AZ FLAP SR261(1) Eagar to Crescent Lake Pavement Report Signed.pdf

ARIZONA STATE ROUTE 261

APACHE COUNTY, ARIZONA

AZ FLAP SR261(1) Eagar to Crescent Lake

PAVEMENT AND MATERIALS REPORT

MARCH 2022

Report prepared by:

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 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 ii

Written by: ________________________________________________________ Robert Norick, Staff Pavements & Materials Engineer

Reviewed by: ________________________________________________________ Mike Voth, Pavements & Materials Team Lead

Approved for distribution by:

Mike Voth, Pavements & Materials Team Lead

Electronic Distribution:

Construction Project Development Project Management Technical Services iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. CLIMATE

III. EXPLORATION

IV. EXISTING PAVEMENT & SOILS

V. PAVEMENT DESIGN INPUTS

VI. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & DISCUSSION

VII. MATERIALS RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDICES

A – Vicinity, Location, & Boring Maps B – Boring Log, Lab Report, & Design Calculations C – Site Investigation Photos D – Asphalt Binder & Climate Data E – Pipe Selection Criteria

I. INTRODUCTION

This report is written to document the existing road conditions and provide pavement recommendations for the planned AZ FLAP SR261(1) project. The project consists of the rehabilitation of the southern 12 miles of Arizona State Route (SR) 261 north of its junction with SR 273 at Crescent Lake. SR 261 is located in Apache County within the White Mountains of the Colorado Plateau high country in east-central Arizona (see exhibits in Appendix A). SR 261 is a paved minor collector that begins at its “T” intersection with SR 273 (Milepost 394.4 at 9,100-foot elevation) and proceeds north 18 miles to its terminus at its “T” intersection with the SR 260 major collector, 3 miles west of the Town of Eagar (Milepost 412.50 at 7,100-foot elevation). SR 261 is the most direct route to the Forest Recreation areas of Crescent Lake, Reservation Lake, and the Big Lake complex and is also used for truck transportation for logging and ranching along the route. The area’s recreational activities include boating, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, biking, hiking, and camping. The existing 28-foot pavement width with a drive lane in each direction will be maintained with the rehabilitation. In 1985-86, FHWA reconstructed and paved the southern 11 miles of this route (forest road at the time).

II. CLIMATE

Climate data was obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center for the Greer, Arizona weather station. Greer is located west of the project at an elevation of 8,300 feet.

The data is summarized in Table 1 below and provided in Appendix D. The average precipitation for this area is approximately 22.35 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 ≈8,800 feet to ≈9,100 feet.

Table 1. Weather Data

Month Average

HIGH

Record

HIGH

Average

LOW

Record

LOW

Average

PRECIP.

January 41.7 65 15.1 -24 1.54 February 43.5 78 17.4 -21 1.44

March 48.3 75 21.3 -15 1.53 April 56.1 92 26.6 -4 0.84 May 65.2 89 33.4 8 0.70 June 74.6 89 40.8 24 0.84 July 75.6 90 47.3 33 4.25

August 72.6 87 46.4 30 4.39 September 68.1 86 40.8 20 2.08

October 59.9 78 30.9 6 1.77 November 50.0 74 22.7 -13 1.22 December 42.5 63 16.2 -20 1.76

Temperatures are in °F and precipitations are in inches.

III. EXPLORATION

On October 22-23, 2019, a pavement and subgrade investigation was conducted for the project consisting of 36 shallow borings (5’ depth) with associated subgrade sampling.

Boring depths less than 5-feet reflect borings that encountered refusal (boulders or bedrock). The road was drilled at approximately 0.30 mile increments with borings alternating between lanes. CFL personnel logged the findings including depth of boring and subgrade soils, visual soil classification, pavement and aggregate base/subbase thicknesses, and areas of distress. During the site visit, thirteen samples were collected.

These samples were submitted to the CFLHD laboratory for soil classification and additional testing (R-Value, pH, resistivity, sulfates, and chlorides). The boring log and lab report are provided in Appendix B. Photos from the pavement investigation are provided in Appendix C.

IV. EXISTING PAVEMENT & SOILS

The existing asphalt pavement was found to be in poor condition. The existing pavement exhibits extensive transverse, longitudinal, block, fatigue, and edge cracking that comes with an old age hardened road. For the southern eleven miles between Mileposts 394.4 and 405.4, the existing pavement section was in accordance with the as-built plans from the mid 1980s; 3.5 inches of asphalt on 4 inches of crushed aggregate base over 6 inches of an aggregate subbase. For the one-mile road segment between Mileposts 405.4 and 406.4, the pavement section consists of 6 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of crushed aggregate base. The subgrade soils along the route are quite variable; gravels, clayey sands, and sandy clays.

V. PAVEMENT DESIGN INPUTS

The pavement design for SR 261 utilized design criteria established in the Federal Lands Highway Project Development Design Manual (PDDM) and the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (AGDPS). The criteria shown in Table 2 below were selected based on the project’s scope and traffic levels.

Table 2. Design Criteria Design Performance Period (3R) 20 years Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.0 Design Reliability Level 75% Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Annual Traffic Volume Growth Rate 2.0% Directional Distribution (dead end road) 60%

Traffic

SR 261 is the most direct route for access to the forest recreational areas south of the project and is also used for truck transportation for logging and ranching along the route.

The majority of the area’s RV traffic tend to use the alternate SR 273 route due to its higher speeds with less tight switchbacks. In accordance with ADOT’s FLAP application, the road’s two-way average annual daily traffic (AADT) is approximately 250 vehicles per day. Based upon two site visits, 95% of the road’s traffic is FHWA Class 2-3 cars, pickups, and SUVs. Truck traffic is estimated to be approximately 5% of the road’s ADT as follows: 2% Class 5, two-axle trucks (e.g. RVs and propane, septic, and delivery trucks), 2% Class 6, three-axle trucks (e.g. RVs and tandem garbage and dump trucks), and 1% Class 9, five-axle tractor trailers (e.g. logging trucks). Accurate traffic load estimates expressed as 18-kip equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) are critical for the pavement design. Load estimates are based on vehicle counts and classifications with a 20-year, 2% growth factor of 24.3. Standard load equivalency truck factors are used to convert the various vehicle axle loads to 18-kip ESALs. The following truck factors were assumed for the aforementioned vehicle classifications in accordance with PDDM Exhibit 11.2-A: 0.002 for Class 2-3, 0.5 for Class 5, 1.0 for Class 6, and 2.1 for Class 9.

Based upon the design criteria and assumptions shown above and the 1993 AASHTO design procedure, the project’s 20-year-18-kip ESALs are estimated to be 70,000 as provided in Appendix B.

Subgrade Soil Resilient Modulus

Thirteen subgrade samples were submitted to the CFLHD laboratory for soil classification. Eight of the samples were tested for pH and resistivity with seven of these samples also being tested for sulfates and chlorides. R-Values (resistance values on a scale of 0 to 100 per AASHTO T 190) were determined for seven subgrade samples and one sample of a cinder subbase material. The subgrade soils along the route are quite variable; gravels, clayey sands, and sandy clays. The subgrade Resilient Modulus is calculated from the R-Value using the following correlation equation. The R-Values and Resilient Modulus values for the subgrade clayey sands and sandy clays are summarized in Table 3 below including the design resilient modulus value.

Resilient Modulus, MR (psi) = 10[ ( S1 + 18.72 ) / 6.24 ] where the S1 factor = [(R-Value – 5) / 11.29] + 3

Table 3. Subgrade Resilient Modulus Values

Sample Number Location Sample Description R-Value Resilient

Modulus B-13 MP 398.3 Sandy clay 13 3,929 psi B-20 MP 400.7 Sandy clay 8 3,337 psi B-22 MP 401.35 Sandy clay 11 3,681 psi B-27 MP 403.0 Clayey sand 13 3,929 psi B-35 MP 406.0 Sandy clay 7 3,230 psi

Average Resilient Modulus Value 3,621 psi Design Resilient Modulus Value 3,600 psi

Structural Layer Coefficients

Standard CFLHD structural layer coefficients were selected for asphalt concrete pavement (0.44), full depth reclamation (0.12), and existing base/subbase (0.10) in accordance with PDDM Exhibit 11.2-C with a drainage coefficient of 1.0 for all layers.

Structural Number Calculations

The 1993 AASHTO pavement design procedure is used to determine the required pavement structural number (SN) for the project. Based upon the ESALs, the subgrade Resilient Modulus, and the aforementioned design criteria, the following required 20-year pavement design structural number is calculated (See Appendix B).

Required SN for Arizona State Route 261 = 2.63 inches

VI. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & DISCUSSION

Project Recommendations

In accordance with the 1993 AASHTO design procedure, a 20-year pavement design requires a Structural Number (SN) of 2.63. After evaluating alternatives, the following pavement structural section is recommended for the project.

3 inches of Asphalt Concrete Pavement (SN = 3” x 0.44 = 1.32”) 8 inches of FDR - Pulverize (SN = 8” x 0.12 = 0.96”) 4 inches Minimum of Existing Base/Subbase (SN = 4” x 0.10 = 0.40”)

TOTAL SN = 2.68 inches

VII. MATERIALS RECOMMENDATIONS, SCRs, AND

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Selection of Asphalt Binder

LTPPBind online and the PDDM standards were utilized for the selection of the asphalt binder for the project (See Appendix D). A PG 58-28 binder is recommended for the project’s asphalt. Hot mix asphalt shall be in accordance with FP-14 Section 401.

Pavement Roughness

It is recommended that pavement roughness be evaluated as Type III-B in accordance with FP-14 Section 401.16(d) and Table 401-5.

Prime and Tack Coats, Fog Seal, and Blotter

For this project, a Prime Coat and Blotter applied to the base prior to asphalt placement, a Tack Coat applied between asphalt lifts, and a Fog Seal applied to the final pavement surface are recommended.

Materials for Culvert Pipe / Cement

The project’s soils were found to be corrosive with resistivity as low as 1,990 ohm-cm and pH as low as 6.4. To address the corrosive soils, it is recommended that corrugated steel pipe have a 12 gage minimum wall thickness or a polymer coating.

Construction Concerns and SCRs

On previous projects in the area, there have been significant construction delays due to frequent heavy monsoonal rain storms in July and August. Recommend that the project’s construction scheduling include 10 to 14 days of lost production due to these storms.

At Boring B-5, shallow groundwater was encountered at a depth of 3-feet below the ground surface. Shallow groundwater may be encountered throughout the project. Also, the project’s clayey subgrade may become saturated from groundwater and precipitation.

The contractor should select equipment of an appropriate size and weight to avoid “pumping” of the subgrade soils or allow subgrade soils to dry to a more optimum moisture content. A limited quantity of subexcavation should be included in the contract to be used at the discretion of the CO.

CFLHD standard SCRs related to pavements and materials are expected to be used with the exception of the need for a Section 602 SCR (Culverts and Drains) to specify pipe material types for the project’s corrosive soils. The standard Section 401 SCR (Asphalt Concrete Pavement by Gyratory Mix Design Method) to specify a Type III-B pavement roughness and a PG 58-28 asphalt binder. Additional SCRs may be developed as needed.

The Section 602 SCR (Culverts and Drains) to include the following Subsection 602.03.

602.03 General. Delete the first sentence of the first paragraph and substitute the following:

Furnish galvanized steel culvert pipe with 12 gage minimum wall thickness or a polymer coating.

Bid Items

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

Table 4: Recommended Pay Items Item Number Item Description Unit 30401-5500 Full Depth Reclamation, Method 2, 8-Inch Depth MILE

40101-5600 Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Gyratory Mix, 1/2-Inch or 3/4-Inch Nominal Maximum Size Aggregate, 0.3 To <3 Million ESAL

TON

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

APPENDICES

A – Vicinity, Location, & Boring Maps

B – Boring Log, Lab Report, & Design Calculations

C – Site Investigation Photos

D – Asphalt Binder & Climate Data

E – Pipe Selection Criteria

APPENDIX A – Vicinity, Location, & Boring Maps

Vicinity Map

L o ca ti o n

M a p

APPENDIX B – Boring Log, Lab Report, & Design Calcs.

Boring # MP - c/l offset Depth Sample Type Testing

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 12"

12" to 2.5' 5 gallon bucket Classification, R-Value, 2.5' to 4.5' pH, & Resistivity

4.5'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 12"

12" to 18"

18" to 2.5'

2.5'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 12"

12" to 2'

2' to 2.5'

2.5' to 3'

3' to 5'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7.5"

7.5" to 13.5"

13.5" to 18"

18" to 22"

22"

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7"

7" to 13"

13"' to 3'

3'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 8"

8" to 14"

14" to 2'

2' to 3'

3'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7"

7" to 12"

12" to 3' Classification, Resistivity, 3' to 5' 5 gallon bucket pH, Sulfates, & Chlorides

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7"

7" to 11"

11" to 3'

3' to 4.5' 5 gallon bucket Classification & R-Value 4.5' to 5'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7"

7" to 13"

13"' to 2'

2' to 3.5'

3.5' to 5'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 8"

8" to 14"

14" to 4'

4'

0 to 4"

4" to 7"

7" to 13"

13" to 3' Classification 3' to 5'

0 to 4"

4" to 7"

7" to 13"

13" to 3'

3' to 5'

Boring Observations (grey = sample)

AZ FLAP SR261(1) BORING LOG (October 22-23,2018) - Page 1 of 3 red cinders grey subbase brown clayey sand w/ gravel

B-12 MP 398.0 - 6'L

dark brown sandy clay asphalt refusal asphalt refusal

MP 394.55 - 7'RB-1

asphalt refusal & groundwater

B-11 MP 397.55 - 8'R

asphalt brown clayey sand asphalt

B-10 MP 397.25 - 6'L

asphalt brown aggregate base dark brown sandy clay asphalt golden clayey sand brown & grey gravel brown aggregate base red cinders brown & grey gravel

MP 395.65 - 7'R

B-8 MP 396.7 - 7'L

B-6 MP 396.0 - 7'L

B-7 MP 396.25 - 6'R

brown aggregate base asphalt refusal asphalt dark brown clayey sand w/ gravel reddish brown clayey cinders grey subbase red cinders brown aggregate base grey subbase red cinders brown & grey gravel brown aggregate base grey subbase red cinders grey subbase

B-2 MP 394.8 - 7'L

refusal

MP 395.3 - 7'LB-4

B-9 MP 397.0 - 7'R

B-5 dark brown clayey sand asphalt refusal

B-3 MP 395.0 - 7'R

brown gravel red cinders brown clayey sand brown aggregate base grey subbase red cinders brown & grey gravel brown aggregate base brown clayey sand w/ gravel asphalt brown aggregate base grey subbase reddish brown clayey cinders brown & grey gravel brown aggregate base grey subbase brown & grey gravel brown aggregate base grey subbase brown clayey sand with gravel brown aggregate base brown aggregate base asphalt

3.5" to 7"

7" to 13" Classification, R-Value, pH, 13" to 5' 5 gallon bucket Resistivity, Sulfates, Chlorides 0 to 5"

5" to 8"

8" to 14"

14" to 3'

3' to 4'

4'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7.5"

7.5" to 13"

13" to 5'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7.5"

7.5" to 13"

13" to 4.5' 5 gallon bucket Classification, Resistivity, 4.5' to 5' pH, Sulfates, & Chlorides 0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7"

7" to 13"

13" to 2'

2' to 4'

4' to 5'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7.5"

7.5" to 13"

13" to 2.5'

2.5' to 5'

0 to 4"

4" to 8"

8" to 13"

13" to 3.5' 5 gallon bucket Classification 3.5' to 5'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 8"

8" to 14" Classification, R-Value, pH, 14" to 5' 5 gallon bucket Resistivity, Sulfates, Chlorides 0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7.5"

7.5" to 13"

13" to 3' 5 gallon bucket Classification 3' to 3.5'

3.5'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7"

7" to 12"

12" to 2.5' Classification, R-Value, pH, 2.5' to 5' 5 gallon bucket Resistivity, Sulfates, Chlorides 0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7.5"

7.5" to 14"

14" to 2.5'

2.5'

0 to 4.5"

4.5" to 8.5"

8.5" to 15"

15" to 3'

3' to 5'

Boring Observations (grey = sample)

AZ FLAP SR261(1) BORING LOG (October 22-23,2018) - Page 2 of 3

B-23 MP 401.7 - 9'R

asphalt refusal

B-24 MP 402.0 - 8'L

asphalt brown clayey sand w/ gravel

MP 398.6 - 6'L

brown sandy clay

B-21 MP 401.0 - 8'R

asphalt grey gravel refusal

B-22 MP 401.35 - 7'L

asphalt dark grey clayey, sandy cinders dark brown sandy clay brown aggregate base grey subbase brown clayey sand w/ gravel brown aggregate base grey subbase brown clayey gravel grey subbase brown aggregate base grey subbase dark grey clayey sand brown aggregate base grey subbase

B-17 MP 399.75 - 6'R

MP 400.0 - 7'L

asphalt brown sandy gravel

B-15 MP 399.0 - 8'R

B-14 brown aggregate base grey subbase brown aggregate base grey subbase brown clayey gravel brown aggregate base grey subbase brown sandy clay

B-13 MP 398.3 - 8'R

reddish brown gravel asphalt asphalt refusal asphalt brown sandy clay

B-18

MP 400.7 - 7'L

brown clayey sand w/ gravel brown aggregate base grey subbase grey subbase brown sandy clay brown aggregate base brown aggregate base

B-16 MP 399.4 - 7'L

grey clayey sand asphalt brown clayey sand asphalt brown clayey gravel

B-19 MP 400.4 - 7'R

B-20 asphalt dark brown sandy clay brown aggregate base asphalt reddish brown sandy clay grey subbase reddish grey clayey sand w/gravel brown aggregate base grey subbase

3.5" to 7"

7" to 13"

13" to 3'

3' to 4'

4'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7.5"

7.5" to 13"

13" to 2.5'

2.5'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7.5"

7.5" to 13"

13" to 3' 5 gallon bucket Classification, R-Value, pH, 3' Resistivity, Sulfates, Chlorides

0 to 4"

4" to 8"

8" to 14"

14" to 3'

3' to 5'

0 to 4"

4" to 8"

8" to 14"

14" to 4'

4' to 5'

0 to 4"

4" to 8"

8" to 14"

14" to 3'

3' to 4.5'

4.5' to 5'

0 to 4"

4" to 8"

8" to 14"

14" to 3'

3' to 5'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 7"

7" to 13"

13" to 20"

20" to 3'

3'

0 to 3.5"

3.5" to 8.5"

8.5" to 15"

15" to 2.5'

2.5' to 4'

4'

0 to 5"

5" to 9"

9" to 13"

13" to 2'

2' to 5' 5 gallon bucket Classification 0 to 6"

6" to 12" Classification, R-Value, pH, 12" to 5' 5 gallon bucket Resistivity, Sulfates, Chlorides 0 to 6"

5" to 12'

12" to 5'

AZ FLAP SR261(1) BORING LOG (October 22-23,2018) - Page 3 of 3

Boring Observations (grey = sample)

B-25 MP 402.3 - 8'R

asphalt refusal reddish brown sandy clay w/ gravel reddish brown sandy clay w/ gravel asphalt brown aggregate baseB-36 MP 406.3 - 9'R

B-27 MP 403.0 - 8'R

B-26 MP 402.65 - 8'L

asphalt refusal asphalt dark brown clayey sand w/gravel refusal brown aggregate base grey subbase brown clayey sand

B-29 MP 403.7 - 8'R

asphalt brown clayey sand dark brown sandy clay

B-28 MP 403.35 - 8'L

asphalt dark brown clayey sand brown sandy clay brown aggregate base grey subbase brown aggregate base grey subbase

B-31 MP 404.35 - 8'R

asphalt brown sand w/ gravel dark brown clayey sand

B-30 MP 404.0 - 9'L

asphalt dark brown clayey sand brown sandy clay brown aggregate base grey subbase reddish brown clayey sand w/gravel brown aggregate base grey subbase brown aggregate base dark brown clayey sand refusal grey subbase brown sand w/ gravel

B-33 MP 405.0 - 8'R

asphalt refusal

B-35 MP 406.0 - 9'L

asphalt brown aggregate base brown & grey gravel brown aggregate base grey subbase brown aggregate base grey subbase brown clayey sand

B-34 MP 405.4 - '8R

asphalt brown clayey sand w/ gravel brown aggregate base brown subbase brown clayey sand w/ gravel dark brown clayey sand w/gravel brown aggregate base brown subbase red & black cinders

B-32 MP 404.7 - 8'L

asphalt

APPENDIX C – Site Investigation Photos

Boring B-2, MP 394.8, Looking Ahead at Transverse and Block Cracking

Boring B-4, MP 395.3, Looking Back at Longitudinal, Transverse, & Fatigue Cracking

Boring B-6, MP 396.0, Looking Ahead at Longitudinal & Fatigue Cracking with Rutting

Boring B-6, MP 396.0, Subgrade of Red Cinders and Brown & Grey Gravel

Boring B-7, MP 396.25, Looking Back at Longitudinal & Block Cracking with Rutting

Boring B-7, MP 396.25, Grey Subbase Below Aggregate Base and Asphalt

Boring B-9, MP 397.0, Looking Ahead at Longitudinal & Block Cracking with Rutting

Boring B-12, MP 398.0, Looking Ahead at Longitudinal, Transverse, & Block Cracking

Boring B-13, MP 398.3, Looking Back at Longitudinal & Block Cracking with Rutting

Boring B-13, MP 398.3, Brown Clayey Sand Subgrade Material

Boring B-16, MP 399.4, Looking Back at Longitudinal & Block Cracking with Rutting

Boring B-20, MP 400.7, Traffic with Class 2 SUV and Class 5 RV

Boring B-23, MP 400.7, Looking Ahead at Longitudinal & Fatigue Cracking with Rutting

Boring B-24, MP 402.0, Longitudinal & Fatigue Cracking with Rutting

Boring B-26, MP 402.65, Drilling in Cut Section with Refusal at 2.5’ Depth

Boring B-30, MP 404.0, Longitudinal, Block, & Fatigue Cracking with Rutting

Boring B-31, MP 404.35, Subgrade of Brown Clayey Sand (left) & Brown Sand (right)

Boring B-33, MP 405.0, Looking Back at Transverse Cracking and Chip Seal

Boring B-34, MP 405.4, Looking Back at Transverse & Fatigue Cracking with Rutting

Boring B-36, MP 406.3, Looking Ahead at Transverse Cracking with Chip Seal

Boring B-36, MP 406.3, Subgrade Material of Red Sandy Clay

Boring B-36, MP 406.3, Brown Aggregate Base Between Asphalt & Red Sandy Clay

APPENDIX D – Asphalt Binder & Climate Data

9/25/2019 LTPPBind Online

1/2

General Project Information

Project Number: AZ FLAP SR261(1) Project Title: Eagar to Crescent Lake Project Description: Apache County, AZ

Climatic Data Source (MERRA)

Latitude, Degree: 33.94698 Longitude, Degree: -109.3924

Climatic Data

Lowest Yearly Air Temperature, ºC: -27.50 Low Air Temp Standard Deviation, ºC: 3.94 Yearly Degree-Days > 10 Deg. ºC: 2477.99 High Air Temperature of high 7 days: 31.78 Standard Dev. of the high 7 days: 1.66 Low Pavement Temperature 50%: -17.20 Low Pavement Temperature 98%: -24.50 High Avg Pavement Temperature of 7 Days 50%: 55.95 High Avg Pavement Temperature of 7 Days 98%: 59.93

Target Rut Depth

Target Rut Depth (mm): 12.5

Temperature Adjustments

Depth of Layer, mm: 0 Base HT PG: 52

Traffic Adjustments

Traffic loading Cumulative ESAL for the Design Period, Millions: 0.10 Traffic Speed (Fast: >70 km/h, Slow: 20-70 km/h, Standing: < 20 km/h): Slow

Performance Grade

AASHTO M323-13 Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder

PG Temperature High Low Performance Grade Temperature at 50% Reliability 52.0 -17.2

Performance Grade Temperature at 98% Reliability 53.0 -24.5

Adjustment for Traffic (AASHTO M323-13) 2.8

Adjustment for Depth 0.0 0.0

Adjusted Performance Grade Temperature 55.8 -24.5

Selected PG Grade 58 -28

PG Grade M323, PG 58-28

APPENDIX E – Pipe Selection Criteria

Hydrology and Hydraulics December 2012

7-48 Roadway Hydraulics

7.3.5.5 Recommended Methods

Design and evaluate the performance of energy dissipators according to the methods presented in HEC 14. HEC 14 also contains procedures for estimating scour hole dimensions at pipe outlets.

7.3.5.6 Reporting

The design of outlet protection for culvert, ditch, or storm drain outlets should be supported by documentation containing, at a minimum, the following information:

● Project identification

● Location of proposed installation

● Hydraulic design calculations

7.3.5.7 Plans

For the location and design of riprap outlet protection, prepare plans showing all details necessary to construct the improvements according to the hydraulic design, including the following:

● Location

● Dimensions and extent of riprap

● Gradation

● Bedding and Filter Material or Geotextile

● Grading or slope details

7.3.6 ALTERNATIVE PIPE MATERIALS

It is Federal Lands Highway policy to specify alternative drainage pipe materials on all projects where feasible and to comply with the provisions of 23 CFR 635.411. All suitable pipe materials, including reinforced concrete, steel, aluminum, and plastic will be considered as alternatives for all new cross culverts and storm drain pipes on Federal Lands Highway projects.

Not all pipe materials are appropriate or applicable for all storm drain applications. The design of alternative drainage pipe materials should consider functionally equivalent performance in three areas: structural capacity, durability and service life, and hydraulic capacity. The service life and hydraulic capacity issues are addressed in this section.

7.3.6.1 References

The following references provide source information for the development of the standards, criteria, and guidance of this subsection (most recent editions apply):

1. 23 CFR 635.411 Title 23 CFR 635.411 in 23 CFR 635D, General Material Requirements

Roadway Hydraulics 7-49

2. FHWA-FLP-91-006 FHWA, Durability of Special Coatings for Corrugated Steel Pipe, FHWA FLP-91-006

3. FHWA-RD-97-140 FHWA, Durability Analysis of Aluminized Type 2 Corrugated Metal Pipe, FHWA RD-97-140, 2000.

4. AASHTO HDG

Vol. IV

AASHTO Highway Drainage Guidelines, Volume IV – Hydraulic Design of Culverts

5. AASHTO HDG

Vol. XIV

AASHTO Highway Drainage Guidelines, Volume XIV – Culvert Inspection and Rehabilitation

6. Caltrans Chapter

California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, Chapter 850 – Physical Standards

7.3.6.2 Design Standards

7.3.6.2.1 Service Life

Design cross culvert and storm drain pipes with a minimum maintenance-free service life of 50-years, regardless of pipe material selection. A shorter service life may be used for temporary installations, and a longer service life may be considered in unusual situations.

7.3.6.2.2 Minimum Pipe Classification

Use Class II as the minimum for all reinforced concrete pipes. Determine appropriate pipe class from FLH fill height FLH Standard Drawings.

Use a minimum wall thickness of 0.0625” [1.63 mm] for all steel and aluminum pipes. The appropriate minimum structural metal thickness will be determined from approved FLH fill height tables.

7.3.6.3 Design Guidance

7.3.6.3.1 Service Life

The durability and service life of a storm drain pipe is directly related to the environmental conditions encountered at the site and the type of materials and coatings from which the pipe was fabricated. The two primary causes of early failure in drainage pipe materials are corrosion and abrasion.

Corrosion gradually wears away at the pipe walls by chemical action, and can occur from both the soil and water sides of the pipe. Abrasion wears away at the interior pipe wall by friction from suspended or bed-load sediment.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/hydraulics/97140/97140.pdf http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/hydraulics/97140/97140.pdf http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/chp0850.pdf

7-50 Roadway Hydraulics

7.3.6.3.2 Data Collection

Corrosion

Representative pH and resistivity determinations are required in order to specify pipe materials capable of providing a maintenance-free service life. Samples are taken in accordance with the procedures described in AASHTO T 288 and T 289. Samples should be taken from both the soil and water side environments to ensure that the most severe environmental conditions are selected for determining the service life of the drainage pipe. Soil samples should be representative of backfill material anticipated at the drainage site. Avoid taking water samples during flood flows or for two days following flood flows to ensure more typical readings. In locations where streams are dry much of the year, water samples may not be possible or necessary. In areas of known uniform pH and resistivity readings, a random sampling plan may be developed to obtain the needed information.

In corrosive soil conditions where water side corrosion is not a factor, consider specifying less corrosive backfill material to modify the soil side environment. The mitigating effect of the specified backfill should be taken into account in making alternative pipe materials selections in situations where the soil side conditions control the design.

Abrasion

An estimate of the potential for abrasion is required in order to determine the need for invert protection. Four levels of abrasion are referred to in this guidance and the following guidelines are established for each level:

● Level 1. Nonabrasive conditions exist in areas of no bed load and very low velocities.

This is the condition assumed for the soil side of drainage pipes.

● Level 2. Low abrasive conditions exist in areas of minor bed loads of sand and velocities of 5 ft/s [1.5 m/s] or less.

● Level 3. Moderate abrasive conditions exist in areas of moderate bed loads of sand and gravel and velocities between 5 ft/s and 15 ft/s [1.5 m/s and 4.5 m/s].

● Level 4. Severe abrasive conditions exist in areas of heavy bed loads of sand, gravel, and rock and velocities exceeding 15 ft/s [4.5 m/s].

Abrasion levels are intended as guidance to help the engineer consider the impacts of bed-load wear on the invert of pipe materials. Sampling of the streambed materials is not required, but visual examination and documentation of the size of the materials in the stream bed and the average slope of the channel will give the designer guidance on the expected level of abrasion.

Where existing culverts are in place in the same drainage, the conditions of inverts should also be used as guidance. The expected stream velocity should be based upon a typical flow (i.e., 2-year flow and less) and not a 10-or 50-year design flood.

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 Ω-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 Ω-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 protect against water-side corrosion.

Roadway Hydraulics 7-53

Exhibit 7.3-B ESTIMATING STEEL PIPE SERVICES LIFE

FE

D

ER

A L

LA

N

D S

H

IG

H W

A Y

M O

D

IF

IE

D

C A

LI

FO

R N

IA

M

ET

H

O D

C H

A R

T

FO

R

ES

TI

M A

TI

N

G S

ER

VI

C E

LI

FE

O F

PL

A

IN

G

A

LV

A N

IZ

ED

S

TE

EL

C

U

LV

ER

TS

S e rv ic e L if e

E s ti m a ti o n C h a rt f o r

A v e ra g e S e rv ic e

L if e o f

P la in G a lv a n iz e d C u lv e rt s

N O

T E

S

T h e c u rv e s i n t h is

C h a rt a re b a s e d o n t h e d a ta i n F

H W

A -F

L P

-9 -0 w h ic h u s e s t h e f a c to rs i n C a lif o rn ia T e s t

“M e th o d f o r

E s ti m a ti n g th e S e rv ic e L if e o f S te e l C u lv e rt s

T h e s e f a c to rs i n c re a s e d t h e e s ti m a te d s e rv ic e l if e b y a ft e r fi rs t p e rf o ra ti o n

T h e C h a rt h a s a ls o b e e n m o d if ie d t o r e fl e c t a m in im u m m e ta l th ic k n e s s o f .0 i n c h o r g a g e

.6 m m

U n d e r c o n d it io n s w it h p

H b e tw e e n a n d a n d a b o v e R th e a v e ra g e s e rv ic e l if e d e te rm in e d f o r p la in g a lv a n iz e d c u lv e rt s s h o u ld b e m u lt ip lie d b y

.0 f o r

A lu m in u m c o a te d s te e l, T y p e

TH

IC

K N

ES

S

FA

C

TO

R

S 0.

8 4.

2.

N ot e:

M ul tip ly th e av er ag e Se rv ic e Li fe b y th e Th ic kn es s

Fa ct or

0.

3.

0.

1.

0.

0.

0.

0.

TH

IC

K N

ES

S, in ch

G

A G

E

TH

IC

K

N

ES

S, m m

FA

C

TO

R

7-54 Roadway Hydraulics

7.3.6.3.5 Non-Metallic Protective Coatings for Steel Pipe

Protective coatings may be used to provide additional protection from corrosion or abrasion resulting in an extended service life. Coatings to protect against corrosion may only be used in non-abrasive and low abrasive environments.

The additional service life noted below in bold for each type of protective coating, for corrosion protection, are from Part V of FHWA-FLP-91-006. The added service is applicable only to non-abrasive and moderate abrasive conditions. All of the following types of steel pipe with non-metallic coatings are considered as alternatives on Federal Lands Highway projects:

Bituminous coating

Bituminous coatings (AASHTO M 190) can be expected to add 10 years of service to the water side and 25 years life to the soil side service life of pipe as determined from Exhibit 7.3-B.

Bituminous-coated pipe should not be used in low abrasive environments.

Bituminous paving and coating

Bituminous paved invert with bituminous coatings (AASHTO M 190) can be expected to add

25 years life to water side locations. Under moderate abrasive conditions, bituminous paved pipe may be used for invert protection where corrosion protection is not required.

Concrete lining

Concrete lining (ASTM A 849) can be expected to add 25 years of service life. Due to the natural cracking of concrete, the concrete lining should be applied over an asphalt coating if corrosion protection is needed. Under moderate abrasive conditions, concrete lined pipe may be used for invert protection where corrosion protection is not required.

Polymer coating

Ethylene Acrylic Acid Film coatings (AASHTO M245 and M246) should provide an additional

30 years service life with a 0.009” [0.25 mm] thickness.

Aramid fiber bonded coating

Only limited data is available for the service life of aramid fiber bonded coated (ASTM A 885) and epoxy coated pipes. No additional service life is currently credited with this policy.

7.3.6.3.6 Aluminum Alloy Pipe

Aluminum alloy pipe (AASHTO M 196M) will typically be specified as an alternative when environmental conditions permit. The appropriate minimum structural metal thickness is determined from approved FLH fill height tables. Within the following limits of corrosion and abrasion, aluminum alloy pipe can be assumed to have a service life of 50 years. Additional service life may be achieved where required by abrasion with the addition of protective coatings or additional metal thickness as discussed below:

Roadway Hydraulics 7-55

Corrosion

An aluminum alloy should be allowed if the pH is between four and nine and the resistivity is greater than 500 Ω-cm. An aluminum alloy alternative can also be considered for use in salt and brackish environments when embedded in granular, free draining material.

Abrasion

On installations in non-abrasive and low-abrasive environments, abrasion protection is not required.

On installations in moderately abrasive environments, the thickness should be increased by one standard metal thickness or invert protection should be used. Invert protection may consist of bituminous coating and invert paving with bituminous concrete or Portland cement concrete, installation of metal plates or rails, or velocity reduction structures.

On installations in severe abrasive environments, the thickness of the metal should be increased by one standard metal pipe thickness from that determined for low-abrasive conditions and invert protection should be provided. Invert protection may consist of installation of metal plates or rails or velocity reduction structures.

7.3.6.3.7 Plastic Pipe

Polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride plastic pipe may be specified as alternatives for pipe diameters and minimum resin cell classifications shown in the AASHTO’s Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Division I Design, Section 18, Soil Thermoplastic Pipe

Interaction Systems. The thickness of the plastic alternatives must meet the structural requirements of AASHTO’s Standard Specifications. The assumed service life of plastic pipe designed in accordance with AASHTO Section 18 is 50 years. The maximum allowable fill heights for pipe materials listed below is determined from approved FLH standard fill-height tables which include the following plastic pipe materials:

● Smooth wall polyethylene (ASTM F 714)

● Corrugated polyethylene (AASHTO M 294)

● Ribbed polyethylene (ASTM F 894)

● Smooth wall polyvinyl chloride (AASHTO M 278 and ASTM F 679)

● Ribbed polyvinyl chloride (AASHTO M304 and ASTM F 794)

Corrosion

Plastic alternatives may be specified without regard to the resistivity and pH of the site.

Abrasion

Under nonabrasive and low-abrasive conditions, polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride alternatives should be allowed. Plastic alternatives should not be used under moderate and severe abrasive conditions without invert protection.

7-56 Roadway Hydraulics

Maximum Size

Limit the size of plastic pipe to 48” [1200 mm] under mainline roads.

The locations selected for use of plastic pipes should address partner agency concerns of possible damage due to fire, ultraviolet sunlight, and rodents.

7.3.6.4 Recommended Methods

Design and evaluate the design service life for galvanized steel culvert and storm drain pipes by the Modified California method presented in Exhibit 7.3B. Refer to FHWA-RD-97-140, Durability Analysis of Aluminized Type 2 Corrugated Metal Pipe, for design guidance on aluminized material.

7.3.6.5 Reporting

Documentation of the design service life of culvert and storm drain pipes should be included in the design reporting.

7.3.6.6 Plans

For culvert and storm drain pipes, include information on pipe material, size, class, gauge, and any special coatings in the Plan Drainage Summary.