CO_FTNP_COLM_10(3)_Pavement_Report.pdf

MESA COUNTY

RIM ROCK DRIVE

CO FTNP COLM 10(3)

PAVEMENT AND MATERIALS REPORT

Report # 16-01

MAY 2017

Report prepared by:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Central Federal Lands Highway Division

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

CO FTNP COLM 10(3) Rim Rock Drive ii

Written by: ________________________________________________________

Jeff Felling, Staff Pavements & Materials Engineer

Reviewed by: ________________________________________________________

Matt Ambroziak, Project Manager/Construction Operations Engineer

Approved for distribution by:

Mike Voth, Acting Pavements & Materials Team Lead Date

Electronic Distribution:

Project Development Project Management Technical Services iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. CLIMATE

III. EXPLORATION

IV. EXISTING SURFACING & 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 – Pavement Design Calculations

E – PG LTPPBIND Software

F – Weather Data Information

G – Culvert Pipe Selection Criteria

H – Tunnel Photos

I – Core Data

J – Distress Sketch

I. INTRODUCTION

This report is written to document the existing road conditions of, and provide pavement recommendations for the planned CO FTNP COLM 10(3), Rim Rock Drive project. The project is located in the Colorado National Monument (COLM) in Mesa County. The project begins at the Monument boundary just east of the East entrance. The project ends in two locations. The first is just past the intersection of Rim Rock Drive and DS Road

(Glade Park Road). The intersection is planned to be reconstructed. From the intersection, the project continues 0.72 miles on DS Road to the Monuments South boundary. The project is approximately 4.60 miles, which includes both routes.

A site visit was made November 30, 2015 – December 2, 2015. The subgrade investigation and site visit are discussed more in detail in the Exploration Subsection of this Report. A preliminary pavement recommendations memo was issued for this project in March, 2016.

II. CLIMATE

Climate data was obtained from Intellicast.com historic data. The data is summarized in

Table 1 below and is shown in the Appendix. The data presented is from the Grand

Junction, CO area. The average precipitation for this area is approximately 8.99 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 ≈4,900 feet to ≈6,200 feet.

Table 1. Weather Data

Month Average

HIGH

Record

HIGH

Average

LOW

Record

LOW

Average

PRECIP.

January 37 62 16 -23 0.60”

February 46 70 23 -21 0.50”

March 56 81 31 5 1.0”

April 64 89 38 11 0.86”

May 75 101 46 26 0.98”

June 87 105 55 34 0.41”

July 92 106 61 44 0.66”

August 90 103 60 43 0.84”

September 80 100 50 28 0.91”

October 67 88 39 16 1.00”

November 50 75 26 -4 0.71”

December 39 66 17 -21 0.52”

Temperatures are in °F and precipitations are in inches.

III. EXPLORATION

The pavement investigation and tunnel evaluations were performed from November 30, 2015 – December 2, 2015. The Geotechnical investigation was performed from

December 2 – 4, 2015. D.A. Smith Drilling Company, Inc. was selected as the drilling contractor. A total of 18 locations were marked, 17 of which were explored. CFL personnel logged the findings; this included depth of boring, pavement depth, base course thickness visual soil classification, areas of distress and road width. A total of 7 samples were collected for laboratory testing. These samples were submitted to the CFLHD laboratory for testing to determine engineering properties. Additional information from the investigation is shown in the Appendix.

During the site visit, assessments of the surfacing in Tunnels 1-3 were made. These assessments are discussed in a separate memorandum. Additionally, the National Park

Service (NPS) had requested that the CFLHD pavements team perform a pavement preservation approach scoping effort. This was requested by NPS to see if the project could utilize pavement preservation as an alternative to the current 3R approach. The pavement preservation alternative is also discussed in a separate memorandum.

IV. EXISTING SURFACING & SOILS

As stated above, the 7 samples collected were submitted to the CFLHD laboratory for testing. The classifications are summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Soil Sample Classifications

Location B1-S1 B2-S2 B4-S3 B7-S4 B10-S5 B15-S6 B17-S7

Soil

Classification

AASHTO

M 145 A-1-b(0) A-2-4(0) A-1-b(0) A-1-b(0) A-2-4(0) A-2-4(0) A-4(1)

ASTM D

SM SM SM SM SM SM CL-ML

The underlying subgrade is composed of primarily of sandy-silt. Sand stone, which varied in color from gold to dark red and purple, was the most prevalent material through the project. Clay material was encountered at the south end of the project on DS Road. The level of difficulty of drilling ranged from easy to refusal prior to 5 feet.

Figure 1: Typical Subgrade Conditions

V. PAVEMENT DESIGN INPUTS

The pavement design for the Rim Rock 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 (3R) 20 years

Directional Distribution 60%

Traffic

Current traffic data for Monument Road/Rim Rock Drive and DS Road is not available.

However, the NPS provided CFLHD with information collected in 2013. The information provided by the NPS is shown in Table 4 below:

Table 4. Traffic Data

Route ADT (2013) Trucks/Buses Vehicles over

45 ft.

Rim Rock Drive 1,358 84 (6%) 23 (2%)

DS Road 1,025 114 (11%) 29 (3%)

The information provided also included figures for monument road (presumably outside the monument). After analyzing the data provided, it was determined that the data presented in the Table 5 below would be utilized for the structural section calculations.

Table 5. Traffic Data

Route ADT Class 2/3 Class 6 Class 9

Rim Rock Drive 1,358 1,215 (90%) 114 (8%) 29 (2%)

DS Road 1,025 918 (90%) 84 (8%) 23 (2%)

The traffic classification and distribution for this project was based on visual observations and assumptions made from the traffic data provided. 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 that use this route are passenger vehicles, trucks, SUV’s and recreation vehicles. There may be occasional delivery trucks or freight trucks that utilize the route. For design, Class 3, Class 6 and Class 9 were selected.

ADT information provided was utilized, and included a 1% growth factor. The distribution of traffic, assumed growth and truck factors are shown in DARWin calculations in the Appendix.

Based on the design criteria and the assumptions shown above, the 20-year 18-kip equivalent single axle loads (ESAL) were calculated for both DS Road and Rim Rock

Drive. The calculated values were:

Rim Rock Drive: 844,676

DS Road: 568,679

Subgrade Soil Resilient Modulus

Multiple subgrade soil samples were submitted for testing to determine their respective

R-Value (AASHTO T 190) during the 1996 investigation. These test results and their calculated Resilient Modulus values are summarized In Table 6 below. The design R-

Values and respective Resilient Modulus values was selected using these results and is shown in Table 5 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 6. Resilient Modulus Values

Boring

Location Mile Post and Offset R-Value

Resilient

Modulus

B-1 M.P. 0.10, 8’ RT of edge stripe 66 22,124 psi

B-2 M.P. 0.30, 5’-6” RT of CL 74 28,853 psi

B-4 M.P. 0.70, 6’ RT of CL 54 15,007 psi

B-7 M.P. 1.50, 6’ RT of CL 76 30,802 psi

B-10 M.P. 2.30, 71 26,158 psi

B-15 M.P. 3.40, 7’ RT of CL 69 24,503 psi

B-17 M.P. 0.30 DS Rd, 7’ RT of CL 29 6,629 psi

Design Value Used – Rim Rock Drive 68 23,700 psi

Design Value Used – DS Road 40 9,500 psi

The R-Value selected for Rim Rock Drive was based on the average of the results from the testing performed along the route. For DS Road, the R-Value selected is higher than the one test result. The higher R-Value was selected based on the assumption that not all of the underlying material along DS Road is of less ideal quality.

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 0.42 and 0.12 were selected for the asphalt concrete pavement and aggregate base course. A drainage coefficient of 1.0 was utilized for both proposed layers.

Structural Number Calculations

Based on the laboratory testing and field observations, the pavement design structural number was calculated. Utilizing the 1993 AASHTO pavement design procedure, 20 year pavement designs require the following design structural numbers (SN):

Rim Rock Drive, SN = 1.97 in.

DS Road SN = 2.63 in

VI. PAVEMENT AND TUNNEL RECOMMENDATIONS &

DISCUSSION

Pavement Project Recommendations’

Based on the required structural numbers above, the following structural sections were calculated. Using the DARWin pavement design software, the following structural section is proposed for Rim Rock Drive and DS Road:

Rim Rock Drive

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

6 inches Full Depth Reclamation (entire existing width, Section 304)

SN = 1.98 in

DS Road

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

6 inches Full Depth Reclamation (entire existing width, Section 304)

SN = 2.64 in

The proposed structural sections above were developed using an iterative process to;

maximize the use of existing materials, limit the raise to the roadway profile, maximize project budget. The pavement design DARWin generated reports are shown in the

Appendix. Alternative materials were considered, however, due to economic constraints, concrete pavement was not evaluated.

Tunnel #3 Project Recommendations’ – Concrete Pavement

After evaluation, there are multiple approaches to rehabilitating the surfacing. The primary recommendations for Tunnel 3 are shown, and discussed in greater detail below:

Option 1 – No Action During the investigation, the majority of the slabs in Tunnel 3 appeared to be in overall good condition. As compared to the slabs outside and just inside the portals, the interior slabs had some rough texture, with minimal cracking. The slabs outside and just inside the portals were in fair condition. However, noticeable cracking and polishing was evident. While the inner slabs may remain in good to fair shape for many years to come, consideration at some point may be given to replacing the outer slabs. This option proposes waiting until the slabs either need replacement, or minor repair work. If this option is pursued, analysis and determination of action would follow at a later date.

Option 2 – Mill and Overlay (Asphalt or Concrete)

Tunnel 3 currently has clearance issues, which requires that tall trailers pass through the center of the tunnel. For an asphalt overlay to be feasible, the existing concrete would need to be ground down a minimum of the overlay thickness (2 inches) to maintain the existing clearance. It is important to note that a reduction in the concrete slab may cause a reduction in overall service life. If this option is pursued, more analysis will be required.

Option 3 – Surface Treatment

These types of overlays may range from an epoxy and aggregate overlay (similar to a chip seal) to a micro surfacing (similar to those used on pavement preservation projects).

If the pavement preservation alternative is pursued, a micro surfacing would be recommended. A significant benefit of this alternative is that no milling of the existing slabs would be required to address clearance issues. If this option is pursued, further discussion on the type of overlay, and the requirements for the work will be required

Option 4 – 4R Reconstruction

This option would include complete removal and replacement of all slabs. This option is currently not recommended as the majority of the slabs do not warrant replacement.

Cost and lifecycle Analysis

Note that this cost does not include typical items, such as traffic control, quality control, erosion control, striping or mobilization. Independently of which option is elected, minor preservation work should be performed in the Tunnel.

Table 7. Cost and lifecycle Analysis

Option No Action Mill and

Overlay Surface Treatment Reconstruction

Cost $0.00 (differed) $95,000 $40,000 (Micro)

$70,000 (epoxy)

$0.00 - $800,000

Time 0 days 5 days 3 days each 2 months

Performance N.A. 5-10 years 3-5 years (micro)

7-15 years (epoxy) 50 + years

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 64-28 was selected. This binder grade is used by the Colorado Department of

Transportation (CDOT) and appears to be 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 is recommended. It is also recommended that a fog seal be applied to the final surfacing.

Drainage and Subexcavation

During the field review, minor areas of pavement distress were present. While the project utilizes a reclamation approach, a subexcavation quantity should be included for each of the routes in the event that areas in need of repair are encountered.

Materials for Culvert Pipe / Cement pH results obtained on the samples tested show a range of 7.9 to 9.3, with resistivity results ranging from 540 to 4,440. Currently, there are no culverts scheduled to be replaced under this project. However, if culvert pipe is needed, based on the testing information above and in the Appendix, the material classifies as a corrosion level 3. In this class, consideration should be given to the use of plastic, concrete or aluminized or polymer coated pipe materials. Additionally, Type I or Type I-II cement is recommended for concrete structures and features.

SCRs and Construction Concerns

CFLHD standard SCR’s related to pavements & materials are expected to be used. Any additional SCR’s may be developed as needed.

Bid Items- Suggested FP-14 pay items for the proposed structural section are shown in

Table 7 below.

Table 7: Recommended Pay Items

Item

Number Item Description Unit Remarks.

30202-2000 Roadway Aggregate, Method 2 Ton

30401-5300 Full Depth Reclamation, Method 2, 6-Inch Depth Mile

40101-5600

Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Gyratory

Mix, 1/2-Inch Or 3/4-Inch Nominal

Maximum Size Aggregate, 0.3 To <3

Million ESAL

Ton

40105-3000 Antistrip Additive, Type 3 Ton

40199-0002 Incentive, Roughness LPSM

401 Incentive, Materials LPSM

40601-0000 Fog Seal Ton

40605-0000 Blotter Ton

41102-1000 Prime Coat, Method 1 sqyd

41105-0000 Blotter Ton

41201-0000 Tack Coat Ton

APPENDICES

A – Location Map

B – Laboratory Reports and Boring Log

C – Photographs

D – DARWin Pavement Design

E – PG LTPPBind Software

F – Weather Data Information

G – Culvert Pipe Selection Criteria

H - Tunnel Photos

I – Core Data

J – Distress Sketch

APPENDIX A – Location Map

+00

80+

100+

120+00

0+

0+

210+00

0+

170+ 00140+00

0+

Waterfall

+00

1010+00

E 2111025.803

N 1453339.106

Station 225+66.63

End Project Route 10

CO FTNP COLM 10(3)

E 2103130.465

N 1450437.070

Station 1038+30.19

End Project Route 11

CO FTNP COLM 10(3)

E 2102398.723

N 1447415.008

Station 1000+00.00

Begin Project Route 11

CO FTNP COLM 10(3)

NO SCALE

60+

70+00

O ld G o rd o n T ra il

West Entrance

Visitor Center

4 mi

To Grand Junction

Serpents Trail

E c h o C a n y o n T r a il

Park Boundary

Rim Rock Drive

Park Road

East Glade

To Park Headquarters

C o lu m b u s C a n y o n

Devils Kitchen Picnic Area

Entrance

Junction)

East (Grand

E 2102821.665

N 1450276.088

Station 20+00.00

Begin Project Route 10

CO FTNP COLM 10(3)

Tunnel 3

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4 B-6

B-5 B-7

B-8

B-9

B-10

B-11

B-12

B-13

B-14

B-15

B-16

B-17

B-18

BORING LOCATIONS

STATE PROJECT

A

M N C

O c o lm

P a v e m e n ts I n v e s ti g a ti o n A n a ly s is D e s ig n a

P r o c u r e m e n t\

S T

E

C O

L M .d g n

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

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

NUMBER

SHEET

CO

RIM ROCK DRIVE

CO FTNP COLM 10(3)

APPENDIX B – Laboratory Reports and Boring Log

Project:

Sample Number

Station or Location

Offset Date

Sampled Depth of Bore

Container Type

0" ‐ 3'1/4"

3‐1/4"‐6‐1/4"

6'‐1/4"‐1'‐6"

6‐1/4" ‐ 2'‐6"

0" ‐ 3‐1/4"

3‐1/4"‐8‐1/4"

8‐1/4" ‐ 5'‐0"

0"‐4"

4"‐8"

8"‐2'‐0"

2'‐0" ‐ 2'‐6"

0"‐3"

3"‐1'‐1"

1'‐1" ‐ 5'‐0"

0" ‐ 2‐3/4"

2.75" ‐ 8"

8" ‐2'‐6"

0" ‐ 6"

6"‐1'‐8"

2'‐6" Not

Sampled

HACP

Weathered sandstone, light brown/orange. Semi‐tough drilling.

Ground from 2.5‐5'.

FDR Base

Fine, moist brown silty sand.

FDR Base

Red sandstone, worn, semi‐moist.

5'‐0"11/30/155'‐6" RTM.P. 0.30B‐2,S‐2

Hard sandstone, refusal.

FDR Base

Gray sandy silt. Fine, dry easy drilling.

FDR Base

B‐5 M.P.1.00 11/30/156'‐0" RT

Dark brown gritty sand, 2" minus. Similar to B‐5. Tough drilling 2.5'‐3.5'.

1'‐8" ‐ 3'‐6"

B‐6 M.P. 1.30 7'‐0" RT 11/30/15 3'‐6"

Not

Sampled

Investigation Sampling & Request for Laboratory Tests

B‐4,S‐3 M.P. 0.70 6'‐0" RT 11/30/15 5'‐0"

5‐Gallon Bucket

M.P. 0.40B‐3 8'‐0" RT 11/30/15 2'‐6"

Not

Sampled

HACP

5‐Gallon Bucket

12,3,4,16,17

Comments

FDR Base

Cobbles, granite, refusal @ 2.5'

HACP

12,3,4,16,17

HACP

FDR Base

Dark brown gritty sand, 2" minus, tough drilling.

HACP

CO FTNP COLM 10(3) Rim Rock Road 1516082101003 510.PE.G31E.08 1608000000Account Number:

Submitted By: Date Submitted: 10‐Dec‐15Sampled By:Jeff Felling Felling/Voth

Boring Observations

12,3,4,16,1711/30/15PulloffM.P. 0.05B‐1, S‐1 2'‐6" 5‐Gallon Bucket

Testing Requested

HACP

Number

Station or Location

Offset Date

Sampled Depth of Bore

Container Type

0"‐4.75"

4.75"‐1'‐2"

1'‐2" ‐ 3'‐6"

3'‐6" ‐5'‐0"

0"‐3"

3"‐8"

8" ‐ 4'‐6"

0"‐7"

7"‐1'‐1"

1'‐1" ‐ 5'‐0"

0"‐3.5"

3.5"‐7.5"

7.5"‐3'‐6"

3'‐6"‐4'‐6"

0"‐4"

4"‐9"

9"‐5'‐0"

Investigation Sampling & Request for Laboratory Tests

B‐7, S‐4 M.P. 1.50 6'‐0" RT

Submitted By: Jeff Felling Sampled By:

11/30/15 5'‐0" 5‐Gallon Bucket

CO FTNP COLM 10(3) Rim Rock Road Account Number: 1516082101003 510.PE.G31E.08 1608000000

CommentsFelling/Voth Date Submitted: 10‐Dec‐15

Boring Observations

7'‐6" RT

HACP

B‐11

M.P. 2.30 Mid‐lane. 12/1/15 4'‐6"

B‐12 M.P. 2.50 5'‐0" RT 12/1/15 5'‐0"

Not

Sampled FDR Base

Yellow sand, ground down sandstone.

5‐Gallon Bucket

12,3,4,16,17

B‐8 M.P. 1.60 5'‐6" RT

Light orange/red sand, coarse, gritty, similar to previous. From 3.5‐4.5 ground through stone.

12/1/15 4'‐6" Not

Sampled

B‐9

B‐10, S‐5

M.P. 1.90 12/1/15 5'‐0" Not

Sampled

HACP

FDR Base

Light orange coarse sandy silt, similar to previous. Easiest hole to drill, turned to dark orange fine sand.

Skipped

HACP

HACP

12,3,4,16,17 FDR Base

Red/pink finer sand, tough drilling.

Orange/red gravely, sandy silt. Dry, Tough drilling.

Testing Requested

FDR Base

Dark brown sand, moist refusal.

HACP

FDR Base light brown gravely sand.

Number

Station or Location

Offset Date

Sampled Depth of Bore

Container Type

0"‐3.25"

3.25"‐8.25"

8.26"‐2'‐0"

2'‐0" ‐ 4'‐6"

0"‐2.75"

2.5"‐9"

9"‐4'‐0"

4'‐0" ‐ 5'‐0"

0"‐3.25"

3.25"‐8.25"

8.25"‐2'‐0"

2'‐0"‐5'‐0"

0"‐4"

4"‐7"

7"‐1'‐0"

1'‐0"‐5'‐0"

0"‐4.5"

4.5"‐8"

8"‐5'‐0"

0"‐6.5"

6.5"‐1'‐6"

1'‐6"

Investigation Sampling & Request for Laboratory Tests CO FTNP COLM 10(3) Rim Rock Road Account Number: 1516082101003 510.PE.G31E.08 1608000000

CommentsSubmitted By: Jeff Felling Sampled By: Felling/Voth Date Submitted: 10‐Dec‐15

Boring Observations Testing Requested

B‐13 M.P. 2.90 5'‐0" LT 4'‐6"

Not

Sampled

HACP

FDR Base yellow/gray sand, dry similar. Refusal.

Red sand, moist.

B‐14 M.P. 3.10 6'‐6" LT 5'‐0"

Not

Sampled

HACP

Dry pink sand, encountered tough drilling from 2' to 5'.

FDR Base mostly red gravely sand, similar to B‐1.

B‐15, S‐6 M.P. 3.40 7'‐0" RT 12/1/2015 5'‐0"

5‐Gallon Bucket

HACP

12,3,4,16,17 FDR Base

Light yellow sand easy drilling to 4'. Hard from 4‐5'.

thin layer of red sand, similar.

DS Road intersection 6'‐6" RT 5'‐0"

Not Sampled

HACP

Base/may be FDR layer light brown/red sand. Easy drilling.

Red sand, similar to others.

Base layer B‐18

DS Road M.P.

0.60

Mid‐lane 1'‐6" Not

Sampled

HACP

Turned to light grey layer, gravel, hard drilling hit rock @ 1'‐6".

B‐17, S‐7 DS Road, M.P.0.30

7'‐0" RT 12/1/2015 5'‐0"

5‐Gallon Bucket

HACP

12,3,4,16,17 Base/may be FDR layer

Red sand, similar to others.

B‐16

APPENDIX C – Photographs

Typical Roadway Cross Section – Boring 10

Typical Roadway Cross Section – Boring 3

Typical Roadway – Boring 12

Typical Roadway Cross Section – Boring 13

Typical Drilling Operations

Typical Patching Operations

Subgrade Material – Boring 2

Subgrade Material – Boring 9

Subgrade Material – Boring 13

Subgrade Material – Boring 17

APPENDIX D – Pavement Design Calculations

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare Computer Software Product

Flexible Structural Design Module

Rim Rock Drive

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 844,676 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 75 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 23,700 psi Stage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 1.97 in

Rigorous ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 20 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 1,358 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 23,463 6 8 1 1 0 521,405 9 2 1 2.3 0 299,808

Total 100 - - - 844,676

Growth Simple

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 844,676

Specified Layer Design

Layer

Material Description

Struct Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Thickness (Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in)

1 HACP 0.42 1 3 - 1.26

2 FDR 0.12 1 6 - 0.72

Total - - - 9.00 - 1.98

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare Computer Software Product

Flexible Structural Design Module

DS Road

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 568,679 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 75 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 9,500 psi Stage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 2.63 in

Rigorous ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 20 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 1,025 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 17,710 6 8 1 0.9 0 354,195 9 2 1 2 0 196,775

Total 100 - - - 568,679

Growth Simple

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 568,679

Specified Layer Design

Layer

Material Description

Struct Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Thickness (Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in)

1 HACP 0.42 1 4 - 1.68

2 FDR 0.12 1 8 - 0.96

Total - - - 12.00 - 2.64

APPENDIX E – PG LTTPBIND Software

BindReport-5Closest.txt

Five Closest Weather Stations For Latitude/Longitude= 39.093/108.722 Report Date: 6/15/2016 (LTPPBind V3.0 Alpha)

Three Closest WS Report Title

General A=1 km B=9 km C=14 km D=23 km E=31 km Station ID CO1772 CO3146 CO3488 CO3489

CO6266

County/District mesa mesa mesa mesa mesa Weather Station colorado natl m fruita 1 w grand junction grand junction palisade Elevation, m 1637 1269 1371 1348 Latitude, Longitude 39.1 ,108.73 39.17 ,108.75 39.1 ,108.55 39.05 ,108.45 39.12 ,108.35 Last Year Data Available 1997 1997 1997 1997

Air Temperature Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) High Temperature 35.9 (13,34) 36.4 (10,33) 36.9 (13,35) 36.2 (13,34) 37.6 (15,32) Low Temperature -17.7 (39,35) -23 (60,34) -19.7 (49,35) -18.6 (46,34) -17.1 (47,32) Low Temperature Drop 22.5 (27,35) 28 (23,34) 22.4 (22,35) 24.8 (23,34) 24.7 (24,32) Degree-Days > 10C 3210 (230,34) 3379 (190,33) 3372 (168,35) 3284 (192,34) 3483 (248,32)

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

=50% Rel. PG Temp. 58.2 -11.7 59.5 -15.5 59.5 -13.1 58.8 -12.3

60.3 -11.2 >50% Rel. PG 64 -16 (50,50) 64 -16 (50,50) 64 -16 (50,50) 64 -16 (50,50) 64 -16 (50,50) 64-16 (98,89) 64-16 (98,54) 64-16 (98,76) 64-16 (98,83) 64-16 (98,88) 64-22 (98,98) 64-22 (98,91) 64-22 (98,98) 64-22 (98,98) 64-22 (98,98) 64-28 (98,98)

APPENDIX F – Weather Data Information

APPENDIX G – 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 H – Tunnel Photos

Tunnel 1 Lower portal

Tunnel 1 interior

Tunnel 1 Core Hole

Tunnel 1 Core

Tunnel 2 Upstation Portal

Tunnel 2 Interior

Tunnel 2 Core Hole

Tunnel 2 Core

Tunnel 3 Upstation Portal

Tunnel 3 Interior

Tunnel 3 Core Hole

Tunnel 3 Core

APPENDIX I – Core Data

APPENDIX J – Distress Data