Pavement Report.pdf

PAVEMENT REPORT NUMBER FY08-10

FHWA Project FWS-NXB 10(1)

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge Oktibbeha, Noxubee, Winston Counties, Mississippi

Pavement Rehabilitation of Louisville and Bluff Lake Roads; and Pavement

Reconditioning of River, Douglas Bluff, Section Line, Dummy Line and Keaton Tower Roads

March 2008

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

FWS-NXB 10(1) Pavement Report No. FY08-10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE-AND-NEED

1.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

2 PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

2.1 PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY

2.2 SOIL BORING AND PAVEMENT CORING

2.3 SAMPLING

2.4 FIELD TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS

2.5 DATA SUMMARY

2.6 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION

2.7 FINDINGS

2.7.1 Pavement Condition

2.7.2 Subsurface Condition

3 ANALYSIS

4 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 EARTHWORK

4.2 ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACED ROADS

4.3 GRAVEL ROADS

5 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Project Maps Appendix B - Boring Location Map and Boring Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results Appendix D - Pavement Design Analysis and Project Traffic Data Appendix E - Limits of Reconstruction Appendix F - FWD Data Back-Calculation Summary Appendix G - Pavement Core Sample Summary & Photos

Note: Design changes, made subsequent to distribution of this report and prior to project advertisement, will be documented by a memo inserted after the title page

PAVEMENT REPORT NUMBER FY08-10

FHWA Project FWS-NXB 10(1)

Oktibbeha, Noxubee, Winston Counties, Mississippi

Pavement Rehabilitation of Louisville and Bluff Lake Roads and Pavement

Reconditioning of River, Douglas Bluff, Section Line, Dummy Line and Keaton Tower Roads

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report presents the results of the pavement and subsurface investigations, analysis, design, and recommendations for two paved roads and five unpaved roads located in Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in Oktibbeha, Noxubee, and Winston Counties, Mississippi. A Project Location Map is presented in Appendix A.

1.2 Project Description

Project FWS-MIS 10(2) consists of the rehabilitating two paved roads and re-establishing five unpaved (gravel) roads within the refuge that provide access; and the following project information is obtained from the Design Scoping Report (DSR), dated January 2007.

River Road is currently a gravel road that is used by refuge personnel and hunters. It floods approximately six to twelve times a year. During the flooding, aggregate is washed away and results in the road becoming impassable to vehicles. Douglas Bluff Road is a gravel road that is used mainly by refuge personnel for environmental education. Keaton Tower Road, Section Line Road and Dummy Line Road are gravel roads used mainly by refuge personnel and hunters. Bluff Lake Road and Louisville Road are paved roads used for entering and exiting the refuge. These paved roads are used by the public, refuge personnel, and logging trucks.

1.3 Project Purpose-and-Need

According to Highway Design and Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), the Purpose and Need for this project is to provide a structurally and functionally adequate paved structure for Louisville and Bluff Lake Roads and an adequate aggregate surfaced pavement structure on five unpaved roads described in previous section.

1.4 Regional Geology

The site lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Region, which consists of low, hilly to nearly flat terraced plains on soft sediments. More specifically, the project site is underlain by the Porters Creek Formation which consists of dark gray clay. Also, some areas in the project is underlain by the Prairie Bluff Chalk and Owl Creek Formation which consist of compact brittle chalk, sandy calcareous clay. A Geologic Map of the project vicinity is presented in Appendix A.

2 PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

2.1 Pavement Condition Survey

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Pavement Section conducted a pavement condition survey in October 2007. Identified pavement distresses and their severity levels were recorded in accordance with “The Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Project, 1993” by the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP). Based on the conducted pavement condition survey, the limits of highly distressed areas are presented in Appendix E.

2.2 Soil Boring and Pavement Coring

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Subsurface Exploration Team drilled a total of 10 borings on unpaved roads on October 22, 2007. All borings were advanced using a flight auger on a CME 750 rotary drill rig. Borings were advanced to a depth of 5 feet. Borings were conducted at the locations indicated in Boring Location Map. A Boring Location Map and Boring Logs are presented in Appendix B. In addition to soil boring, 34 pavement samplings were performed on Louisville Road and Bluff Lake Road to supplement the non-destructive pavement testing described in subsequent sections.

2.3 Sampling

Sampling of materials beneath the tip of the flight augers was performed in all 10 borings as they were advanced. Continuous sampling was typically conducted in these borings.

Represented soil boring samples were recovered with a 2 ¼ inches outside diameter split-barrel sampler in accordance with AASHTO T200-87. Representative portions of split-barrels were preserved in glass jars for laboratory testing. The sampling sequence for soil borings are summarized on the Boring Logs presented in Appendix B.

2.4 Field Tests and Measurements

The EFLHD Pavement Section personnel performed the following field tests and took measurements during the course of the structural evaluation of the existing pavement and the subsurface exploration.

Non-destructive pavement testing using a falling weight deflectometer (FWD) was performed on Louisville Road and Bluff Lake Road at approximately 1,000 feet intervals on October 17, 2007. Deflection responses of the existing pavement were recorded with 7 different sensors spaced 0, 8, 12, 18, 24, 36 and 48 inches from 12-inch diameter load plate in response to three 9-kip loading sequences at each test location. At each test location, asphalt concrete (AC) pavement surface temperature was measured.

Boring locations were determined from features present on-site, referencing the existing roadway centerlines and survey markers. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed and resistance was recorded during the recovery of each split barrel sample in accordance with AASHTO T206-87. The sampler was driven into the soil using an automatic hammer.

Sample recovery measurements were made and recorded for each sampling attempt. A field description by color and texture was made for each recovered sample.

2.5 Data Summary

Measured FWD data was collected through Dynatest data acquisition computer files then the collected raw data were transferred to the MODTAG FWD Analysis Program (Version 4.0) for back-calculation. The measured data only represent deflection response at selected locations, thus deflection discrepancies/variations are expected between test locations due to changes in layer thickness, material properties, moisture and temperature conditions, subgrade support, and contact pressure under the load plate. More importantly, the measured data represents pavement response only during October 2007; therefore, deflection variations are expected due to seasonal and climatic variations at the project site.

The results of field tests and measurements of all borings were recorded on the drillers’ logs and appropriate data sheets in the field. These data sheets and logs contain information concerning the boring methods; samples attempted and recovered; indications of the presence of various materials. They also contain interpretations by the subsurface exploration team leader of the conditions based on the performance of the equipment and cuttings brought to the surface by the drilling tools. Therefore, the field data represents both factual and interpretative information. The Boring Logs in Appendix B of this report represent a compilation of field and laboratory data and description of the soil samples by a pavement engineer. These records occasionally do not include all data recorded on drillers’ logs and field data sheets, but do include all information considered relevant to the design and construction of this report. Water was not encountered during or after drilling in all borings.

Fluctuations in the ground water level due to seasonal and climatic effects should be expected.

2.6 Laboratory Investigation

At the conclusion of the fieldwork, laboratory testing was conducted on 9 soil samples from the borings. Laboratory tests on the samples included gradation (AASHTO T-27), Atterburg limits (AASHTO T-89, T-90), moisture content (AASHTO T-265), and classification (AASHTO T-317). Laboratory test results are represented in Appendix C and summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 - Results of Laboratory Testing

Boring

Sample

Sample Depth

(ft)

%-200

LL(1)

PI(2)

Classification

Moisture Content

DB-1 J-1 1-3 42.8 17 N/P A-4(0) 13.6

DL-1 J-1 1-3 47.4 26 13 A-6(3) 16.9

DL-2 J-1 1-3 59.8 27 10 A-4(3) 25.6

DL-3 J-2 3-5 46.9 28 12 A-6(2) 20.2

R-1 J-1 1-3 58.7 32 13 A-6(5) 17.0 R-2 J-2 3-5 45.6 23 N/P A-4(0) 21.9

SL-1 J-1 1-3 38.6 22 N/P A-4(0) 18.4

SL-2 J-2 3-5 58.3 33 15 A-6(6) 24.1

SL-3 J-1 1-3 40.6 19 N/P A-4(0) 19.5

Note that (1) N/D denotes “Not Determined” and (2) N/P denotes “Non-Plastic” in Table 1 above.

2.7 Findings

The findings at the project site are summarized below. Refer to the boring logs in Appendix B and the laboratory data in Appendix C for more detailed information. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings at the time of drilling. Fluctuations in the water level due to seasonal and climatic effects should be expected.

2.7.1 Pavement Condition

The most prevalent pavement distress on Louisville and Bluff Lake Road was raveling due to oxidation. In addition, lack of pavement thickness caused many areas to exhibit high severity fatigue cracking and rutting on wheel paths. Based on the performed pavement cores, the pavement thickness of the recently constructed section (Louisville Road from Sta. 1328+50 to Sta. 1541+00) ranged from 1 ½ to 3 ½ inches with an average of 2 ½-inch thick, and the rest of Louisville Road and Bluff Lake Road ranged from ½ to 2 ½ inches with an average of 1 ¼ inch. Thus, the existing pavement structure appears to be inadequate to support the current traffic loads due to logging and maintenance trucks and school buses.

2.7.2 Subsurface Condition

Two borings (Borings DB-1 and DB-2) were performed on Douglas Bluff Road, and both borings encountered approximately 2 inches of gravel surface course at the ground surface.

Grayish brown sand and silt (A-4) was encountered in Borings DB-1 and DB-2 below the gravel surface course. Based on laboratory testing of this sand and silt material, natural water content (WC) was on the order of 13.6%; and liquid limit (LL) was on the order of 17%.

Three borings (Borings DL-1 through DL-3) were performed on Dummy Line Road, and all three borings encountered approximately 3 inches of gravel surface course at the ground surface. Grayish brown clay and sand (A-6) was encountered in all three borings below the gravel surface course. Based on laboratory testing of this clay and sand material, WC ranged from 16.9% to 25.6% with an average of 21%; LL ranged from 13 to 17 with an average of 15%; and plasticity index (PI) ranged from 10% to 13% with an average of 12%.

Two borings (Borings R-1 and R-2) were performed on River Road, and both borings encountered gravel surface course thickness that ranged from 6 to 8 inches (with an average of 7 inches) at the ground surface. Grayish brown clay and silt with a minor quantity of sand (A-4 and A-6) was encountered in both borings below the gravel surface course. Based on laboratory testing of this clay and silt material, WC ranged from 17% to 21.9% with an average of 19%; LL ranged from 23 to 32 with an average of 28%; and PI was on the order of 13%.

Three borings (Borings SL-1 through SL-3) were performed on Section Line Road, and all three borings encountered gravel surface course thickness that ranged from 5 to 6 inches (with an average of 5 inches) at the ground surface. Gray clay and silt with a minor quantity of sand (A-4 and A-6) was encountered in all three borings below the gravel surface course.

Based on laboratory testing of this clay and sand material, WC ranged from 18.4% to 24.1% with an average of 21%; LL ranged from 19% to 33% with an average of 26%; and PI was on the order of 15%.

3 ANALYSIS

Gravel road design analyses were performed in accordance with 2000 FHWA Gravel Roads Maintenance and Design Manual procedure. The gravel road design analysis and overlay design analysis were for an 8-year and a 10-year performance period for all gravel roads in the project limits. The results of all design analyses are presented in Appendix D.

Flexible pavement overlay design analyses and pavement design analyses were conducted for Louisville Road and Bluff Lake Road using the DARWin Pavement Design System computer program (Version 3.01) and in accordance with the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 1993. The future structure number (SN) for a performance period of 20 years was determined based on a traffic data provided by Highway Design. The 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) for the site was determined using the Rigorous ESAL Calculation in DARWin and was based on traffic count and vehicle classification data provided by Project Development. An initial Average Daily Traffic (ADT) value of 100 was used with an annual growth rate of 2 percent. Other parameters specified in the analysis included a reliability of 75 percent, an overall standard deviation of 0.49, an initial serviceability index of 4.2 and a terminal serviceability index of 2.0. The results of all design analyses are presented in Appendix D.

4 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following pavement recommendations are based on the existing conditions at the time of the field investigation in October 2007. The recommendations included here reference the FP-03, “Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects” (FP-03 Specifications).

4.1 Earthwork

Construction Season: Performing all work during a dry season (April through October for this project) is recommended.

Soil Cover for Buried Structures: All proposed pipes and other proposed buried structures should have a minimum soil cover of 12 inches.

Ditch Reconditioning: Prior to placing the proposed gravel surface or subgrade preparation, roadside ditches should be re-established, where necessary, to control surface runoff during and after construction. Well-functioned ditches would enhance the drying process of the subgrade and the existing gravel surface and would enhance the long-term performance of the roadway.

Subgrade Preparation: Sod, topsoil and vegetative materials on the existing road and all cut areas should be scalped and disposed prior to subgrade preparation. When isolated wet areas are encountered at the proposed subgrade for road, shoulder and side slope areas should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches below the subgrade as per Subsection 204.09(a) of the FP-03 Specifications and should be re-compacted per Subsection 204.11(a) of the FP-03 Specifications. If unsuitable subgrade materials or muck are encountered in isolated areas within roadway, shoulders and side slopes, a minimum of 12-inch sub-excavation of unsuitable materials is recommended. Sub-excavated areas should be supported with Type I- B Geotextile, then backfilled and compacted with the suitable material. Import material should be in accordance with Subsection 704.06 of the FP-03 Specifications.

Aggregate Base Course: Immediately after subgrade preparation and/or embankment construction, aggregate base course should be placed and compacted to at least 95% of maximum density in accordance with the Section 301 of the FP-03 Specifications. The gradation and material should be Base Aggregate, Grading C or D as per Section 703.05(b) of the FP-03 Specifications.

4.2 Asphalt Concrete Surfaced Roads

Based on the visual pavement condition inspection, pavement core sampling and non-destructive pavement evaluation, Bluff Lake Road from Sta. 953+00 to Sta. 1001+00 and other highly distressed areas listed in Appendix E should be reconstructed per Table 2 below.

The limits of reconstruction should be verified by Construction personnel in the field and may be adjusted, if needed, accordingly.

Table 2 – Minimum Spot Reconstruction Pavement Section

Layer Minimum Thickness

(in) Comments

AC

Surface Course

1 ½

Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Class B, Grading E as per Section 402 and Subsection 703.07 of the FP-03 Specifications

Asphalt Tack Coat --- Asphalt Tack Coat as per Section 412 of the FP-03 Specifications

AC Base Course 2 ½

Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Class B, Grading C as per Section 402 and Subsection 703.07 of the FP-03 Specifications

Aggregate Base Course

Base Aggregate, Grading C or D, as per Subsection 703.05(b) of the FP-03 Specifications

Louisville Road from Sta. 1328+50 to Sta. 1541+00 (recently constructed section) should be overlaid with a minimum of 2-inch thick AC pavement as specified in Table 3. This recently constructed section was determined to be inadequate to support the future truck traffic, and this section had a rough ride quality at the time of the field investigation.

Table 3 – Minimum Overlay Pavement Section for Recently Constructed Area (Louisville Road from Sta. 1328+50 to Sta. 1541+00)

Layer Minimum Thickness

(in) Comments

AC

Surface Course

Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Class B, Grading E as per Section 402 and Subsection 703.07 of the FP-03 Specifications

Asphalt Tack Coat --- Asphalt Tack Coat as per Section 412 of the FP-03 Specifications

The rest of Bluff Lake Road and Louisville Road (except recently constructed section) should be overlaid with a 3 ½-inch thick asphalt-concrete pavement described in Table 4.

Table 4 – Minimum Overlay Pavement Section for Louisville Road and Bluff Lake

Road

Layer Minimum Thickness

(in) Comments

AC

Surface Course

1 ½

Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Class B, Grading E as per Section 402 and Subsection 703.07 of the FP-03 Specifications

Asphalt Tack Coat --- Asphalt Tack Coat as per Section 412 of the FP-03 Specifications

AC Base Course 2

Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Class B, Grading C as per Section 402 and Subsection 703.07 of the FP-03 Specifications

Asphalt Tack Coat --- Asphalt Tack Coat as per Section 412 of the FP-03 Specifications

4.3 Gravel Roads

Above the existing grade, a 6-inch thick gravel surface (Base Aggregate, Grading C or D) would yield an 8-year performance period, and an 8-inch thick surface would yield 10-year performance period for all gravel roads within the project limits (River, Douglas Bluff, Section Line, Dummy Line and Keaton Tower Roads). These performance periods are based on an assumption that a regular maintenance work (e.g. periodic grading, soft area repairing and/or road ditch re-establishment) would be performed after this project. All cross-slope for the proposed gravel roads should be 4%.

A 5/8-inch, Type 2B, Double Chip Seal (Section 409 of the FP-03 Specifications) should be applied on top of the proposed aggregate surface at River Road to minimize erosion due to frequent flooding.

5 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and tests described in the section on Procedures and Results have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these explorations and tests represent conditions at the specific locations indicated. Subsurface and conditions between these locations may vary.

The Analysis and Conclusions section and the Recommendations section in this report include interpretations and recommendations developed by the Government in the process of preparing the design. These interpretations are not intended as a substitute for the personal investigation, independent interpretation, and judgment of the Contractor.

Prepared by:

Christopher Chang Pavement Engineer

APPENDIX A – Project Location Map and Geological Map

...\Plans\Location Map.dgn 2/13/2008 2:49:30 PM

REG STATE

SHEET

NO.

TOTAL

SHEETS

SE MS 1 1

PORTERS CREEK FORMATION DEMOPOLIS FORMATION

PRAIRIE BLUFF CHALK and OWL CREEK FORMATION

RIPLEY FORMATION

PROJECT

FWS-NXB 10(1)

FIGURE 2

PAVEMENT REPORT: FY08-10

Gray to greenish-gray fine glauconitic sand, clay, and sandy limestone; south of Oktibbeha County is very sandy micaceous chalk; Krm McNairy sand member, red and white cross-bedded micaceous sand and white sandy clay

Chalk and marly chalk containing fewer impurities than underlying and overlying formations

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Dark-gray clay, north of Clay County contains slightly glauconitic, micaceous sand lenses.

Priarie Bluff chalk, compact brittle chalk, sandy chalk and calcareous clay; at base contains many phosphatic molds of fossils;

in Pontotoc and Unoin Counties merges northward into Owl Creek

GEOLOGIC MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

FWS-NXB 10(1)

Project Vicinity

M:\Projects\refuge\ms\nxb10(1)\techserv\pavement\Plans\Figure 2_Geologic Map

APPENDIX B – Boring Logs

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge Boring Location:

Ty peDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Vane Shear

Boring No.:

Weather:

FWS-NXB 10(1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

N X

B

0( 1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/6 /0

SAMPLE

Inspector:

DB-01

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Operator:

1.6

2" GRAVEL SURFACE

1-2-3-3

2-2-2-2

End of Borehole @ Depth 5'

1.6

5.0

0.2

J-2

J-1

Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

Medium, Grayish brown SAND AND SILT [A-4(0)]

- moist

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)D ep th S ca le

(f t)

N o.

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Kingsly/Hutchins

Water Content %

After

R ec

E le va tio n (fe et

Light Rain

- No water was encountered during or after drilling.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sheet: 1 of 1

Douglas Bluff @ Sta. 1829+00

Plastic Limit

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

Project Location:

Project Name:

Chang

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

B lo w s pe r in hrs

Caved at:

10/22/07

HSA

10/22/07Boring Began:Surface Elevation:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Hammer Drop: 30 in.

BORING LOG

8.0 in.140 lbs/Auto

806020

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

Ty peDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Vane Shear

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge

FWS-NXB 10(1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

N X

B

0( 1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/6 /0

R ec

Operator:

Weather:

DB-02

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Inspector:

1.5

Medium, Gray to brown SILT, some Sand

- moist

2" GRAVEL SURFACE

4-3-2-3

2-3-4-3

1.5

5.0

0.2

J-2

J-1

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

End of Borehole @ Depth 5'

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)

Water Content %

Light Rain

N o.

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Encountered at:

After

SAMPLE

Project Name:

- No water was encountered during or after drilling.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sheet: 1 of 1

Douglas Bluff @ Sta. 1880+00

Plastic Limit

Sample Types:

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Location:

Kingsly/Hutchins

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

B lo w s pe r in hrs Hammer Drop:

Chang 10/22/07

HSA

10/22/07Boring Began:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

30 in.

Surface Elevation:

140 lbs/Auto 8.0 in.

BORING LOG

Caved at:

peDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Vane Shear

FWS-NXB 10(1)

Boring Location:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

N X

B

0( 1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/6 /0

R ec

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:Rock Core Diam:

DL-01

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1.4 3-2-3-3

4-5-6-4

4" GRAVEL SURFACE

Stiff to medium, Dark Brown CLAYEY SAND [A-6(3)]

- moist

1.8

5.0

0.3

J-2

J-1

Groundwater Depth:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

SAMPLE

(Blows / ft)

End of Borehole @ Depth 5'

N o.

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Kingsly/Hutchins

Water Content %

After

E le va tio n (fe et

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge

Light Rain

- No water was encountered during or after drilling.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sheet: 1 of 1

Dummy Line Road @ Sta. 792+00

Plastic Limit

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

Project Location:

Project Name:

Remarks:

Chang

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

B lo w s pe r in hrs

10/22/07

HSA

10/22/07Boring Began:Surface Elevation:

Hammer Drop:

Caved at:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

30 in.

BORING LOG

60 80

140 lbs/Auto 8.0 in.

peDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Vane Shear

FWS-NXB 10(1)

Boring Location:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

N X

B

0( 1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/6 /0

R ec

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:Rock Core Diam:

DL-02

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1.5 2-2-2-3

2-2-3-2

3" GRAVEL SURFACE

Medium, Light brown CLAY some Sand, trace Gravel [A-4(3)]

- moist

1.7

5.0

0.2

J-2

J-1

Groundwater Depth:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

SAMPLE

(Blows / ft)

End of Borehole @ Depth 5'

N o.

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Kingsly/Hutchins

Water Content %

After

E le va tio n (fe et

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge

Light Rain

- No water was encountered during or after drilling.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sheet: 1 of 1

Dummy Line Road @ Sta. 854+00

Plastic Limit

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

Project Location:

Project Name:

Remarks:

Chang

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

B lo w s pe r in hrs

10/22/07

HSA

10/22/07Boring Began:Surface Elevation:

Hammer Drop:

Caved at:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

30 in.

BORING LOG

60 80 peDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Vane Shear

FWS-NXB 10(1)

Boring Location:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

N X

B

0( 1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/6 /0

R ec

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:Rock Core Diam:

DL-03

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1.5 4-6-7-9

3-5-6-6

3" GRAVEL SURFACE

Stiff, Light gray SAND AND CLAY [A-6(2)]

- moist

1.8

5.0

0.2

J-2

J-1

Groundwater Depth:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

SAMPLE

(Blows / ft)

End of Borehole @ Depth 5'

N o.

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Kingsly/Hutchins

Water Content %

After

E le va tio n (fe et

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge

Light Rain

- No water was encountered during or after drilling.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sheet: 1 of 1

Dummy Line Road @ Sta. 903+00

Plastic Limit

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

Project Location:

Project Name:

Remarks:

Chang

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

B lo w s pe r in hrs

10/22/07

HSA

10/22/07Boring Began:Surface Elevation:

Hammer Drop:

Caved at:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

30 in.

BORING LOG

60 80 peDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Vane Shear

FWS-NXB 10(1)

Boring Location:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

N X

B

0( 1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/6 /0

R ec

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:Rock Core Diam:

R-01

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1.5 2-2-2-2

2-3-3-3

8" GRAVEL SURFACE

Medium, Brown CLAY AND SAND [A-6(5)]

- moist

1.1

5.0

0.7

J-2

J-1

Groundwater Depth:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

SAMPLE

(Blows / ft)

End of Borehole @ Depth 5'

N o.

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Kingsly/Hutchins

Water Content %

After

E le va tio n (fe et

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge

Light Rain

- No water was encountered during or after drilling.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sheet: 1 of 1

River Road @ Sta. 1948+00

Plastic Limit

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

Project Location:

Project Name:

Remarks:

Chang

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

B lo w s pe r in hrs

10/22/07

HSA

10/22/07Boring Began:Surface Elevation:

Hammer Drop:

Caved at:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

30 in.

BORING LOG

60 80 peDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Vane Shear

Boring No.:

Weather:

FWS-NXB 10(1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

N X

B

0( 1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/6 /0

SAMPLE

Inspector:

R-02

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Operator:

1.6

6" GRAVEL SURFACE

2-2-2-2

3-3-3-3

End of Borehole @ Depth 5'

1.4

5.0

0.5

J-2

J-1

Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

Medium, Grayish brown SILT AND SAND [A-4(0)]

- moist

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)D ep th S ca le

(f t)

N o.

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Kingsly/Hutchins

Water Content %

After

R ec

E le va tio n (fe et

Light Rain

- No water was encountered during or after drilling.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sheet: 1 of 1

River Road @ Sta. 1986+00

Plastic Limit

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

Project Location:

Project Name:

Chang

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

B lo w s pe r in hrs

Caved at:

10/22/07

HSA

10/22/07Boring Began:Surface Elevation:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Hammer Drop: 30 in.

BORING LOG

8.0 in.140 lbs/Auto peDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Vane Shear

Boring No.:

Weather:

FWS-NXB 10(1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

N X

B

0( 1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/6 /0

SAMPLE

Inspector:

SL-01

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Operator:

2.0

5" GRAVEL SURFACE

1-1-2-3

5-6-5-6

End of Borehole @ Depth 5'

2.0

5.0

0.4

J-2

J-1

Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

Medium dense to very loose, Gray SAND, some Silt [A-4(0)]

- moist

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)D ep th S ca le

(f t)

N o.

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Kingsly/Hutchins

Water Content %

After

R ec

E le va tio n (fe et

Light Rain

- No water was encountered during or after drilling.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sheet: 1 of 1

Section Line Road @ Sta. 608+00

Plastic Limit

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

Project Location:

Project Name:

Chang

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

B lo w s pe r in hrs

Caved at:

10/22/07

HSA

10/22/07Boring Began:Surface Elevation:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Hammer Drop: 30 in.

BORING LOG

8.0 in.140 lbs/Auto peDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Vane Shear

FWS-NXB 10(1)

Boring Location:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

N X

B

0( 1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/6 /0

R ec

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:Rock Core Diam:

SL-02

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

1.4 4-5-6-5

6-6-6-6

6" GRAVEL SURFACE

Stiff, Gray CLAY AND SAND [A-6(6)]

- moist

1.5

5.0

0.5

J-2

J-1

Groundwater Depth:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

SAMPLE

(Blows / ft)

End of Borehole @ Depth 5'

N o.

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Kingsly/Hutchins

Water Content %

After

E le va tio n (fe et

Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge

Light Rain

- No water was encountered during or after drilling.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sheet: 1 of 1

Section Line Road @ Sta. 520+00

Plastic Limit

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

Project Location:

Project Name:

Remarks:

Chang

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

B lo w s pe r in hrs

10/22/07

HSA

10/22/07Boring Began:Surface Elevation:

Hammer Drop:

Caved at:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

30 in.

BORING LOG

60 80 peDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Vane Shear

Boring No.:

Weather:

FWS-NXB 10(1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

N X

B

0( 1)

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/6 /0

SAMPLE

Inspector:

SL-03

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Operator:

0.8

5" GRAVEL SURFACE

4-6-5-5

6-7-7-10

End of Borehole @ Depth 5'

0.8

5.0

0.4

J-2

J-1

Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

Stiff, Dark Brown SILT AND SAND [A-4(0)]

- moist

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)D ep th S ca le

(f t)

N o.

Penetrometer Rock CoreSPT

Kingsly/Hutchins

Water Content %

After

R ec

E le va tio n (fe et

Light Rain

- No water was encountered during or after drilling.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Sheet: 1 of 1

Section Line Road @ Sta. 460+00

Plastic Limit

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

Project Location:

Project Name:

Chang

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

B lo w s pe r in hrs

Caved at:

10/22/07

HSA

10/22/07Boring Began:Surface Elevation:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Hammer Drop: 30 in.

BORING LOG

8.0 in.140 lbs/Auto

APPENDIX C – Laboratory Test Results

SOIL DATA

NO.

AASHTODESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 0.0 57.2 42.8

(ft.)

fws-nxb 10(1)

FHWA/EFLHD

Noxubee DB-1/J-1 1-3 Silty sand A-4(0)

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 52.6 47.4

Noxubee DL-1/J-1 1-3 Clayey sand A-6(3)

0.0 2.1 38.1 59.8

Noxubee DL-2/J-1 1-3 Sandy lean clay A-4(3)

0.0 0.0 53.1 46.9

Noxubee DL-3/J-2 3-5 Clayey sand A-6(2)

0.0 0.0 41.3 58.7

Noxubee R-1/J-1 1-3 Sandy lean clay A-6(5)

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

FWS-NXB 10(1)

FHWA/EFLHD

A-4(0)NP17NP13.61-3DB-1/J-1Noxubee

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-6(3)13261316.91-3DL-1/J-1Noxubee

A-4(3)10271725.61-3DL-2/J-1Noxubee

A-6(2)12281620.23-5DL-3/J-2Noxubee

A-6(5)13321917.01-3R-1/J-1Noxubee

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

PI

=L

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

A-6 or A-2-6

A-7-5 or A-2-7

NO.

AASHTODESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 0.0 54.4 45.6

(ft.)

fws-nxb 10(1)

FHWA/EFLHD

Noxubee R-2/J-2 3-5 Silty sand A-4(0)

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 61.4 38.6

Noxubee SL-1/J-1 1-3 Silty sand A-4(0)

0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3

Noxubee SL-2/J-2 3-5 Sandy lean clay A-6(6)

0.0 0.0 59.4 40.6

Noxubee SL-3/J-1 1-3 Silty sand A-4(0)

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

FWS-NXB 10(1)

FHWA/EFLHD

A-4(0)NP23NP21.93-5R-2/J-2Noxubee

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-4(0)NP22NP18.41-3SL-1/J-1Noxubee

A-6(6)15331824.13-5SL-2/J-2Noxubee

A-4(0)NP19NP19.51-3SL-3/J-1Noxubee

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

PI

=L

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

A-6 or A-2-6

A-7-5 or A-2-7

APPENDIX D – Pavement Design Analysis and Project Traffic Data

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare Computer Software Product

Overlay Design Module

Bluff Lake Road North Section C and West Section Segment B

AC Overlay of AC Pavement

Structural Number for Future Traffic 2.29 in

Design Method

Effective Existing Structural Number (in)

Overlay Structural Number (in)

Component Analysis - - Remaining Life - -

Non-Destructive Testing 0.88 1.41

Structural Number for Future Traffic

Future 18-kip ESALs Over Design Period 36,602 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2 Reliability Level 75 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Subgrade Resilient Modulus 4,000 psi

Calculated Structural Number for Future Traffic 2.29 in

Future Simple ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 20 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 100 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 60 % Percent Heavy Trucks (of ADT) FHWA Class 5 or Greater - % Average Initial Truck Factor (ESALs/truck) - Annual Truck Factor Growth Rate - % Annual Truck Volume Growth Rate - % Growth Simple

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs - *

*Note: This value is not represented by the inputs or an error occurred in calculation.

Future Rigorous ESAL Calculation

Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 100 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

1 96.5 2 0.0007 0 352 2 1 2 1.2 0 6,259 3 2.5 2 2.3 0 29,991

Total 100 - - - 36,602

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 36,602

Specified Layer Design

Material Description

Struct Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Thickness (Di)(in)

Width

Calculated

SN (in) 1 AC Overlay Surface Course 0.44 1 1.5 9 0.66 2 AC Overlay Base Course 0.44 1 2 9 0.88

Total - - - 3.50 - 1.54

Bluff Lake Road West Segment C

Structural Number (in)

Overlay Structural Number (in)

Component Analysis - -

Non-Destructive Testing 1.2 1.09

Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2 Reliability Level 75 %

Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 100 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 60 % Percent Heavy Trucks (of ADT) FHWA Class 5 or Greater - % Average Initial Truck Factor (ESALs/truck) - Annual Truck Factor Growth Rate - %

Growth

Average Initial Truck Factor

(ESALs/ Truck)

Annual % Growth in

Truck Factor

Accumulated 18-kip ESALs over Performance Period

1 96.5 2 0.0007 0 352 2 1 2 1.2 0 6,259

Coef.

(Ai)

Drain

1 AC Overlay Surface Course 0.44 1 1.5 9 0.66

Bluff Lake Road West Segment D

Structural Number (in)

Overlay Structural Number (in)

Component Analysis - -

Non-Destructive Testing 0.82 1.47

Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2 Reliability Level 75 %

Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 100 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 60 % Percent Heavy Trucks (of ADT) FHWA Class 5 or Greater - % Average Initial Truck Factor (ESALs/truck) - Annual Truck Factor Growth Rate - %

Growth

Average Initial Truck Factor

(ESALs/ Truck)

Annual % Growth in

Truck Factor

Accumulated 18-kip ESALs over Performance Period

1 96.5 2 0.0007 0 352 2 1 2 1.2 0 6,259

Coef.

(Ai)

Drain

1 AC Overlay Surface Course 0.44 1 1.5 9 0.66

Flexible Structural Design Module

Bluff Lake North Segment B Reconstruction and Spot Reconstruction

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 47,675 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2 Reliability Level 75 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 4,000 psi Stage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 2.39 in

Simple ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 25 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 100 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 60 % Percent Heavy Trucks (of ADT) FHWA Class 5 or Greater - % Average Initial Truck Factor (ESALs/truck) - Annual Truck Factor Growth Rate - %

Rigorous ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 25 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 100 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1

Growth

Average Initial Truck Factor

(ESALs/ Truck)

Annual % Growth in

Truck Factor

Accumulated 18-kip ESALs over Performance Period

1 96.5 2 0.0007 0 459 2 1 2 1.2 0 8,152 3 2.5 2 2.3 0 39,063

Growth

Average Initial Truck Factor

(ESALs/ Truck)

Annual % Growth in

Truck Factor

Accumulated 18-kip ESALs over Performance Period

Total 100 - - - 47,675

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 47,675

Coef.

(Ai)

Drain

1 AC Surface Course 0.44 1 2 9 0.88 2 AC Base Course 0.44 1 2 9 0.88 3 Aggregate Subbase 0.14 1 6 9 0.84

Total - - - 10.00 - 2.60

Layered Thickness Design

Thickness precision Actual

Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Spec Thickness (Di)(in)

Min Thickness (Di)(in)

Elastic Modulus

(psi)

Calculated

(in)

Total - - - - - - - - -

5 Year Performance Period Damage Growth vs. Base Thickness

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Base Thickness (inches)

To ta l D am ag e

5 Year PSI 5 Year RUT Power (5 Year RUT) Power (5 Year PSI)

7 Year Performance Period

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Base Thickness (inches)

To ta l D am ag

7 Year PSI 7 Year RUT Power (7 Year RUT) Power (7 Year PSI)

10 Year Performance Period

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Base Thickness (inches)

To ta l D am ag

10 Year PSI 10 Year RUT Power (10 Year RUT) Power (10 Year PSI)

APPENDIX E – Limits of Reconstruction

Start Sta. (100 ft) Offset End Sta.(100 ft) Offset

1239.40 Right 1240.75 Right 1H 9

1240.20 Left 1240.70 Left 1H 9

1244.10 Left 1244.20 Left 7H

1264.85 Left 1265.00 Left 7H

1266.10 Right 1266.70 Right 1H 10

1267.20 Right 1267.75 Right 1H

1279.45 Both 1280.20 Both 1H

1289.70 Right 1290.50 Right 1H

1290.50 Left 1291.20 Left 1H

1291.20 Right 1291.40 Right 1H

1291.95 Both 1294.00 Both 1H

1296.45 Right 1296.55 Right 1H

1298.00 Right 1298.60 Right 1H

1302.20 Right 1303.00 Right 1H

1303.00 Left 1303.50 Left 1H 7H

1304.30 Right 1305.00 Right 1M

1311.50 Right 1311.75 Right 1H 7H

1317.35 Right 1317.70 Right 1M

1336.75 Left 1337.00 Left 1H

1417.50 Left 1418.00 Left 4bM

1466.50 Left 1467.05 Left 4aM

1496.00 Left 1496.10 Left 4bL Slope edge creep

1482.40 Left 1483.00 Left 4bL Slope edge creep

1484.50 Right 1485.20 Left 4bL Slope edge creep

1486.10 Left 1486.50 Left 1L

1502.60 Left 1503.40 Left 4bL Slope edge creep

1522.30 Right 1523.05 Left 4bL Slope edge creep

1533.50 Right 1536.50 Right 4bM Slope edge creep

1754.50 Right 1755.50 Right 4bH Slope edge creep

Start Sta. (100 ft) Offset End Sta.(100 ft) Offset

953.10 Both 1001.00 Both 1H

1005.70 Both 1006.50 Both 1H

1011.80 Both 1012.15 Both 1H

1111.50 Right 1111.80 Right 1H

1126.25 Left 1126.60 Left 1H Slope edge creep

1126.40 Right 1126.70 Right 1H Slope edge creep

1131.45 Both 1131.55 Both 1H

1160.75 Left 1160.90 Both 1H

1167.00 Right 1168.00 Right 1H

1167.50 Left 1168.00 Left 1H

1191.95 Both 1192.10 Both 1H

Louisville Road (Sta. 1200+00 to Sta. 1793+50) Distresses

Bluff Lake Road (Sta. 953+00 to Sta. 1198+00) Distresses

Code Distress 1L Low Severity Fatigue Cracking 1M Medium Severity Fatigue Cracking 1H Heavy Severity Fatigue Cracking 1L Low Severity Block Cracking 2M Medium Severity Block Cracking 2H High Severity Block Cracking 3L Low Severity Edge Cracking 3M Medium Severity Edge Cracking 3H High Severity Edge Cracking 4L Low Severity Longitudinal Cracking 4M Medium Severity Longitudinal Cracking 4H Heavy Severity Longitudinal Cracking 3 Reflection Cracking 6L Low Severity Transverse Cracking 6M Medium Severity Transverse Cracking 6H High Severity Transverse Cracking 7L Low Severity Patch Deterioration 7M Medium Severity Patch Deterioration 7H High Severity Patch Deterioration 8L Low Severity Pothole 8M Medium Severity Pothole 8H High Severity Pothole 9 Rutting 10 Shoving 11 Bleeding 12 Polished Aggregate 13 Raveling 14 Dropoff 15 Water Bleeding

APPENDIX F – FWD Data Back-Calculation Summary

FileID Segment Station Surf Temp (˚F) DO68 (mils) Mr (psi) Ep (psi) SNeff Load (lbs) Pressure (psi) 2 B 95928 92.4 60.80 5,865 685,500 0.79 8,522 77.9 2 B 96932 95.5 67.30 5,423 571,500 0.75 8,505 77.8 2 B 97928 98.6 57.11 7,123 536,000 0.73 8,765 80.2 2 B 98904 96.1 20.52 14,645 3,962,000 1.42 8,943 81.8 2 B 99932 79.1 60.48 7,315 334,000 0.62 8,571 78.4 2 B 100935 94.1 19.32 20,246 2,010,500 1.14 8,989 82.2

10,103 0.91

Bluff Lake Road - Southbound

Segment B average

2 C 101940 95.0 29.05 12,771 3,714,000 1.05 8,978 82.1 2 C 102944 83.9 31.37 10,837 4,437,500 1.11 8,973 82.1 2 C 104049 93.5 25.05 12,588 6,606,000 1.27 8,891 81.3 2 C 104950 92.1 57.49 6,595 1,434,500 0.76 8,557 78.3 2 C 105951 90.7 53.14 6,048 2,642,000 0.93 8,628 78.9 2 C 106953 90.2 30.80 12,559 2,870,500 0.96 8,833 80.8 2 C 107957 89.7 26.53 11,766 6,736,500 1.27 9,008 82.4 2 C 108961 90.7 22.99 17,014 4,127,500 1.08 9,057 82.8 2 C 109968 77.8 24.88 15,958 3,324,500 1.01 8,871 81.1 2 C 110870 85.1 18.32 17,370 8,955,000 1.40 8,926 81.6 2 C 111975 77.8 29.91 11,068 4,846,000 1.14 8,893 81.3 2 C 112979 78.1 46.10 8,318 1,911,500 0.84 8,768 80.2 2 C 113978 78.2 22.91 16,489 4,465,000 1.11 8,984 82.1 2 C 114981 77.2 65.20 6,139 1,073,000 0.69 8,593 78.6 2 C 115988 92.2 44.04 13,783 189,500 0.39 8,757 80.1 2 C 116992 90.9 58.54 10,226 169,000 0.37 8,792 80.4 2 C 117997 89.4 47.85 9,767 876,500 0.65 8,746 80.0 2 C 119000 89.3 48.97 13,357 65,500 0.27 8,740 79.9

11,814 0.91

Bluff Lake Road - Southbound

Segment C averages

1 B 95500 73.4 85.02 3,625 694,000 0.80 8,352 76.4 1 B 96053 76.5 58.80 7,087 455,500 0.69 8,669 79.3 1 B 96503 77.7 80.64 4,836 383,000 0.65 8,500 77.7 1 B 97500 84.1 75.98 5,781 277,000 0.59 8,593 78.6 1 B 98508 84.9 58.23 7,443 404,000 0.67 8,699 79.6 1 B 99510 81.6 62.90 6,601 426,000 0.68 8,645 79.1 1 B 100513 81.6 52.11 9,323 291,500 0.60 8,759 80.1

6,385 0.67

Bluff Lake Road - Northbound

Segment B averages

1 C 101513 87.0 28.28 13,260 3,568,500 1.03 8,904 81.4 1 C 102515 74.0 26.24 11,776 6,616,500 1.27 8,871 81.1 1 C 103518 76.2 17.04 20,227 7,879,500 1.34 8,978 82.1 1 C 104572 85.2 59.50 6,094 1,749,000 0.81 8,746 80.0 1 C 105529 78.9 44.71 8,347 2,197,500 0.88 8,814 80.6 1 C 106532 84.6 61.38 5,215 2,338,000 0.90 8,653 79.1 1 C 107536 80.2 56.52 6,985 1,323,000 0.74 8,631 78.9 1 C 108539 78.9 57.38 6,521 1,575,500 0.79 8,655 79.2 1 C 109538 75.1 26.92 12,216 5,460,500 1.19 8,882 81.2 1 C 110540 74.7 56.56 6,835 1,391,500 0.75 8,593 78.6 1 C 111543 76.4 27.20 10,515 7,761,500 1.34 8,855 81.0 1 C 112548 76.0 55.94 7,400 1,127,500 0.70 8,623 78.8 1 C 113551 77.2 37.30 7,726 5,307,500 1.18 8,746 80.0 1 C 114555 75.0 34.83 11,499 2,289,000 0.89 8,855 81.0 1 C 115558 83.6 20.85 16,416 6,530,500 1.26 8,967 82.0 1 C 116557 94.0 33.21 16,045 722,000 0.61 8,869 81.1 1 C 117561 76.3 60.12 10,926 52,500 0.25 8,770 80.2 1 C 118564 77.4 54.57 13,052 13,000 0.16 8,789 80.4 1 C 119567 93.2 46.43 11,209 523,000 0.54 8,710 79.7

10,645 0.88

Bluff Lake Road - Northbound

5 B 120302 78.2 34.03 11,450 2,616,500 0.93 8,896 81.4 5 B 121303 78.1 55.94 7,221 1,298,000 0.74 8,727 79.8 5 B 122310 78.7 38.45 9,920 2,307,000 0.89 8,746 80.0 5 B 123321 78.0 26.12 12,682 5,291,000 1.18 8,787 80.3 5 B 124324 77.1 49.26 6,290 3,254,000 1.00 8,699 79.6 5 B 125330 77.9 29.98 11,020 4,588,000 1.12 8,759 80.1 5 B 126326 76.1 58.86 7,278 993,000 0.67 8,716 79.7 5 B 127332 77.3 38.64 11,250 1,494,000 0.77 8,795 80.4 5 B 128338 75.0 35.45 15,359 513,000 0.54 8,686 79.4 5 B 129343 77.1 32.36 14,605 1,295,500 0.74 8,825 80.7 5 B 130348 75.7 36.78 14,577 550,000 0.55 8,697 79.5 5 B 131353 77.1 33.59 16,258 605,000 0.57 8,841 80.8 5 B 132358 76.9 37.88 11,058 1,747,500 0.81 8,795 80.4 5 B 133361 75.8 29.43 12,805 3,324,500 1.01 8,871 81.1 5 B 134367 76.3 45.53 8,254 2,128,000 0.87 8,830 80.8 5 B 135372 75.5 40.52 8,758 2,844,000 0.96 8,828 80.7

11,174 0.83Segment B averages

Bluff Lake Road - Eastbound

5 C 136375 76.4 39.89 7,751 543,000 1.10 8,841 80.8 5 C 137383 75.7 33.78 10,902 394,000 0.99 8,847 80.9 5 C 138381 75.5 51.88 7,102 246,500 0.85 8,762 80.1 5 C 139388 76.7 53.16 6,382 309,500 0.91 8,787 80.3 5 C 140394 81.9 30.21 8,924 1,018,000 1.36 8,841 80.8 5 C 141394 78.1 33.84 8,660 737,000 1.22 8,841 80.8 5 C 142400 77.7 23.77 12,880 943,500 1.32 8,863 81.1 5 C 143407 78.8 19.33 15,790 1,181,500 1.43 8,888 81.3 5 C 144411 77.3 15.64 21,187 1,172,500 1.42 8,891 81.3 5 C 145416 77.0 36.00 9,464 463,500 1.04 8,850 80.9 5 C 146421 77.7 40.63 6,887 673,500 1.18 8,781 80.3 5 C 147426 81.1 20.11 14,867 1,200,500 1.43 8,891 81.3 5 C 148430 83.2 21.60 15,408 834,000 1.27 8,877 81.2 5 C 149436 82.2 24.00 14,419 674,500 1.18 8,882 81.2 5 C 150443 79.6 14.75 26,450 769,500 1.24 8,885 81.3 5 C 150946 81.3 28.91 13,228 406,500 1.00 8,828 80.7 5 C 151448 81.3 23.13 14,877 696,500 1.20 8,833 80.8 5 C 152454 80.5 32.45 11,525 392,000 0.99 8,850 80.9 5 C 153457 82.2 18.12 18,104 1,059,500 1.38 8,934 81.7

12,885 1.19Segment C averages

5 D 154464 82.7 56.38 7,610 3,238,500 0.67 8,590 78.6 5 D 155471 81.0 47.11 8,701 4,741,500 0.76 8,650 79.1 5 D 156478 80.7 31.63 15,176 4,615,000 0.75 8,992 82.2 5 D 157483 83.0 34.69 12,362 6,092,500 0.82 8,855 81.0 5 D 158486 81.4 53.75 7,792 3,716,000 0.70 8,587 78.5 5 D 159490 82.4 38.21 11,154 5,524,500 0.80 8,809 80.6 5 D 160493 83.2 56.26 9,353 1,287,000 0.49 8,639 79.0 5 D 161497 83.4 40.59 11,617 3,501,000 0.68 8,820 80.7 5 D 164500 79.0 53.58 8,019 3,515,500 0.68 8,655 79.2 5 D 165499 80.6 43.84 10,085 4,009,000 0.71 8,729 79.8 5 D 166500 79.3 45.66 10,263 3,362,000 0.67 8,904 81.4

10,194 0.70Segment D averages

4 A 165459 82.5 39.56 11,916 3,158,500 0.66 8,609 78.7 4 A 166459 84.2 43.51 14,254 460,500 0.35 8,705 79.6 4 A 167459 85.6 19.95 24,697 5,792,500 0.81 8,809 80.6 4 A 168466 88.1 25.75 16,210 8,827,500 0.93 8,806 80.5 4 A 169474 83.6 33.44 13,175 5,619,000 0.80 8,825 80.7 4 A 170477 85.2 19.13 22,027 11,925,000 1.03 8,877 81.2 4 A 171481 86.4 23.67 21,180 4,787,500 0.76 8,904 81.4 4 A 172484 88.1 23.97 17,161 10,213,000 0.98 8,850 80.9 4 A 173488 86.4 20.74 21,264 9,241,000 0.94 8,869 81.1 4 A 174491 87.0 28.56 15,647 6,041,000 0.82 8,770 80.2 4 A 175494 87.7 28.57 14,280 8,380,000 0.91 8,751 80.0 4 A 176500 90.0 36.93 10,940 6,704,000 0.85 8,751 80.0 4 A 177500 89.3 29.98 14,072 7,895,500 0.90 8,959 81.9 4 A 178501 84.0 15.12 29,341 13,487,500 1.07 9,027 82.6 4 A 179500 86.5 30.15 15,258 5,600,000 0.80 8,937 81.7

17,428 0.84

Segment A averages

6 B 120000 91.9 43.77 8,380 2,386,000 0.90 8,830 80.8 6 B 120999 85.4 14.55 18,938 15,338,000 1.68 8,757 80.1 6 B 122007 86.6 42.12 8,500 2,702,000 0.94 8,858 81.0 6 B 123003 91.2 45.76 8,260 2,160,500 0.87 8,912 81.5 6 B 125016 82.1 33.91 12,294 1,963,000 0.85 8,773 80.2 6 B 127027 81.7 52.71 9,203 651,000 0.59 8,691 79.5 6 B 129002 80.2 49.25 10,362 577,000 0.56 8,781 80.3 6 B 130035 81.4 31.19 13,307 2,217,000 0.88 8,817 80.6 6 B 131039 80.6 52.02 8,898 799,500 0.63 8,664 79.2 6 B 132043 86.6 47.33 8,766 1,319,500 0.74 8,620 78.8 6 B 133046 84.2 24.10 17,703 2,711,000 0.94 8,899 81.4 6 B 134048 80.7 33.45 11,100 3,062,000 0.98 8,869 81.1 6 B 135051 82.4 37.04 9,947 2,768,500 0.95 8,820 80.7 6 B 136054 80.7 49.02 7,940 1,762,000 0.82 8,825 80.7 6 B 137058 82.6 46.52 8,524 1,731,500 0.81 8,809 80.6

10,808 0.88

Bluff Lake Road - Westbound

Segment B averages

6 C 138062 90.5 25.00 15,806 436,000 1.02 8,885 81.3 6 C 139065 81.4 33.29 12,397…