot-blast zones, including tar and epoxy-modified systems.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Each individual statement is accurate in the described context; there is no incorrect option among (a)–(d).

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming regular asphalt concrete is adequate near refuelling stands; ignoring rapid-cure requirements that reduce closure times.

Final Answer:
All the above