CO_ER_94-81-106(1)_Lefthand_Canyon_Drive_Pavements_Report-8-25-2015.pdf

BOULDER COUNTY

LEFTHAND CANYON DRIVE

CO ER 94/81/106(1)

PAVEMENT AND MATERIALS REPORT

Report # 15-04

AUGUST 2015

Report prepared by:

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Central Federal Lands Highway Division Lakewood, Colorado

CO ER 94/81/106(1) Boulder County Lefthand Canyon Drive 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, SCRs, and CONSTRUCTION

CONSIDERATIONS

APPENDICES

A – Location Map B – Laboratory Reports and Boring Log C – Photographs D – Traffic Data E – Pavement Design Calculations F – PG LTPPBIND Software G – Weather Data Information H – Culvert Pipe Selection Criteria I – AECOM Technical Memorandum & YEH & Associates, Inc. Report

I. INTRODUCTION

This report is written to document the road conditions and provide pavement recommendations for the planned CO ER 94/81/106(1) Boulder County Lefthand Canyon Drive project. The project is located in Boulder County. The route begins at the intersection of US 36, North of Boulder, CO and ends with at the intersection of Highway 72, adjacent to the town of Ward, CO. The project begins approximately 10.4 miles west of the intersection with US 36 and concludes with the intersection at US 36.

Prior to this report, an investigation and pavement design had been performed by AECOM, and by YEH & Associates, Inc. as a subcontractor to AECOM. These reports are shown in the Appendix for reference only. The pavement investigation performed by CFLHD was conducted on July 1, 2015, following the geotechnical investigation. The investigation began at the east end of the project with boring number 12, and progressed west, concluding at boring number 1. No Preliminary Pavement Recommendations Memo was issued for this project, however, a section of 4 inches of asphalt concrete pavement placed on 6 inches of aggregate base was assumed for the 4R segments. A 2 inch mill and overlay was assumed for the areas of pavement preservation.

II. CLIMATE

Climate data was obtained from intellicast.com. This data is summarized in Table 1 below and is shown in the Appendix. The data presented is from the Jamestown, CO station. The average precipitation for this area is approximately 13.95 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 ≈5,600 feet to ≈7,500 feet.

Table 1. Weather Data

Month Average

HIGH

Record

HIGH

Average

LOW

Record

LOW

Average

PRECIP.

January 39 61 18 -38 0.32”

February 41 62 19 -39 0.47”

March 46 68 23 -22 0.90”

April 53 77 27 -19 1.42”

May 62 81 35 9 2.11”

June 73 92 42 24 1.43”

July 79 96 47 33 2.16”

August 77 90 45 29 1.98”

September 70 89 39 3 1.23”

October 59 85 31 -9 0.93”

November 46 73 24 -25 0.63”

December 40 66 18 -30 0.37” Temperatures are in °F and precipitations are in inches.

III. EXPLORATION

On July 1, 2015 CFLHD staff completed a field investigation which included pavement boring, and subgrade sampling. Prior to the investigation, CFL made a separate trip to mark the proposed borings. CFL also called 811 for utility locations prior to the investigation. Dakota Drilling, Inc. of Denver, CO, was contracted to perform the pavement borings. A CME-75 truck-mounted drill rig with a 6.25” O.D. auger was used to complete the boring. 12 boring locations were logged; with 10 subgrade samples collected. Subgrade soil and borrow in areas of temporary repair were sampled at various depths ranging from 8 inches to 5 feet. CFL personnel logged the borings; this included depth of boring, visual soil classification, pavement thickness, pavement distress, and road width. Following the investigation, the samples collected were submitted to the CFLHD lab for testing to determine engineering properties. Information from the investigation including the; boring locations, paved widths and other information is shown in the Appendix.

IV. EXISTING PAVEMENT & SOILS

During the investigation, the roadway was categorized as either an existing or repair section based on whether the section of the roadway was undamaged or had been repaired following the floods. In general, the existing roadway sections ranged from minimal cracking to block cracking with transverse and longitudinal cracking. Rutting appeared to be minimal in these areas. The condition of the temporary repair areas was fairly consistent. While the pavement contained minimal to no cracking, raveling of the pavement in the wheel paths was observed. While the average depth of the repair pavement was consistent with the average of the existing pavement, areas of thinner pavement were observed during the investigation.

In general, the soil conditions observed from borings 1 through 9 were granular material while soil conditions observed in borings 10-12 were clayey sand. Table 2 below presents the soil classifications for each of the borings. For more information, see the testing reports and the boring logs shown in the Appendix. Drilling efforts ranged from easy to periods of tougher drilling, with auger refusal at 5 locations. The visual classification of the borings, including pavement depths is shown in Figure 1 below.

Table 2. Boring Classifications Boring Location B-1 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12

Soil Classification

AASHTO

M 145

A-2-4 A-1-b A-2-4 A-1-b A-2-4 A-1-b A-2-4 A-4 A-4 A-6

ASTM D

SC SM SC-SM SM SC-SM SC-SM SC SC SC SC

Figure 1. Visual Classification of Boring and Core Locations

B‐1, S‐1, M.P. 0.90

B‐2, M.P.

2.70

B‐3, S‐2, M.P. 3.30

B‐4, S‐3, M.P. 3.70

B‐5, S‐4, M.P. 4.30

B‐6, M.P.

5.10

B‐7, S‐5, M.P. 5.60

B‐8, S‐6, M.P. 6.10

B‐9, S‐7, M.P. 6.80

B‐10, S‐8, M.P. 7.30

B‐11, S‐9, M.P. 8.20

B‐12, S‐10, M.P. 9.0

Ex pl or at or y D ep th (I nc he s)

Lefthand Canyon Drive Visual Classification of Borings

Pavement Aggregate Base A‐2‐4 A‐1‐b A‐4 A‐6

V. PAVEMENT DESIGN INPUTS

The pavement design for the Lefthand Canyon Drive project utilized design criteria established in the Federal Lands Highway (FLH) Project Development Design Manual (PDDM). The criteria shown in Table 3 below were selected based on the projects scope and traffic levels.

Table 3. Design Criteria Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Design Reliability Level 75% Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Performance Period (4R) 25 years Directional Distribution 60%

Traffic

Traffic Data for Lefthand Canyon Drive was obtained from the Boulder County website, and is shown in the Appendix. The map shows approximately 7 traffic counts were performed within the project limits between 2013 and 2014. The counts show that the AADT ranges from 900 (2013) to 1400 (2014). The traffic data shown in the Appendix did not contain information on the traffic classifications. The traffic data shown in the Appendix was used in the design calculations. The growth factor was determined from design input and judgment. These values were an ADT of 1,400 and growth of 1.0%.

The traffic classification and distribution for this project was based on visual observations and assumptions. Vehicle classifications and truck factors used in the ESALs calculations were taken from Exhibit 11.2-A in Chapter 11 of the PDDM. The majority of vehicles on this route appear to be Class 2 and Class 3, passenger cars and pickups. Additionally, other vehicles such as trash trucks, plow trucks, RV’s, and freight hauling vehicles, Class 6 and Class 9, do utilize the route. The distribution of traffic, assumed growth and truck factors are shown in the Appendix.

Based on the design criteria and the assumptions shown above, the 25-year 18-kip equivalent single axle load (ESAL) was calculated to be 1,061,808.

Subgrade Soil Resilient Modulus

Several subgrade soil samples were submitted for testing to determine their respective R- Value (AASHTO T 190). These test results and their calculated Resilient Modulus values are summarized In Table 4 below. The design R-Value and respective Resilient Modulus were selected using these results and are shown in Table 4 below. The subgrade Resilient Modulus was calculated from the R-Value (AASHTO T 190) using the following correlation equation:

Resilient Modulus, MR (psi) = 10[ ( S

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

Table 4. Resilient Modulus Values Location

June 2015 Stationing Location

August 2015 Stationing R-Value

Resilient Modulus

B-1, M.P. 0.9, Sta. 49+00 49+00 43 10,475 psi B-4, M.P. 3.7, Sta. 216+50 216+50 59 17,672 psi B-5, M.P. 4.3, Sta. not captured 250+10 65 21,500 psi B-9, M.P. 6.8, Sta. 378+00 378+75 50 13,168 psi B-12, M.P. 9.0, Sta. not captured 491+10 16 4,334 psi

Design Value Used – Schedule A & Option Y 55 15,500 psi Design Value Used – Option X 25 5,800 psi

Stationing shown is approximate and is based on the June Status Set.

The design R-Value for Schedule A and Option Y utilizes the Average of the 4 R-Values within Schedule A and Option Y. Using engineering judgment, the design R-Value for Option X was selected after evaluating the laboratory testing results and the correlation between classifications and their R-Values. It was assumed that the 16 shown in Table 4 above is towards the low end of values that may be present. It was further assumed that the A-4 and A-6 material found within Option X may have R-Values ranging from 15 to

35. Additional testing should be performed during construction to confirm the materials classification and engineering properties.

Structural Number Calculations

Based on the laboratory testing, field observations, and the design criteria above, the pavement design structural numbers were calculated. Schedule A and Option Y utilize the same calculations as similar subgrade soils were observed and tested. Option X utilizes a lower design resilient modulus and Option Z does not require a design, as this option utilizes a preservation approach. Utilizing the 1993 AASHTO pavement design procedure, 25 year pavement designs require the following design structural numbers

(SN):

Table 5. Structural Numbers Project Segment Structural Number (SN) Schedule A & Option Y 2.42 Option X 3.53 Option Z N.A.

Structural Layer Coefficients

Standard CFLHD structural layer coefficients were selected for the proposed pavement and aggregate base course layers. The ranges of layer coefficients are shown in Exhibit 11.2-C of the PDDM. Layer coefficients of 0.44 and 0.14 were selected for the asphalt concrete pavement and aggregate base course. A layer coefficient of 0.08 was selected for the FDR/Subbase section. A drainage coefficient of 1.0 was utilized for all layers.

VI. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & DISCUSSION

Project Packaging

The project in its entirety is approximately 10.4 miles. Following the in-progress plan review, discussions were held in regards to project packaging. Table 6 below summarizes the proposed packages for the project:

Table 6: Proposed Project Packaging Schedule/Option Type of Work Begin End Length

Schedule A 4R 263+00 418+00 2.94 miles Option Y 4R 3+50 235+00 4.38 miles Option X 4R 418+00 492+00 1.41 miles

Option Z Preservation 5+50

492+00 263+00 553+20

4.92 miles

Stationing based on August 2015 preliminary plans.

Beginning and ending stations and length are all approximate.

Schedule A contains 2 of the 4 proposed bridges, and the majority of the 4R realignment work. Option X continues the proposed 4R work, including bridge 4 through the end of the reconstruction. Option Y contains all of the individual site repair areas and 4R reconstruction west of the intersection of Lefthand Canyon Drive and James Canyon Drive, including bridge 1. Option Z provides a mill and overlay for the station ranges not included in the site repair of Options X & Y. Based on the SN, the project packaging and the discussion above, the following structural sections are recommended:

Schedule A:

4 inches HACP, placed in two lifts (entire proposed width, Section 401) 6 inches Aggregate Base (entire proposed width, Section 301)

Option X:

10 inches min. Full Depth Reclamation/Subbase (Entire proposed width Section 304 and Section 204)

Option Y:

Options Z:

2 inch mill (entire proposed width, Section 413) 2 inch overlay (entire proposed width, Section 401)

Schedule A

Schedule A contains heavy 4R reconstruction including bridge construction and stream restoration. There are areas of significant change to the alignment and profile. The recommendations for this schedule also include pulverizing the existing and temporary repair sections and incorporating this material into the embankment construction. The reclaimed material in this schedule may be used for other uses, provided the material meets the project requirements and has been approved for use by the CO.

Option X

Option X is a continuation of both, the heavy 4R reconstruction, bridge construction and stream restoration, with areas of significant change to the alignment and profile. The recommendations for this option also include pulverizing the existing and temporary repair sections and incorporating this material into the embankment construction as a subbase. The pavement design calculations shown in the Appendix account for this material to remain in place under the proposed roadway as part of the proposed structural section.

Only the proposed reclamation at the proposed depth was considered in the subbase calculations. Currently, the design calculations show the section does not satisfy the 25 year design criteria. At a minimum, the proposed structural section should provide a 20 year design. At the time of this report, the final line and grade of this option have not been finalized. Consideration should be given to raising the grade in areas of excavation, so that a subbase layer utilizing the reclaimed material and unclassified borrow may be maintained. Additional consideration may be given to changing the proposed structural section, dependent upon the final proposed line and grade. As stated above, subgrade samples should be collected during construction for testing to confirm the materials engineering properties. Based on the final line and grade, the section may exceed a 25 year design.

Option Y

This option focuses on specific site repair as well as longer stretches of 4R reconstruction, including bridge construction and stream restoration. While the typical section for this option matches the Schedule A typical sections, it is recommended that the existing structural section be removed in smaller site repair areas instead of pulverized so that the existing centerline grade may be maintained. The longer stretches of 4R repair may be pulverized and incorporated into the embankment construction.

Option Z

This option is proposed to be strictly mill and overlay. This option was developed so that the station ranges not included in Schedule A and Options X and Y would receive a surface treatment. If this option is exercised, the entire project length would receive a new riding surface. However, as this option is strictly mill and overlay, existing cracks in the pavement will reflect through the overlay over time.

VII. MATERIALS RECOMMENDATIONS, SCRs, AND

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Selection of Asphalt Binder

LTPPBind software and PDDM standards were utilized for the selection of asphalt binder. The LTPPBind information is shown in the appendix. Based on these standards a PG 58-34 was selected. This binder grade is used by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and is available in the area.

Prime and Tack Coats, Fog Seal and Blotter

Prime Coat and Blotter are recommended for this project. A Tack Coat applied between lifts, and to the milled surface for Option Z, is recommended. It is also recommended that a fog seal be applied to the final surfacing. The fog seal may not be applied at the discretion of the CO.

Drainage and Subexcavation

During the field review, areas of pavement distress in both the existing and repair pavements were present. The majority of these areas are inside the limits of the 4R construction. However, a subexcavation quantity should be included in each of the schedules and options in the event that areas in need of repair are encountered.

Recommend a minimum 500 cuyds of subexcavation be included in each schedule and option.

Materials for Culvert Pipe / Cement

During Project development, the decision was to replace in kind with concrete culvert pipe. Concrete pipe satisfies the pH and resistivity requirements shown in the Appendix.

Type I-II low alkali cement is recommended for cast in place and precast concrete elements.

SCRs and Construction Concerns

CFLHD standard SCR’s related to pavements & materials are expected to be used.

Bid Items

Suggested FP-14 pay items for the proposed structural section are shown in Table 7 below. Unless noted in the remarks column, the pay items shown in the table are recommended for all schedules and options.

Table 7: Recommended Pay Items Item

Number Item Description Unit Remarks.

20303-1600 Removal of Pavement, Asphalt SQYD Option Y 20402-0000 Subexcavation CUYD Use at discretion of CO 30101-0000 Aggregate Base TON

30401-5700 Full Depth Reclamation, Method 2, 10-inch depth

MILE

40101-5600 Asphalt concrete pavement, gyratory mix, ½ inch or ¾ inch nominal maximum size aggregate, 0.3 to <3 million ESAL

TON

40105-3000 Antistrip Additive Type3 TON 40601-0000 Fog Seal TON Use at discretion of CO 40605-0000 Blotter TON 41101-1000 Prime Coat, Method 1 TON 41105-0000 Blotter TON 41201-0000 Tack Coat TON 41301-0600 Asphalt Pavement Milling, 2-Inch Depth SQYD Option Z only

APPENDICES

A – Location Map

B – Laboratory Reports and Boring Log

C – Photographs

D – Traffic Data

E – Pavement Design Calculations

F – PG LTPPBind Software

G – Weather Data Information

H – Culvert Pipe Selection Criteria

I – AECOM Technical Memorandum & YEH & Associates, Inc. Report

APPENDIX A – Location Map

APPENDIX B – Laboratory Reports and Boring Log

Project:

Sample Number

Station or Location

Offset Date

Sampled Depth of Bore

Container Type

0" ‐ 0'‐6"

0'‐6" ‐ 1'‐0"

1'‐0" ‐ 5'‐0"

0'‐0" ‐ 0'‐7"

0'‐7" ‐ 1'‐1"

1'‐1" ‐ 3'‐6"

0" ‐ 7‐1/2"

0" ‐ 7‐1/2"

7‐1/2" ‐ 2'‐6"

2'‐6" ‐ 5'‐0"

0" ‐ 7‐1/2"

0" ‐ 7‐1/2"

7‐1/2" ‐ 1'‐6"

Comments

Boring in temporary repair section. 8‐1/2" HACP observed on RT shoulder.

B‐5, S‐4 M.P. 4.3 (M.P. 5.7) Sta. ?

7/1/20155'‐6" RT 5'‐0"

5‐Gallon Bucket

HACP

Investigation Sampling & Request for Laboratory Tests

Boring in a temporary repair section.

Boring in existing section adjacent to temporary repair section @ 8' temp. CMP.

Boring in existing section.

Similar cond. to B‐4.

Exist. Pavement has block, long, trans cracking. Minimal rutting.

Boring in existing pavement adjacent to temporary repair section.

Dark brown silty sand w/ gravel. 2" minus mixed in. Some cobles may be present, encountered tough drilling @ 4' passed through and easy to 5'. Similar material seen. Bag Sample 4'‐5'.

7‐1/2" ‐ 5'‐0"

7‐1/2" ‐ 5'‐0" Brown silty sand w/gravel. Semi moist Dries to light gray. Similar to others.

Light brown , dry silty sand, gravely.

Boulder encountered @ 3.5', auger refusal. Not sampled.

1'‐6" ‐ 3'‐6"

B‐6 M.P. 5.1 (M.P. 4.9) Sta. 289+00

6'‐0" LT 7/1/2015 3'‐6"

Not

Sampled

B‐4, S‐3 M.P. 3.7 (M.P. 6.3) Sta. 216+50

6'‐0" LT 7/1/2015 5'‐0"

5‐Gallon Bucket

M.P. 3.3 (M.P. 6.7) Sta. 194+25

B‐3, S‐2 5'‐0" RT 7/1/2015 5'‐0" Freezer Bag

HACP

Light brown‐yellow silty sand, some stone, may be base.

light brown silty sand. Similar to other borings. Sampled 3'‐5'. Some gravel, cobles may be present. Easy drilling.

HACP

Coarse aggregate base. No fines.

Brown‐yellow silty sand. Similar to other borings. Refusal @ 3.5', not sampled.

Not Sampled

3'‐6"7/1/2015

HACP

1,2,3,4,16,17

None Requested.

HACP

Dark brown‐yellow sandy silt, moist

Light brown/yellow silty sand, dry.

Dark brown silty sand, semi moist, some gravel, dries to light gray.

1,2,3,4,16,17

1,2,3

HACP

CO ER 94/81/106(1) Boulder County Lefthand Canyon Drive 15A608009481510.PE.ER30.081608000000Account Number:

Submitted By: Date Submitted: 2‐Jul‐15Sampled By:Jeff Felling Felling/Martinez

5'‐6" RT

M.P. 2.7 (M.P. 7.3) Sta. 162+25

B‐2 None Requested.

Boring Observations

1,2,3,4,16,177/1/20155'‐0" RT

M.P. 0.9 (M.P. 9.1

From US 36) Sta. 49+00

B‐1, S‐1 5'‐0" 5‐Gallon Bucket

Testing Requested

Project:

Sample Number

Station or Location

Offset Date

Sampled Depth of Bore

Container Type

0'‐0" ‐ 0'‐9"

0'‐0" ‐ 0"‐8"

0'‐8" ‐ 3'‐0"

3'‐0" ‐ 4'‐0"

4'‐0" ‐ 5'‐0"

0'‐0" ‐ 0'‐9"

0'‐9" ‐ 1'‐1"

1'‐1" ‐ 4'‐0"

0'‐0" ‐ 0'‐10"

0'‐10" ‐ 2'‐0"

2'‐0" ‐ 3'‐0"

3'‐0" ‐ 4'‐6"

0" ‐ 5‐1/2"

5‐1/2" ‐ 2'‐6"

2'‐6" ‐ 5'‐0"

0'‐0" ‐ 0'‐7"

0'‐7" ‐ 1'‐1"

1'‐1" ‐ 5'‐0"

0'‐9" ‐ 2'‐0"

CommentsFelling/Martinez Date Submitted: 2‐Jul‐15

Boring Observations Testing Requested

Investigation Sampling & Request for Laboratory Tests

B‐7, S‐5 M.P. 5.6 (M.P. 4.4) Sta. 315+00

6'‐0" RT

Boring in a temporary repair section.

7/1/2015 2'‐0"

5‐Gallon Bucket

Boring in existing section.

Boring in existing section.

Boring in existing section.

Boring in existing section.

6'‐6" RT

HACP

B‐11, S‐9 M.P. 8.2 (M.P. 1.8) Sta. 448+00

5'‐0" RT

M.P. 7.3 (M.P. 2.7) Sta. 408+30

6'‐6" LT 7/1/2015 4'‐6"

7/1/2015 5'‐0"

B‐12, S‐10 M.P. 9.0 (M.P. 1.0) Sta. ?

6'‐6" LT 7/1/2015 5'‐0"

5‐Gallon Bucket

Aggregate Base

Brown clayey sand, some silt, low plasticity, some gravel, semi dry.

Freezer Bag

5‐Gallon Bucket

B‐8, S‐6 M.P. 6.1 (M.P. 3.9) Sta. 344+00

5'‐6" LT

Transition to an olive colored medium/coarse graded sand, no plasticity, wet material, bag sample.

Brown clayey sand, similar to B‐12.

Appears imported.

Rock, gravely, tougher drilling, refusal @ 4.5' (bulk).

Sandy clay, clay lumps w/ some fines, some sand, fairly dry (bag)

Brown clayey sand, some silt, has plasticity, semi moist, similar to B‐12.

Purple silty sand.

Boring in temporary repair section.

5‐Gallon Bucket

7/1/2015 5'‐0"

Freezer Bag

5‐Gallon Bucket

B‐9, S‐7

B‐10, S‐8

M.P. 6.8 (M.P. 3.2) Sta. 378+00

7/1/2015 4'‐0" 5‐Gallon Bucket

HACP

Brown gravely fill.

Brown‐yellow silty sand, semi moist, uniform, low plasticity, easy drilling until rock @ 4' @ auger refusal.

Submitted By: Jeff Felling Sampled By:

CO ER 94/81/106(1) Boulder County Lefthand Canyon Drive Account Number: 15A608009481510.PE.ER30.081608000000

HACP

Light brown sandy silt, dry, low plasticity.

Bulk sample

More gravely moist sandy material, more coarse. Easy drilling.

1,2,3

1,2,3

HACP

HACP

1,2,3,4,16,17

HACP

1,2,3Brown‐yellow silty sand, dry, low plasticity.

Tough drilling, refusal @ 2'.

BOTH: 1,2,3.

Based on Classification, Request R‐Value & 16,17 for worse material between 11 &12.

APPENDIX C – Photographs

Typical Roadway Cross Section – Repair Section

Typical Repair Section Pavement

Typical Roadway Cross Section – Pre-existing Section

Typical Existing Pavement Conditions

Typical Drilling Operations

Typical Drilling Operations

Typical Drilling Operations – Auger Attachment

Typical Drilling Operations – Drilling Equipment

Subgrade Material – Boring 3

Subgrade Material – Boring 8

Subgrade Material – Boring 9

Subgrade Material – Boring 10

APPENDIX D – Traffic Data

N 7 5T

H

ST

N 63R

D

ST

N ELSON

RD

RIDGE RD

SU

NS

ET

ST

ELDORA RD

N1 15T

HS

TN

71S T

ST

DILLON RD

N 45TH ST

N63RDST

N7 7T

HS

T

OVERLAND RD

SAINT VRAIN RD

NEVA RD

N 57T

H

ST

LEE

HIL L

DR

LEFTHAND

CANYON DR

CH

ER

RY

VA

LE

RD

FLA

GS

TAF

F

RD

N7 9T

HS

T

NIWOT RD

N

75T H

ST

ARAPAHOE RD

N8 3R

DS

T

N

TH

ST

INDEPENDENCE RD

EA

ST

CO

UN

TY

LIN

E

RD

SAINT VRAIN RD

WOODLAND RD

N

65T H

ST

NIWOT RD

LOOKOUT RD

GROSS

D AM RD

N 75T

H

ST

N 83R

D

ST

N7 3R

DS

T

J AMES CANYON DR

C OLD SPRINGS R D

ELD ORA S KI RD

VALMONT RD

N

95T H

ST

O L D E

ST

A G

E

RD

SUG ARLOAF

RD

N

95T H

ST

HYGIENE RD

MAGNOLIA DR

FOU RMILE

CANYON

DR

G OLD HILL

RD

YARMOUTH AVE

PEARL ST

LEE H ILL DR

EA

ST

CO

UN

TY

LIN

E

RD

COALTON RD

HO

VE

R

ST

55T H

ST

McCASLIN

BLVD

TAB

LE

MESA DR

N

TH

S T

BALSAM AVE

MONARCH RD

SIOUX DR

S 96T

H

ST

SOUTH BOULDER RD

S8

8TH

ST

BASELINE RD

19T H

ST

IRIS AVE ERIE PKWY

BOST ON AVE

9TH AVE

EMMA ST

N 85T

H

ST

NELSON RD

26T H

ST

PLATEAU RD

17TH AVE

S 76T

H

ST

GUNBARREL AVE

FR

AN

CIS

ST

PIKE RD

LA

SH

LE

Y

ST

ROCK

C R E E K PKWY

N

TH

ST

VIA

APPIA MA

IN

ST

COLORADO AV E

QUAIL RD

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

21ST AVE

KENOSHA RD

3RD AVE

9TH

ST

LE

HIG

HS

T

S

TH

STCE

NTENNIAL

PKW

Y

ARAPAHOE AVE

PINE ST

GR

EEN

BRIAR

BLVD

VALMONT RD

30T H

ST

DILL ON RD

QUICKSILVER RD

AP

PL

E

VA

LLE

Y

RD

CARIBO U

RD

ANTELOPE D R

N1

TH

ST

GOLD

HILL RD

B EAVER RESE R VOIR

RD

N6 6T

HS

T

LAK E DR

ROLLINS PA S S RD

OXFORD RD

N3 9T

H

ST

VERMILLION RD

N6 1S

TS

T

SPRING

GULC H RD

N7 1S

T S T

HIGHLAND DR

N2 6T

HS

T

NIMBUS RD

NORTH

DAKOTA

R IDG E RD

N1 15T

HS

T

N 4 9T

H S T

YELLOWSTONE RD

PLATEAU RD

LICK SKILLET RD

SAW MILL

RD

PIKE RD

N8 1S

TS

T

BL UE

MOUNTAIN

R D

N5 9T

HS

T

N 6 1S

T S T

N 51S

T

ST

FOURTH

O F

JULY

RD

PROSPECT RD

S 66T

H

ST

COA L

CR

EE

K

DR

OXFORD RD

NORTH COUNTY LINE RD

WASATCH RD

NIMBUS RD

OL D SAINT VRAIN R D

BIG

OW

L

RD

N 87T

H

ST

N

TH

ST

B RAINARD LAKE DR

N

TH

ST

PROSPECT RD

LONGMON T DAM R D

CARIBOU R D

N 51ST ST

128J 128 E

116J

117J

105J

136N

124N

2J

84W

11 7J

1 03

102J

113S

113N

122N

124W

10 0J

7 7

8S

7 1N

3 5

122W

126N

132W

95J

92J

87J

83J

9 7 E

124E

82E

N

COAL

CREEK CANYO N

DR

PEAK TO

PEAK

SCENIC

BYWAY

BOULDER

CANYON

DR

DIAGONAL HWY

MA

IN

ST

UTE HWY

SOUTH

SAINT

VR

AIN

DR

NORTH

SA

INT

VRAIN DR

MA RSHALL DR

ELDORAD O

SPRINGS

DR

CARI BO U

RD

LAZ Y Z

RD

BR

OA

DW

AY

BROADWAY PU

BL

IC

RD

MINERAL RD

PIPIT RD

NEBO RD

MARS HAL L

RD

N 63R

D

ST

902 NORTH COUNTY LINE RD

N 53

RD

ST

N

TH

ST

N 49T H

ST

N 51S T

ST

N 4 1S

T S T

N

TH

ST

OU

RA

Y

DR

N

55T H

ST

N7 9T

HS

T

N

TH

ST

AIR

PO

RT

RD

MAG

NOL IA

DR

105J

BUNCE

SC

HOOL RD

N

FOOTHI

LLS

HWY

BOULDER

CANYON

DR

DYER RD

GO

LF

CL

UB

DR

VALLEY

LN

96 J

NORTHWEST PKWY (Toll)

PARKWAY

FLAGSTAFF SUMMIT RD

DENVER-BOULDER TURNPIKE

TU

NN

EL

RD

HURRICANE

HILL

DR

10 9J

BUFFALO HIGHWAY

SUGARL O AF

RD

FOUR MIL E CANYON

D R

113E

HYGIENE RD

EMPIRE DR

87J

SUNSHINE

CANY ON

DR

SUNSHIN E

CANYON DR

PARADISE LN

LONGHORN RD

PEBBLE BEACH DR

CANYON BLVD

S

INDIANA GULCHRD

60 SOUTH BOULDER RD

S1 04T

HS

T

PENNSYLVANIA AVE

WAGONWHEEL GAP RD

LINDEN

DR

CABIN CREE K RD

RED GULCH RD

CRA NE HOL LO W DR

AIR

PO

RT

RD

N6 7T

HS

T

PEA K

TO

PEA K

SC

EN

IC

BY W AY

GEER CAN YON DR

ROGERS RD

TIMBER LN

SP INE RD

SP

INE

RD

P OO R MA

N RD

PEAK

TO

PEAK

SCENIC

BYWAY

N 76 T

H

ST

FLAGG DR

122N

SK

I

RD

SK I RD EAST107E

10 1

P A

CE

ST

5 9

LAKE SHORE DR

ROGERS RD

KEN PRATT PKWY

SUGARMILL RD

N

TH

ST

69 E

8 4E

S

NOLAN DR

56N

7 7 S

PENNSYLVANI A

GULCH

RD

CONIFER

H IL L

R DSPR UC E DR

GOLD

RUN RD

A

1 04

3N

120J

124J

126S

126J

126J

128N

128 128W

128J 128J128J

2 3

36 36

83E

84W

87W

S

DI

X O

NR

D

W

96J

9 3J

93J

93J

95J KALMIA AVE

VIOLET AVE

NORWOOD AVE

LINDEN AVE

MAPLETON AVE

FO

LS

OM

ST

28T H

ST

MESA AVE

E 9TH AVE

W CHERRY ST

BELLA V ISTA DR

COUNTY

RD

HIGHLAND DR

N

TH

ST

OGALLALA RD

VESTAL RD

SO

UT

H

FO

OT

HIL

LS

HW

Y

55T H S

T

DEER TRAIL RD

68J

18 H O

VE

RR

D

HO

VE

R

ST

116J

1 28J

LE

FT

HA

ND

CA

NYON DR 94

JAY RD

JASPER RD

ISABELLE RD

VALMONT RD

N

ST

ST

N

63R D

ST

JAY RD

AIRPO R T BLVD

N

95T H

ST

BASELINE RD

S

TH

ST

EMPIRE RD

N5 1S

TS

T

N5 5T

HS

T

W a r d

E r i e

L o u i s v i l l e

L y o n s

J a m e s t o w n

N e d e r l a n d

S u p e r i o r

L a f a y e t t e

L o n g m o n t

B o u l d e r

A l l e n s p a r k

E l d o r a

E l d o r a d o S p r i n g s

G o l d H i l l

G u n b a r r e l

N i w o t

44009800

46002700

3300 3100

3200 3700

79008900

107008900

7400 5300

71006500

8700 7600

90008000

10300 11400

14900 17000

17300

3000 4600

11000

10900

340200

72005400

110 330

490100

10500

480 520 590

770 260 280 170 90

640350

270 380

150240

630270

680 610

110 420

220 340

1900 1500

27001700 30004700

1300 16700

21900

12500

15100

² 0 1 2 3 4 5

Miles 0 1 2 3 4 5

Kilometers

TRAFFIC VOLUME MAP 2014

Current as of Jan. 1, 2015

BOULDER COUNTY, CO

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)

Roads State, Federal, or Toll, Paved Arterial, Paved Collector, Paved Collector, Not Paved Residential Collector, Paved Local, Paved Local, Not Paved Jeep, Not Paved Municipal, Paved Municipal, Not Paved

Other Features

ACTIVE STATIONS

FEDERAL LANDS

DISCLAIMER:

The Traffic Volume Map is for illustrative purposes only, and the features depicted on it are approximate. More site specific studies may be required to draw accurate conclusions.

Boulder County makes no warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of this map. Boulder County disclaims any liability associated with the use or misuse of this map. In accessing and/or relying on this map, the user fully assumes any and all risk associated with the information contained therein. The purpose of the Traffic Volume Map is to identify specific traffic counts at stations identified by Boulder County.

Cartography by Boulder County Transportation Jan. 2015.

YEAR OF COUNT

Jeffrey.Felling Highlight

Jeffrey.Felling Highlight

Jeffrey.Felling Highlight

Jeffrey.Felling Highlight

Jeffrey.Felling Highlight

Jeffrey.Felling Highlight

Jeffrey.Felling Highlight

Jeffrey.Felling Highlight

APPENDIX E – Pavement Design Calculations

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare Computer Software Product

Flexible Structural Design Module

Lefthand Canyon Drive Schedule A, Option Y

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 1,061,808 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 75 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 15,500 psi Stage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 2.42 in

Rigorous ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 25 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 1,400 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 60 %

Vehicle Class

Percent of

ADT

Annual

Growth

Average Initial Truck Factor

(ESALs/ Truck)

Annual % Growth in

Truck Factor

Accumulated 18-kip ESALs over Performance Period

3 90 1 0.004 0 30,926 6 8 1 1 0 687,254 9 2 1 2 0 343,627

Total 100 - - - 1,061,808

Growth Simple

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 1,061,808

Specified Layer Design

Layer

Material Description

Struct Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Thickness (Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in)

1 HACP - 401 0.44 1 4 - 1.76

2 AGGREGATE BASE - 301 0.14 1 6 - 0.84

Total - - - 10.00 - 2.60

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare Computer Software Product

Flexible Structural Design Module

Lefthand Canyon Drive

Option X

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 1,061,808 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 75 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 5,800 psi Stage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 3.53 in

Rigorous ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 25 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 1,400 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 60 %

Vehicle Class

Percent of

ADT

Annual

Growth

Average Initial Truck Factor

(ESALs/ Truck)

Annual % Growth in

Truck Factor

Accumulated 18-kip ESALs over Performance Period

3 90 1 0.004 0 30,926 6 8 1 1 0 687,254 9 2 1 2 0 343,627

Total 100 - - - 1,061,808

Growth Simple

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 1,061,808

Specified Layer Design

Layer

Material Description

Struct Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Thickness (Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in)

1 HACP - 401 0.44 1 4 - 1.76

2 AGGREGATE BASE - 301 0.14 1 6 - 0.84

3 FDR/SELECT EMBANKMENT 0.08 1 10 - 0.80

Total - - - 20.00 - 3.40

R-Value SN ESAL Rev.

Calc Design SN

ESAL

Rev. Calc

Design Life (25 year)

Remarks

2.60 84,294 1.99

3.24 317,589 7.50

3.40 425,523 10.05

2.6 114,131 2.67

3.24 430,004 10.05

3.40 576,144 13.47

2.60 136,921 3.10

3.24 515,867 11.68

3.40 691,188 15.65

2.60 168,773 3.94

3.24 635,874 14.84

3.40 851,980 19.88

2.60 212,074 4.95

3.24 799,016 18.66

3.40 1,070,567 25.00

2.60 244,102 5.72

3.24 919,684 21.56

3.40 1,232,245 28.89

Design life calculated based on a 25 year design.

Design R‐Value highlighted.

Values above calculated using DARWin and the design inputs shown in the report.

Design SN represent 6" HACP on 6" Aggregate Base (2.60), 4" HACP on 6" Aggregate Base on 8" FDR/Subbase (3.24) and 4" HACP on 6" Aggregate Base on 10" FDR/Subbase (3.40).

1,070,567

20 3.76

3.6722

3.5325

Option X Design R-Value ESAL-Design Life Calculations

30 3.32 1,066,218

16 3.94 1,058,559

28 3.40

1,069,411

1,104,070

1,071,343

APPENDIX F – PG LTPPBIND Software

BindReport-5Closest.txt

Five Closest Weather Stations For Latitude/Longitude= 40.202/105.315 Report Date: 7/2/2015 (LTPPBind V3.0 Alpha)

CO ER 94 Lefthand Canyon 5 Closest LTPPBIND

General A=18 km B=20 km C=24 km D=27 km E=29 km Station ID CO0183 CO5116 CO0848 CO2759

CO8839

County/District boulder boulder boulder larimer larimer Weather Station allenspark 2 nn longmont 2 ese boulder estes park waterdale Elevation, m 2356 1402 1553 2131 Latitude, Longitude 40.22 ,105.53 40.17 ,105.07 40 ,105.27 40.38 ,105.52 40.43 ,105.2 Last Year Data Available 1993 1997 1996 1993

Air Temperature Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) High Temperature 27.3 (14,22) 35 (14,35) 33.8 (12,33) 28.7 (13,29) 33.7 (13,35) Low Temperature -29.2 (80,22) -26.7 (40,35) -22.1 (31,32) -28.8 (40,30) -26.5 (37,35) Low Temperature Drop 30.6 (99,22) 33.6 (35,35) 28.3 (28,32) 29.7 (28,30) 32.4 (33,35) Degree-Days > 10C 1659 (213,22) 2981 (162,35) 2867 (175,33) 1981 (145,29) 2772 (198,35)

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

Pavement Temperature, C 43.8 -20.3 56.4 -18.5 55.4 -15.1 47.2 -20.1

54.6 -18.4 50% Reliability PG 46-22 (98,61) 58-22 (91,84) 58-16 (98,61) 52-22 (98,71) 58-22 (98,85) >50% Reliability PG 46-28 (98,89) 58-28 (91,98) 58-22 (98,98) 52-28 (98,98) 58-28 (98,98) = 46-34 (98,98) 64-28 (98,98)

APPENDIX G – Weather Data Information

The Authority in Expert Weather

Universal Time: Tuesday, 23 Jun 2015, 16:23

Historic Average Home » Local » Historic Averages

Monthly Averages & Records - °F | °C

Daily Averages & Records - °F | °C

Jamestown, Colorado Weather Report · Interactive Map · Extended Forecast · Hourly Forecast · Past Observations · Historic Averages

Date Average Low

Average High

Record Low

Record High

Average Precipitation

Average Snow

January 18° 39° -38° (1963) 61° (1961) 0.32" NA

February 19° 41° -39° (1951) 62° (1962) 0.47" NA

March 23° 46° -22° (1965) 68° (1989) 0.9" NA

April 27° 53° -19° (1975) 77° (1974) 1.42" NA

May 35° 62° 9° (1970) 81° (1989) 2.11" NA

June 42° 73° 24° (1954) 92° (1954) 1.43" NA

July 47° 79° 33° (1951) 96° (1989) 2.16" NA

August 45° 77° 29° (1978) 90° (1948) 1.98" NA

September 39° 70° 3° (1971) 89° (1948) 1.23" NA

October 31° 59° -9° (1969) 85° (1980) 0.93" NA

November 24° 46° -25° (1950) 73° (1973) 0.63" NA

December 18° 40° -30° (1978) 66° (1988) 0.37" NA

Date Average Low

Average High

Record Low

Record High

Average Precipitation

Average Snow

Jun 1 38° 68° 25° (1970) 78° (1956) 0.06" NA

Jun 2 39° 69° 25° (1954) 78° (1956) 0.06" NA

Jun 3 39° 69° 24° (1954) 84° (1960) 0.05" NA

Jun 4 39° 69° 25° (1951) 82° (1990) 0.05" NA

Jun 5 39° 70° 29° (1951) 82° (1977) 0.05" NA

Jun 6 39° 70° 31° (1966) 81° (1977) 0.05" NA

Jun 7 40° 71° 29° (1974) 85° (1985) 0.05" NA

Jun 8 40° 71° 31° (1974) 86° (1985) 0.05" NA

Jun 9 40° 71° 29° (1954) 83° (1973) 0.05" NA

Jun 10 40° 72° 31° (1984) 83° (1953) 0.05" NA

Jun 11 41° 72° 26° (1975) 84° (1956) 0.05" NA

Jun 12 41° 72° 31° (1951) 83° (1952) 0.04" NA

Jun 13 41° 73° 33° (1949) 85° (1956) 0.04" NA

Jun 14 41° 73° 30° (1983) 85° (1952) 0.04" NA

Jun 15 41° 73° 30° (1983) 84° (1977) 0.04" NA

Jun 16 42° 74° 30° (1981) 82° (1977) 0.04" NA

Jun 17 42° 74° 32° (1952) 84° (1953) 0.04" NA

Jun 18 42° 74° 31° (1957) 84° (1990) 0.04" NA

Jun 19 42° 75° 27° (1975) 88° (1989) 0.04" NA

Jun 20 42° 75° 33° (1973) 88° (1989) 0.04" NA

Jun 21 43° 75° 35° (1973) 85° (1954) 0.05" NA

Jun 22 43° 75° 32° (1973) 85° (1954) 0.05" NA

Jun 23 43° 76° 32° (1964) 92° (1954) 0.05" NA

Jun 24 43° 76° 33° (1957) 91° (1954) 0.05" NA

Jun 25 44° 76° 33° (1958) 87° (1971) 0.05" NA

Jun 26 44° 76° 32° (1993) 87° (1991) 0.05" NA

Jun 27 44° 76° 33° (1975) 89° (1990) 0.05" NA

Jun 28 44° 77° 37° (1950) 89° (1990) 0.05" NA

Jun 29 44° 77° 34° (1953) 90° (1990) 0.05" NA

Jun 30 45° 77° 36° (1953) 87° (1953) 0.05" NA

Advertisements National News

Advertise with Us Contact Us Account Help NewsAbout Us Ad Choices

Privacy Statement © 2015 Partnered with Terms of Use Weather Underground Version 4.6.201311.1

Enter City, State, Country or U.S. Zip code

Profile Alerts Hurricanes Help iNav

Jamestown, Colorado

Local Interactive National Global Storms Health Travel Forecast Current Radar Satellite

Page 1 of 1Intellicast - Jamestown Historic Weather Averages in Colorado (80455)

6/23/2015http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?month=6

APPENDIX H – Culvert Pipe Selection Criteria

Hydrology and Hydraulics December 2012

Roadway Hydraulics 7-51

7.3.6.3.3 Reinforced Concrete Pipe

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

Corrosion

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

Abrasion

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

7.3.6.3.4 Steel Pipe with Metallic Coatings

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

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

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

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

Corrosion

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

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

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

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

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

Abrasion

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

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

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

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

L ife

E st im at io n

C ha rt f or A ve ra ge S e rv ic e

Li fe o f P la in

G al va ni ze d

C ul ve rt s

N O

T E

S

1.

T he c ur ve s in t hi s C h ar t ar e b as ed o n th e da ta in F

H W

A -F

LP

-9

1-w hi ch u se s th e f ac to rs in C al ifo rn ia

T es t

3, M et ho d fo r

E st im at in g th e

S er vi ce

L ife o f S te el

C ul ve rt s”

T he se fa ct or s in cr ea se d th e es tim at ed s er vi ce li fe b y a ft er f irs t pe rf or at io n.

2.

T he C ha rt h as a ls o b ee n m od ifi ed t o re fle ct a m in im um m et al th ic kn es s of

.0 in ch o r ga g e

[1 .6 m m

3.

U nd er c on d iti o ns w ith p H b et w ee n an d

9, a nd a bo ve

0, t he av er a ge s er vi ce li fe d et er m in ed f or p la in g al va ni ze d cu lv er ts s ho ul d be m ul tip lie d b y 2.

fo r A lu m in um c oa te d st ee l, (T yp e

2)

TH

IC

K N

ES

S

FA

C

TO

R

S 0.

8 4.

27 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.

10 3.

2.

0.

12 2.

77 1.

0.

14 2.

1.

0.

16 1.

1.

0.

18 1.

32 0.

TH

IC

K N

ES

S, in ch

G A

G E

TH

IC

K N

ES

S, m m

FA

C

TO

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 -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.

APPENDIX I – AECOM Technical Memorandum & YEH & Associates, Inc. Report

\Initial AECOM

717 17th Street, Suite 2600

Denver, CO 80202 www.aecom.com

303 228 3000 tel

303 228-3001 fax

Technical Memorandum

1.0 Background

In Fall 2003, heavy rains and creek flooding damaged numerous sections of Lefthand Canyon Drive between Mileposts 0 and 10.2. The damaged areas have been rebuilt with temporary repairs (known as winter road repairs), with permanent repairs pending. The permanent repairs will include reestablishing the design right-of-way width, which will be accomplished using a combination of retaining walls, rock revetments (rockeries) and regraded earth fill slopes.

This memorandum summarizes the results of soil borings, geophysical testing and laboratory testing completed to assist with the design of the permanent repairs, and includes geotechnical recommendations for the design.

2.0 Subsurface Exploration

A total of 11 soil borings were completed in March 2014. The borings were completed by Yeh & Associates, Inc.(YAI), under subcontract to AECOM. The boring locations are shown on a location diagram included with the YAI Pavement Design Report (appended). Citing traffic safety concerns, YAI chose not to complete 10 of the 16 planned wall borings and 14 of the 20 planned pavement borings.

Six of the completed borings were shallow pavement borings to 5 to 6.5 feet below grade, advanced using an ODEX down-hole hammer system supplemented with split-spoon sampling techniques per ASTM D1586, to recover laboratory samples of the overburden fill.

The remaining five borings were completed at locations planned for future retaining walls.

Those borings were extended through the overburden fill using the ODEX system with steel casing, also supplemented…