CA_FTNP_SEKI_10(12)_Generals_Highway_Pavements_Report_2017_-_Signed.pdf

SEQUOIA & KINGS CANYON

NATIONAL PARK

CA FTNP SEKI 10(12) GENERALS HIGHWAY

PAVEMENT REPORT

Report # 15-07

Report Prepared By

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Central Federal Lands Highway Division Lakewood, Colorado

CA FTNP SEKI 10(12) Generals Highway iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. CLIMATE

III. EXPLORATION

IV. EXISTING PAVEMENT & SOILS

V. PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATION INPUTS

VI. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & DISCUSSION

VII. MATERIALS RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDICES

A – Location Map B – Laboratory Reports and Boring Log C – Photographs D – DARWin Pavement Design E – PG LTPPBIND Software and CALTRANS Criteria F – Weather Data Information G – Pavement Investigation Memorandum H – Culvert Pipe Selection Criteria

I. INTRODUCTION

This report is written to document the road conditions and pavement recommendations for the planned CA FTNP SEKI 10(12) Generals Highway project. The project is located in Sequoia Kings Canyon National Park, in California. The project begins north of the Little Baldy Saddle Trailhead and continues north along Generals Highway. The project on Generals Highway ends approximately 1 mile south of the intersection of Generals Highway and Highway 180 (The Wye). Additionally, a culvert location just east of the Wye on Highway 180 is included. A pavement and subgrade soil investigation was conducted From May 11-15, 2015. The investigation began at the southern end of the project, near Little Baldy and concluded with deep borings at the culvert site on Hwy

180. A pavement investigation memo was issued in May of 2015. This memo is found in the Appendix. Informal pavement recommendations were provided in June of 2015. The pavement recommendations have been finalized and are discussed in Part VII of this report.

II. CLIMATE

Climate data was obtained from RAWS USA Climate Archive. This data is summarized in Table 1 below and is shown in the Appendix. The average precipitation for this area is approximately 42.48 inches. The project is located at an elevation that receives both snow and rain, dependent upon the time of year. The project ranges in elevation from ≈6,400 feet to ≈7,600 feet.

Table 1. Weather Data

Month Average

HIGH

Record

HIGH

Average

LOW

Record

LOW

Average

PRECIP.

January 44 66 25 -6 7.86

February 44 67 25 -4 7.21

March 45 68 26 0 6.88

April 50 75 29 6 4.05

May 58 83 36 13 1.56

June 67 87 44 22 0.44

July 76 91 51 32 0.14

August 75 91 51 20 0.11

September 70 88 45 21 0.77

October 60 82 38 11 2.05

November 50 75 31 8 4.47

December 44 70 26 -4 6.96

Temperatures are in °F and precipitations are in inches.

III. EXPLORATION

From May 11-15, 2015 CFLHD pavement & material staff completed a field investigation which included shallow and deep borings, and subgrade sampling.

Technicon Engineering Services, Inc. was contracted to perform the drilling. A CME-75 truck-mounted drill rig with a 10” O.D. auger was used to complete the borings. 33 shallow boring locations were logged; with 19 subgrade samples collected. Subgrade soil was sampled at various depths ranging from 1 to 5 feet. CFLHD personnel logged the borings; this included depth of boring, visual soil classification, pavement thickness, pavement distress, and road width. Boring locations, paved widths and other information is shown in the Appendix.

Three deep borings were also performed. Two of the three were adjacent to the culvert site on Highway 180. The other location was at approximately station 1684+00 LT. The information gathered for these locations is shown in the Appendix.

IV. EXISTING PAVEMENT & SOILS

The existing pavement was drilled at 0.50-mile increments, with boring locations alternating between lanes. The results of the visual classification can be found in the Appendix. A visual presentation of the layers observed is shown in Figure 1. The existing roadway has a chip seal, which was placed on a pavement preservation project. The pavement was found to be in fair to poor condition based on the transverse, longitudinal and alligator cracking seen reflecting through the chip seal.

In general, pavement thickness ranged from 3.0 inches to 10.0 inches, with the majority being over 5.0 inches. Multiple layers of pavement appeared to be present. Generally speaking, the underlying base course appeared to be composed of decomposed granite.

The subgrade appeared to stay consistent through the project limits. The subgrade consists of primarily silty sand, with small cobles of decomposed granite. Areas of organic soils or loam may be present in areas where the road passes through meadow type surroundings. The subgrade soils were classified as A-1-b and A-2-4 with little to no plasticity. See the laboratory reports in the Appendix for more information.

Drilling efforts ranged from easy to difficult. Difficult drilling was not always encountered in visually rocky areas. Ten boring locations hit refusal within the top 3 feet.

Areas of voids and/or loose material were encountered under the roadway, with multiple locations producing no recoverable material and little to no resistance on the auger.

Deep borings performed for the CFLHD Geotechnical group are discussed more in the Geotechnical Memorandum for the project. The borings ranged from no resistance to requiring air hammering equipment. Voids under the roadway at G-1 located near Lost Grove were encountered. At the G-2 and G-3 locations at the Wye culvert, G-2, on the east side of the culvert presented moderate drilling through sandy silt, similar to others.

However, after the first foot at G-3, air hammering was required for the remaining 17 feet, with drilling being stopped at 18.5 feet.

Figure 1a-b: Visual Classification of Boring Locations

B‐1 B‐2 B‐3 B‐4 B‐5 B‐6 B‐7 B‐8 B‐9 B‐10 B‐11

Ex p lo ra to ry D e p th In ch e s)

Generals Highway Visual Classification Existing Structural Section

Existing Pavement Existing Aggregate Base Subgrade

B‐12 B‐13 B‐14 B‐15 B‐16 B‐17 B‐18 B‐19 B‐20 B‐21 B‐22

Ex p lo ra to ry D e p th In ch e s)

Generals Highway

Figure 1c: Visual Classification of Boring Locations

B‐23 B‐24 B‐25 B‐26 B‐27 B‐28 pullout B‐29 B‐30 B‐31 B‐32 B‐33

Ex p lo ra to ry D e p th In ch e s)

Generals Highway

V. PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATION INPUTS

Design Parameters

The traffic count used for the pavement design was obtained from the 50% design package. An average daily traffic (ADT) of 731 was used, resulting in a calculated cumulative equivalent single axel load (ESALs) of 478,879 for a 20 year period. The assumptions made in the ESAL calculations as well as related design factors are included in the Appendix. Design factors used in the ESALs calculations as well as the structural coefficients were taken from the CFLHD Project Development Design Manual (PDDM), Chapter 11.

Table 2. Design Criteria Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Design Reliability Level 75% Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Performance Period (4R) 20 years Directional Distribution 60%

Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus

The soil resilient modulus shown in Table 3 below was converted from R-Value, AASHTO T 190, using the following equation:

Resilient Modulus (psi) = 10[ ( S

+ 18.72 ) / 6.24 ] where S1 = [(R-Value – 5) / 11.29] + 3

Table 3. R-Value to Resilient Modulus

Location R-Value Resilient Modulus B-2, MP 0.40, LT 73 27,925 psi B-6, MP 1.90, LT 74 28,850 psi B-10, MP 4.30, RT 74 28,850 psi B-12, MP 5.20, RT 71 26,160 psi B-15, MP 6.40, RT 70 25,320 psi B-21, MP 9.70, RT 76 30,800 psi B-28, MP 13.60, RT 61 18,860 psi

Design Value Used 60 18,250 psi

VI. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & DISCUSSION

Utilizing the DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System, a 20 year pavement design required a Calculated Design Structural Number (SN) of 2.01. After evaluating various alternatives and performing various iterations, the following is the recommended pavement structural section:

3.0 inches HACP, placed in two lifts (entire proposed width, Section 401)

8.0 inches FDR – Pulverize (existing roadway, Section 304)

SN = 2.06

The proposed structural section also matches several other project segments along Generals Highway. The roughness type for the project should be Type III-B.

VII. MATERIALS RECOMMENDATIONS

Selection of Asphalt Binder

LTPPBind software was utilized to assist in the selection of asphalt binder. The information presented in LTPPBind is shown in the Appendix. LTPPBind indicated that a PG 46-16 should be used. However, this PG binder is not commonly produced. In addition, LTPPBind did not have weather stations close in either elevation or proximity to the project location. Consideration was given to the location of the project as well as performance of past projects in similar conditions. Additionally, the CALTRANS binder selection criterion was evaluated.

Based on these considerations, a PG 64-28 M should be used. This binder grade is used by CALTRANS and appears to be available at several refineries in the area. This binder grade has also been used on previous Generals Highway projects. The SCR with the CALTRANS requirements for modified binders should be included in section 702.

Prime and Tack Coats, Blotter and Fog Seal

Prime Coat and Blotter are required for this project. A tack coat applied between pavement lifts is required. It is also recommended that a fog seal be applied to the final surfacing.

Drainage and Subexcavation

During the field investigation, areas of pavement distress were present. However, they appeared to be caused due to fatigue and age. Some water damage or drainage problems pertaining to the existing traveled way were observed. Should any drainage issues exist, the scope of the project allows for partial reconstruction. As of the 70% submittal, a quantity of 1,250 cuyds of subexcavation is shown in the Contract. This quantity should remain, and perhaps increase, in the event that additional areas in need of repair are encountered.

Culvert Materials

Testing showed pH levels ranging from a 5.1 to a 7.0, with resistivity from 19,230 to 34,480 ohm-cm. After reviewing this information and using the selection criteria shown in the Appendix, the soil is considered non corrosive, and no special materials are needed.

Constructability Concerns

As was discussed in Section IV above, voids were encountered in some of the shallow boring locations as well as the deeper geotechnical borings. On the previous Generals Highway projects, these voids led to collapse or settlement of the surface grade during construction; and also caused work stoppage in some instances. The larger and deeper voids were addressed by pumping and filling them with lean concrete base. This approach provided a relatively expedient return to work and eliminated the need for a large and disruptive excavation. In areas of smaller voids, aggregate base was used to fill areas of settlement.

The CFT should review and discuss the above mitigation methods of addressing the voids. Adding quantities of aggregate base and lean concrete base into the contract to be used at the discretion of the CO is one potential solution.

Bid Items

Suggested FP-14 pay items for the proposed structural section are shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Recommended Pay Items Item

Number Item Description Unit

20402-0000 Sub excavation CUYD 30202-2000 Minor Crushed Aggregate, Method 2 TON 30401-5500 Full Depth Reclamation, Method 2, 8-Inch Depth MILE 30402-5500 Full Depth Reclamation, Method 2, 8 Inch Depth SQYD

40101-5600 Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Gyratory Mix, ½” or ¾” Nominal Maximum Size Aggregate, 0.3 to <3

Million ESAL

TON

40105-3000 Antistrip Additive, Type 3 TON 40199-0002 Incentive, Roughness LPSM 40601-0000 Fog Seal TON 41102-1000 Prime Coat, Method 1 SQYD 41105-0000 Blotter TON 41201-0000 Tack Coat TON

APPENDICES

A – Location Map

B – Laboratory Reports and Boring Log

C – Photographs

D – DARWin Pavement Design

E – PG LTPPBind Software and CALTRANS Criteria

F – Weather Data Information

G – Pavement Investigation Memo

H – Culvert Pipe Selection Criteria

APPENDIX A – Location Map

S to n y C re e k

W oodward Creek

C re

D o r s t

Dorst Cree k

C re

C a b in

C a b in C re

Cre ek

Dorst

N o rt h F o rk K a w e a h

S to n y C re

S to n y C r e

2000' 4000'

The Wye

Begin Project

Sta. 2347+20

CA FTNP SEKI 10(12)

End Project

Little Baldy Saddle

Campground

Creek

Dorst

Stony Creek Box Culvert

(Three-Barrel Box Culvert)

Stony Creek Bridge rals

G e n e

H ig hway from The Wye

Grant Grove

2 miles to from The Wye

54 miles to Fresno

NPS Entrance

Ash Mountain

27 miles to

Scale in Feet

END PRA SEKI 10(9)

Sta. 1462+00

CA FTNP SEKI 10(12)

Creek

Cabin

Curve

Schouter's

Creek

Dorst

Campground

Stony Creek

Meadow

Woodcock

Village

Stony Creek

G e n e ra ls

H ig h w a y

Dorst Material Yard

Campgrounds

Forest Cove & Fir Pythian Camp

Retreat Center

Far Horizons

Big Meadows

Big Baldy

Buena Vista

Kings Canyon Overlook

Redwood Canyon Road

Overlook

Canyon

Redwood

Upper Stony Creek Campground

Lost Grove

Lodge

Montecito

1470+00

0+00

1550+00

+00

2000+00

+00

+00

0+

PARK

NATIONAL

SEQUOIA

Stockpile area)

(Potential Staging/

Hume Lake

Quail Flat/

Wye Culvert

BORING LOCATIONS

STATE PROJECT

A

M N C

A s e k i1

P a v e m e n ts

R e p o r ts T e c h M e m o s

M A

P S

E K I .d g n

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

U s e r J e ff r e y .F e ll in g

NUMBER

SHEET

CA

Generals Highway

FTNP SEKI 10(12)

NPS PMIS NO.: 148994 & 148997 DRAWING NO.: 102/132299

APPENDIX B – Laboratory Reports and Boring Log

Project:

Sample

Number

Station or

Location Offset

Date

Sampled

Depth of

Bore

Container

Type

0 ‐ 4‐1/2"

4‐1/2" ‐ 7"

7" ‐ 4'‐0"

0" ‐ 3‐1/2"

3‐1/2" ‐ 6‐1/2"

6‐1/2" ‐ 2'‐6"

2'‐6" ‐ 4'‐6"

4'‐6" ‐ 5'‐0"

0" ‐ 5"

5" ‐ 8‐1/2"

8‐1/2" ‐ 3'‐6"

3'‐6" ‐ 4'‐6"

0" ‐ 6‐1/2"

6‐1/2" ‐ 9‐1/2"

9‐1/2" ‐ 18"

0" ‐ 8"

8" ‐ 9"

9" ‐ 4'‐6"

0" ‐ 7‐1/2"

7‐1/2"‐10‐1/2"

10‐1/2" ‐ 2'‐6"

2'‐6" ‐ 4'‐6"

Comments

Dryer silt, dark brown material w/

DG missed in. Stopped at 4'‐6"

Brown silty‐sand, moist.

Silt, dry, some DG.

Brown silty‐sand, moist.

Investigation Sampling & Request for Laboratory Tests

Top 1/2" was chip seal.

Top 1/2" was chip seal.

Consistent though investigation.

Some organics from 3'‐6" to bottom, tougher drilling.

Possible RSS Site.

B‐5, S‐3 MP 1.40 5/12/20155'‐6" RT 4'‐6"

5‐Gallon

Bucket

HACP

Hard drilling, more silty‐sand w/ DG as drilling continued.

B‐6, S‐4 MP 1.90 LT 5/12/2015 4'‐6"

5‐Gallon

Bucket

B‐4 MP 1.00 8'‐6" LT 5/12/2015 1'‐6"

Not

Sampled

MP 0.90B‐3 5'‐6" RT 5/12/2015 4'‐6"

Not

Sampled

5'‐0" LTMP 0.40B2, S‐2

1. Sieve Analysis

2. LL, PL

3. Classification

4. R‐Value

16. PH

17 Resistivity

Boring Observations

5/12/20155'‐6" RTMP 0.05B‐1, S‐1 4'‐0"

5‐Gallon

Bucket

Testing Requested

HACP

Decomposed Granite (DG) Base course.

Brown silty‐sand w/ gravel, slightly moist. Some gravel w/1" minus stone. No clear base. Upper 18" had

1" minus stone.

HACP

DG Base, 1'1/2" minus material.

Brown silty‐sand, moist.

5‐Gallon

Bucket 5'‐0"5/12/2015

Dryer silt, dark brown.

HACP

1. Sieve Analysis

2. LL, PL

3. Classification

4. R‐Value

DG Base.

Brown silty sand, moist, fine, some

PI.

HACP

DG Base.

DG Base.

Gray silt, auger refusal at 1'‐6".

HACP

DG Base.

CA FTNP SEKI 10(12) Generals Highway 1516062901012 510.PE.G31E.06 1606001429Account Number:

Submitted By: Date Submitted: 28‐May‐15Sampled By:Jeff Felling Felling / Voth

Number

Station or

Location Offset

Date

Sampled

Depth of

Bore

Container

Type

0" ‐ 6"

6" ‐ 10"

10" ‐3'‐6"

0" ‐ 6"

6" ‐ 8‐1/2"

8‐1/2" ‐1'‐6"

1'‐6" ‐ 2'‐6"

0" ‐ 6"

6" ‐ 9"

9" ‐ 1'‐6"

0" ‐6"

6" ‐ 9"

9" ‐ 3'‐6"

3'‐6" ‐ 5'‐0"

0" ‐ 5"

5" ‐ 8"

8" ‐ 4'‐6"

0" ‐ 5"

5" ‐ 7‐1/2"

7‐1/2" ‐ 4'‐6"

Comments Felling / Voth Date Submitted: 28‐May‐15

Boring Observations Testing Requested

Sampled 3'‐6" ‐ 4'‐6".

RT

HACP

B‐11 MP 4.60 6'‐6" LT

B‐7 MP 2.30 6'‐0" RT

B‐8, S‐5 MP 3.00 5'6" LT

Brown silt, typical of others.

DG Base.

Gray silty soil.

Dark brown silty soil.

DG Base.

Lighter (dryer) brown silt, typical.

Void from 3'‐6" to 9'‐0".

Investigation Sampling & Request for Laboratory Tests

B‐12, S‐7 MP 5.20 5'‐6" RT 5/13/2015 4'‐6"

5‐Gallon

Bucket

DG Base.

Brown‐gray silty/sand. Moist. Similar to previous materials.

5‐Gallon

Bucket

MP 3.50 5/12/2015 1'‐6"

Not

Sampled

HACP

DG Base.

Drier brown silt. Auger refusal at 1'‐

6".

5/12/2015 4'‐6" Not

Sampled

5/12/2015 2'‐6" Freezer Bag

5/12/2015 9'‐0" Not

Sampled

B‐9

B‐10, S‐6 MP 4.30 6'‐0" RT 5/12/2015 5'‐0"

HACP

DG Base.

brown silty ‐sand, @ 3'‐6", encountered a large void, went 9' and did not find the bottom. No resistance, no material recovered. Sounded hollow as well.

CA FTNP SEKI 10(12) Generals Highway Account Number: 1516062901012 510.PE.G31E.06 1606001429

Submitted By: Jeff Felling Sampled By:

HACP

DG Base.

Dark brown silt/sand. Moist, intermixed w/ rock (1‐1/2" minus) from drilling through DG. Drier than other silt.

1. Sieve Analysis

2. LL, PL

3. Classification

4. R‐Value

16. PH

17 Resistivity

1. Sieve Analysis

2. LL, PL

3. Classification

4. R‐Value

1. Sieve Analysis

2. LL, PL

3. Classification

HACP

Number

Station or

Location Offset

Date

Sampled

Depth of

Bore

Container

Type

0" ‐ 5"

5" ‐ 8"

8" ‐ 2'‐6"

0" ‐ 2‐1/2"

2‐1/2" ‐ 2'‐6"

2'‐6" ‐ 8'‐0"

0" ‐5"

5" ‐ 8"

8" ‐ 1'‐6"

1'‐6" ‐ 6'‐0"

0" ‐ 4‐1/2"

4‐1/2" ‐ 7‐1/2"

7‐1/2" ‐ 1'‐8"

1'‐8" ‐ 4'‐6"

0" ‐ 4‐1/2"

4‐1/2" ‐ 7"

0'‐7" ‐ 4'‐6"

Comments Submitted By: Jeff Felling Sampled By: Felling / Voth Date Submitted: 28‐May‐15

Boring Observations Testing Requested

B‐17, S‐11 MP 7.60 6'‐6" RT 5/13/2015 4'‐6"

5‐Gallon

Bucket

HACP

DG Base.

Brown silt, dry, more compact than previous locations. Sampled @ 4'‐0" ‐

4"‐6"

Location requested by the

NPS.

B‐15, S‐10 MP 6.40

Investigation Sampling & Request for Laboratory Tests

CA FTNP SEKI 10(12) Generals Highway Account Number: 1516062901012 510.PE.G31E.06 1606001429

Dry brown silt, typical.

Brown silt, typical of others.

Bottom lift of HACP appeared to be distinctly more coarse.

B‐14, S‐9 MP 6.20

5‐Gallon

Bucket

DG Base.

Brown silty material, moist, Rock @

2'‐0", auger refusal @ 2'‐6". Sampled

@ 2'‐6".

5/13/2015 8'‐0"

1. Sieve Analysis

2. LL, PL

3. Classification

4. R‐Value

25. In‐Situ moisture

5‐Gallon

Bucket &

Freezer Bag

6'‐0"5/13/2015

5/13/2015 4'‐6" Not

Sampled

DG Base.

Brown/black material, similar to B‐

15. Easy drilling, small rock @ 2'‐6".

6'‐0" RT

7'‐0" RT

B‐16 MP 7.00

B‐13, S‐8 6'‐6" LT 5/13/2015 2'‐6"MP 5.90

HACP

HACP

5'‐0" LT

HACP

HACP

DG Base.

Dark brown‐black, moist, silt/topsoil type material. Smell organic, easy drilling. Sampled @ 4'‐6". Loam material.

Freezer Bag

Aggregate base, dry, gap graded.

Dry brown silt. Some roots, some stone, more sandy. Sampled @ 7', low recovery, easy drilling, possible low density area.

Number

Station or

Location Offset

Date

Sampled

Depth of

Bore

Container

Type

0" ‐ 6"

6" ‐ 8‐1/2"

8'1/2" ‐ 2'‐6"

0" ‐ 5‐1/2"

5‐1/2" ‐ 8‐1/2"

8‐1/2" ‐ 2'‐6"

0" ‐ 4"

4" ‐ 7"

0'‐7" ‐ 1'‐4"

0" ‐ 4"

4" ‐ 8"

0'‐8" ‐ 2'‐6"

2'‐6" ‐ 4'‐6"

0" ‐ 5"

5" ‐ 8"

0'‐8" ‐1'‐6"

Comments

Boring Observations Testing Requested

CA FTNP SEKI 10(12) Generals Highway Account Number: 1516062901012 510.PE.G31E.06 1606001429

Submitted By: Jeff Felling Sampled By: Felling / Voth Date Submitted: 28‐May‐15

Investigation Sampling & Request for Laboratory Tests

B‐18 MP 8.00 5'‐6" RT 5/13/2015 2'‐6"

Not

Sampled

HACP

DG Base.

Dark brown silt/gravel seen in previous borings. Rock encountered

@ 2'‐6", auger refusal @ 2'‐6".

B‐19, S‐12 MP 8.60 6'‐6" RT 5/13/2015 2'‐6" Freezer Bag

HACP

1. Sieve Analysis

2. LL, PL

3. Classification

DG Base

Brown silt/sand, moist, similar to others, consolidated, rock encountered & auger refusal @ 2'‐

6". Sampled @ 2'‐0"

B‐20 MP 9.20 6'‐0" LT 5/13/2015 1'‐4"

Not

Sampled

HACP

DG Base.

Dark brown moist silt, tough drilling.

Encountered rock @ 1'‐4", auger refusal @ 1'‐4".

B‐21, S‐13 MP 9.70 6'‐6" RT 5/13/2015 4'‐6"

5‐Gallon

Bucket &

Freezer Bag

HACP

1. Sieve Analysis

2. LL, PL

3. Classification

4. R‐Value

16. PH

17 Resistivity

25. In‐situ moisture

DG Base.

Dry gray sandy silt (bag sample).

Brown dark silt, moist (bulk).

B‐22 MP 10.20 6'‐6" LT 5/13/2015 1'‐6"

Not

Sampled

HACP

Contaminated DG Base.

Brown silt, moist, similar to previous locations. Solid rock @ 18", auger refusal @ 18".

Number

Station or

Location Offset

Date

Sampled

Depth of

Bore

Container

Type

0"‐ 4"

4" ‐ 8‐1/2"

8‐1/2" ‐ 3'‐0"

3'‐0" ‐ 4'‐6"

0"‐5‐1/2"

5‐1/2" ‐ 8‐1/2"

8‐1/2" ‐ 2'‐0"

2'‐0" ‐ 4'‐6"

0" ‐ 5"

5" ‐ 8‐1/2"

8‐1/2" ‐ 4'‐6"

0" ‐5"

5" ‐ 8‐1/2"

8‐1/2" ‐ 1'‐6"

1'‐6" ‐ 4'‐6"

0" ‐6"

6" ‐ 9"

0'‐9" ‐ 2'‐6"

0" ‐ 5‐1/2"

5‐1/2" ‐ 8‐1/2"

8‐1/2" ‐ 1'‐9"

1'‐9" ‐ 4'‐6"

Comments

Boring Observations Testing Requested

Investigation Sampling & Request for Laboratory Tests

CA FTNP SEKI 10(12) Generals Highway Account Number: 1516062901012 510.PE.G31E.06 1606001429

Submitted By: Jeff Felling Sampled By: Felling / Voth Date Submitted: 28‐May‐15

B‐27 MP 13.00 5'‐6" LT 5/13/2015 2'‐6"

Not

Sampled

HACP

DG Base.

Dark brown/black silt w/ DG mixed

in. Topsoil smell, hard drilling @ 2'‐

6". Auger refusal @ 2'‐6". Quartz found @ bottom.

B‐28, S‐17 MP 13.60 5'‐6" RT 5/13/2015 4'‐6"

5‐Gallon

Bucket

HACP 1. Sieve Analysis

2. LL, PL

3. Classification

4. R‐Value

Sampled @ 3'‐6".

DG Base.

Gray, silty material, similar.

loose DG, ground into gray silt.

B‐23, S‐14 MP 10.90 5'‐6" RT 5/13/2015 4'‐6" Freezer Bag

HACP

DG Base.

Brown sandy silt, tough drilling.

brown sandy silt w/ cobble & gravel.

B‐24, S‐15 MP 11.40 5'‐0" LT 5/13/2015 4'‐6"

5‐Gallon

Bucket &

Freezer Bag

HACP

DG Base.

Gray, gravely/silt, dry, similar (bulk).

Black, moist silt (bag sample).

B‐25 MP 11.80 5'‐6" LT 5/13/2015 4'‐6"

Not

Sampled

HACP

DG Base.

Dry gray silty gravel, similar.

Brown silt w/ DG ground from auguring.

Gray silty grave, dry, similar to other borings.

1. Sieve Analysis

2. LL, PL

3. Classification

B‐26, S‐16 MP 12.30 6'‐0" RT 5/13/2015 4'‐6" Freezer Bag

DG Base.

Number

Station or

Location Offset

Date

Sampled

Depth of

Bore

Container

Type

0" ‐ 2‐1/2"

2‐1/2" ‐ 6‐1/2"

6‐1/2" ‐ 2'‐0"

0" ‐ 6"

6" ‐ 9"

9" ‐ 4'‐0"

0" ‐ 7"

0'‐7" ‐ 0'‐11"

0'‐11" ‐ 4'‐0"

0'‐0" ‐ 0'‐4‐1/2"

4‐1/2" ‐ 7‐1/2"

7‐1/2" ‐ 1'‐6"

0" ‐ 5‐1/2"

5‐1/2" ‐ 8‐1/2"

8‐1/2" ‐ 9‐1/2"

9‐1/2" ‐ 5'‐0"

0" ‐ 9‐1/2"

9‐1/2" ‐ 13‐1/2"

13‐1/2" ‐ 2'‐6"

2'‐6" ‐ 5'‐0"

Boring Observations Testing Requested

Comments

Investigation Sampling & Request for Laboratory Tests

CA FTNP SEKI 10(12) Generals Highway Account Number: 1516062901012 510.PE.G31E.06 1606001429

Submitted By: Jeff Felling Sampled By: Felling / Voth Date Submitted: 28‐May‐15

Pullout Between B‐

28 & B‐29 N.A. 5/13/2015 2'‐0"

Not

Sampled

HACP

DG Base.

Dry, brown silty soil.

B‐29 MP 14.20 5'‐6" LT 5/13/2015 4'‐0"

Not

Sampled

HACP

DG Base, contaminated.

Dark black silt w/ DG ground into it.

Moist, easy drilling, some chatter from small stone.

B‐30 MP 14.80 5'‐6" LT 5/13/2015 4'‐0"

Not

Sampled

HACP

DG Base.

Dry brown silt, some DG, similar.

B‐31, S‐18 MP 15.40 6'‐6" RT 5/13/2015 1'‐6" Freezer Bag

HACP

1. Sieve Analysis

2. LL, PL

3. Classification

DG Base.

Brown silt, moist, encountered large stone @ 1'‐6", auger refusal @ 1'‐6".

B‐33, S‐19 MP 16.70 5'‐6" RT 5/14/2015 5'‐0"

5‐Gallon

Bucket

HACP

DG Base.

Black/dark brown, similar.

Brown silt, semi‐most, similar.

B‐32 MP 15.90 7'‐0" LT 5/14/2015 5'‐0"

Not

Sampled

HACP

DG Base.

Brown silt, semi‐moist, similar to previous. Some rock encountered.

McAdams Section, possibly original pavement in the park.

Number

Station or

Location Offset

Date

Sampled

Depth of

Bore

Container

Type

0" ‐ 10"

10" ‐ 14"

14" ‐ 4'‐0"

4'‐0" ‐ 19'‐0"

0" ‐4"

4" ‐ 10"

16" ‐ 3'‐6"

3'‐6" ‐ 6'‐0"

6'‐0" ‐ 20'‐0"

0" ‐ 4‐1/2"

4‐1/2" ‐ 10‐1/2"

10‐1/2" ‐ 7'‐6"

7'‐6" ‐ 16'‐0"

16'‐0" ‐ 18'‐6"

Testing requests submitted by CFLHD

Geotech Department.

Little to no recover after

3'‐0". Large voids present.

SPT's were:

@ 5': 3 blows, @ 9': 15 blows, @ 14': 6 blows, @ 19': 17 blows.

SPT's were:

@5': 15 blows, @ 10': 22 blows, @ 15': 8 blows, @20': 21 blows.

stopped drilling @ 18'‐6".

SPT's were:

@ 5': 13 blows, @ 7'‐6": 29 blows.Hammering through brown DG.

CA‐180

Culvert, LT

10'‐0" RT 5/14/2015 20'‐0"

5‐Gallon

Bucket/

Freezer Bag

DG Base.

Brown silt with loam, organics, roots.

Easy drilling.

Hammering through gray DG. Very hard material.

Brown sandy silt, with gravel. Auger refusal @ 7'‐6".

HACP

HACP

Aggregate base, 10"‐16" DG borrow.

Brown sandy silt, moist w/ gravel, wet @ 14'.

HACP

Brown silt w/ some cobbles/gravel.

Bag sample 2'‐6" ‐ 4'‐0'. Easy drilling.

Brown sandy silt, moist.

Brown sandy silt, dry w/ gravel.

Aggregate base/RAP/FDR

G‐2

CA ‐180

Culvert, RT

G‐3

7'‐6" RT 5/14/2015 20'‐0"

5‐Gallon

Bucket/

Freezer Bag

G‐1 MP 4.20 7'‐0" LT 5/12/2015 20'‐0"

5‐Gallon

Bucket

Investigation Sampling & Request for Laboratory Tests

CA FTNP SEKI 10(12) Generals Highway Account Number: 1516062901012 510.PE.G31E.06 1606001429

Comments Submitted By: Jeff Felling Sampled By: Felling / Voth Date Submitted: 28‐May‐15

Boring Observations Testing Requested

APPENDIX C – Photographs

CME 75 (5/12-5/13)

CME 75 (5/14)

Typical Roadway Cross Section, Rock Surrounding

Typical Roadway Cross Section, Soil Surrounding

Cutslope, Soil

Cutslope, Rock and Soil Intermixed

Typical Drilling Conditions

Typical Drilling Conditions

Typical Boring(s), Grey and Brown Silty-Sand

Typical Boring(s), Brown Silty-Sand

Typical Subgrade Material, Black Silty Material

Typical Subgrade Material, Dark Brown-Black Silty Material

Existing Typical Sections

Existing Typical Sections

Existing Pavement Conditions

Existing Pavement Conditions

APPENDIX D – DARWin Pavement Design

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare Computer Software Product

Flexible Structural Design Module

Generals Highway 1462+00 - 2346+77

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 478,879 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.95 Reliability Level 75 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 18,250 psi Stage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 2.01 in

Rigorous ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 20 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 731 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 60 %

Vehicle Class

Percent of

ADT

Annual

Growth

Average Initial Truck Factor

(ESALs/ Truck)

Annual % Growth in

Truck Factor

Accumulated 18-kip ESALs over Performance Period

3 90 2 0.004 0 13,726 6 9 2 1.1 0 377,460 9 1 2 2.3 0 87,693

Total 100 - - - 478,879

Growth Simple

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 478,879

Specified Layer Design

Layer

Material Description

Struct Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Thickness (Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in)

1 HACP 0.42 1 3 - 1.26

2 FDR 0.1 1 8 - 0.80

Total - - - 11.00 - 2.06

APPENDIX E – PG LTPPBIND Software and CALTRANS Criteria

BindReport-5Closest.txt

Five Closest Weather Stations For Latitude/Longitude= 36.594/118.738 Report Date: 7/1/2016 (LTPPBind V3.0 Alpha)

Three Closest WS Report Title

General A=1 km B=16 km C=19 km D=26 km E=36 km Station ID CA5026 CA0343 CA8917 CA3551

CA4890

County/District tulare tulare tulare tulare tulare Weather Station lodgepole ash mountain three rivers ed grant grove lemon cove Elevation, m 1908 483 322 1869 Latitude, Longitude 36.6 ,118.73 36.48 ,118.83 36.47 ,118.87 36.73 ,118.97 36.38 ,119.03 Last Year Data Available 1997 1997 1997 1997

Air Temperature Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) High Temperature 28.1 (10,29) 39.8 (11,35) 40.9 (11,24) 27.7 (11,35) 39.5 (12,35) Low Temperature -20 (29,29) -3.8 (17,35) -4.4 (17,26) -13.6 (23,35) -3.4 (15,35) Low Temperature Drop 23.9 (19,29) 23.1 (16,35) 24 (15,26) 21.1 (29,35) 24 (22,35) Degree-Days > 10C 1705 (159,29) 3901 (212,35) 4281 (189,24) 1687 (154,35) 4116 (194,35)

PG High Low Rel. High Low Rel. High Low Rel. High Low Rel. High Low Rel.

=50% Rel. PG Temp. 44.3 -12.6 63.2 -00.9 65.5 -01.3 44.1 -08.0

64.6 -00.6 >50% Rel. PG 46 -16 (50,50) 64 -10 (50,50) 70 -10 (50,50) 46 -10 (50,50) 70 -10 (50,50) 46-16 (98,88) 64-10 (82,98) 70-10 (98,98) 46-10 (98,77) 70-10 (98,98) 46-22 (98,98) 70-10 (98,98) 46-16 (98,98)

Note: Markers indicate County/Route/Post Mile of State Hwys. at region boundaries. When there is no marker, the region follows a county boundary.

Attachment 2

SELECTION OF ASPHALT BINDER GRADE

1.0 BACKGROUND

Asphalt binders are most commonly characterized by their physical properties. An asphalt binder’s physical properties directly describe how it will perform as a constituent in asphalt concrete (AC) pavement. Although asphalt binder viscosity grading is still common, new binder tests and specifications are developed to more accurately characterize asphalt binders for use in AC pavements. These tests and specifications are specifically designed to address AC pavement performance parameters such as rutting, fatigue cracking and thermal cracking.

In the past, Caltrans has classified binder using viscosity grading based on Aged Residue (AR) System. Beginning January 1, 2006, Caltrans will use the Performance Graded (PG) System. For Polymer modified binder, Caltrans has used and will continue to use the Performance Based (PBA) binder system.

Performance grading is based on the idea that asphalt binder properties should be related to the conditions under which it is used. Performance Graded (PG) asphalt binders are selected to meet expected climatic conditions as well as aging considerations with a certain level of reliability.

Therefore, the PG system uses a common set of tests to measure physical properties of the binder that can be directly related to field performance of the pavement at extreme temperatures. For example, a binder identified as PG 64-10 must meet performance criteria at an average 7-day maximum pavement design temperature of 64°C and also at a minimum pavement design temperature of –10°C.

Polymer modified binders (PBA) are used wherever extra performance and durability are desired.

Improvement in resistance to rutting, thermal cracking, fatigue damage, stripping, and temperature susceptibility have led polymer modified binders to be substituted for asphalt in many paving and maintenance applications. For example, polymer modification is used to concurrently meet the requirements for high temperature resistance to rutting and low temperature resistance to thermal cracking.

2.0 PROCEDURES

Table 2.0 provides the binder grade that is to be used for each pavement climatic region. For locations of each pavement climate region see the Pavement Climate Map. A more detailed map can be found on the pavement web site beginning November 15, 2005 at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/pavement/guidance.htm.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/pavement/guidance.htm

Table 2.0 – ASPHALT BINDER GRADE

Binder

Climatic Region

Conventional Asphalt Rubberized Asphalt

Dense Graded Open Graded

Gap Graded

Open GradedTypical Special

PG PG

PG

Polymer Modified

PG

PG

Polymer Modified2

PG PG

South Coast Central Coast Inland Valleys

64-10 70-10 64-28PM 64-10 58-34PM 64-16 64-16

North Coast 64-16 N/A 64-28PM 64-16 58-34PM 64-16 64-16

Low Mountain South Mountain

64-16 N/A 64-28PM 64-16 58-34PM 64-16 64-16

High Mountain High Desert

64-28 N/A 58-34PM 64-28 58-34PM 58-22 58-22

Desert 70-10 N/A 64-28PM 70-10 58-34PM 64-16 64-16

Notes:

1. For asphalt concrete dikes use PG 70-10. For tack coats use either 64-10 or 64-16.

special location identified by DME.

For conventional Dense Graded Asphalt concrete, values are given for typical and special conditions. Special conditions are defined as those roadways or portion of roadways which meet any of the following criteria:

Scales etc.)

It should be noted that special binder grades may help to meet the requirements for the above criteria. However, there are other provisions that may also be necessary to address the above special conditions. The District Materials Engineer should be consulted for additional recommendations for these locations. Final decision as to whether a roadway meets the criteria for special conditions rests with the District.

For more detailed information on PG binder selection, refer to technical guides available on pavement web site at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/pavement/guidance.htm.

3.0 COST ESTIMATING

The use of PG binder should not affect the unit price for asphalt concrete for projects that have not been advertised. Asphalt concrete binders that use PBA binders are typically 20 to 30% more expensive than conventional binders like PG or AR.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/pavement/guidance.htm

Caltrans Home > hq > esc > Translab > ormt > fpmcoc

Materials Engineering and Testing Services

Office of Roadway Materials Testing

ASPHALT BINDER & HOT MIX ASPHALT LABORATORY

5900 FOLSOM BOULEVARD

SACRAMENTO, CA 95819

APPROVED SUPPLIERS

(Updated: 06/22/2015 Caltrans Contact: Albert Vasquez (916) 227-7322)

Caltrans Performance-Graded (PG) Asphalt Binder Types are:

Non-Modified: PG58-22, PG64-10, PG64-16, PG64-28, and PG70-10 Modified: PG58-34 M, PG64-28 M, and PG76-22 M

Asphalt Supplier - Location Binder Type

Approval Status

Non-Modified Modified (M)

Albina Asphalt - Klamath Falls, OR Keven Heitschmidt - (360) 816-8560 keven.heitschmidt@albina.com

PG64-10, PG64-16,

PG64-28, & PG70-

PG58-34M,

PG64-28M

Current

Albina Asphalt - Madras, OR Keven Heitschmidt - (360) 816-8560 keven.heitschmidt@albina.com

PG64-10, PG64-16,

PG64-28, & PG70-

PG58-34M,

PG64-28M

Pending

Alon Asphalt Co. - Bakersfield, CA Brian Orr - (661) 340-6408 borr@ppcla.com

PG58-22, PG64-10,

PG64-16, PG64-28,

& PG70-10

PG58-34M,

PG64-28M,

PG76-22M

Current

Alon Asphalt Co. - Elk Grove, CA Brian Orr - (661) 340-6408 borr@ppcla.com

PG58-22, PG64-10,

PG64-16, PG64-28,

& PG70-10

PG58-34M,

PG64-28M,

PG76-22M

Current

Alon Asphalt Co. - Mojave, CA Brian Orr - (661) 340-6408 borr@ppcla.com

PG64-10, PG64-16,

& PG70-10

None Current

Current

Page 1 of 3Division of Engineering Services :: ... :: index.htm

7/29/2016http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ormt/fpmcoc.htm

Alon Asphalt Co. - Phoenix, AZ Mohammad Rahman - (602) 794-2528 mrahman@ppcla.com

PG58-22, PG64-10,

PG64-16, PG64-28,

& PG70-10

PG58-34M,

PG64-28M,

PG76-22M

Alon Asphalt Co. - Fernley, NV Kevin McKinney - (775) 835-6366 kmckinney@ppcla.com

PG58-22, PG64-16,

& PG64-28

PG64-28M Current

Chowchilla Asphalt - Chowchilla, CA Akira Hasegawa - (559) 223-6284 ahasegawa@jaxonaggregates.com

PG64-10, & PG64-

None Current

Delta Trading LP - Bakersfield, CA Rob McElroy - (661) 834-5560 rmcelroy@deltatradinglp.com

PG64-10, & PG64-

None Current

Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions, Inc. - Las Vegas, NV Michael Holst - (702) 736-2059 michael.holst@ergon.com

PG64-10, PG64-16,

& PG70-10

PG64-28M,

PG76-22M

Current

Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions, Inc. - Pittsburg, CA

Daniel Thomas - (925) 427-6880 daniel.thomas@nustarenergy.com

PG58-22, PG64-10,

PG64-16, PG64-28,

& PG70-10

PG64-28M,

PG76-22M

Current

Lunday Thagard Refinery - South Gate, CA Gustavo Moreno - (562) 928-7000, Ext. 239 gmoreno@worldoil.net

PG58-22, PG64-10,

PG64-16, & PG70-

PG64-28M Current

Pacific Northwest Oil - Stockton, CA Patrick Sendegeya - (209) 463-4762 patrick.sendegeya@pacificnorthwestoil.com

PG58-22, PG64-10,

PG64-16, PG64-28,

& PG70-10

PG64-28M,

PG76-22M

Current

San Joaquin Refining Co. - Bakersfield, CA Don Powell - (661) 327-8248 donp@sjr.com

PG64-10, PG 64-

16, & PG70-10

PG58-34M,

PG64-28M,

PG76-22M

Current

Santa Maria Refining Co. - Santa Maria, CA Edgar Cifuentes - (805) 357-2995 edc@greka.com

PG64-10, PG64-16,

& PG70-10

None Current

SWT Group - Bakersfield, CA Jonathan Dietzel - (519) 967-1523 jdietzel@swtgroup.com

PG64-10, & PG64-

None Inactive

Syar Industries - Pittsburg, CA Michael Herlax - (707) 259-5705 mherlax@syar.com

PG64-10, & PG64-

None Inactive

Valero Marketing & Supply - Benicia, CA Brenda Mooney - (707) 745-7089 brenda.mooney@valero.com

PG58-22, PG64-10,

PG64-16, PG64-28,

& PG70-10

PG58-34M,

PG64-28M,

PG76-22M

Current

Page 2 of 3Division of Engineering Services :: ... :: index.htm

Valero Marketing & Supply - Wilmington, CA Eric Gauss - (310) 518-4000 eric.gauss@valero.com

PG58-22, PG64-10,

PG64-16, & PG70-

None Current

VSS Emultech - West Sacramento, CA Sallie Houston - (916) 397-8623 sallie.houston@slurry.com

PG64-10, & PG64-

None Current

Western Refining Co. - Phoenix, AZ Sam Huddleston - (602) 286-1982 sam.huddleston@wnr.com

PG58-22, PG64-10,

& PG64-16

None Current

The files below are being made available to asphalt suppliers who are participating in the Caltrans Certification Program for Suppliers of Asphalt. The files below describe the certification program, and acceptance testing criteria are listed in Section 92 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications. If you have any questions about the information in these files, please call Albert Vasquez at (916) 227-7322. Please note that Caltrans projects may require additional acceptance criteria or modifications to asphalt binder specifications for project acceptance testing.

1. Caltrans Certification Program for Suppliers of Asphalt: Program Guidelines Document

2. Caltrans Certification Program for Suppliers of Asphalt: Test Data Format for Submittal to Caltrans (Please submit data using a MS-Excel 2003 spread sheet, i.e., a “.xls” file format.)

3. Caltrans Certification Program for Suppliers of Asphalt: Test ID Numbers for PG Asphalt Binders

4. Caltrans Certification Program for Suppliers of Asphalt: Test ID Numbers for PG-M Asphalt Binders

5. Caltrans Price List for Asphalt Testing

[Note: Some of the Caltrans Test ID Numbers capture two test results rather than just one. For those cases, the Test Data Format file now includes columns for “Test Result 1” and “Test Result 2.”]

Conditions of Use | Privacy Policy Copyright © 2016 State of California

Page 3 of 3Division of Engineering Services :: ... :: index.htm

APPENDIX F – Weather Data Information

Back to:

NOTE:

To print data frame (right side), click on right frame before printing.

1981 - 2010

• Daily Temp. & Precip.

• Daily Tabular data (~23 KB)

• Monthly Tabular data (~1 KB)

• NCDC 1981-2010 Normals (~3 KB)

1971 - 2000

• Daily Temp. & Precip.

• Daily Tabular data (~23 KB)

• Monthly Tabular data (~1 KB)

• NCDC 1971-2000 Normals (~3 KB)

1961 - 1990

• Daily Temp. & Precip.

• Daily Tabular data (~23 KB)

• Monthly Tabular data (~1 KB)

• NCDC 1961-1990 Normals (~3 KB)

Period of Record

• Station Metadata

• Station Metadata Graphics

General Climate Summary Tables

• Temperature

• Precipitation

• Heating Degree Days

• Cooling Degree Days

• Growing Degree Days Temperature

• Daily Extremes and Averages

• Spring 'Freeze' Probabilities

• Fall 'Freeze' Probabilities

• 'Freeze Free' Probabilities

• Monthly Temperature Listings

Average Average Maximum Average Minimum Extreme Maximum Extreme Minimum

Precipitation

• Monthly Average

• Daily Extreme and Average

• Daily Average

• Precipitation Probability by Duration.

• Precipitation Probability by Quantity.

• Monthly Precipitation Listings

Monthly Totals Daily Extreme

Snowfall

• Daily Extreme and Average

• Daily Average

• Monthly Snowfall Listings

Monthly Totals Snowdepth

• Daily Extreme and Average

• Daily Average Heating Degree Days

• Daily Average

• Monthly HDD Listings

Monthly Totals(*) Cooling Degree Days

• Daily Average

• Monthly CDD Listings

Monthly Totals(*) Growing Degree Days

• Monthly GDD Listings

Monthly Total Base 40 (*) Monthly Total Base 50 (*)

P i d f R d D t T bl

GRANT GROVE, CALIFORNIA

Period of Record General Climate Summary - Precipitation

Station:(043551) GRANT GROVE From Year=1940 To Year=2012

Precipitation Total Snowfall

Mean High Year Low Year 1 Day Max. >=

0.01 in.

0.10 in.

0.50 in.

1.00 in. Mean High Year

in. in. - in. - in.

dd/yyyy or yyyymmdd

# Days # Days # Days # Days in. in. -

January 7.86 38.18 1969 0.06 1976 7.51 19/1969 8 7 4 3 34.3 101.0 1952 February 7.21 23.61 1962 0.14 1953 8.60 02/1945 9 7 4 2 36.5 154.0 1969

March 6.88 25.55 1991 0.00 1972 5.82 10/1995 10 8 4 2 41.8 168.0 1952 April 4.05 14.91 1967 0.03 2008 5.13 04/2006 8 6 3 1 24.9 143.0 1967 May 1.56 8.28 1957 0.00 1970 5.10 19/1957 4 3 1 0 5.1 31.0 1964 June 0.44 3.23 1998 0.00 1942 1.76 16/1995 2 1 0 0 0.4 8.5 1995 July 0.14 2.93 1992 0.00 1940 1.57 12/1992 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1945

August 0.11 0.98 2003 0.00 1941 0.49 03/2003 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1941 September 0.77 7.98 1982 0.00 1940 4.09 26/1982 2 1 0 0 0.2 4.0 1965

October 2.05 9.70 2004 0.00 1949 7.66 14/2009 4 3 1 1 2.5 25.0 1996 November 4.47 14.50 1950 0.00 1956 6.12 19/1950 6 5 2 2 14.5 57.0 1972 December 6.96 28.32 1955 0.00 1989 10.09 06/1966 8 6 4 3 27.3 88.0 1941

Annual 42.48 83.23 1982 21.10 1976 10.09 19661206 63 48 24 14 187.2 427.5 1952

Winter 22.02 67.78 1969 4.31 2012 10.09 19661206 26 20 12 8 98.0 240.0 1969 Spring 12.48 32.91 1995 0.35 1997 5.82 19950310 22 17 8 4 71.7 210.5 1967

Summer 0.68 3.24 1998 0.00 1942 1.76 19950616 4 2 0 0 0.4 8.5 1995 Fall 7.29 26.10 1982 0.03 1995 7.66 20091014 12 9 4 2 17.1 57.0 1972

Table updated on Oct 31, 2012 For monthly and annual means, thresholds, and sums:

Months with 5 or more missing days are not considered Years with 1 or more missing months are not considered

Seasons are climatological not calendar seasons Winter = Dec., Jan., and Feb. Spring = Mar., Apr., and May Summer = Jun., Jul., and Aug. Fall = Sep., Oct., and Nov.

Western Regional Climate Center, wrcc@dri.edu

Page 1 of 1GRANT GROVE, CALIFORNIA - Climate Summary

7/29/2016http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3551

Back to:

NOTE:

To print data frame (right side), click on right frame before printing.

1981 - 2010

• Daily Temp. & Precip.

• Daily Tabular data (~23 KB)

• Monthly Tabular data (~1 KB)

• NCDC 1981-2010 Normals (~3 KB)

1971 - 2000

• Daily Temp. & Precip.

• Daily Tabular data (~23 KB)

• Monthly Tabular data (~1 KB)

• NCDC 1971-2000 Normals (~3 KB)

1961 - 1990

• Daily Temp. & Precip.

• Daily Tabular data (~23 KB)

• Monthly Tabular data (~1 KB)

• NCDC 1961-1990 Normals (~3 KB)

Period of Record

• Station Metadata

• Station Metadata Graphics

General Climate Summary Tables

• Temperature

• Precipitation

• Heating Degree Days

• Cooling Degree Days

• Growing Degree Days Temperature

• Daily Extremes and Averages

• Spring 'Freeze' Probabilities

• Fall 'Freeze' Probabilities

• 'Freeze Free' Probabilities

• Monthly Temperature Listings

Average Average Maximum Average Minimum Extreme Maximum Extreme Minimum

Precipitation

• Monthly Average

• Daily Extreme and Average

• Daily Average

• Precipitation Probability by Duration.

• Precipitation Probability by Quantity.

• Monthly Precipitation Listings

Monthly Totals Daily Extreme

Snowfall

• Daily Extreme and Average

• Daily Average

• Monthly Snowfall Listings

Monthly Totals Snowdepth

• Daily Extreme and Average

• Daily Average Heating Degree Days

• Daily Average

• Monthly HDD Listings

Monthly Totals(*) Cooling Degree Days

• Daily Average

• Monthly CDD Listings

Monthly Totals(*) Growing Degree Days

• Monthly GDD Listings

Monthly Total Base 40 (*) Monthly Total Base 50 (*)

P i d f R d D t T bl

GRANT GROVE, CALIFORNIA

Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature

Station:(043551) GRANT GROVE From Year=1940 To Year=2012

Monthly Averages Daily Extremes Monthly Extremes Max. Temp. Min. Temp.

Max. Min. Mean High Date Low Date Highest Mean Year Lowest

Mean Year >= 90 F

32 F

32 F

0 F

F F F F dd/yyyy or yyyymmdd

F dd/yyyy or yyyymmdd

F - F - # Days # Days # Days # Days

January 43.4 25.2 34.3 66 14/1943 -6 10/1949 43.0 2003 21.4 1949 0.0 3.9 25.2 0.1 February 43.8 24.9 34.4 67 09/1951 -4 13/1949 42.4 1991 27.0 1949 0.0 3.1 23.7 0.1

March 45.2 26.1 35.7 68 19/1978 0 03/1951 45.3 2004 27.7 2006 0.0 2.8 24.8 0.0 April 49.7 29.7 39.7 75 23/2012 6 11/1945 48.2 1989 28.1 1967 0.0 1.4 19.2 0.0 May 57.6 36.7 47.2 83 29/2003 13 04/1950 56.5 2001 37.2 1977 0.0 0.1 9.0 0.0 June 67.1 44.2 55.6 87 22/1961 22 07/1950 61.4 1981 48.4 1944 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 July 75.7 51.2 63.4 91 10/2002 32 18/1987 68.7 1941 58.0 1987 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

August 75.0 50.1 62.5 90 26/2010 20 29/1946 68.9 2012 55.0 1976 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 September 69.6 45.7 57.7 88 12/1945 21 26/1986 64.3 2003 48.5 1986 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0

October 60.0 38.6 49.3 82 03/1980 11 29/1971 58.7 2003 41.6 1946 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 November 50.1 31.0 40.6 75 03/2009 8 29/1975 49.0 1995 31.0 1994 0.0 1.3 16.8 0.0 December 44.5 26.3 35.4 70 04/1958 -4 09/1972 44.8 1958 26.9 1971 0.0 3.7 23.8 0.1

Annual 56.8 35.8 46.3 91 20020710 -6 19490110 48.7 2008 43.9 1946 0.1 16.3 152.0 0.2

Winter 43.9 25.5 34.7 70 19581204 -6 19490110 39.6 1981 26.2 1949 0.0 10.7 72.7 0.2 Spring 50.8 30.9 40.8 83 20030529 0 19510303 46.5 2004 35.7 1975 0.0 4.3 53.1 0.0

Summer 72.6 48.5 60.5 91 20020710 20 19460829 65.1 2008 56.1 1963 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.0 Fall 59.9 38.4 49.2 88 19450912 8 19751129 54.7 1995 43.5 1946 0.0 1.3 24.6 0.0

Table updated on Oct 31, 2012 For monthly and annual means, thresholds, and sums:

Months with 5 or more missing days are not considered Years with 1 or more missing months are not considered

Seasons are climatological not calendar seasons Winter = Dec., Jan., and Feb. Spring = Mar., Apr., and May Summer = Jun., Jul., and Aug. Fall = Sep., Oct., and Nov.

Western Regional Climate Center, wrcc@dri.edu

Page 1 of 1GRANT GROVE, CALIFORNIA - Climate Summary

7/29/2016http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3551

APPENDIX G – Pavement Investigation Memo

APPENDIX H – Culvert Pipe Selection Criteria

Hydrology and Hydraulics December 2012

Roadway Hydraulics 7-51

7.3.6.3.3 Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Reinforced concrete pipe (AASHTO M 170M) is typically specified as an alternative whenever environmental conditions permit. The appropriate pipe class is determined from approved FLH fill height FLH Standard Drawings. If the following guidance on corrosion and abrasion limitations is used, reinforced concrete pipe can be assumed to have a minimum service life of 50 years.

Corrosion

Reinforced concrete pipe should not be specified for extremely corrosive conditions where the pH is less than 3.0 and the resistivity is less than 300 -cm. Where the pH is less than 4.0, or the pipe is exposed to wetting and drying in a salt or brackish water environment, protective coatings (e.g., epoxy resin mortars, poly vinyl chloride sheets) should be used. When the sulfate concentration is greater than 0.2% in the soil or 2,000 parts per million in the water, Type V cement should be specified. When the sulfate concentration is greater than 1.5% in the soil or 15,000 parts per million in the water, Type V cement should be used with a sulfate resistant pozzolan. A higher cement ratio may also be used (e.g., AASHTO Class V pipe design).

Abrasion

On installations in severe abrasive environments, consider using seven or eight sack concrete or increasing the cover over the reinforcing steel.

7.3.6.3.4 Steel Pipe with Metallic Coatings

Steel pipe will typically be specified as an alternative when the environmental conditions permit.

The appropriate minimum structural metal thickness is determined from approved FLH fill height tables. Federal Lands Highway design policy assumes that steel pipe will provide a useful, maintenance-free service life for a period of time beyond the point of first perforation. This assumes an acceptable risk for most Federal Lands Highway projects, but at locations with erodible soils, large traffic volumes, or high fills where replacement or repair would be unusually difficult or expensive, consider increasing the steel plate by one standard thickness. In unusual situations where very high fills and severe abrasion are combined, or where other environmental concerns would make replacement of a pipe culvert very costly or impractical, consider using a pipe one size larger in diameter to permit re-lining in the future by insertion of another pipe.

The following types of steel pipe with metallic coatings are considered as alternatives on Federal Lands Highway projects:

Galvanized steel (AASHTO M 218) Aluminum coated steel (Type 2) (AASHTO M 274)

Corrosion

Under non-abrasive and low-abrasive conditions, the service life of steel pipe with metallic coatings may be determined based upon corrosion (i.e., pH and resistivity) factors determined from Exhibit 7.3-B, which shows the relationship between service life and corrosion for plain

7-52 Roadway Hydraulics galvanized steel pipe. It has been adapted from the California Department of Transportation “Method for Estimating the Service Life of Steel Culverts,” California Test 643. The curves have been modified to show the expected average service life of pipe with a steel thickness of 0.0625” [1.63 mm] assuming a useful, maintenance-free service life 25 percent longer than the number of years to first perforation. Under moderate and severe abrasive conditions, abrasion protection must also be considered.

Under nonabrasive and low abrasive conditions, the metal thickness of galvanized and aluminum coated steel (Type 2) alternatives should be determined from Exhibit 7.3-B based on the resistivity and pH of the site. The minimum metal thickness of steel pipe, as determined from FLH standard fill height tables, may have to be increased, or the additional life of a protective coating may have to be added, in order to provide a 50-year service life. The results included in FHWA-FLP-91-006 indicate that within the environmental range of 5.0 through

9.0 pH and resistivity equal to or greater than 1500 -cm, aluminum coated steel (Type 2) can be expected to give a service life of twice that of plain galvanized pipe.

Exhibit 7.3-B can be used to determine various combinations of increased thicknesses, aluminum coated steel (Type 2), and protective coatings to achieve a 50-year service life, but in no case may the metal thickness specified by the structural requirements be reduced.

Abrasion

Under nonabrasive and low abrasive conditions, the metal thickness of the galvanized, galvalume, and aluminum coated steel alternatives, as determined from Exhibit 7.3-B, should be used.

On installations in moderate abrasive environments where protective coatings are not required for corrosion protection, the thickness of the metal should be increased by one standard metal pipe thickness determined from the diagram for average service life of plain galvanized culverts (see Exhibit 7.3-B) or invert protection should be provided. Invert protection may consist of bituminous coating with invert paving with bituminous concrete, Portland cement concrete lining, installation of metal plates or rails, or velocity reduction structures.

On installations in severe abrasive environments where protective coatings are not required for corrosion protection, the thickness of the metal should be increased by one standard metal pipe thickness determined from the diagram for average service life of plain galvanized culverts (see Exhibit 7.3-B) and invert protection should be provided. Invert protection may consist of installation of metal plates or rails, or velocity reduction structures.

Protective coatings are not suitable for corrosion protection in moderate-abrasive and severe abrasive locations. Metal pipes should not be specified in moderate and severe abrasive environments where coatings are required to…