B08_Attach_6_KIMO_-_Pavement_Investigation___Analysis_Report.pdf

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT

Kings Mountain National Military Park (KIMO) NPS Contract No. 140P2022D0002 NPS Task Order No. 140P2025F0167

PMIS 334920

July 28, 2025

Table of Contents

1.0 Project Description

2.0 Scope of Work – Predesign (PD) Phase

2.1 Review of RIP Data

2.2 Review of FY19 Pavement Preservation Design Scoping Report for KIMO

2.3 On-Site Scoping

3.0 Scope of Work – Design Development (DD) Phase

3.1 70% Design Site Visit

3.2 Subsurface Sampling and Investigation

3.3 Review of Available Traffic Data

3.4 Construction Summary Estimate

3.5 Construction Schedule Summary

4.0 Pavement Analysis, Findings, and Recommendations

Appendix A – Project Location

Appendix B – Scoping Site Visit Field Notes and Photos

Appendix C1 – Subsurface Sampling and Geotechnical Testing Data

Appendix C2 – Material Sampling Photo Documentation Log

Appendix C3 – Laboratory Test Results of Unbound Materials

Appendix D – Traffic Data for Pavement Design

Appendix E – AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Calculations

Appendix F – Construction Cost Estimate Summary

Appendix G – Construction Schedule Summary

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 3 | P a g e

1.0 Project Description

National Park System (NPS) retained AECOM Services, Inc. (AECOM) to provide engineering services related to pavement preservation at multiple parks in South Carolina. Preservation is the strategy designed to maintain and restore the overall condition of relatively new pavements that are in good to fair condition (distress severity and extent are low/moderate) by protecting them from water intrusion and limiting oxidation using treatments such as crack seal, slurry seal, chip seal, micro surfacing, and thin overlays. Pavement preservation treatments generally can extend the life of pavement in good or fair condition by 5-7 years and delay more expensive and intrusive rehabilitation activities.

As outlined in the project Scope of Services, the goal is to evaluate selected paved roads and parking areas at Kings Mountain National Military Park (KIMO) and identify suitable pavement preservation or rehabilitation treatments. AECOM conducted pre-design activities, including an on-site scoping site visit and review of available project documents, to perform an initial pavement assessment. The preliminary findings were documented in a Pavement Analysis Report dated February 22, 2025. This report supplements the February 2025 pavement analysis by incorporating findings from additional pavement investigations and analyses conducted by AECOM during the Design Development (DD) phase. It presents the final recommendations for pavement treatment options for the designated roads and parking areas at KIMO, in accordance with Chapter 11 of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Project Design and Development Manual.

To ensure continuity and completeness in documenting the pavement evaluation efforts and findings, the activities conducted during the predesign (PD) phase are discussed in Section 2 of this report, while the DD phase activities are documented in Section 3. Section 4 contains the findings and recommendations. The specific roadway and parking lot sections are listed in Table 1, and the project location is provided in Appendix A.

2.0 Scope of Work – Predesign (PD) Phase

AECOM performed the following activities at KIMO during the predesign phase:

2.1 Review of RIP Data

NPS provided AECOM with the FHWA Road Inventory Program (RIP) report for KIMO (Cycle 6 Final Report – Road Inventory and Condition Assessment of Paved Road, November 2021). AECOM reviewed the RIP report to gather the roadway inventory and current condition information for the target road and parking lot sections of KIMO; i.e., sections identified by the RIP report as candidates for pavement preservation, as well as sections adjacent to these candidate sections and/or sections considered to be in similar condition. Table 1 summarizes the relevant RIP data for the candidate and additional sections of KIMO. The added sections (shown in blue text throughout the report) are included in the 70% design plans as “Options”.

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 4 | P a g e

Table 1: KIMO Target Road/Parking Lot Sections RIP Data

ROUTE ID ROAD

AREA

(SF)

LENGTH

(MILES)

WIDTH

(FT)

PAVEMENT

TYPE

PCR

RECOMMENDED

TREATMENT

KIMO-0010 MAIN PARK DRIVE 2.82 20.5 Asphalt 98 Localized Repair KIMO-0900 VISITOR CENTER PARKING 46,317 Asphalt 90 Preventative Maintenance KIMO-0901 MAINTENANCE AREA PARKING 15,648 Asphalt 90 Preventative Maintenance KIMO-0903 HEADQUARTERS PARKING 7,967 Asphalt 97 Localized Repair Notes:

1) PCR = Pavement Condition Rating, L3R = Light Rehabilitation, H3R = Heavy Rehabilitation

2) Throughout this report, Added Sections are shown in BLUE.

2.2 Review of FY19 Pavement Preservation Design Scoping Report for KIMO

NPS provided AECOM with the Design Scoping Report for the previous pavement preservation project for KIMO (NP-SER PMS FY19). A review of this report indicated that all KIMO target sections were also included for pavement preservation treatments as part of the FY19 project. Further discussions with the NPS team and the Park Units, along with a review of other relevant project documents, confirmed that these sections received pavement preservation under the SER PMS FY19 Project. The available project plans listed four proposed preservation treatment options: 1.5-inch overlay, 0.75-inch overlay, chip seal, and micro-surfacing. However, the actual treatment choice for each road or parking lot section was left to the contractors. AECOM’s visual observations regarding the most likely past pavement preservation treatments are included in Table 3.

2.3 On-Site Scoping

AECOM performed an on-site scoping field visit on November 26, 2024, along with members of the NPS project team and the KIMO Park Unit team. Per the project scope, the on-site scoping field visit was conducted to evaluate the current site conditions of the park sections listed in Table 1. The project team’s on-site scoping field visit activities included the following:

• Conduct tailgate safety briefings with the project team and sign Task Hazard Assessment

(THA).

• Discuss the scope and objectives of the on-site field visits with the Park Unit Team.

• Gather site-specific information from the Park Unit Team including:

- Priorities of roadways to treat,

- Other ongoing/planned projects that may impact the planned pavement treatment work,

- Concerns with existing roadway configurations (one-way roads),

- Any present or anticipated changes in vehicular traffic volume and/or type within the park.

- Past safety incidents/concerns related to roadway signage reported by park users,

- Past pavement preservation/rehabilitation work at the park and experiences with those treatments,

- Any other relevant information such as staging areas, permitting requirements, etc.

• Conducting the site walk of each roadway/parking lot section to:

- Evaluate the existing pavement condition, including estimating cracks and identifying the preliminary pavement preservation treatment.

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 5 | P a g e

- Evaluate the conditions of existing curbs, gutters, wheel stops, drainage inlets, ADA ramps, etc., and note improvement requirements.

- Provide opinion on the condition and adequacy of existing roadway and parking signage, including handicap parking signs.

- Review the existing striping (including the need for scarifying thermoplastic prior to treatments) and the need for striping parking stalls, as well as add/relocate handicap parking spots.

The draft on-site scoping field meeting minutes were submitted to NPS on December 15, 2024, and the final meeting minutes (revised in response to NPS comments) were submitted to NPS on January 17, 2025. The field notes from the on-site scoping field meeting, including geo-referenced photographs taken by the project team, are included in Appendix B.

3.0 Scope of Work – Design Development (DD) Phase

AECOM performed the following activities during the DD phase to finalize the pavement preservation treatment recommendations for the KIMO sections:

3.1 70% Design Site Visit

AECOM conducted a 70% design site walk at the park on May 20, 2025, to supplement the findings from the scoping site walk and perform a more detailed pavement condition survey. This was to finalize pavement recommendations and the 70% design deliverables. The following activities were conducted during the 70% design site walk:

Establish the project baseline for the 70% design plans.

Mark the core and test pit locations for the Geotechnical investigation.

Identify the locations and conditions of existing roadway features, such as structures

(bridges and culverts), signage, utility features, traffic loops, and other elements, and note any needs for improvements.

Identify locations that need localized pavement treatments, such as full or partial depth patching and aggregate/seed mixes for shoulder support.

The findings from the 70% design site walk, along with corresponding recommendations, are incorporated into Section 4 of this report and the 70% design plans.

3.2 Subsurface Sampling and Investigation

On May 30, 2025, AECOM extracted six (6) pavement cores and one (1) test pit to assess the existing pavement structure and conditions, including layer types, thicknesses, and engineering properties of both bound and unbound layers along Main Park Drive (KIMO-0010). Two (2) additional cores were taken from the Headquarters Parking (KIMO-0903). The Geotechnical test results are included in Appendices C1 through C3, and the key findings are discussed below:

• Asphalt thickness along KIMO-0010 varies from 5-8 inches with an average of 6.0 inches.

• Debonding of the asphalt layers was observed at depths varying from 1.25 to 4.0 inches in all but two cores.

• The lone core taken on a crack showed the cracking to have propagated through the entire thickness of the core.

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 6 | P a g e

• The soil samples extracted from the core holes indicated the presence of 6 inches of base quality material. A 6-inch-thick aggregate base is assumed for pavement design purposes.

• Laboratory analysis of the soil samples indicated that the subgrade consists of silty clay with sand (USCS soil type CL-ML, AASHTO soil classification A-4). A subgrade resilient modulus (MR) of 10,000 psi is considered suitable for pavement design for this road.

• Asphalt within KIMO-0903 is 2.5 to 3.25 inches thick and is free of debonding and cracking.

The base consists of Silty Sand or Gravel.

3.3 Review of Available Traffic Data

NPS provided AECOM with historical traffic counts on Main Park Drive (KIMO-0010). The most recent traffic counts (from February 2023) reported Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 271 and Average Daily Truck Traffic (ADTT) of 17. Considering the reported historical traffic volume counts (from 2019 to 2023), a design ADT of 400 is deemed appropriate for this road. This volume information was used along with the reported vehicle classification distributions to determine the 18-kip equivalent single axle load (ESAL) for pavement design. The reviewed traffic data and the ESAL calculations are included in Appendix D. The calculated 20-year design ESAL for KIMO-0010 is 58,819.

3.4 Construction Summary Estimate

A DD level construction cost estimate, consistent with the Department of the Interior (DOI) Estimate Type B, is being developed based on the pavement preservation treatments proposed for the parking lots and roadway sections of KIMO. This estimate will be submitted as a separate deliverable with the 70% design package. A summary of the estimated construction cost, based on a DOI Estimate Type C for KIMO is included in Appendix F.

3.5 Construction Schedule Summary

A construction schedule was developed based on the pavement preservation treatments proposed for the parking lots and roadway sections of KIMO, and it is included in Appendix G.

4.0 Pavement Analysis, Findings, and Recommendations

AECOM performed pavement design analysis to determine whether the existing pavement has sufficient structural capacity to support the expected design traffic load for a 20-year service life.

Pavement design calculations were performed according to the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 1993, and in line with Chapter 11 of the FHWA Project Design and Development Manual. The AASHTO 1993 design calculations are included in Appendix E, and the findings and recommendations are discussed below:

Main Park Drive (KIMO-0010)

The existing pavement on Main Park Drive exhibits widespread low- to medium-severity alligator and transverse cracking along its entire length. Localized edge cracking and tree root damage were also observed and will require patching. Additionally, edge drop-off was noted at several locations.

Based on AASHTO 1993 design calculations, the current pavement structure—6 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of aggregate base, with a subgrade resilient modulus (MR) of 10,000 psi—is

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 7 | P a g e considered structurally adequate and does not necessitate full-depth structural reconstruction.

However, a 1.5-inch asphalt overlay is recommended for the following reasons:

• Extensive low-severity alligator cracking is present along the wheel paths throughout most of the roadway. These cracks appear to have reflected through the microsurfacing applied during the previous pavement preservation project (FY19). Although structurally sufficient by design, the pavement would benefit from increased structural capacity to mitigate further deterioration.

• Core sampling revealed debonding at various depths in all but two cores, indicating that the pavement layers are not acting as a cohesive system. This compromises the effective structural capacity and likely contributes to the observed alligator cracking. A properly bonded overlay will restore structural integrity and reduce the likelihood of new or worsening cracking.

• The overlay will serve as a protective layer against moisture infiltration, helping to slow the progression of existing cracks and extend the pavement’s service life.

Therefore, a preservation treatment consisting of localized patching and edge repair, followed by a 1.5-inch asphalt overlay, is recommended for Main Park Drive (KIMO-0010).

Visitor Center Parking (KIMO-0900)

The pavement contains low-severity Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking. Pavement preservation with crack sealing followed by seal coating is proposed for this parking lot. The asphalt sidewalks are in poor condition and are scheduled for replacement as part of a separate project in FY2025 (KIMO-240503). Patching was observed as part of the recently installed automated gates (QTY: 3), which include several loops.

Maintenance Parking (KIMO-0901)

This parking lot was not part of the current pavement preservation project scope. However, considering the proximity to KIMO-0010 and the pavement condition being suitable for preservation, this roadway is included in the design plans as an “option.” The existing pavement is in Fair to Good condition, with localized repairs needed to address areas of Alligator cracking, Edge Cracking, and damage caused by tree uprooting. Pavement preservation through surface treatment (seal coating) is appropriate for this parking lot.

Headquarters Parking (KIMO-0903)

The pavement shows signs of medium severity longitudinal and transverse cracking, along with block cracking. The cracking pattern indicates that these cracks are “reflective” in nature, with cracks from the underlying pavement propagating through the most recent micro-surfacing layer (1/8-inch). The existing pavement thickness ranges from 2.5 to 3.25 inches, but there is no indication of debonding issues. An asphalt overlay of 1.5 inches is recommended for this parking lot, similar to the adjacent KIMO-0010, to enhance structural capacity and prevent cracks from worsening due to moisture damage. Additionally, an automated sliding gate is planned for this location as part of a separate NPS project.

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 8 | P a g e

The following additional design considerations apply to KIMO:

• Isolated areas needing more extensive repairs, such as partial- or full-depth patches due to significant damage like high-severity alligator cracks, edge cracks, or potholes, are identified during AECOM’s 70% design site visit and shown in the 70% design plans.

• Aggregate/seed mixes are recommended to fix edge-shoulder drop-off in specific areas along KIMO-0010. The locations and quantities of these mixes are detailed in the 70% design plans.

• Signage improvements are recommended, including new pedestrian crossing signs and pavement markings along KIMO-0010.

• Resizing the left turn lane on KIMO-0010 at the visitor center parking entrance is recommended, and the necessary details are shown on the 70% design plans.

• The Raised Pavement Markings (RPMs) at KIMO-0010 need to be reset as part of the overlay operation.

• Observed adverse drainage conditions, such as water ponding issues and deteriorated drainage structures, were noted during the field visits. Grade corrections, where necessary, will be made through the recommended overlay treatment. The table below shows the drainage condition observations for each KIMO section.

Table 2: Drainage Observations for KIMO Sections Route ID Drainage Observation KIMO-0010 Culverts w/ stone headwalls (need cleaning), historical stone gutters & headwalls KIMO-0900 Catch basins in fair condition (needs cleaning) KIMO-0901 Catch basins, RCP pipe culvert (Good), RCP pipe culvert concrete grate (Failed) KIMO-0903 Catch basin (Good), scupper (Good)

Below is a summary of the findings and recommendations for each park section based on the pavement investigation and analysis results:

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 9 | P a g e

Table 3: Findings and Recommendations for Each KIMO Road/Parking Lot Section

Route ID Previous Preservation

Treatment (FY19)1

From the RIP Report From AECOM’s Field Site Visits Comment / Reasons for Variance PCR

Recommended Treatment2

Overall Pavement

Condition Predominant

Distress Treatment

Recommendation

KIMO-0010 Microsurfacing 98 Localized

Repair Fair Alligator cracking, transverse cracking edge cracking, edge drop-off 1.5” Asphalt overlay w/ localized patching Pavement is worse than the RIP-reported condition

KIMO-0900 Microsurfacing 90 Preventative Maintenance

Fair L&T cracking Crack seal & seal coat w/ localized patching Pavement is worse than the RIP-reported condition

KIMO-0901 Microsurfacing 90 Preventative Maintenance

Fair Pavement damage from uprooted tree edge cracking, alligator cracking Crack seal & seal coat w/ localized patching Pavement is worse than the RIP-reported condition

KIMO-0903 Microsurfacing 97 Localized

Repair Fair L&T / reflective cracking 1.5” Asphalt overlay w/ localized patching Pavement is worse than the RIP-reported condition

Notes:

1) The most likely previous pavement preservation treatment based on the visual observations during the on-site scoping site visit.

2) Per the RIP Report, below are the descriptions of the recommended treatment categories:

a. Localized Repair: Pavement in “Excellent” condition (PCR = 95-100). Treatment includes spot repairs.

b. Preventative Maintenance: Pavement in “Good” condition (PCR = 85-95). Treatments include crack sealing, chip seal, slurry seal, micro-surfacing, thin/ ultrathin overlay, concrete joint sealing, diamond grinding, dowel-bar retrofit, and isolated, partial or full-depth concrete slab repairs.

c. Light Rehaiblitation: Pavement in “Fair” condition (PCR = 60-85). Treatment includes single-lift overlay up to 2.5” and milling and overlaying.

d. Heavy Rehabilitation: Pavement in “Poor” condition (PCR < 60). Treatment includes multi-lift overlay > 2.5”.

e. Reconstruction: Pavement in “Poor” condition (PCR < 60). Treatment includes replacing the entire existing pavement structure.

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT 10 | P a g e

Note that the overall pavement conditions were rated as Good/Fair/Poor based on AECOM’s on-site scoping field visit observations. Standard pavement engineering practices were applied to determine such rating, a summary of which is included below for reference:

“Good” pavement condition:

• Pavement has minimal surface defects.

• No significant cracks, potholes, or raveling (loss of aggregate).

• Minimum aging (surface color remains dark, indicating minimal loss of asphalt binder due to oxidation).

• Maintenance treatments, e.g., seal coating, crack sealing, etc. are appropriate for a “Good” condition pavement.

“Fair” pavement condition

• Some visible signs of wear, such as minor cracks (hairline to ¼ inch wide).

• Early signs of aging (fading asphalt color).

• Some surface raveling or minor depressions but no major structural issues.

• Patching or previous repairs are intact.

• Heavier preservation treatments, such as localized repair, micro surfacing, or resurfacing are considered to treat a pavement in “Fair” condition.

“Poor” Condition

• Extensive cracking, including alligator (interconnected) cracks or wide transverse/longitudinal cracks (>¼ inch).

• Potholes, ruts, or significant depressions present, causing uneven surfaces.

• Medium to severe raveling or aggregate loss, leading to rough texture.

• Potential water pooling or drainage issues.

• Previous patches or repairs are deteriorating or failing.

• The pavement may be a candidate for a mill and overlay treatment or full-depth reconstruction.

Depending on the treatment types, pavement preservation activities generally can extend the life of a pavement by 5-10 years. For reference, the table below provides a general guideline on the expected performances of the different preservation treatments (when applied to a pavement in appropriate condition):

Table 4: “Expected” Performance Period of Typical Pavement Preservation Treatments Treatment Expected Performance (Years) Crack Sealing + Seal Coating (Slurry Seal) 5-7 Microsurfacing 6-8 Thin Overlay 8-10 Non-structural Mill and Overlay 10+

Appendix A – Project Location

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix A

KIMO

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix A

Appendix B – Scoping Site Visit Field Notes and Photos

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix B

KIMO-0010: Main Park Drive Section Length/Area 2.82 Miles Other Observations Raised Pavement Markers (RPM) - metal (Good)2

Pavement Type Asphalt Curb Concrete curb & gutter @ MP 0.0 pull oƯ (Good) Granite curb @ HQ pull oƯ (Good)

RIP Data (PCR) 98 Sidewalk None Overall Pavement Condition Fair Drainage Structure Culverts w/ stone headwalls1 (needs cleaning)

Historical stone gutters & headwalls (protect)1

Predominant Distress Alligator cracking, Transverse cracking Edge cracking and edge drop oƯ Road Signs One “Speed Limit” sign needs to be reset1

Proposed “Ped X-ing” signs @ HQ & VC X-walks

Recommended Treatment Asphalt patching with 1.5” AC overlay, Edge/shoulder support Handicap Parking None

Geotechnical Testing 6 Cores & 1 test pit Existing Striping Thermoplastic paint (Good/Fair) Notes:

1. Locations on marked plan.

2. Metal Raised Pavement Markings (RPM) throughout @ ~100’ spacing (the RPM spacing reduces to ~25’ near the VC parking) - removed and reset as part of the

SER-PMS-FY19 Project.

Section Distress Treatment

L/M Alligator Cracking 10-15% of length

L/M Edge Cracking 400’ Edge Drop-OƯ

Asphalt patching with 1.5” AC overlay

Legend:

L, M – Low or Medium severity cracks

KIMO-0010: Main Park Drive

❶ Lat/Long: 35.15105,-81.393128 Medium Alligator Cracking

❷ Lat/Long: 35.140336,-81.386894 Medium Edge Cracking

❸ Lat/Long: 35.136756,-81.381311 Low Alligator Cracking

❹ Lat/Long: 35.135942,-81.362786 Tree root damage (proposed patch)

KIMO-0900: Visitor Center Parking Section Length/Area 46,317 SF Other Observations Prv. Overlays exceed curb & gutter height Pavement Type Asphalt Curb PCC curb & gutter (6” reveal) (Fair)1 RIP Data (PCR) 90 Sidewalk Asphalt (Poor)1 Overall Pavement Condition Fair Drainage Structure Catch basins Predominant Distress L&T cracking Road Signs Okay Recommended Treatment Crack seal & Seal coat Handicap Parking 4 (3 signs)1 – possible non-conforming ramps Geotechnical Testing None Existing Striping Regular paint (Fair) Notes:

1. Locations on marked plan.

Section Distress Treatment Options2

L L&T 3,000’ M Alligator Cracking 300 SF

Crack seal & Seal coat

L&T – Longitudinal & Transverse cracking

KIMO-0900: Visitor Center Parking

❶ Lat/Long: 35.141303,-81.375617 Low severity L&T Cracking.

❷ Lat/Long: 35.140881,-81.376922 Low-severity asphalt patch.

❸ Lat/Long: 35.140747,-81.377061 Medium-severity Alligator Cracking.

❹ Lat/Long: 35.141453,-81.375189 Asphalt sidewalk in poor condition (being repaired as part of a separate project.

KIMO-0901: Maintenance Area Parking (added) Section Length/Area 15,648 SF Other Observations Swing gate (needs resetting) Pavement Type Asphalt Curb None RIP Data (PCR) 90 Sidewalk None Overall Pavement Condition Fair Drainage Structure Catch basins, RCP pipe culvert1 (Good)

RCP Pipe Culvert Concrete Grate (Failed)

Predominant Distress Pavement damage from uprooted tree1 Edge cracking1, Alligator Cracking1 Road Signs Okay

Recommended Treatment AC Patch with Seal Coat Handicap Parking None Geotechnical Testing None Existing Striping None Notes:

L Alligator Cracking 100 SF L Edge Cracking 20’

AC Patch with Seal Coat

L&T – Longitudinal & Transverse cracking

RCP Pipe culvert

Pavement damaged from uprooted tree

M-Alligator Crack

- Patch (10 x 10 )

Edge CrackingSpeed humps

KIMO-0901: Maintenance Area Parking (added)

❶ Lat/Long: 35.14144,-81.387405 Pavement damage from uprooted tree

❷ Lat/Long: 35.141676,-81.38797 Alligator cracking

❸ Lat/Long: 35.141929,-81.388143 Edge cracking & swing gate

❹ Lat/Long: 35.141924,-81.38813 Edge cracking & speed humps

KIMO-0903: Headquarters Parking Section Length/Area 7,967 SF Other Observations Pavement Type Asphalt Curb PCC wheel stops at parking stalls (Good)

Stone curbs (Good)1 RIP Data (PCR) 97 Sidewalk Flagstone sidewalk (Good) Overall Pavement Condition Fair Drainage Structure Catch basin (Good), Scupper (Good) Predominant Distress L&T/Block/Reflective Cracking Road Signs Okay Recommended Treatment 1.5” AC overlay Handicap Parking 1 with ADA access Geotechnical Testing 2 cores Existing Striping Regular paint (Fair) Notes:

2. Final treatment determination to be made considering the overall program budget.

1 L Reflective Block Cracking 550’ 1.5” AC overlay

KIMO-0903: Headquarters Parking

❶ Lat/Long: 35.141126, -81.386832 PCC wheel stops, stone wall.

❷ Lat/Long: 35.141350, -81.386953 Low severity Reflective Block Crack

❸ Lat/Long: 35.14143,-81.386922 Low severity Reflective Block Crack

❹ Lat/Long: 35.14114,-81.386904 Handicap parking with ADA accessibility and signage.

Appendix C1 – Subsurface Sampling and Geotechnical Testing Data

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix C

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix C

Table: Core Data Summary KIMO

Core/

TP #

AC Unbound Layers

Route ID Direction Sta. Thickness (in) Cracking (in.) Debonding (in.) Base Sub Base Subgrade

C1 KIMO-0010 NB 106+29 5.00 -- -- Crushed Gravel -- -- C2 KIMO-0010 SB 103+80 6.00 0.00-6.00 3.25 Crushed Gravel -- -- C3 KIMO-0010 NB 100+48 6.63 -- 4.00 Crushed Gravel -- -- C4 KIMO-0010 NB 57+02 8.00 -- -- Gravel -- -- C5 KIMO-0010 SB 51+10 5.75 -- 2.88 Crushed Gravel -- -- C6 KIMO-0010 SB 14+05 5.50 -- 3.00 Silty Sand w/ Gravel -- -- C7 KIMO-0903 -- 3.25 -- -- Silty Sand -- -- C8 KIMO-0903 -- 2.50 -- -- Gravel -- --

TP1 KIMO-0010 SB 148+94 5.13 -- 1.25 1.625" of A-1-a 4.75" of A-1-a A-4

C1

C2 C3

C4

C5C6 TP1

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0+00 20+00 40+00 60+00 80+00 100+00 120+00 140+00 160+00

A C

T hi ck ne ss (i n.

STA.

KIMO-0010 Core Layout

Cores Test Pits

Appendix C2 – Material Sampling Photo Documentation Log

Date Site Code: KIMO Sampled By JSG/NJ

Legend: G = Good F = Fair P = Poor

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

G F

Core Notes:

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

P

Core Notes:

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

G P

Core Notes:

Total Depth 6.625 inches

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

C3 6"

KIMO-0010 NB

Binder 2 HMA

Base 2.625

Layer Type Description

H M A

Surface 2 HMA

HMA

Layer Type Description

H M A

Surface 3.25 HMA

Total Depth 6 inches

Base 2.75 HMA inches

Layer Type Description

HMA

HMA

H M A

Binder 2.125 HMA

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

C1 6"

1.125

1.75Base

7/23/2025

Subbase Course Visual Identification = Gray Crushed Agg Base Full Depth Cracking

Subbase Course Visual Identification = Gray Crushed Aggregate

Appendix C2: MATERIAL SAMPLING

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION LOG

Subbase Course Visual Identification = Gray Crushed Aggregate (3/4" NMAS)

KIMO-0010 NB

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

C2 6"

KIMO-0010 SB

Total Depth 5

Surface

NPS KIMO- Material Sampling - Core Data Summary.xlsx 1 of 4

7/23/2025

Appendix C2: MATERIAL SAMPLING

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION LOG

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

G G

Core Notes:

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

G P G G

Core Notes:

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

G P G G

Core Notes: Subbase Course Visual Identification = Silty Sand with Gravel inches

Surface Course 1.25 HMA

H M A

Surface 1.5 HMA

Binder 1.5

H M A

Surface 1.375 HMA

Sand Mix 1.5 HMA

Sand Mix

Binder Course 1 HMA

1.125 HMA

Base 0.75 HMA

Total Depth 8 inches

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

C5 6"

KIMO-0010 SB

Subbase Course Visual Identification = Brown Gravel

Layer Type Description

H M A

Surface 1.5 HMA

Binder 2.5 HMA

Base 4 HMA

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

C4 6"

KIMO-0010 NB

Layer Type Description

Total Depth 5.75 inches

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

C6 6"

KIMO-0010 SB

Layer Type Description

Subbase Course Visual Identification = Gray Crushed Gravel

HMA

Wearing Course

Total Depth 5.5

Base Course 1 HMA

0.25 HMA

NPS KIMO- Material Sampling - Core Data Summary.xlsx 2 of 4

7/23/2025

Appendix C2: MATERIAL SAMPLING

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION LOG

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

G G

Core Notes:

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

G G

Core Notes:

Subbase Course Visual Identification = Hard Packed Silty Sand

Subbase Course Visual Identification = Well Graded Gravel

HMA

DescriptionLayer Type

KIMO-0903

6"C8

De te rio ra tio n

St rip pi ng

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

HMA

Total Depth 2.5 inches

H M A

Wearing Course HMA

Sand Mix 1.125 HMA

Base Course 1.125

0.25

Base Course 1.75 HMA

Total Depth 3.25 inches

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

C7 6"

KIMO-0903

H M A

Wearing Course 0.25

Sand Mix 1.25 HMA

Layer Type Description

NPS KIMO- Material Sampling - Core Data Summary.xlsx 3 of 4

7/23/2025

Appendix C2: MATERIAL SAMPLING

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION LOG

Sample Number: Dia.:

Location:

Thickness

G G G G G

Core Notes:

U N B O U N D

H M A

1.125 HMA

HMA

Binder HMA

Sand Mix 0.75 HMA

Base

Surface 1

Binder

Subgrade 8.5 Silty Clay w. Sand

(CL-ML / A-4)

Total Depth 20 inches

Layer Type Description

0.875 HMA

Wearing 0.25 HMA

Bo nd

Q ua lit y

St rip pi ng

De te rio ra tio n

TP1 6"

KIMO-0010 SB

Agg Base 1.625

1.125

Subbase 4.75 Gravel w. Silt & Sand

(GP-GM / A-1-a)

Crushed Aggregate (A-1-a)

NPS KIMO- Material Sampling - Core Data Summary.xlsx 4 of 4

Appendix C3 – Laboratory Test Results of Unbound Materials

TP1

Subbase 1 6.75-11.5

Gray POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND

GP-GM

A-1-a(0) 3.8 10

TP1

Subgrade 11.5-20.0 Gray SILTY CLAY with SAND

CL-ML

A-4(2) 14.6 23 18 77

Liquid Limit

Triaxial Compression

Organic Content

Project: NPS SC - KIMO

Atterberg Limits

<2µ

<#200

Sheet 1 of 1

Note: The soil classification is based partially on visual classification unless both grain size and Atterberg limits are performed.

Strain

P er m ea bi lit y (c m /s ec

C on so lid at io n

Strength (psi)

Special Tests

Boring and

Sample Numbers

Refer to Laboratory Test Curves

C om pa ct io n

USCS and

AASHTO

Symbols

Project No.: 60748151

UU

Water Content

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

CIU

Plastic Limit

Depth (ft)

Specific Gravity

Unconfined Compression

Grain Size Dry Unit Weight

(pcf) Classification

LAB_SUMMARY_BLUEBELL_AASHTO 60748151_2025-06-16_NPS SC - KIMO.GPJ URS_BLUE.GDT 7/11/25

0.0010.010.1110100

SILT OR CLAY

SAND

COBBLES

coarse finemediumfinecoarse

U.S. STANDARD

SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

Figure 1

PERCENT FINER

Boring

Sample

Spec

Depth (ft)

% +3"

% Gravel

% Sand

% Fines

% -2µ

Cc

Cu

LL

PL

PI

AASHTO

USCS

w (%)

1.5

Project Number 60748151

July 2025

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Gray POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND (GP-GM)

Gray SILTY CLAY with SAND (CL-ML)

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G

203/8

3/42

SYMBOL

Particle Size

(Sieve #)

SYMBOL

TP1

Subbase 1

6.75-11.5

0.0

70.7

19.5

9.7

17.59

240.22

A-1-a(0)

GP-GM

3.8

TP1

Subgrade

11.5-20.0

0.0

6.6

16.8

76.6

A-4(2)

CL-ML

14.6

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

100.0

82.2

59.6

42.6

35.4

29.3

24.3

21.2

18.7

15.9

13.2

9.7

100.0

96.3

95.2

93.4

91.5

89.6

87.3

85.0

82.5

76.6

404 604

GRAVEL

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS

NPS SC - KIMO

S

IE

V E

_B

LU

E B

E

LL

_A A

S H

T O

_2

-0 6-

_N

P S

S C

K

IM

O

.G P

J U

R S

_B

LU

E .G

D T

/1

1/

Laboratory Assignment Sheet Assignment No.:

Project Name: Date Received:

Project Manager: ST Reviewed By: JSG Date Completed By:

Project Number:

Water CBR Consol. CRS Direct Organic Content, % Sieve Hydro Test Test Test Uc UU CIU Shear pH Content, %

Boring Sample Depth ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM AASHTO ASTM No. No. in. D 2216 D 854 D 127 D 698 D 1557 D 1883 D 2434 D 5084 D 2435 4186 D 2166 D 2850 D 4767 D 3080 T289 D 2974 TP1 Subbase 1 6.75" - 11.5" Y-no bill X

TP1 Subgrade 11.5" - 20" Y-no bill X

TOTAL = 2

Base = 0

Subbase 1 = 1

Subbase 2 = 0

Subgrade = 0

Notes: Moisture Contents (provide - no bill internal), AASHTO/ASTM Classifications to be provided.

We will decide on the need for and which samples to run Atterbergs on once we know the moisture contents and need for ASTM classification.

ASTM ASTM ASTM

D 422

Other/ Remarks/ Confining Pressures

ASTM D 4318

NPS East SC 192 Pavement DDs - King's Mountain National Military Park (KIMO)

60748151 - 00030

Atterberg Limits Specific Grain-Size Compaction Permeability Gravity Test Test

Air Dried

Oven Dried

TrIaxial Test

Z:\DCS\Projects\TRN\60748151_NPS_East_SC_192-_Paving\400_Technical\440_Field_and_Laboratory_Data\01_Geotech\04_Laboratory Test Data\NPS_SC_KIMO_AECOM_Lab Assignment_Sheet

2025-06-16

6/13/25 x

Appendix D – Traffic Data for Pavement Design

(Provided by the NPS)

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix D

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix D

Table: ESAL Calculation Table for KIMO-0010

Class Design AADT Vehicle Distribution (%) Truck Factor ESAL

Class 1

4.24% 0.0061 755 Class 2 60.15% 0.0061 10,714 Class 3 32.29% 0.0061 5,751 Class 4 0.00% 0.6806 0 Class 5 2.77% 0.189 15,287 Class 6 0.18% 0.1303 685 Class 7 0.00% 0.1303 0 Class 8 0.00% 0.8646 0 Class 9 0.37% 2.3719 25,626

Class 10 0.00% 2.3719 0 Class 11 0.00% 2.3187 0 Class 12 0.00% 2.3187 0 Class 13 0.00% 2.3187 0

20-Year Design ESAL 58,819

Appendix E – AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Calculations

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix E

AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Calculations

Project SC192 Pavement Preservation, Multiple Parks in South Carolina Section ID KIMO-0010 Design for Structural Adequacy of Existing Pavement

Subgrade Mr (psi) = 10,000 Layer Thickness (in) Layer Coeff. Functional Classif ication Urban Rural

Acceptable terminal servicibility Pt = 2.5 HMA 1.5 0.34 Interstate and other freew ays 85-99.9 80-99.9

Initial servicibility P0 = 4.2 HMA 2.5 0.34 Principle arterials 80-99 75-95

Servicibility loss (DPSI) = 1.7 HMA 2.0 0.34 Collectors 80-95 75-95

Agg. Base 6.0 0.14 Local 50-80 50-80

ADT = 400 Subbase 0.0 0.11 S0=0.40-0.50 for flexible pavement (or overlay) design (I-62&III-82)

% Trucks = 3.3% S0=0.30-0.40 for AC overlay (III-121)

Daily Truck Volume = 13 Total Pavement Thickness 12 R ZR

Provided SN 2.88 50 0 60 -0.253

Design Life (Year) = 20.00 70 -0.524 Design ESAL = 58,819 80 -0.841

Reliability, R = 90 85 -1.037

ZR = -1.282 90 -1.282

Standard Deviation S0 = 0.45 91 -1.34

92 -1.405 93 -1.476 94 -1.555

W18 = 58,819 95 -1.645 Required SN = 1.94 96 -1.751

97 -1.881 98 -2.054 99 -2.327

100 -3.75

Pass [Provided SN > Required SN]

Design Inputs Existing Structure AASHTO 1993 Design Input References

P a g e I I-

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix E

AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Calculations

Project SC192 Pavement Preservation, Multiple Parks in South Carolina Section ID KIMO-0010 Design for Proposed Treatment: 1.5" Overlay

Subgrade Mr (psi) = 10,000 Layer Thickness (in) Layer Coeff. Functional Classif ication Urban Rural

Acceptable terminal servicibility Pt = 2.5 HMA 3.0 0.34 Interstate and other freew ays 85-99.9 80-99.9

Initial servicibility P0 = 4.2 HMA 2.5 0.34 Principle arterials 80-99 75-95

Servicibility loss (DPSI) = 1.7 HMA 2.0 0.34 Collectors 80-95 75-95

Agg. Base 6.0 0.14 Local 50-80 50-80

ADT = 400 Subbase 0.0 0.11 S0=0.40-0.50 for flexible pavement (or overlay) design (I-62&III-82)

% Trucks = 3.3% S0=0.30-0.40 for AC overlay (III-121)

Daily Truck Volume = 13 Total Pavement Thickness 14 R ZR

Provided SN 3.39 50 0 60 -0.253

Design Life (Year) = 20.00 70 -0.524 Design ESAL = 58,819 80 -0.841

Reliability, R = 90 85 -1.037

ZR = -1.282 90 -1.282

Standard Deviation S0 = 0.45 91 -1.34

92 -1.405 93 -1.476 94 -1.555

W18 = 58,819 95 -1.645 Required SN = 1.94 96 -1.751

97 -1.881 98 -2.054 99 -2.327

100 -3.75

Pass [Provided SN > Required SN]

Design Inputs Proposed Structure AASHTO 1993 Design Input References

P a g e I I-

Appendix F – Construction Cost Estimate Summary

(Class B Estimate will be submitted separately)

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix F

Class C Summary Estimate for all South Carolina Parks

Class C Summary Estimate for the KIMO Sections

Note: The added section (KIMO-0901) will be included as a “Bid Option” in the Class C Construct Cost Estimate and the 15% Design Plans.

Direct Construction

Markups Total Direct Constructio

Markups Total Direct Construction

Markups Total

COWP 334929 $1,869,762 $346,791 $332,795 $679,586 $10,209 $9,797 $20,005 $357,000 $342,591 $699,591 CONG 334914 $615,000 $403,196 $403,613 $806,809 $16,801 $16,819 $33,620 $419,997 $420,432 $840,429 KIMO 334920 $1,155,041 $987,432 $1,081,349 $2,068,780 $9,669 $10,589 $20,257 $997,101 $1,091,937 $2,089,038 NISI 334915 $121,000 $14,000 $16,030 $30,030 $9,608 $11,001 $20,610 $23,608 $27,031 $50,639

Total $3,760,803 $1,751,419 $1,833,786 $3,585,205 $46,287 $48,205 $94,492 $1,797,706 $1,881,991 $3,679,697

Base Bid Options Total W. Options Park PMIS #

PMIS Estimated Budget

ROUTE ID ROAD FMSS#

PAVEMENT

TYPE

PROPOSED TREATMENT

COST W/O

MARKUPS

TOTAL

MARKUP

COST W/

MARKUPS

PMIS ESTIMATED

BUDGET

KIMO-0010 MAIN PARK DRIVE 42951 Asphalt ASPHALT OVERLAY w/

LOCALIZED PATCHING

937,644$ 1,026,826$ 1,964,470$ 979,474$

KIMO-0900

VISITOR CENTER

PARKING

52487 Asphalt

CRACK SEAL & SEAL COAT w/

LOCALIZED PATCHING

44,337$ 48,554$ 92,891$ 150,155$

KIMO-0901

MAINTENACE AREA

PARKING

54288 Asphalt

CRACK SEAL & SEAL COAT w/

LOCALIZED PATCHING

9,669$ 10,589$ 20,257$ -$

KIMO-0903

HEADQUARTERS

PARKING

54290 Asphalt CRACK SEAL & SEAL COAT 5,450$ 5,969$ 11,419$ 25,411$

Total Base Bid 987,432$ 1,081,349$ 2,068,780$ 1,155,041$

Total Options 9,669$ 10,589$ 20,257$ -$

Total 997,101$ 1,091,937$ 2,089,038$ 1,155,041$

Appendix G – Construction Schedule Summary

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS REPORT Appendix G

PARK ID PMIS # Duration (days) 1-Jun 8-Jun 15-Jun 22-Jun 29-Jun 6-Jul 13-Jul 20-Jul 27-Jul 3-Aug 10-Aug 17-Aug 24-Aug 31-Aug

COWP 334929 41

CONG 334914 34

KIMO 334920 20

NISI 334,915 13

ROUTE ID ROAD PROPOSED TREATMENT 6-Jul 7-Jul 8-Jul 9-Jul 10-Jul 13-Jul 14-Jul 15-Jul 16-Jul 17-Jul 20-Jul 21-Jul 22-Jul 23-Jul 24-Jul

KIMO-0010 MAIN PARK DRIVE

ASPHALT OVERLAY w/

LOCALIZED PATCHING

KIMO-0900

VISITOR CENTER

PARKING

CRACK SEAL & SEAL COAT w/

LOCALIZED PATCHING

KIMO-0901

MAINTENACE AREA

PARKING

CRACK SEAL & SEAL COAT w/

LOCALIZED PATCHING

KIMO-0903

HEADQUARTERS

PARKING

CRACK SEAL & SEAL COAT