PVT Rpt BISO 10(2).pdf

PAVEMENT REPORT NUMBER FY19-02

FHWA Project NP-BISO 10(2)

Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area Scott and Fentress Counties, Tennessee

Pavement Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of Leatherwood Road / Leatherwood Ford Road

May 2019

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

NP-BISO 10(2) Pavement Report No. FY19-02 Big South Fork National River & Recreation Area

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE-AND-NEED

1.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

2 PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

2.1 PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY

2.2 PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION

2.3 FINDINGS

2.3.1 Pavement History

2.3.2 Pavement Condition Survey

2.3.4 Pavement Investigation

3 RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 SKID RESISTANCE

3.2 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVED ROADWAY REHABILITATION

3.2.1 Mill and Overlay

3.2.2 High Friction Surface Course

3.2.3 Asphalt Full Depth Patch

3.2.4 Asphalt Pavement Replacement on Bandy Creek Bridge

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Project Location and Geologic Maps Appendix B - Pavement Core Location Map and Summary Table

Appendix C - HPMA Analysis and Project Traffic Data Appendix D - Pavement Photos Appendix E - Surface Friction Decision Matrix and Information

Note: Design changes, made subsequent to distribution of this report and prior to project advertisement, will be documented by a memo inserted after the title page

PAVEMENT REPORT NUMBER FY19-02

FHWA Project NP-BISO 10(2)

Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area Scott and Fentress Counties, Tennessee

Pavement Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of:

Leatherwood Road / Leatherwood Ford Road

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report discusses the preliminary findings and recommendations for BISO 10(2) – The resurfacing of 7.56 miles of Leatherwood Road (a.k.a. Leatherwood Ford Road, State Route

297) within the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area park limits. The project site is in Scott and Fentress Counties, Tennessee. The route is named Leatherwood Ford Road within Fentress County and Leatherwood Road within Scott County. The roadway will be referred to as Leatherwood Ford Road throughout this report. A Project Location Map is presented in Appendix A.

1.2 Project Description

The focus of this project is the pavement rehabilitation of Leatherwood Ford Road within the Big South Fork National park boundaries. The project may also include the replacement of road signs, repair of drainage deficiencies and bridge repairs. The entire project consists of approximately 7.56 miles of roadway. Leatherwood Ford Road is a two-lane, two-directional roadway with steep grades (up to 13%) and sharp turns. The width of the roadway varies from approximately 24 to 32 feet in width. The entirety of the roadway is paved with asphalt concrete (AC) with asphalt paved shoulders and concrete-lined drainageway along portions of the roadway. Refer to Figure 1 in Appendix A for a Project Location Map.

The roadway was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1981. In 2001, 4 miles of Leatherwood Ford Road, located in Scott County, was paved with BISO 10(1). A portion of Leatherwood Ford Road near East Rim Overlook Road was paved in 2006 as part of project BISO 150(1), 913(1), 914(1). Historical information is discussed in subsequent sections.

1.3 Project Purpose-and-Need

The Purpose-and-Need for this project is to provide a structurally and functionally adequate pavement structure that will grant access and mobility within the Park with a long-term service life for Leatherwood Ford Road within the limits of the project.

1.4 Regional Geology

The project site is located within the Cumberland Plateau, a large, flat-topped land characterized by rugged terrain. The crooked fork group and the Rockcastle conglomerates underlie the project site. The crooked fork group consists of Rockcastle conglomerate, with thickness from 320 to 455 feet. The Rockcastle conglomerate, which is from the crab orchard mountains group, is comprised of conglomeratic sandstone and sandstone, gray to brown, fine-to course grained. The thin coal-bearing shale is locally present near the middle with thickness from 150 to 220 feet.

A Geologic Map of the project vicinity is presented in Appendix A.

2 PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

2.1 Pavement Condition Survey

A pavement management analysis was performed prior to the pavement condition survey.

Analysis was performed using the Highway Pavement Management Application (HPMA) software and Road Inventory Program (RIP) Cycle 6 data obtained in 2016. The data describes the pavement distresses per tenth of a mile to include transverse cracking, fatigue cracking, rutting and overall ride quality (roughness). This information was reviewed prior to the pavement condition survey to perform validation through field observations.

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Pavement Section conducted a pavement condition survey during the scoping trip dated May 9, 2017 to identify pavement distresses and potential patch locations and quantities. The quantified severity levels were recorded in accordance with “The Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Project, 1993” by the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP).

2.2 Pavement Investigation

The EFLHD Pavement Section personnel and EFLHD Subsurface Exploration Team performed 15 pavement cores (P1 through P12 with offset locations denoted with ‘a’) on April 9, 2018. All pavement cores were performed with a trailer-mounted core drill using a 4-inch diameter core bit. Both asphalt and concrete cores were performed, and pavement removed to expose aggregate base course. Sampling of the aggregate base course, nor subgrade was not performed. Photographs and descriptions of the cores are presented in Appendix B.

The locations of the pavement cores were determined from approximate GPS coordinates obtained from Google Earth along Leatherwood Ford Road. Pavement cores were performed at approximate one- two mile intervals. A field description and photograph was made for each recovered sample. The findings at the project site are summarized below. Refer to the Summary table presented in Appendix B for more detailed information.

2.3 Findings

Pavement Group reviewed historical data, performed a pavement management analysis, a pavement condition survey and a pavement investigation. The results are summarized below.

Refer to the investigation map, summary table and project photographs in the attached Appendices.

2.3.1 Pavement History

As builts indicate Leatherwood Ford Road was constructed in the early 80’s by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The initial project included bridge, embankment, drainage and pavement construction along approximately 17.7 miles of roadway. Within the current project limits, the roadway asphalt pavement section consisted of 6-inches of asphalt concrete over 4-inches of aggregate base. The asphalt was placed in 3 lifts to include a 3-inch base course, a 2-inch intermediate course and a 1-inch surface course. Underdrains were constructed, beneath the roadway, between edge of pavement and shoulder. A drainageway ran adjacent to portions of the roadway, constructed of 6-inch thick concrete with either grouted sandstone cobbles or exposed river gravel aggregate, reinforced with welded wire mesh (6x6xWI.4xWI.4xWWM).

In 2001, project BISO 10(1) was performed to include the placement of an ultra-thin bonded wearing course along 4 miles of Leatherwood Ford Road from park headquarters to the Scott County line (between approximate Project Stations 465+30 to 684+70). The ultra-thin bonded wearing course (UTBWC), also proprietarily known as NovaChip, is a pavement preservation treatment using a self-priming paver that applies an ultra-thin, gap-graded hot mix wearing course over a polymer-rich asphalt emulsion. The UTBWC was placed in a 5/8-inch thick layer using Type A hot mix asphalt with a gap-graded aggregate size of ¼ inch.

In 2006, project BISO 150(1), 913(1), 914(1) was constructed, which included the resurfacing of about 0.8 miles of Leatherwood Ford Road from approximate Stations 684+70 (Park gate) to Station 726+35 (eastern Park entrance). Project as builts indicate the resurfacing consisted of placing 2 inches of superpave asphalt mix having 3/8-inch nominal maximum size aggregate (NMSA). Portions of the roadway alignment were milled prior to the overlay; however, milling locations are unknown.

2.3.2 Pavement Condition Survey

Based on the overall pavement condition rating as determined by RIP Cycle 6, a recommended treatment category is provided which consists of preservation (PM), light rehabilitation (L3R) or heavy rehabilitation (H3R). The overall roadway is in fair to good condition, with the primary pavement distress consisting of transverse and fatigue cracking, specifically within the western portion of the alignment within Fentress County. HPMA recommends heavy rehabilitation for this roadway, with smaller sections slated for light rehabilitation or preservation. HPMA results are included in Appendix C.

Based on the pavement condition survey conducted by EFLHD Pavement Section in May 2017 and April 2018, the most prevalent pavement distress types exhibited on the roadway were significant surface degradation to include oxidation and high severity raveling, and low to medium severity longitudinal and transverse cracking. Refer to Figures 1 and 2 below for a visual understanding of typical roadway conditions.

Figure 1 - Leatherwood Ford Road typical conditions within Fentress County

Figure 2 - Leatherwood Road showing typical raveling of UTBWC

Fatigue or alligator cracking was observed in localized areas which may be an indication of subgrade disturbance. These areas should be repaired with full depth patching prior to the recommended pavement rehabilitation. Figure 3 below shows a recommended patch location within the northbound lane of Leatherwood Ford Road, between Stations 627+00 and 628+00 where fatigue cracking and rutting in the wheelpath was observed. The existing concrete lined drainageway is also shown broken and fragmented, allowing surface water infiltration. The observed difference in the pavement surface suggests that the area had been patched after the initial construction.

Figure 3 - Leatherwood Ford Road patch location

The distressed area measures approximately 11 feet wide by 30 feet long, which is also the recommended patch dimensions. Additional rehabilitation of the adjacent concrete-lined drainageway will also be required.

Changes in pavement surface were observed at the Fentress – Scott County Line, approximate Station 465+30 and at the Park access gate, approximate Station 684+70. This corroborates the multiple construction phases discussed in the Pavement History section.

2.3.4 Pavement Investigation

Fifteen pavement cores were performed within Leatherwood Ford Road, which revealed an existing pavement section consisting of 3.5 to 11.5 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over aggregate base course. Compared to the initial asphalt pavement section constructed of 6 inches, the existing roadway has been patched or milled in some areas and overlain with additional asphalt in other areas. Sampling of the aggregate base course and/or subgrade was not performed. Therefore, existing aggregate base course thicknesses and/or subgrade material type are unknown.

Pavement cores P1 and P2 were performed in the area which received a 2-inch overlay in 2006. Cores P1 and P2 revealed 3.5 to 9.5 inches of asphalt concrete, respectively.

Pavement core P1, approximately 3.5-inches thick, is a thinner pavement section than anticipated, potentially due to milling or patching. Pavement core P2 observed a 2-inch surface course constructed of asphalt using 3/8-inch NMSA which collaborates project plans.

As discussed, 4 miles of Leatherwood Ford Road were overlain with an ultra-thin bonded wearing coarse in 2001. Cores P3 through P10 were performed within this portion of the roadway. The cores revealed 3.25 to 11 inches of asphalt concrete. The thinner sections (3.25 to 4 inches) were encountered within a center turn lane (P6) and a pull-off parking area (P7a). Most of the cores revealed 7 to 8 inches of asphalt concrete which generally included

0.5 to 1.0 inch of the UTBWC. The UTBWC was not encountered in P6 and P9, performed in an area where significant surface raveling was observed, indicating the complete stripping of the surface treatment in that area.

Cores P11 and P12, performed within Fentress County encountered 8 and 9 inches of asphalt concrete respectively. Both cores revealed a 1 to 2-inch asphalt surface course, overlying a 3-inch asphalt intermediate course, over 4 inches of asphalt base course. The cores are 1 to 2 inches thicker than the pavement section constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, indicating the placement of an asphalt overlay since initial construction.

A core (P5a) performed within the concrete-lined drainageway revealed 8 inches of concrete with small metal reinforcement approximately 2/16-inches in diameter, located approximately 2 inches from the bottom of the core. The concrete is 2 inches thicker than as builts indicate, while the metal reinforcement is visually consistent with the wire mesh specified in as builts for the initial roadway construction.

3 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following pavement recommendations are based on the existing conditions at the time of the field investigation in May 2018. The recommendations included here reference the FP- 14, “Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects” (FP-14 Specifications).

3.1 Skid Resistance

Between Project Stations 550+00 and 670+00 (approximately 2.3 miles) the roadway has significant grades (up to 13%) and sharp turns. We recommend a skid resistant surface treatment in this area to reduce events of vehicle roadway or lane departure (skidding off the roadway or into the opposing traffic lane). Skid resistance is based on the surface texture of the asphalt pavement. Both micro- and macro- textures are two key pavement surface characteristics necessary for the development of good skid resistance. Micro-texture refers to the small-scale texture of the pavement aggregate component, which controls contact between the tire and pavement surface. Macro-texture refers to the large-scale texture of the pavement due to the aggregate particle arrangement, which controls the flow of water under the tire. At low speeds, micro-texture dominates the wet and dry friction. At higher speeds, the presence of high macro-texture facilitates the drainage of water so that the adhesive component of friction afforded by micro-texture is re-established. In asphalt pavement, the aggregate mineral composition and durability controls the micro-texture and the asphalt mixture properties (aggregate shape, size, and gradation) define the macro-texture.

Figure 4 – Surface combination of micro- and macro-texture (Zuniga-Garcia et al.)

Overall pavement texture, or mega-texture (includes both micro- and macro- texture), is strongly associated with skid resistance. The skid resistance is commonly estimated as the coefficient of friction multiplied by 100 and reported as the skid number (SN) or friction number. There are a wide number of methods of testing skid resistance of pavement in the field or on sample cores in a laboratory, generally performed to a standard, such as the

American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) or AASHTO using construction equipment, portable devices, or laboratory equipment. The following list are a few of the tests referenced in this report:

Dynamic Friction Tester (DFT) – ASTM E1911 British Pendulum Test (BPT) – ASTM E303 Locked Wheel or Skid Trailer (smooth tire / rib tire) – ASTM E 274 / AASHTO T 242

Some tests are geared toward measuring micro-texture, while others are best in measuring mega-texture. In addition, there are several factors affecting skid resistance to include speed, presence of water, and temperature, to name a few. For this reason, it is difficult to compare friction values from different testing methods. However, a review of the measured friction values helps to generally compare and understand the potential level of friction associated with various asphalt materials and/or surface treatments. Due to the relatively low speeds, sharp turns and use of heavy trucks, friction values greater than 60, as measured by the locked wheel method, are recommended (Ahadi, M.R., Nasirahmadi, K.). Measured average friction values are discussed for each pavement rehabilitation option outlined below.

Micro- and macro-texture provide skid resistance, but also produce noise as vehicles pass over the material. Sound levels are measured in decibels (dBA). A lawnmower may have a noise level of about 100 dBA, while a normal conversation may be measured at about 60 dBA. Noise levels are often measured with the use of microphones along the side of the roadway or near the tire/pavement interface. Measured noise levels of the pavement materials recommended in this report are comparable.

3.2 Asphalt Concrete Paved Roadway Rehabilitation

We recommend the rehabilitation of Leatherwood Ford Road, shoulders and ancillary parking/pull-off areas consist of a 2-inch asphalt mill and 2-inch asphalt overlay followed by a localized application of a skid resistant surface treatment. Thicker milling depths and/or asphalt full depth patch type 2 may be warranted in localized areas. Localized asphalt full depth patch type 1 will be required in areas of culvert repair.

3.2.1 Mill and Overlay

We recommend milling the existing pavement to a depth of 2 inches and overlaying with 2 inches of asphalt concrete pavement in accordance with the following table.

Table 1. Mill and Overlay with GACP

Layer Minimum Thickness

(in)

Comments

Asphalt Surface Course

Asphalt Concrete Pavement – Gyratory Method (GACP), 0.3 to 3 x 106

ESAL’s, 3/8” Nominal Maximum Size Aggregate (NMSA), Type I roughness

Asphalt Tack Coat

AC Tack Coat as per Section 412 of the

FP-14 Specifications

Surface Milling 2 Mill according to Section 413 of the

FP-14 Specifications

This rehabilitation option will extend the service life of the pavement section an additional 10 to 15 years. Friction values immediately after construction ranged from about 27 to 43 were measured using the locked wheel method (Li, S., Noureldin, S. et al). A dramatic reduction in friction (20 to 50 percent) was observed 3 to 5 years after placement, likely due to polishing (wearing or smoothing) of the aggregate within the asphalt mix.

Alternatively, and in lieu of a skid resistant surface treatment, we recommend the use of Stone Mastic (or Matrix) Asphalt (SMA). SMA is a gap-graded hot mix asphalt (HMA) that is designed to maximize deformation (rutting) resistance and durability by using a structural basis of stone-on-stone contact. Due to the coarser surface texture, the SMA has improved wet weather friction, and lower tire noise; in addition, the stone-on-stone matrix creates a highly durable surface with the ability to withstand hard turning motions from heavy vehicles. For these reasons, we consider the use of SMA to be a good alternative to applying a skid resistant surface treatment. If chosen, the SMA should be placed in lieu of the 2-inch GACP overlay recommended above between Project Stations 550+00 to 670+00 in accordance with the following table.

Table 2. Mill and Overlay with SMA

Layer Minimum Thickness

Stone Mastic

Course

Stone Matrix Asphalt Concrete Pavement – (SMA), 0.3 to 3 x 106

ESAL’s, 1/2” NMSA, Type I roughness

Asphalt Tack Coat

AC Tack Coat as per Section 412 of the

FP-14 Specifications

Surface Milling 2 Mill according to Section 413 of the

FP-14 Specifications

SMA is generally more expensive than a typical dense-graded HMA (about 20 – 25 percent) because it requires more durable aggregates, higher asphalt content and, typically, a modified asphalt binder and fibers. However, in the right situations it can be cost-effective because of its increased rut resistance and improved durability. SMA is often used as a surface course on high volume Interstates and highways; and commonly used as an intermediate or surface course in areas with heavy, slow moving vehicles.

This rehabilitation option will extend the service life of the pavement section an additional 10 to 15 years. Friction values immediately after construction ranged from about 27 to 43 using the locked wheel method (Li, S., Noureldin, S. et al). Friction values increased (over 80 percent!) as the pavement aged. This is likely attributed to the asphalt binder wearing at the surface with age to expose the angular stone-on-stone asphalt matrix.

3.2.2 High Friction Surface Course

It is considered critical that portions of the roadway with high grades and sharp turns have a high friction surface course to improve skid resistance, particularly between Stations 550+00 and 670+00 (approximately 2.3 miles). A high friction surface is expected to reduce events of vehicle roadway or lane departures in areas of steep grades and sharp turns. Currently, this portion of the roadway has an ultra-thin bonded wearing course (UTBWC), also known as Nova Chip, at the surface.

UTBWC is a paving process that places a thin, gap-graded aggregate hot mix over a polymer-rich asphalt emulsion using a specialized spray paver. This surface treatment is recommended due to the success of the previous application which has been on the roadway for over 10 years. The application should be placed using Type B aggregate (3/8-inch size crushed rock/stone) approximately 5/8-inch thick. This surface treatment is anticipated to last 7 to 10 years if properly placed using specialized construction equipment and an experienced contractor. Minor raveling of the surface aggregate may be encountered, particularly during snow plowing efforts.

Typical friction numbers ranging from 48 to 59 were measured immediately after placement using the locked wheel method (Li, S., Noureldin, S. et al). However, significant reduction in friction (up to 34 percent) was measured in some areas after 2-1/2 years of service, due to noticeable polishing of the aggregates which consisted of limestone and dolomite.

Successful treatments which showed long-term friction performance were comprised of high durable aggregate and other materials, such as steel slag.

The UTBWC may not be feasible due to specialized construction equipment and contractor availability. Alternatively, a high friction surface treatment (HFST) is recommended.

HFST places a thin layer of durable, high-friction aggregates on a polymer resin binder (epoxy modified polyester or urethane) to create a long-lasting skid resistant surface treatment. The resin or polymer binder combination locks the aggregate firmly in place, creating an extremely rough, hard, durable surface capable of withstanding roadway demands, such as heavy braking and snowplowing. HFST can be applied on top of an existing (aged) asphalt or recently placed asphalt surface to improve skid resistance. HFST has been researched to effectively reduce vehicle crashes, specifically related to sliding/skidding accidents when delineation treatments (such as rumble strips) are not effective. HFST can cause significant tire wear due to the high micro-texture of the material and increased tire contact. In addition, HFST is the most expensive among the other considered alternatives. Therefore, HFST is recommended to be placed in strategic areas;

specifically, HFST should be placed in locations of routine vehicle braking, such as horizontal curves. If this option is chosen, actual HFST locations are determined by a Safety or Traffic Engineer in collaboration with a Pavement Engineer and Highway Designer. It is estimated that approximately 7950 linear feet of HFST treatment would be placed between Project Stations 505+00 and 649+00. The HFST treatment would extend the full width of the travel lane at all application areas.

Aggregate used for HFST should be polish and wear resistant (such as Calcined Bauxite).

Depending on the condition of the existing asphalt pavement and construction procedures, HFST is anticipated to provide friction benefits for 8 to 12 years. Measured friction values ranged from 79 to 86 using the locked wheel method (High Friction Surface Treatment, CTIP Tech Brief).

Refer to the Surface Friction Decision Matrix and additional surface treatment information presented in Appendix E to assist in planning purposes.

3.2.3 Asphalt Full Depth Patch

Asphalt full depth patch, type 2, will be required between approximate Station 627+00 and 628+00 within the northbound lane and at all four corners of Bandy Creek Bridge at the transition between the bridge deck and asphalt-paved roadway. Additional spot repair locations may be required, as directed by the CO. Spot repair should be performed according to the requirements laid out below in Table 3. The total patch areas are estimated at 600 square feet (67 square yards).

Table 3. Full Depth Asphalt Patch, Type 2

Layer Minimum Thickness

Course

GACP, 0.3 to 3 x 106 ESAL’s, 3/8”

NMSA, Type I roughness Asphalt Tack

Coat

AC Tack Coat as per Section 412 of the FP-14 Specifications

Asphalt Intermediate

Course

GACP, < 0.3 x 106 ESAL’s, ½” NMSA (in two lifts with tack coat in between)

Asphalt Tack Coat

AC Tack Coat as per Section 412 of the

FP-14 Specifications

Asphalt Base Course

GACP, < 0.3 x 106 ESAL’s, ¾” NMSA or

GACP, < 0.3 x 106 ESAL’s, ½” NMSA (in two lifts with tack coat in between)

Aggregate Reconditioning

(as needed) per Section 303 of the FP-14 Specifications

3.2.4 Asphalt Pavement Replacement on Bandy Creek Bridge

Rehabilitation of Bandy Creek Bridge will require removal of the existing asphalt concrete pavement, the placement of a membrane and new asphalt concrete. Thickness of the existing asphalt pavement is unknown and will be determined during construction. However, for planning purposes, a pavement thickness of 3.5 inches is estimated.

Regardless of the thickness of the existing pavement, the new asphalt surface course should be placed in conjunction with the asphalt surface course placed along the mainline. This will consist of 2 inches of Asphalt Concrete Pavement – Gyratory Method (GACP), 0.3 to 3 x 106 ESAL’s, 3/8” Nominal Maximum Size Aggregate (NMSA), Type I roughness. Asphalt intermediate and base course layers can be placed using the same GACP used for the surface course, however it is recommended to use GACP, < 0.3 x 106 ESAL’s, ½” NMSA in minimum 2-inch lifts to reduce the potential for rutting. Tack coat should be applied between all asphalt lifts.

4 REFERENCES

Ahadi, M.R., Nasirahmadi, K. The Effects of Asphalt Concrete Micro & Macro Texture on Skid Resistance, Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering 1-1 (2013) pgs.15-28, http://civiljournal.semnan.ac.ir/.

Brimley, B., Carlson, P. Using High Friction Surface Treatment to Improve Safety at Horizontal Curves, Texas Transportation Institute, Sponsored by DBi Services, July 2012.

High Friction Surface Treatment, CTIP Tech Brief, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Lands Highway Division in collaboration with National Park Service and Grays Harbor County, unknown publication date.

High Friction Surface Treatments; Frequently Asked Questions, Publication FHWA-CAI-14-

019. Every Day Counts, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts.

Li, S., Noureldin, S., Jiang, Y., Sun, Y. Evaluation of Pavement Surface Friction Treatments, Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2012/04. Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 2012.

DOI: 10.5703/1288284314663

Zuniga-Garcia, N., Prozzi, J. Contribution of Micro- and Macro-Texture for Predicting Friction on Pavement Surfaces, A Final Project Report, U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, for Center for Highway Pavement Preservation (CHPP Report-UTA#3-2016), December 2016.

5 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and tests described in the section on Procedures and Results have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these explorations and tests represent conditions at the specific locations indicated. Subsurface and conditions between these locations may vary.

The Analysis and Conclusions section and the Recommendations section in this report include interpretations and recommendations developed by the Government in the process of preparing the design. These interpretations are not intended as a substitute for the personal investigation, independent interpretation, and judgment of the Contractor.

Prepared by:

Khadija Ngozi-Bullock Pavement Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mohammed Elias Pavement Team Leader

APPENDIX A – Project Location Map

APPENDIX B – Pavement Core Location Map and Summary Table and Core Photos

C or e N o.

L at it u d e L on gi tu d e P ro je ct

S ta ti on

A sp h al t T h ic k n es s

(i n ch es

N ot es

.4

8°

-8 4.

8+

1.

.0

.5 in ta ct c or e, N

B la ne

1a

.4

9°

-8 4.

6+

1.

.5

.0 in ta ct c or e, lo ca te d at p ar k en tr an ce p ul l-of f

.4

4°

-8 4.

5+

1.

.0

.0

.0

.0

.5 in ta ct c or e in la ye rs , l oc at ed in

S B la ne

.4

8°

-8 4.

3+

0.

.0

.0

.7 in ta ct c or e in la ye rs to in cl ud e U

T B

W C lo ca te d in

N B la ne

.4

6°

-8 4.

6+

.0

.5

.5

.0 in ta ct c or e in la ye rs to in cl ud e

U T

B W

C lo ca te d in S

B la ne

.4

1°

-8 4.

7+

0.

.0

.0

.5 in ta ct c or e in la ye rs to in cl ud e

U T

B W

C lo ca te d in N

B la ne

5a

.4

2°

-8 4.

7+ in ta ct c on cr et e co re w it h w ir e re in fo rc em en t

.4

7°

-8 4.

4+

.0

.0

2.

.0 in ta ct c or e in la ye rs lo ca te d in c en te r tu rn la ne

.4

6°

-8 4.

4+

0.

.0

2.

.0

.0 in ta ct c or e in la ye rs to in cl ud e U

T B

W C lo ca te d in

N B la ne

7a

.4

0°

-8 4.

1+

.2 in ta ct c or e, lo ca te d in p ul l-of f ad ja ce nt to N

B la ne

.4

0°

-8 4.

3+

0.

.0

.0

.5

1.

in ta ct c or e in la ye rs to in cl ud e

U T

B W

C lo ca te d in S

B la ne

.4

7°

-8 4.

8+

0.

.0

.0

.0 in ta ct c or e in la ye rs , U

T B

W C s tr ip pe d fr om su rf ac e, lo ca te d in N

B la ne

.4

5°

-8 4.

3+

0.

.0

.5

.0

.0 in ta ct c or e in la ye rs to in cl ud e U

T B

W C lo ca te d in

S B la ne

.4

3°

-8 4.

6+

(1

.0

.0

.0 co re in p ie ce s, p ot en ti al ly d eb on de d ov er la y

.4

7°

-8 4.

8+

2.

.0

.0

.0 in ta ct c or e in la ye rs N ot es

2) A sp ha lt th ic kn es s ba se d on f ie ld o bs er va ti on s.

3) O dd n um be re d pa ve m en t c or es w er e lo ca te d in th e no rt hb ou nd

N

B or w es tb ou nd la ne

, w hi le th e ev en n um be re d co re s w er e lo ca te d in th e so ut hb ou nd

S

B or e as tb ou nd la ne

B ig

S ou th F or k

N at io n al P ar k

S u m m ar y of

P av em en t

In ve st ig at io n

1) C or e lo ca ti on s ar e ba se d on a pp ro xi m at e la ti tu de a nd lo ng itu de a s de pi ct ed o n

G oo gl e

E ar th

R ef er to lo ca ti on m ap f or fu rt he r de ta il s.

Big South Fork National Park Pavement Core Photographs

Core No.

1.5"

+ 2.0"

= 3.5" Total (intact)

Notes:

1. Photographed cores show top of core on left‐hand side, unless otherwise noted.

P3

2. Photographs show cores immediately after coring (unless otherwise noted), cores were removed from the ground as shown.

0.75" chip seal

+ 1" surface course

+ 6" base course (multiple lifts?)

= 8 " Total (intact) verify layers

2" (overlay)

= 9.5" Total (intact)

+ 2.0" (intermediate course)

+ 3.5" (base course)

Description Photograph

P1

P2

+ 2.0" (surface course)

Page B1

3.5" (surface course)

+ 3.5" (base course)

= 8.0" Total, intact

Notes:

1. Photographed cores show top of core on left‐hand side, unless otherwise noted.

+ 4.0" (base course)

2. Photographs show cores immediately after coring (unless otherwise noted), cores were removed from the ground as shown.

loss of water during coring include info on rebar size and

P5a

Concrete core

8 " Total (intact)

P5

0.5" (chip seal)

+ 3.0" (surface course)

=7.5" Total (intact)

Description Photograph

P4 core not photographed in field verify notes with core if available

Page B2

1.75" (overlay)

+ 3.5" [3/8" NMSA]

= 5.25" Total, intact

Notes:

1. Photographed cores show top of core on left‐hand side, unless otherwise noted.

0.5" (UTBWC)

2. Photographs show cores immediately after coring (unless otherwise noted), cores were removed from the ground as shown.

Description Photograph core not photographed in field

= 3.25 " Total (intact)

P7a pull‐off location

P7

+ 2.0" Surface Course

+ 2.0" (Base Course)

+ 2.5" (Intermediate Course)

= 7.0" Total (intact)

P6 core not photographed in field

Page B3

Notes:

1. Photographed cores show top of core on left‐hand side, unless otherwise noted.

2. Photographs show cores immediately after coring (unless otherwise noted), cores were removed from the ground as shown.

Description Photograph

P10

P9

0" (chip seal stripped/raveling)

+ 3" Surface Course

+ 5" (Base Course)

= 8.0" Total (intact)

+1.0" (overlay?)

+ 2.5" Surface Course

+ 3.0" (Base Course)

= 7.0" Total (intact)

0.5" (chip seal)

P8

+ 2.0" (surface course)

+ 4.0" (intermediate course)

+ 4.5" (Base Course)

= 11.0" Total (intact)

0.5" (chip seal)

Page B4

Aggregate base material and sidewall

Notes:

1. Photographed cores show top of core on left‐hand side, unless otherwise noted.

Description Photograph

P11

P12

2" (Surface Course)

+ 3" (Intermediate Course)

+ 4" (Base Course)

= 9.0" Total (intact) in 5 lifts

P5 Core

Hole

2. Photographs show cores immediately after coring (unless otherwise noted), cores were removed from the ground as shown.

1.0" (Surface Course)

+ 3" (Intermediate Course)

+ 4" (Base Course)

= 8" Total

Page B5

APPENDIX C – HPMA Analysis and Project Traffic Data

BISO 10(2)

HPMA Pavement Information for Project Scoping and

Reconnaissance Needs

Route

BISO-0010 (LEATHERWOOD FORD ROAD)

Length: 7.56 Miles Project Date: 2019

HPMA Analysis Observations The first 4.9 Miles of the project appears to be Good to Fair condition. The first .8 miles has mostly low to moderate severity longitudinal cracking and some low severity transverse cracking. From .8 to 4.9 miles shows an increase in transverse in some spots. There is a slight increase in roughness from MP 1 to 3. Overall the HPMA recommendation is PM (Preservation) for this section, however it is on the edge of recommending L3R (Light Rehab) and so this should be validated in the field to determine if L3R is needed.

The condition collected appears to worsen from MP 4.9 to the end. The fatigue cracking increases.

HPMA is recommending H3R in this section. This needs to be validated to confirm.

HPMA Recommendations:

Beg

MP

End

MP

Cracking FAIR Rutting GOOD

Ride Quality GOOD Cracking FAIR Rutting GOOD

Ride Quality GOOD Cracking POOR Rutting GOOD

Ride Quality GOOD Cracking POOR Rutting GOOD

Ride Quality GOOD Cracking POOR Rutting GOOD

Ride Quality GOOD 7.56

Length

(mi)

2019 HPMA

Treatment

Category

RIP Milepost

0.80 4.93 4.13 PM

0.00 0.80 0.80 L3R

H3R

4.93 5.58 0.65 H3R

BISO Route 0010

2017 Condition

Summary

Totals

Section

PCR

86.00

89.00

47.00

61.00

68.006.82 7.56 0.74 H3R

5.58 6.82 1.24

5/5/2017

BIS

O-

BIS

O-

BIS

O-

So urc es : E sri , H

ER

E, De Lo rm e, Int erm ap , in cre me nt P C orp ., G

EB

CO

, U

SG

S, FA

O, N

PS

, N

RC

AN

Ge oB as e, IG

N, Ka da ste r N L, Or dn an ce

Su rve y, Es ri J ap an , M

ET

I, E sri C hin a (

Ho ng

K on g), sw iss top o, Ma pm yIn dia

O pe nS tre etM ap co ntr ibu tor s, an d t he

G

IS

U se r C om mu nit y

0.4

0.9 1.3

1.8

0.2

Mi les

BI

SO

-00

(L

EA

TH

ER

WO

OD

FO

RD

R

OA

D)

RI

P C

YC

LE

DA

TA

C oll ec ted

C on dit ion

PC

R

Po or

Fa ir

Go od

5/ 5/

P ag e of

BISO 0010 BISO-0010 Pavement Conditions from 2016 Cycle 6 RIP Survey Big South Fork National River & Recreation Area MP 0.0 - 7.56

Good Excellent Fair Poor

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5

R id e C o n d it io n s

RIP Milepost

P ro je ct

S ta rt R

IP

.9

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5

R u tt in g C o n d it io n s

RIP Milepost

P ro je ct

S ta rt R

IP

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5

C ra ck in g C o n d it io n s

RIP Milepost

Transverse Cracking Fatigue Cracking

P ro je ct

S ta rt R

IP

5/5/2017

APPENDIX D – Pavement Photos

Appendix D1

Photograph 1 (above) – East end of Leatherwood Ford Road (about Station 726+35 at pull-off) at entrance to park, showing low to moderate transverse cracking in wheel path.

Photograph 2 (below) –Approximate Station 702+59 looking northbound. Note low to moderate fatigue cracking and raveling.

Appendix D2

Photograph 3 (above) – Leatherwood Road at about Station 684+70, at Park gate; observed transition in pavement.

Photograph 4 (below) – Leatherwood Road facing southbound near pavement cores P5 and P5A at about Station 652+00 showing typical conditions.

Appendix D3

Photograph 5 (above) – Leatherwood Road, looking southbound at about Station 610+00 showing typical raveling of surface course (UTBWC) and existing concrete paved waterway at right.

Photograph 6 (below) –Leatherwood Ford Road looking towards Band Loop (Station 553+00). Note thermal cracking across roadway.

Appendix D4

Photograph 7 (above) –Leatherwood Ford Road at approximate Station 473+50 showing typical transverse (thermal) and longitudinal cracking.

Photograph 8 (below) –Leatherwood Ford Road at about Station 348+44 near beginning of project alignment showing fatigue and thermal cracking. Trail Head West Entrance and Parking lot in background.

Appendix D5

Photograph 9 (above) – Core P1 (about Station 718+00), a 3.5-inch, intact core obtained from the northbound lane of Leatherwood Ford Road. Two distinct lifts observed, a 1.5-inch and 2-inch thick lift.

Photograph 10 (below) –Core P2 at approximate Station 695+75 obtained from southbound lane.

Observed 9.5 inch, intact core in five distinct lifts of 1.5, 1.0, 2.0, 2.0, and 3.0 inches.

Appendix D6

Photograph 11 (above) – Core P3 at about Station 683+35; an 8-inch intact core with 3 observed distinct lifts to include 0.75-inch UTBWC, 1-inch asphalt surface course and 6 inches asphalt base course.

Photograph 12 (below) – Core P5 at about Station 647+85 showing a 7.5-inch intact core of 3 distinct layers to include 0.5-inch UTBWC, 3-inch asphalt surface course and 4-inch asphalt base course.

Appendix D7

Photograph 13 (above) – Concrete Core P5a at about Station 647+80 showing an intact 8-inch core of concrete and river gravel. Note core hole at bottom right showing aggregate base course.

Photograph 14 (below) –Core P7 (~ Station 574+55). A 7-inch, intact core of 4 distinct layers: 0.5-inch UTBWC, 2.0-inch asphalt surface course, 2.5-inch asphalt intermediate course and 2-inch asphalt base course.

Appendix D8

Photograph 15 (above) –Core P8 at approximate Station 553+40 showing a total of 11intact inches in multiple lifts to include 0.5 inches of UTBWC.

Photograph 16 (below) –Core P9 at about Station 508+00 revealing 8 intact inches. The UTBWC was stripped from the core area.

Appendix D9

Photograph 17 (above) –Core P11 at approximate Station 446+40 showing a total of 8.0 inches, with 1-inch asphalt surface course debonded from remaining 3-inch asphalt intermediate course and 4-inch asphalt base course.

Photograph 16 (below) –Core P12 at about Station 348+44 revealing 9 intact inches in three distinct layers.