CO.FLAP.US50(1).Little Blue Creek Canyon.Pavement Report.2020.pdf

LITTLE BLUE CREEK CANYON ROAD

(US HIGHWAY 50)

CO FLAP US50(1)

PAVEMENT AND MATERIALS REPORT

MAY 2020

Report Prepared By

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Central Federal Lands Highway Division Lakewood, Colorado http://www.google.com/imgres?sa=X&biw=1280&bih=819&tbm=isch&tbnid=gtpyJEKxSQX6SM:&imgrefurl=http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2010/HUDNo.10-242&docid=0hzyuk4oobnONM&imgurl=http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/images/hudimg?id=dot_logo_41193.jpg&w=520&h=528&ei=uGw7Uoy6Ksjk4AOC_IDQBw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=567&vpy=131&dur=635&hovh=226&hovw=223&tx=151&ty=150&page=1&tbnh=154&tbnw=162&start=0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:26,s:0,i:171

CO FLAP US50(1) Little Blue Creek Canyon ii

Written by: ________________________________________________________ Mike Voth, Pavements & Materials Team Leader Date

Reviewed by: ________________________________________________________ Jeff Felling, Lead Designer Date

Approved for distribution by:

Mike Voth, Pavements & Materials Engineer Team Leader Date

Distribution:

Project Development Project Management Pavements & Materials/K Drive Archive 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 – CDOT Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design E – Traffic Data F – LTPPBIND Results G – Preliminary Pavement Recommendation Memo H – Special Contract Requirements I – Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

I. INTRODUCTION

This report provides pavement and material recommendations for the 4.17-mile roadway project on US Highway 50 through the Little Blue Creek Canyon west of Gunnison, CO and within CDOT Region 3. The project is approximately between milepost 123 and milepost 127.

Most of the project length will have a 4R scope of complete reconstruction. However, a segment at the east end of the project, the last 3700 feet (~STA 771+00 to 807+00), will have a 3R pavement rehabilitation scope.

The existing pavement and roadway will be widened throughout most of the project. The current roadway ranges in width from 24 to 40 feet.

For the pavement design, CDOT standards and guidelines were followed. This includes the use of the relatively new mechanistic-empirical design process (MEPDG) developed by AASHTO and the associated software, PavementME. Construction specifications (FP-

14) including sampling and testing will generally follow CFLHD standards.

Appendix I includes a Life-cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) which was completed to compare construction, maintenance, and user costs over an extended period for an asphalt pavement alternative versus a concrete pavement alternative.

II. CLIMATE

Climate data was obtained from USclimatedata.com and weather.com for Cimarron, CO which is about 8 miles west of the start of the project. The data is summarized in Table 1 below. The average precipitation for this area is approximately 13.9 inches per year.

About half of the project is located within a canyon and the other half in rolling, hilly terrain. The project location receives both snow and rain, dependent upon the time of year. The elevation of the project ranges from ~8100 feet to ~8500 feet.

TABLE 1: Weather Data

Month Average

LOW

Record

LOW

Average

HIGH

Record

HIGH

Average

PRECIP.

January 1 -43 34 60 0.83 February 8 -40 38 65 0.83

March 18 -25 49 81 0.98 April 25 -9 59 85 1.14 May 31 4 69 91 1.22 June 36 19 80 96 0.79

Month Average

LOW

Record

LOW

Average

HIGH

Record

HIGH

Average

PRECIP.

July 44 29 84 98 1.26 August 44 27 82 94 1.54

September 35 13 74 94 1.73 October 24 0 63 86 1.42

November 15 -22 47 72 1.10 December 5 -33 35 59 1.02

Temperatures are in °F and precipitations are in inches.

III. EXPLORATION

On March 7th and 8th, 2018 CFLHD pavement & material staff completed a field investigation which included boring and subgrade sampling; and coring on the bridge deck. D.A. Smith, Inc. was hired through the CFLHD BPA to complete the boring and coring. A Simco Model 9100 truck-mounted drill rig with an 8” O.D. auger was used to complete the borings. Borings were completed at a frequency of about a quarter-mile (1250 feet) within the roadway. In total, 19 boring locations were logged, 14 subgrade samples were collected and tested, and 9 asphalt cores from the Little Blue Creek Bridge deck were sampled, measured, and visually evaluated. See that attached boring-coring log in Appendix B for more detailed information.

The primary objectives of this field investigation were as follows:

• Identify, measure and record existing pavement and subgrade layer depths;

• Identify the depth and condition of the existing asphalt on the Little Blue Creek

Bridge deck;

• Gather subgrade/base samples for follow-up testing to determine engineering properties;

• Determine water table depth, as applicable;

• Evaluate and record pavement distress conditions;

• Evaluate roadway and project area for constructability concerns.

The information gathered as described above was used to support pavement structural design and material recommendations.

IV. EXISTING PAVEMENT & SOILS

Below are summary tables of data gathered and test results. Narrative descriptions of the subgrade, pavement, and cores are also included below. For more complete and detailed results, see the attached logs and lab test reports in appendix B.

Table 2: Summary of Sampling and Test Results – Roadway Boring

Average Pavement Depth

Range of Pavement Depth

Average Subbase Depth

Average R-value, Subbase

Average R-Value, subgrade

8.4 inches 6 to 12 inches 18 inches 61 6

Summary of Roadway Borings

Beneath the pavement, there is a layer of granular subbase averaging 18 inches in thickness (the range was from 8 inches to 30 inches in thickness). This layer had an average R-value of 61.

Beneath the subbase there was typically a clay layer (CL) that was generally below optimum moisture and thus could be characterized as a stiff clay based on blow counts.

However, fat clays (CH) with high plasticity and low stiffness were found in a few borings. In general, the subgrade has very low R-values.

Cobbles and boulders may be present in the fill and embankment throughout the project.

In the canyon area, bedrock, boulders, and cobbles are expected in the subgrade material.

Refusal was experienced in 10 of the 19 borings.

Summary of Existing Pavement Conditions

The pavement consists of hot-mix asphalt. The cores revealed that the pavement consists of several layers, likely from overlays and rehabilitations throughout the past 40 years.

The pavement has a significant amount of existing distress. Block cracking, transverse cracking, and fatigue cracking was observed throughout the length of the project.

Patched potholes and patched delaminated areas were also prevalent. The pavement appears to be at or near the end of its service life and is a candidate for reconstruction and heavy rehabilitation.

Table 3: Summary of Coring Results – Little Blue Creek Bridge Deck Average Asphalt Depth

Range of Asphalt Depth

Comments

5.2 inches

4 to 7 inches

•There was evidence of stripping within the asphalt cores;

especially on the low side of the superelevation.

•Because of the significant stripping observed in the asphalt, a polyester concrete overlay of the bridge deck will be placed as an alternative to asphalt with a water-proof membrane. Benefits of a polyester concrete overlay include a reduction of dead load on the structure, longer durability, and less disruption to traffic.

V. PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATION INPUTS

Traffic

Traffic information to support this project was downloaded from the CDOT OTIS site.

During the earlier stages of project development, traffic data from the OTIS site dated from 2016 was used for inputs in the PavementME software and to develop the pavement design recommendations. In 2019, the OTIS site was updated with 2018 traffic data.

The design was rerun in PavementME with the 2018 traffic data, and shown to still meet all design parameters. The traffic information is summarized below:

• 2018 AADT = 3000

• 2018 ADTT = 360

• 2023 ADTT = 365 (0.25% growth rate per CDOT)

• Mix of truck traffic: predominantly class 9.

• Percent of trucks in design direction: 60% (one lane in design direction)

• Operational speed: 40 mph

• PavementME calculated ESALs = 1,638,370

CDOT defaults were used for the following traffic inputs: axles per truck, volume monthly adjustment factors, distribution by vehicle class, axle spacing, axle configuration, and traffic wander.

Climate

A virtual weather station was created in PavementME using the two closest weather stations: Gunnison and Montrose sites.

Materials and Design Criteria

The following materials inputs and design criteria were used:

Table 4: Materials and Design Criteria Reliability 85% Design Life 20 years Flexible Pavement Material Characteristics (R5 Level 1 SX(75) PG 58-34

CDOT standards

Non-stabilized Base Tested values Subgrade Soil Resilient Modulus (R-value ~ 5) 5350 psi Calibration coefficients CDOT standards Distress Thresholds CDOT standards

VI. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & DISCUSSION

Pavement Reconstruction

The following two pavement structural sections meet the CDOT distress thresholds.

Because small changes to the grade and profile may have large impacts on excavation/waste quantities, a couple pavement structural sections were provided so the designer could optimize quantities.

Table 5: Option 1- 17 total inches (selected design) Layer Thickness

Asphalt Concrete Pavement (ACP), PG 58- 34, Type III-A roughness, 75 gyrations 5 inches (two lifts)

Aggregate Base* 6 inches Aggregate Subbase* 6 inches

On compacted subgrade

* It is suitable to add an additional 6 inches to the aggregate base layer (for a total of 12 inches aggregate base) and eliminate the subbase layer. This adds some conservativeness to the design as the aggregate base has a higher resilient modulus than subbase.

Table 6: Option 2 - 14 total inches

Asphalt Concrete Pavement (ACP), PG 58-34, Type III-A roughness, 75 gyrations

6 inches (multiple lifts)

Aggregate Base 8 inches On compacted subgrade

Ultimately, after both alternatives were evaluated and vetted by the project team, it was decided that option 1 would be the optimal approach based on costs and the increased cover over the clayey subgrade soils. The CDOT Region 3 Materials Engineer reviewed and verified the pavement structural designs. See Appendix D for the concurrence email from CDOT. It should also be noted that a granular subbase exists throughout the project and a significant portion of this layer will remain in place in most locations during the reconstruction effort. This layer will provide additional structural capacity that was not considered within the design modeling.

Pavement Rehabilitation

From about Station 771+00 to 807+00, the scope of the project switches to a pavement rehabilitation. For this segment, it is recommended to complete a full-depth reclamation (FDR) of the existing pavement and a portion of the existing base material. The minimum FDR depth will be 10 inches or 1-inch below the pavement layer (whichever is deeper). The FDR will be required to be compacted in lifts not exceeding 6 inches.

Following the FDR operation, a 5-inch asphalt concrete pavement layer will be placed in two lifts. The existing base and subbase layers in this segment are relatively thick and will also add to the structural capacity. The recommended pavement structure is summarized in the following table.

Table 7: Pavement Rehabilitation Recommendations

Asphalt Concrete Pavement (ACP), PG 58- 34, Type III-A roughness, 75 gyrations 5 inches (two lifts)

Full-Depth Reclamation 10 inches (min) Existing gravel base and granular subbase 1.5 to 4 feet

The pavement rehabilitation section presented in Table 7 is very similar to the recommended pavement rehabilitation section from CDOT memorandum dated May 23, 2016 which was validated by the MEPDG program.

Pavement Patching

Pavement patching along the proposed detour route, CO-92, should be in accordance with Section 418 for a Type 2 patch, which removes and replaces failed pavement. Locations for patching were determined by CFL staff during a field review and are noted in the plans.

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

A life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) was completed in general accordance with the FHWA Technical Bulletin, “Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design” and the associated RealCost spreadsheet program. LCCA is a tool that compares the cost of competing pavement alternatives over an equivalent analysis period. The purpose of LCCA is to help identify the best alternative (best value) for a project. The LCCA indicated that the proposed hot-mix asphalt design in Table 5 provides a 45% agency savings over a PCCP alternative. The results and inputs are presented in Appendix I.

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 Appendix F. LTPPBind indicated that a PG 58-34 binder should be used. Consideration was given to the location of the project as well as performance of past projects in similar conditions.

Prime and Tack Coats, Blotter and Fog Seal

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

Drainage and Subexcavation

During the field investigation, there was a significant amount of pavement distress present. The pavement distress was relatively consistent and uniform throughout the project, which indicates that the distress is related to the oxidized (aged) pavement and associated fatigue. As a result, no specific locations for subexcavation are recommended.

No major water damage or drainage problems pertaining to the existing traveled way were observed. However, a nominal amount of subexcavation to be used at the discretion of the CO should be available if an area in need of repair is encountered. A quantity of 1000 cubic yards of subexcavation is recommended to be included in the contract.

Soil-based Corrosion

The two soil samples tested for chemical and resistivity properties had the following results:

Sample Resistivity (ohm x cm) pH Sulfate (ppm) Chlorides (ppm)

BH-3 460 8.1 4460 347

BH-15 660 7.9 553 100

The results indicate that the soils may be moderately aggressive to buried metal.

Consideration should be given to using gage 12 galvanized pipe or thicker. As an alternative, bituminous or polymer coatings could also be considered to increase the service life.

The results also indicate concrete structures could be susceptible to sulfate attack and chloride corrosion. Concrete structures should be designed accordingly. A maximum water/cement ratio of 0.45 will be used. Use of Type V cement should be considered for concrete that will be buried in soil.

Recommended Pay Items

Item Number Item Description Unit 20402-0000 Subexcavation CUYD 30101-0000 Aggregate Base TON 30401-5900 Full Depth Reclamation, Method 2, 12-in MILE

40101-5600 Asphalt concrete pavement, Gyratory mix, ½ or ¾ inch NMA, 0.3 to 3 M ESALs TON

40105-3000 Antistrip additive type 3 TON 40601-0000 Fog Seal TON 41102-1000 Prime Coat SQYD 41105-0000 Blotter TON 41201-0000 Tack Coat TON 41301-0000 Asphalt Pavement Milling SQYD 41801-2000 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Patch, Type 2 SQYD

APPENDICES

A – Location Map

B – Laboratory Reports and Boring Log

C – Photographs

D – CDOT Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design (PavementME)

E – Traffic Data

F – LTPPBind Results

G – Preliminary Pavement Recommendation Memo

H – Special Contract Requirements

I – Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

A-1

Appendix A: Location Maps

Project Start

Project End

A-2

Appendix B: Laboratory Reports and Boring Logs

Sample Number

Station or Location

Offset (from c/l)

Date Sampled

Depth of Bore

Sample Type Testing

0 to 8"

8" to 2'

2' to 5' 5 gallon bucket None / Retain 5' to 5.5'

5.5'

0 to 8"

8" to 2'

2.5' to 4.5' 5 gallon bucket 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17 4.5'

0 to 10"

10" to 1.5'

1.5' to 2.5' 5 gallon bucket 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2.5' to 8' 5 gallon bucket None / Retain 8'

0 to 12"

12" to 1.5'

1.5' to 2'

2'

0 to 11"

11" to 2.5' 5 gallon bucket 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2.5' to 3' 5 gal. bucket + baggy 1, 2, 3, AASHTO T265 3' to 3.5' for Baggy 3.5' Retain bucket sample 0 to 8"

8" to 1.5'

1.5' to 2.5' 5 gallon bucket None / Retain 2.5' to 6' 5 gallon bucket 1, 2, 3 6'

0 to 6"

6" to 3' 5 gallon bucket None / Retain 3" to 4'

4'

0 to 10"

10" to 3'

3' to 5'

5' to 6'

6' to 9'

9' to 10'

0 to 4.5' Baggy 1, 2, 3, AASHTO T265 4.5' to 10' 5 gallon bucket 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0 to 8"

8" to 2'

2' to 4'

4' to 6'

6' to 10'

0 to 7"

7" to 2.5' 5 gallon bucket 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2.5' to 8'

8' to 10'

0 to 2'

2' to 6' 5 gallon bucket 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17 6' to 7'

7'

0 to 7"

7" to 2'

2' to 8'

8' to 10'

10' to 17' Baggy 1, 2, 3 17' to 20' 5 gallon bucket None / Retain 20' to 23' 23'

0 to 7"

7" to 2.5'

2.5' to 4' 5 gallon bucket 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 4' to 9' 5 gallon bucket None / Retain 9' to 10'

0 to 8"

8" to 3'

3' to 4.5'

4.5' to 5'

5' to 7'

7' to 9'

9' to 25' 5 gallon bucket 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 0 to 7.5"

7.5" to 1.5'

1.5' to 5'

5' to 7'

7' to 10'

0 to 8.5"

8.5" to 2'

2' to 4.5'

4.5' to 6' 5 gallon bucket 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6' to 8'

8'

0 to 8"

8" to 2'

2' to 4'

4' to 5'

5'

0 to 9"

9" to 1.5'

1.5' to 4'

4' to 6' 5 gallon bucket 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6' to 10' brown clay, soft

BH-19 MP 126.60 16'LT 3/8/2018 8'

asphalt refusal dark brown sandy gravel golden sand dark gray clay, stiff brown clay with gravel, stiff

BH-23 MP 126.30 16'LT 3/8/2018 25

asphalt dark brown sandy gravel tan clay, stiff golden sand dark gray clay, stiff red sandy clay with gravel, stiff gray clay, stiff

MP 126.42 7'RT 3/8/2018 10'

asphalt tan clay, stiff dark brown clay with gravel, stiff red sand tan sandy clay with gravel, stiff asphalt dark brown sandy gravel dark brown sandy gravel golden sand

BH-3 MP 123.34 6'RT 3/7/2018 4.5'

refusal asphalt

BH-22 MP 125.95

refusal asphalt brown clay, stiff dark brown sandy gravel brown clay, stiff dark brown sandy gravel dark grey clay with gravel, stiff light brown silty gravel gray clay, stiff dark brown sandy gravel black clay, soft red clay, soft brown clay, soft brown clay, soft, sticky black clay with gravel, soft asphalt refusal asphalt dark brown sandy gravel refusal

Boring Observations (grey = sample depth ) brown silty clay with gravel, stiff refusal brown gravel with silty sand brown clay, stiff asphalt dark brown sandy gravel refusal dark brown sandy gravel brown silty clay, stiff brown clay, stiff

6'RT 4'

refusal

BH-20

BH-21 MP 126.93 16'LT 3/8/2018 10'

BH-16 MP 126.10 8'RT 3/8/2018 10'

asphalt asphalt golden sand red clay, soft golden clay, stiff

BH-18

MP 126.77 9'RT 3/8/2018 5'

7'LT

BH-13 MP 125.53 6'LT 3/8/2018 10'

BH-12 MP 125.30 15' RT 3/8/2018 10'

BH-14 MP 125.70 6'RT 3/8/2018 10'

BH-15 MP 125.83 15'LT 3/8/2018 7'

3/8/2018 23'

8'3/7/20186'LTMP 123.57BH-4

BH-9 MP 124.90 6'LT

BH-5 MP 123.80 6'RT 3/7/2018 2'

BH-8 MP 124.70 6'RT 3/7/2018 3.5'

dark brown sandy clay, soft asphalt tan clay with cobbles, stiff red clay with gravel, stiff dark brown sandy gravel dark brown sandy gravel dark brown sandy gravel brown clay, stiff tan clay, stiff dark brown sandy gravel dark brown sandy gravel golden sand golden clayey sand dark brown sandy gravel red clay, soft golden clay, firm asphalt golden clay, stiff tan clay, stiff dark brown sandy gravel refusal black clay, stiff dark brown sandy gravel black clay, stiff

3/7/20186'RTMP 123.04BH-1 5.5'

asphalt brown clayey gravel refusal

BH-11 MP 125.19 6'LT 3/8/2018 10'

asphalt golden clay, stiff asphalt

3/7/2018 6'

BH-10 MP 125.00 3/7/2018

asphalt cobbles refusal

C-1

Appendix C: Photographs

Photo 1: BH-10, MP 125. D.A. Smith performing drilling operations in EB lane.

C-2

Photo 2: BH-08, MP 124.7. D.A. Smith performing drilling operations in EB lane.

Photo 3: Just south of BH-08. General view of roadway. Note low severity fatigue cracking in wheel path

C-3

Photo 4: Near BH-05, MP 123.80. General view of roadway. Signifcant fatigue cracking. Looking down-station.

Photo 5: BH-05, MP 123.80. Subbase material in EB lane (silty sand with gravel).

C-4

Photo 6: BH-03, MP 123.34. Drilling in EB lane and general view of roadway.

Photo 7: Near BH-03, MP 123.34. General view of roadway. Typical cracking.

C-5

Photo 8: BH-03, MP 123.34. Subbase material.

Photo 9: BH-03, MP 123.34. Clay material below subbase.

C-6

Photo 10: Near BH-01, MP 123.04. High severity fatigue cracking. Looking down-station.

Photo 11: Near BH-04, MP 123.60. Traverse cracking. Looking up-station.

C-7

Photo 12: BH-09, MP 124.9. Drilling in WB lane. Looking down-station.

Photo 13: Near BH-12, MP 125.3. General view. Looking down-station.

C-8

Photo 14: BH-12, MP 125.3. Tan/yellow fat clay. Boring location 3 feet from edge of pavement on EB lane fore-slope/shoulder.

Photo 15: BH-14, MP 125.7. High severity fatigue cracking. EB lane.

C-9

Photo 16: BH-14, MP 125.7. Tan/yellow fat clay.

Photo 17: Near BH-16, MP 126.1. General view of road. Looking up-station.

C-10

Photo 18: BH-16, MP 126.1. Drilling operations in EB lane and general view.

Photo 19: BH-16, MP 126.1. Silty sand material below subbase.

C-11

Photo 20: BH-18, MP 126.42. High severity fatigue cracking. Looking up-station.

Photo 21: BH-18, MP 126.42. Drilling location in EB lane.

C-12

Photo 22: BH-20, MP 126.77. General view of WB climbing lane. Looking up-station.

Photo 23: Near BH-21, MP 126.93. General view of WB climbing lane. Looking down-station.

C-13

Photo 24: Near BH-19, MP 126.6. General view of WB climbing lane. Looking down-station.

Photo 25: Near BH-23, MP 126.3. General view of through-cut.

C-14

Photo 26: Near BH-23, MP 126.3. General view of road. Looking down-station.

Photo 27: BH-23, MP 126.3. Drilling operations in WB climbing lane.

C-15

Photo 28: BH-22, MP 125.95. Drilling operations in WB lane. Fatigue cracking in foreground.

Photo 29: BH-15, MP 125.83. Drilled in unpaved shoulder/fore-slope along WB lane.

C-16

Photo 30: BH-13, MP 125.53. Drilling operations in WB lane and transverse/block cracking in foreground.

C-17

Little Blue Creek Bridge (MP 123.5): Coring Asphalt Surface on Deck

Photo 31: General view of bridge.

Photo 32: General view of bridge.

C-18

Photo 33: Underside of bridge

Photo 34: Core #2. Note evidence of stripping.

C-19

Photo 35: Coring operations on bridge deck.

Photo 36: Coring operations on bridge deck.

C-20

Photo 37: Coring in EB lane.

Photo 38: General view of bridge approach. Looking up-station.

C-21

Photo 39: Joint reflecting through asphalt.

Photo 40: Joint reflecting through asphalt.

C-22

Photo 41: Joint reflecting through asphalt. Looking down-station.

Appendix D: CDOT Mechanistic-Empirical(ME) Pavement Design

CDOT Concurrence

PavementME Design Outputs

May 23, 2016 Memo with FDR rehabilitation validation

From: Felling, Jeffrey (FHWA) To: Voth, Michael (FHWA) Subject: FW: CO FLAP US50(1) Pavements Report Date: Thursday, October 31, 2019 9:30:29 AM Attachments: Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.pdf

From: Golden - CDOT, Coulter [mailto:coulter.golden@state.co.us] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 9:28 AM To: Felling, Jeffrey (FHWA) <Jeffrey.Felling@dot.gov> Subject: Re: CO FLAP US50(1) Pavements Report

Jeff, Thanks for sending this. I looked through it and don't have any further comments. Our current OTIS traffic projections are higher than they were when this was done, but I ran the design through MEPD and it still squeaks by so I think we should be okay. I'm attaching the MEPD run in case you want it.

This is an exciting project. I remember seeing and hearing about accidents in this canyon since I was a kid. These improvements are likely to make a real difference.

Please let me know if you need anything from me, and if you have some time when you're in town one day holler and we'll grab a bite to eat or something. I work in Grand Junction but still live in Montrose so am around evenings and weekends.

Thanks, Cole

Coulter Golden Region 3 Materials Engineer

P 970.683.7561 | C 970.596.0752 | F 970.683.7579 2328 G Road Grand Junction, CO 81506 coulter.golden@state.co.us | www.codot.gov | www.cotrip.org

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 4:02 PM Felling, Jeffrey (FHWA) <Jeffrey.Felling@dot.gov> wrote:

Hey Cole, Not sure why it wouldn’t let you download it. I’ve attached a reduced size pdf of the report. Let me know if it doesn’t work.

Jeff

From: Golden - CDOT, Coulter [mailto:coulter.golden@state.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 2:55 PM To: Felling, Jeffrey (FHWA) <Jeffrey.Felling@dot.gov> Subject: Re: CO FLAP US50(1) Pavements Report

Hey Jeff, Also good to see you. It says I am not authorized to download the file. Let me know what I need to do.

Thanks, Cole mailto:Jeffrey.Felling@dot.gov mailto:Michael.Voth@dot.gov mailto:coulter.golden@state.co.us http://www.codot.gov/ http://www.cotrip.org/ http://www.facebook.com/coloradodot http://twitter.com/#!/ColoradoDOT http://www.youtube.com/cdotmedia mailto:Jeffrey.Felling@dot.gov mailto:coulter.golden@state.co.us mailto:Jeffrey.Felling@dot.gov

Design Inputs

Age (year) Heavy Trucks (cumulative)

2021 (initial) 365 2031 (10 years) 808,957 2041 (20 years) 1,638,370

TrafficDesign Structure

Layer type Material Type Thickness (in)

Flexible R5 Level 1 SX(75) PG 58- 34 5.0

NonStabilized A-1-a 6.0 NonStabilized A-1-a 6.0 Subgrade A-7-6 Semi-infinite

Volumetric at Construction:

Effective binder content (%) 14.4

Air voids (%) 5.2

Distress Type Distress @ Specified

Reliability Reliability (%) Criterion Satisfied?Target Predicted Target Achieved

Terminal IRI (in/mile) 200.00 155.19 85.00 99.13 Pass Permanent deformation - total pavement (in) 0.65 0.55 85.00 97.52 Pass AC bottom-up fatigue cracking (% lane area) 25.00 23.90 85.00 86.79 Pass AC thermal cracking (ft/mile) 1500.00 119.67 85.00 100.00 Pass AC top-down fatigue cracking (ft/mile) 2500.00 538.10 85.00 100.00 Pass Permanent deformation - AC only (in) 0.50 0.34 85.00 99.58 Pass

Distress Prediction Summary

FLEXIBLEDesign Type:

20 yearsDesign Life:

August, 2021Traffic opening:

Pavement construction: August, 2021

May, 2021Base construction: Climate Data Sources (Lat/Lon)

38.452, -107.034 38.505, -107.898

Design Outputs

Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 1 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.3.1-hotfix-

Distress Charts

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 2 of 20

Traffic Volume Monthly Adjustment Factors

Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13

Graphical Representation of Traffic Inputs

Traffic Inputs

Operational speed (mph) 40.0

Percent of trucks in design direction (%): 60.0

100.02 Percent of trucks in design lane (%):Number of lanes in design direction:

365Initial two-way AADTT:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 3 of 20

Traffic Wander Mean wheel location (in) Traffic wander standard deviation (in) Design lane width (ft)

18.0 10.0 12.0

Axle Configuration Average axle width (ft) 8.5 Dual tire spacing (in) Tire pressure (psi)

12.0 120.0

Average Axle Spacing Tandem axle spacing (in) Tridem axle spacing (in) Quad axle spacing (in)

51.6

49.2

49.2

Wheelbase does not apply

Number of Axles per Truck

Vehicle Class

Single Axle

Tandem

Tridem

Quad

Class 4 1.53 0.45 0 0 Class 5 2.02 0.16 0.02 0 Class 6 1.12 0.93 0 0 Class 7 1.19 0.07 0.45 0.02 Class 8 2.41 0.56 0.02 0 Class 9 1.16 1.88 0.01 0

Class 10 1.05 1.01 0.93 0.02 Class 11 4.35 0.13 0 0 Class 12 3.15 1.22 0.09 0 Class 13 2.77 1.4 0.51 0.04

Axle Configuration

Volume Monthly Adjustment Factors Level 3: Default MAF

Month Vehicle Class 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

January 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 February 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 March 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 April 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 May 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 June 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 July 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 August 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 September 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 October 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 November 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 December 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

Distributions by Vehicle Class

Growth Factor

Rate (%) Function 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound

Vehicle Class

AADTT

Distribution (%) (Level 3)

Class 4 2.7% Class 5 19.3% Class 6 4.5% Class 7 0.3% Class 8 4.6% Class 9 61.9% Class 10 1.6% Class 11 2.7% Class 12 1.3% Class 13 1.1%

Truck Distribution by Hour does not apply

Tabular Representation of Traffic Inputs

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 4 of 20

AADTT (Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic) Growth

* Traffic cap is not enforced

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 5 of 20

Climate Inputs

Climate Data Sources:

Climate Station Cities: Location (lat lon elevation(ft))

38.45200 -107.03400 7674GUNNISON CO, CO

38.50500 -107.89800 5759MONTROSE, CO

Monthly Climate Summary:

Annual Statistics:

Mean annual air temperature (ºF) 38.61 Mean annual precipitation (in) 5.89 Freezing index (ºF - days) 1846.05 Average annual number of freeze/thaw cycles: 92.38 Water table depth

(ft) 10.00

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 6 of 20

< -13º F

Hourly Air Temperature Distribution by Month:

-13º F to -4º F -4º F to 5º F 5º F to 14º F 14º F to 23º F 23º F to 32º F 32º F to 41º F 41º F to 50º F

59º F to 68º F50º F to 59º F 68º F to 77º F 77º F to 86º F 86º F to 95º F 95º F to 104º F 104º F to 113º F

> 113º F

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 7 of 20

HMA Design Properties

Layer Name Layer Type Interface Friction

Layer 1 Flexible : R5 Level 1 SX

(75) PG 58-34 Flexible (1) 1.00

Layer 2 Non-stabilized Base : A-1-a Non-stabilized Base (4) 1.00

Layer 3 Non-stabilized Base : A-1-a Non-stabilized Base (4) 1.00

Layer 4 Subgrade : A-7-6 Subgrade (5) -

Use Multilayer Rutting Model True Using G* based model (not nationally calibrated) False

Is NCHRP 1-37A HMA Rutting Model Coefficients True

Endurance Limit - Use Reflective Cracking True

Structure - ICM Properties AC surface shortwave absorptivity 0.85

Design Properties

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 8 of 20

Thermal Cracking (Input Level: 1)

Indirect tensile strength at 14 ºF (psi) 446.00 Creep Compliance (1/psi)

Loading time (sec) -4 ºF 1 4.82e-007 2 5.30e-007 5 6.05e-007 10 6.85e-007 20 7.71e-007 50 8.72e-007 100 1.00e-006

14 ºF 5.95e-007 8.18e-007 1.05e-006 1.35e-006 1.62e-006 2.12e-006 2.63e-006

32 ºF 9.61e-007 1.48e-006 2.18e-006 3.14e-006 4.19e-006 6.23e-006 8.74e-006

Thermal Contraction Is thermal contraction calculated? True Mix coefficient of thermal contraction (in/in/ºF) - Aggregate coefficient of thermal contraction (in/in/ºF) 5.0e-006

Voids in Mineral Aggregate (%) 19.6

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 9 of 20

HMA Layer 1: Layer 1 Flexible : R5 Level 1 SX(75) PG 58-34

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 10 of 20

Analysis Output Charts

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 11 of 20

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 12 of 20

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 13 of 20

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 14 of 20

Layer Information Layer 1 Flexible : R5 Level 1 SX(75) PG 58-34

Asphalt Binder

Temperature (ºF) Binder Gstar (Pa) Phase angle (deg)

136.4 3093 80

147.2 1519 82 158 784 84

T ( ºF) 0.5 Hz 14 1291280 40 424726 70 98659 100 37405 130 23504

25 Hz 2393659 1499050 529690 143776 51915

1 Hz 1808320 794978 198153 59422 29885

10 Hz 2249869 1289510 405545 109288 43077

Asphalt Dynamic Modulus (Input Level: 1)

Asphalt Thickness (in) 5.0 Unit weight (pcf) 145.0 Poisson's ratio Is Calculated? True

Ratio - Parameter A -1.63 Parameter B 3.84E-06

General Info

Name Value Reference temperature (ºF) 70 Effective binder content (%) 14.4 Air voids (%) 5.2 Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-ºF) 0.67 Heat capacity (BTU/lb-ºF) 0.23

Field Value Display name/identifier R5 Level 1 SX(75) PG 58-34

Description of object Mix ID # FS1958

Author CDOT Date Created 4/3/2013 12:00:00 AM Approver CDOT Date approved 4/3/2013 12:00:00 AM State Colorado District County Highway Direction of Travel From station (miles) To station (miles) Province User defined field 1 SX User defined field 2 User defined field 3 Revision Number 0

Identifiers

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 15 of 20

Layer 2 Non-stabilized Base : A-1-a

Liquid Limit Plasticity Index 1.0

6.0

Sieve Size % Passing 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm #200 8.7 #100 #80 12.9 #60 #50 #40 20.0 #30 #20 #16 #10 33.8 #8 #4 44.7 3/8-in. 57.2 1/2-in. 63.1 3/4-in. 72.7 1-in. 78.8 1 1/2-in. 85.8 2-in. 91.6 2 1/2-in.

3-in.

3 1/2-in. 97.6

Is User Defined? False af 7.2555 bf 1.3328 cf 0.8242 hr 117.4000

Sieve

Is User Defined? Value

Maximum dry unit weight (pcf) False 127.2

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr) False 5.054e-02

Specific gravity of solids False 2.7

Water Content (%) False 7.4

User-defined Soil Water Characteristic Curve

(SWCC)

FalseIs layer compacted?

Unbound Layer thickness (in) 6.0 Poisson's ratio 0.35 Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0) 0.5

Resilient Modulus (psi) 26000.0

Modulus (Input Level: 3)

Analysis Type: Modify input values by temperature/moisture

Method: Resilient Modulus (psi)

Use Correction factor for NDT modulus? - NDT Correction Factor: -

Display name/identifier A-1-a

Description of object Default material

Author AASHTO Date Created 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM Approver Date approved 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM State District County Highway Direction of Travel From station (miles) To station (miles) Province User defined field 1 User defined field 2

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 16 of 20

Layer 3 Non-stabilized Base : A-1-a

Plasticity Index 1.0

6.0

0.002mm 0.020mm #200 8.7 #100 #80 12.9 #60 #50 #40 20.0 #30 #20 #16 #10 33.8 #8 #4 44.7 3/8-in. 57.2 1/2-in. 63.1 3/4-in. 72.7 1-in. 78.8 1 1/2-in. 85.8 2-in. 91.6 2 1/2-in.

3 1/2-in. 97.6 af 7.2555 bf 1.3328 cf 0.8242 hr 117.4000

Maximum dry unit weight (pcf) False 127.2

(ft/hr) False 5.054e-02

Water Content (%) False 7.4

Layer thickness (in) 6.0

10500.0

Display name/identifier A-1-a

Approver Date approved 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM State District County Highway Direction of Travel From station (miles) To station (miles) Province User defined field 1 User defined field 2

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 17 of 20

Layer 4 Subgrade : A-7-6

Plasticity Index 30.0

51.0

0.002mm 0.020mm #200 79.1 #100 #80 84.9 #60 #50 #40 88.8 #30 #20 #16 #10 93.0 #8 #4 94.9 3/8-in. 96.9 1/2-in. 97.5 3/4-in. 98.3 1-in. 98.8 1 1/2-in. 99.3 2-in. 99.6 2 1/2-in.

3 1/2-in. 99.9 af 136.4179 bf 0.5183 cf 0.0324 hr 500.0000

Maximum dry unit weight (pcf) False 97.7

(ft/hr) False 8.946e-06

Water Content (%) False 22.2

Layer thickness (in) Semi-infinite

5350.0

Display name/identifier A-7-6

Approver Date approved 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM State District County Highway Direction of Travel From station (miles) To station (miles) Province User defined field 1 User defined field 2

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 18 of 20

Calibration Coefficients k1: 0.007566 k2: 3.9492 k3: 1.281 Bf1: 130.3674 Bf2: 1 Bf3: 1.217799

AC Fatigue

AC Layer K1:-3.35412 K2:1.5606 K3:0.3791 Br1:4.3 Br2:1 Br3:1

0.1414 * Pow(RUT,0.25) + 0.001

AC Rutting (using Multilayer Calibration)

AC Rutting Standard Deviation

Level 1 K: 6.3 Level 2 K: 0.5 Level 3 K: 6.3

Level 1 Standard Deviation: 0.1468 * THERMAL + 65.027 Level 2 Standard Deviation: 0.2841 * THERMAL + 55.462 Level 3 Standard Deviation: 0.3972 * THERMAL + 20.422

Thermal Fracture k1: 1 k2: 1 Bc1: 0.75 Bc2:1.1

CSM Fatigue

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 19 of 20

Subgrade Rutting

Granular Fine k1: 2.03 Bs1: 0.22 k1: 1.35 Bs1: 0.37 Standard Deviation (BASERUT)

0.0104 * Pow(BASERUT,0.67) + 0.001

Standard Deviation (BASERUT)

0.0663 * Pow(SUBRUT,0.5) + 0.001 c1: 7 c2: 3.5

200 + 2300/(1+exp(1.072-2.1654*LOG10

(TOP+0.0001)))

AC Cracking

1 + 15/(1+exp(-3.1472-4.1349*LOG10

(BOTTOM+0.0001)))

AC Top Down Cracking AC Bottom Up Cracking c3: 0 c4: 1000 c3: 6000c2: 2.35c1: 0.021 AC Cracking Top Standard Deviation AC Cracking Bottom Standard Deviation

C1: 0 C2: 75

CSM Cracking

C4: 3C3: 5

CTB*1

CSM Standard Deviation

IRI Flexible Pavements

C3: 0.0111 C4: 0.02C1: 50 C2: 0.55

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 20 of 20

Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic Report

Grand Summary

Design Input Details

Traffic Inputs

Climate

Design Properties

HMA Properties

Thermal Cracking

Layer 1 HMA Curves

Additional Design Output Charts

Distress Charts

Fatigue

Rutting

Mid-Quintile Sub-layer Modulus

Base Sub-layer Modulus

Layer Information

Layer 1

Layer 2

Layer 3

Layer 4

Calibration Coefficients

Michael.Voth Text Box Concurrence email from CDOT on Pavement Report and design recommendations with updated traffic data.

Michael.Voth Highlight

Highlight

From: Lucero - CDOT, Jeremy To: Voth, Michael (FHWA) Subject: Re: US 50 Little Blue Creek Canyon - Preliminary Pavement Recommendations Date: Monday, April 30, 2018 3:48:28 PM

Mike, I was able to run your design through our program and it works fine, just like your design is showing. I do not see a problem with it. Of course thicker is typically better but our previous section were 5" so this is consistent with those.

Thanks

Thank you, Jeremy Lucero, PE Region Materials Engineer

P 970.683.7562 | C 970.462.1485 | F 970.683.7579 2328 G Road, Grand Junction, CO 81506 jeremy.lucero@state.co.us | www.codot.gov | www.cotrip.org

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Voth, Michael (FHWA) <Michael.Voth@dot.gov> wrote:

Jeremy, Regarding my voicemail earlier today, see attached PavementME run.

Would like to discuss this with you. Let me know when would be a good time to call.

Thanks, Mike

Mike Voth

Pavement & Materials Team Leader mailto:jeremy.lucero@state.co.us mailto:Michael.Voth@dot.gov mailto:eric.langford@state.co.us https://www.codot.gov/ http://www.cotrip.org/ mailto:Michael.Voth@dot.gov Michael.Voth Text Box Concurrence email from CDOT on preliminary pavement recommendations.

(cumulative)

2021 (initial) 365 2031 (10 years) 808,957 2041 (20 years) 1,638,370

TrafficDesign Structure

Layer type Material Type Thickness (in)

Flexible R5 Level 1 SX(75) PG 58- 34 5.0

NonStabilized A-1-a 6.0 NonStabilized A-1-a 6.0 Subgrade A-7-6 Semi-infinite

Volumetric at Construction:

Effective binder content (%) 14.4

Air voids (%) 5.2

Distress Type Distress @ Specified

Reliability Reliability (%) Criterion Satisfied?Target Predicted Target Achieved

Terminal IRI (in/mile) 200.00 155.19 85.00 99.13 Pass Permanent deformation - total pavement (in) 0.65 0.55 85.00 97.52 Pass AC bottom-up fatigue cracking (% lane area) 25.00 23.90 85.00 86.79 Pass AC thermal cracking (ft/mile) 1500.00 119.67 85.00 100.00 Pass AC top-down fatigue cracking (ft/mile) 2500.00 538.10 85.00 100.00 Pass Permanent deformation - AC only (in) 0.50 0.34 85.00 99.58 Pass

Distress Prediction Summary

FLEXIBLEDesign Type:

20 yearsDesign Life:

August, 2021Traffic opening:

Pavement construction: August, 2021

May, 2021Base construction: Climate Data Sources (Lat/Lon)

38.452, -107.034 38.505, -107.898

Design Outputs

Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 1 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 2 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Graphical Representation of Traffic Inputs

Traffic Inputs

Operational speed (mph) 40.0

Percent of trucks in design direction (%): 60.0

100.02 Percent of trucks in design lane (%):Number of lanes in design direction:

365Initial two-way AADTT:

Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 3 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Traffic wander standard deviation (in) Design lane width (ft)

18.0 10.0 12.0

Axle Configuration Average axle width (ft) 8.5 Dual tire spacing (in) Tire pressure (psi)

12.0 120.0

Average Axle Spacing Tandem axle spacing (in) Tridem axle spacing (in) Quad axle spacing (in)

51.6

49.2

49.2

Wheelbase does not apply

Number of Axles per Truck

Vehicle Class

Single Axle

Tandem Axle

Tridem Axle

Quad Axle

Class 4 1.53 0.45 0 0 Class 5 2.02 0.16 0.02 0 Class 6 1.12 0.93 0 0 Class 7 1.19 0.07 0.45 0.02 Class 8 2.41 0.56 0.02 0 Class 9 1.16 1.88 0.01 0

Class 10 1.05 1.01 0.93 0.02 Class 11 4.35 0.13 0 0 Class 12 3.15 1.22 0.09 0 Class 13 2.77 1.4 0.51 0.04

Axle Configuration

Volume Monthly Adjustment Factors Level 3: Default MAF

Month Vehicle Class 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

January 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 February 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 March 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 April 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 May 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 June 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 July 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 August 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 September 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 October 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 November 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 December 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

Distributions by Vehicle Class

Growth Factor

Rate (%) Function 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound 0.25% Compound

Vehicle Class

AADTT

Distribution (%) (Level 3)

Class 4 2.7% Class 5 19.3% Class 6 4.5% Class 7 0.3% Class 8 4.6% Class 9 61.9% Class 10 1.6% Class 11 2.7% Class 12 1.3% Class 13 1.1%

Truck Distribution by Hour does not apply

Tabular Representation of Traffic Inputs

Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 4 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

* Traffic cap is not enforced

Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 5 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Climate Station Cities: Location (lat lon elevation(ft))

38.45200 -107.03400 7674GUNNISON CO, CO

38.50500 -107.89800 5759MONTROSE, CO

Monthly Climate Summary:

Annual Statistics:

Mean annual air temperature (ºF) 38.61 Mean annual precipitation (in) 5.89 Freezing index (ºF - days) 1846.05 Average annual number of freeze/thaw cycles: 92.38 Water table depth

(ft) 10.00

Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 6 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

-13º F to -4º F -4º F to 5º F 5º F to 14º F 14º F to 23º F 23º F to 32º F 32º F to 41º F 41º F to 50º F

59º F to 68º F50º F to 59º F 68º F to 77º F 77º F to 86º F 86º F to 95º F 95º F to 104º F 104º F to 113º F

> 113º F

Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 7 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Friction

Layer 1 Flexible : R5 Level 1 SX

(75) PG 58-34 Flexible (1) 1.00

Layer 2 Non-stabilized Base : A-1-a Non-stabilized Base (4) 1.00

Layer 3 Non-stabilized Base : A-1-a Non-stabilized Base (4) 1.00

Layer 4 Subgrade : A-7-6 Subgrade (5) -

Use Multilayer Rutting Model True Using G* based model (not nationally calibrated) False

Is NCHRP 1-37A HMA Rutting Model Coefficients True

Endurance Limit - Use Reflective Cracking True

Structure - ICM Properties AC surface shortwave absorptivity 0.85

Design Properties

Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 8 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Indirect tensile strength at 14 ºF (psi) 446.00 Creep Compliance (1/psi)

Loading time (sec) -4 ºF 1 4.82e-007 2 5.30e-007 5 6.05e-007 10 6.85e-007 20 7.71e-007 50 8.72e-007 100 1.00e-006

14 ºF 5.95e-007 8.18e-007 1.05e-006 1.35e-006 1.62e-006 2.12e-006 2.63e-006

32 ºF 9.61e-007 1.48e-006 2.18e-006 3.14e-006 4.19e-006 6.23e-006 8.74e-006

Thermal Contraction Is thermal contraction calculated? True Mix coefficient of thermal contraction (in/in/ºF) - Aggregate coefficient of thermal contraction (in/in/ºF) 5.0e-006

Voids in Mineral Aggregate (%) 19.6

Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 9 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

HMA Layer 1: Layer 1 Flexible : R5 Level 1 SX(75) PG 58-34

File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 10 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 11 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 12 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 13 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 14 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Layer 1 Flexible : R5 Level 1 SX(75) PG 58-34

Asphalt Binder

Temperature (ºF) Binder Gstar (Pa) Phase angle (deg)

136.4 3093 80

147.2 1519 82 158 784 84

T ( ºF) 0.5 Hz 14 1291280 40 424726 70 98659 100 37405 130 23504

25 Hz 2393659 1499050 529690 143776 51915

1 Hz 1808320 794978 198153 59422 29885

10 Hz 2249869 1289510 405545 109288 43077

Asphalt Dynamic Modulus (Input Level: 1)

Asphalt Thickness (in) 5.0 Unit weight (pcf) 145.0 Poisson's ratio Is Calculated? True

Ratio - Parameter A -1.63 Parameter B 3.84E-06

General Info

Name Value Reference temperature (ºF) 70 Effective binder content (%) 14.4 Air voids (%) 5.2 Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-ºF) 0.67 Heat capacity (BTU/lb-ºF) 0.23

Field Value Display name/identifier R5 Level 1 SX(75) PG 58-34

Description of object Mix ID # FS1958

Author CDOT Date Created 4/3/2013 12:00:00 AM Approver CDOT Date approved 4/3/2013 12:00:00 AM State Colorado District County Highway Direction of Travel From station (miles) To station (miles) Province User defined field 1 SX User defined field 2 User defined field 3 Revision Number 0

Identifiers

Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 15 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Layer 2 Non-stabilized Base : A-1-a

Plasticity Index 1.0

6.0

Sieve Size % Passing 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm #200 8.7 #100 #80 12.9 #60 #50 #40 20.0 #30 #20 #16 #10 33.8 #8 #4 44.7 3/8-in. 57.2 1/2-in. 63.1 3/4-in. 72.7 1-in. 78.8 1 1/2-in. 85.8 2-in. 91.6 2 1/2-in.

3-in.

3 1/2-in. 97.6

Is User Defined? False af 7.2555 bf 1.3328 cf 0.8242 hr 117.4000

Sieve

Is User Defined? Value

Maximum dry unit weight (pcf) False 127.2

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr) False 5.054e-02

Specific gravity of solids False 2.7

Water Content (%) False 7.4

User-defined Soil Water Characteristic Curve

(SWCC)

FalseIs layer compacted?

Unbound Layer thickness (in) 6.0 Poisson's ratio 0.35 Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0) 0.5

Resilient Modulus (psi) 26000.0

Modulus (Input Level: 3)

Analysis Type: Modify input values by temperature/moisture

Method: Resilient Modulus (psi)

Use Correction factor for NDT modulus? - NDT Correction Factor: -

Field Value Display name/identifier A-1-a

Description of object Default material

Author AASHTO Date Created 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM Approver Date approved 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM State District County Highway Direction of Travel From station (miles) To station (miles) Province User defined field 1 User defined field 2 User defined field 3 Revision Number 0

Identifiers

Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 16 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Layer 3 Non-stabilized Base : A-1-a

Plasticity Index 1.0

6.0

Sieve Size % Passing 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm #200 8.7 #100 #80 12.9 #60 #50 #40 20.0 #30 #20 #16 #10 33.8 #8 #4 44.7 3/8-in. 57.2 1/2-in. 63.1 3/4-in. 72.7 1-in. 78.8 1 1/2-in. 85.8 2-in. 91.6 2 1/2-in.

3-in.

3 1/2-in. 97.6

Is User Defined? False af 7.2555 bf 1.3328 cf 0.8242 hr 117.4000

Sieve

Is User Defined? Value

Maximum dry unit weight (pcf) False 127.2

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr) False 5.054e-02

Specific gravity of solids False 2.7

Water Content (%) False 7.4

User-defined Soil Water Characteristic Curve

(SWCC)

FalseIs layer compacted?

Unbound Layer thickness (in) 6.0 Poisson's ratio 0.35 Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0) 0.5

Resilient Modulus (psi) 10500.0

Modulus (Input Level: 3)

Analysis Type: Modify input values by temperature/moisture

Method: Resilient Modulus (psi)

Use Correction factor for NDT modulus? - NDT Correction Factor: -

Field Value Display name/identifier A-1-a

Description of object Default material

Author AASHTO Date Created 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM Approver Date approved 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM State District County Highway Direction of Travel From station (miles) To station (miles) Province User defined field 1 User defined field 2 User defined field 3 Revision Number 0

Identifiers

Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic File Name: C:\Users\goldenc\Desktop\Blue Creek Trial Oct 2019 higher traffic.dgpx

Report generated on:

10/31/2019 9:19 AM Page 17 of 20 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Layer 4 Subgrade : A-7-6

Plasticity Index 30.0

51.0

Sieve Size % Passing 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm #200 79.1 #100 #80 84.9 #60 #50 #40 88.8 #30 #20 #16 #10 93.0 #8 #4 94.9 3/8-in. 96.9 1/2-in. 97.5 3/4-in. 98.3 1-in. 98.8 1 1/2-in. 99.3 2-in. 99.6 2 1/2-in.

3-in.

3 1/2-in. 99.9

Is User Defined? False af 136.4179 bf 0.5183 cf 0.0324 hr 500.0000

Sieve

Is User Defined? Value

Maximum dry unit weight (pcf) False 97.7

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr) False 8.946e-06

Specific gravity of solids False 2.7

Water Content (%) False 22.2

User-defined Soil Water Characteristic Curve

(SWCC)

FalseIs layer compacted?

Unbound Layer thickness (in) Semi-infinite Poisson's ratio 0.35 Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0) 0.5

Resilient Modulus (psi) 5350.0

Modulus (Input Level: 3)

Analysis Type: Modify input values by temperature/moisture

Method: Resilient Modulus (psi)

Use Correction factor for NDT modulus? - NDT Correction Factor: -

Field Value Display name/identifier A-7-6

Descrip…