Pavement Report.pdf

PAVEMENT REPORT NUMBER FY08-01

FHWA Project RRP-CRK 10(1) Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge

Stewart County, Tennessee

Paving Visitor Center Access Loop (Route 10) and Auto Tour Exit Road (Route 12) and Aggregate Resurfacing Lower Pool 4 Access West (Route 100), Pool 2 Access

(Route 101), Pool 2 Access Spur (Route 103), Rattlesnake Interpretive Trail Access (Route 104) and Parking Areas

February 2008

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

Form FHWA-201 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. ofTrans. When message comment is to (Rev. 11-67) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION be retained as file matenal. Do not prepare carbons. Not to be used in lieu of Form FHWA-

MINUTE.MEMO 121 for informal correspondence.

SUBJECT: Amendment to the Final Pavement's Re ort for RRP-CRK 10 1

TO MESSAGE/COMMENT FROM/DATE

C. Burnell PS&E Project Manager

Through: - i. .

A.Tei~ Highway Design Engineer

Due to discrepancies found within the original Final Pavement Report, the following revisions should be added. The proposed pavement structure calls for Class A HACP, whereas the original Table for the proposed section called for Class C. Table 2 of the Final Pavement Report should be revised to read as follows:

AC Surface Course

Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (HACP) Class A, Grading E, as per Section 402 and Subsection 703.07 of the FP-03 S ecifications Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (HACP) Class A, Grading C, as per Section 402 and Subsection 703.07 of the FP-03 S ecifications Excavate, stockpile and reuse the existing material. Additional import material should be included in the ro' ect uantit

Aggregate Base Course

Additionally, Auto Tour Exit Road (Route 12)was proposed as an asphalt concrete surface road, but the refuge wishes it to remain an aggregate .

surface. As a result, an alternative recommendation for Route 12 should be added. The proposed aggregate surface rehabilitation should follow the recommendations given for Routes 100, 101, 103, and 104.

S. O'Brien Pavement 6{/J Engineer pi(00(DQ

Through:

L. Lineman Technical Services tI '. , Engineer Lv

RRP-CRK 10(1) Pavement Report No. FY08-01

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

1. GENERAL

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3. PROJECT PURPOSE-AND-NEED

4. REGIONAL GEOLOGY

II. PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

1. PAVEMENT CORING AND SOIL BORING

2. SAMPLING

3. FIELD TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS

4. DATA SUMMARY

5. LABORATORY INVESTIGATION

6. FINDINGS

III. ANALYSIS

1. ASPHALT PAVEMENT DESIGN

2. GRAVEL SURFACE PAVEMENT DESIGN

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. PAVEMENT SECTION

Visitor Center Access Loop (Route 10) and Visitor Center Parking Area Auto Tour Exit Road (Route 12) Routes 100, 101, 103, and 104

2. EARTHWORK

V. DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Project Location Maps and Geological Map Appendix B - Boring Location Plan and Boring Logs Appendix C - Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Results Appendix D - Laboratory Test Results Appendix E - Pavement Design Analysis

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 FY08-01

FHWA Project RRP-CRK 10(1)

Stewart County, Tennessee

Paving Visitor Center Access Loop (Route 10) and Auto Tour Exit Road (Route 12) and

Aggregate Resurfacing Lower Pool 4 Access West (Route 100), Pool 2 Access (Route 101), Pool 2 Access Spur (Route 103), Rattlesnake Interpretive Trail Access (Route 104) and 4 Parking Areas

I. INTRODUCTION

1. General

This report presents the results of the pavement and subsurface investigations, analysis, design, and recommendations for Visitor Center Access Loop (Route 10) and Auto Tour Exit Road (Route 12), Lower Pool 4 Access West (Route 100), Pool 2 Access (Route 101), Pool 2 Access Spur (Route 103), Rattlesnake Interpretive Trail Access (Route 104), and four parking areas in Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge located in Stewart County, Tennessee. A Project Location Map is presented in Appendix A.

2. Project Description

Visitor Center Access Loop (Route 010) begins at its intersection with Auto Tour Exit Road (Route 012) and Wildlife Drive, extending to the north and looping around to the west, south, and east until it ends at another intersection with Wildlife Drive near a gate. It provides access to the Refuge Headquarters from state Highway 49, via Wildlife Road. It is a gravel road and approximately 0.3 miles in length and 20 feet wide. Based on the Design Scoping Report (DSR), the Refuge would like to pave the portion below the visitor’s center with an asphalt concrete pavement, and resurface the remaining portion with aggregate.

Lower Pool 4 Access West (Route 100) is a dirt and gravel road approximately 0.58 miles long and 16 feet wide. It is a two track roadway for a portion of its length. Based on the DSR, the Refuge would like to resurface it with aggregate.

Pool 2 Access (Route 101) is a dirt and gravel road that begins at its intersection with Main Road South (Route 013) and extends generally to the southwest for a distance of approximately 1.28 miles. It has a maximum width of 17 feet. Based on the DSR, the Refuge would like to resurface it with aggregate and add a turnaround at the end of the road.

Pool 2 Access Spur (Route 103) is a 16 feet wide dirt and gravel road, beginning at its intersection with Routes 101 and 102, and extends generally to the south for a distance of approximately 0.11 miles where it ends at an existing turnaround. Based on the DSR, the Refuge would like to resurface it with aggregate.

Rattlesnake Interpretive Trail Access (Route 104) is a two way, one lane, 20 feet wide dirt and gravel road that is approximately 0.22 miles long. It begins at its intersection with main Road South (Route 013). Based on the DSR, the Refuge would like to resurface it with aggregate.

Auto Tour Exit Road (Route 012) begins at its intersection with Lower Pool 1 Road (Route

011) and main Road South (Route 013) and ends at its intersection with Visitor Center Access Loop (Route 010) and Wildlife Drive. It is a 17 feet wide dirt and gravel road that is approximately 0.55 miles in length, and is a two track road for a portion of its length. Based on the DSR, the Refuge would like to resurface it with aggregate.

Based on the DSR, there are also four parking areas that the refuge would like to resurface with aggregate.

3. Project Purpose-and-Need

According to Highway Design, the Purpose and Need for this project is to provide a structurally and functionally adequate pavement structure with a 25-year performance period for proposed bound pavement structures and a 5 to 10-year performance period for proposed aggregate-surfaced pavement structures.

4. Regional Geology

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the project site is underlain by Mississippian Formations consisting of limestone, chert, shale, siltstone, sandstone, and dolomite. It is also underlain with Cretaceous Formations consisting of sand, clay, silt, and gravel. A Geologic Map of the project site is presented in Appendix A.

II. PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

1. Pavement Coring and Soil Boring

The EFLHD Subsurface Exploration Team drilled a total of 10 borings on June 4, 2007 and June 5, 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. Of the 10 borings, 2 borings (Borings AT-1 and AT-2) were conducted on Visitor Center Access Loop, 5 borings (PA-1 through PA-5) were drilled on Pool 2 Access (Route 101), 1 boring (PS-1) was conducted on Pool 2 Access Spur, and 2 borings (RT-1 and RT-2) were conducted on Rattlesnake Interpretive Trail Access.

Boring Location Maps are provided in Appendix B, along with Boring Logs are presented in Appendix B.

2. Sampling

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

3. Field Tests and Measurements

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Pavement Section personnel performed following field tests and took measurements during the course of the structural evaluation of the existing pavement and the subsurface exploration.

Boring locations were determined from features present on-site and by referencing the existing roadway centerlines and roadway milepost markers. Boring elevations were determined from a topographic map provided by Highway Design. 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. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D6951-03. The sampler was driven into the soil using an 8 kg 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.

4. Data Summary

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.

5. Laboratory Investigation

At the conclusion of the fieldwork, laboratory testing was conducted on 6 of the soil samples recovered from the borings. Laboratory tests on the samples included particle size analysis (AASHTO T-88), Atterburg limits (AASHTO T-89, T-90), moisture content (AASHTO T- 265), and classification (AASHTO T-145). Laboratory test results are represented in Appendix D and summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 - Results of Laboratory Testing

Boring

Sample

Sample Depth

(ft)

%-200

LL(1)

PI(2)

Classification(1)

Moisture Content(1)

AT-1 J-1 1-3 65.2 27 12 A-6 (5) 13.8

AT-2 J-2 3-5 59.2 25 9 A-4 (3) 16.0

PA-1 J-1 1-3 64.2 45 23 A-7-6 (13) 22.1

PA-4 J-1 1-3 59.3 40 21 A-6 (10) 6.8

PA-5 J-1 1-3 64.1 41 19 A-7-6 (10) 10.7

RT-1 J-1 1-3 55.1 33 12 A-6 (4) 18.1

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

6. Findings

The findings at the project site are summarized below. Refer to the boring logs in Appendix B and the laboratory data in Appendix B 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.

The performed borings encountered approximately 4 to 6 inch thick aggregate surface course on Routes 10 and 12, and the rest of the roads exhibited 2 to 5 inches of aggregate surface course.

Brown clay and/or silt with a minor quantity of sand and gravel (A-4, A-6, and A-7) were encountered in all 10 borings below the gravel surface course. Based on laboratory testing of this clay and/or silt material, water content ranged from 6.8 to 22.1% with an average of 14.6%, liquid limit (LL) ranged from 25 to 45% with an average of 35.2%, and plasticity index (PI) ranged from 9 to 23% with an average of 16%.

DCP testing was conducted at two of the test pits on Visitor Center Access Loop, Borings AT-1 and AT-2. DCP tests resulted in an average MR of the subgrade soils of 15,984 psi, with a low of 13, 685 psi and a high of 18,282 psi. A table of the DCP results is presented in Appendix D.

III. ANALYSIS

1. Asphalt Pavement Design

Flexible pavement design analyses were performed in accordance with 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design procedure using the DARWin (Version 3.01) Pavement Design System to determine the future structural number (SN) necessary for the proposed roadways. The flexible pavement design analysis was for a 25-year performance period for Routes 10 and

12. The design analysis to determine the 18-kip ESALs for the roadway was performed using the Rigorous ESAL Calculation in DARWin and based upon average daily traffic of 100 with 10% recreational vehicle volume and 10% truck volume for the project. The traffic growth rate of 2% was assumed. The vehicle classification data and traffic volumes were obtained from Refuge personnel. The effective roadbed soil resilient modulus (MR) was determined for the roadway from empirical correlations to DCP values and soil classifications. The average value of MR for the project was estimated to be 8,000 psi. Other parameters specified in the analysis included a reliability of 75 percent, an overall standard deviation of 0.49, and initial serviceability index of 4.2, and a terminal serviceability index of

2.0. The required SNs for future traffic were calculated to be 2.1. The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix E.

2. Gravel Surface Pavement Design

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 a 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year performance periods for Routes 100, 101, 103, and 104. The design analysis to determine the 18-kip ESALs for the roadway was performed using the Rigorous ESAL calculation in DARWin and based upon average daily traffic of 40 with 10% recreational vehicle volume and 10% truck volume. The traffic growth rate of 2% was assumed. The vehicle classification data were obtained from the Refuge personnel. The effective roadbed soil resilient modulus (MR) was determined for the roadway from empirical correlations to DCP values and soil classifications. The average value of MR for the project was estimated to be 8,000 psi. Other parameters specified in the analysis included an allowable rut depth of 2 inches and an aggregate los of ½ inch per year.

The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix E.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

1. Pavement Section

Based on field condition survey and subsurface investigation, minimum flexible pavement sections with a 25-year performance period, and aggregate surface pavement sections with a 5 to 10-year performance period for the project sites are provided in below.

Visitor Center Access Loop (Route 10) and Visitor Center Parking Area

The proposed pavement structure consists of a 4-inch thick Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (HACP) Class A, Grading C or E, and a 6-inch thick aggregate base. Since the existing aggregate surface material appears to be a suitable material, and the parking area requires the existing grade be maintained, the existing aggregate surface (approximately 6 inches thick) could be removed, stockpiled, and re-used as proposed aggregate base material. A minimum of 2-inch thick import aggregate base material (Base Aggregate, Grading C or D) should be included in the project quantity to account for material loss during material handling of the existing aggregate surface course. The minimum pavement requirements are summarized below in Table 2.

Table 2 - Minimum Pavement Requirements Layer Thickness

(in) Comments

AC Surface Course 1 ½ Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (HACP) Class C, Grading E, as per Section 402 and Subsection

703.07 of the FP-03 Specifications

AC Base Course 2 ½ Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (HACP) Class C, Grading C, as per Section 402 and Subsection

703.07 of the FP-03 Specifications

Aggregate Base Course 6 Excavate, stockpile and reuse the existing material.

Additional import material should be included in the project quantity

The calculated required design SN for Visitor Center Access Loop and Parking Area was 2.1.

The design pavement SN for the minimum pavement section in Table 2 is 2.2.

Auto Tour Exit Road (Route 12)

The proposed pavement structure consists of a 4-inch thick HACP Class A, Grading C or E, and a 6-inch thick aggregate base. Since the existing aggregate surface material (approximately 4-inch thick) appears to be a suitable material, the existing aggregate surface material should be scarified, then re-graded with a minimum of an additional 2 inches of import aggregate base material (Base Aggregate, Grading C or D) and re-compacted prior to paving. The minimum pavement requirements are summarized below in Table 3.

Table 3 - Minimum Pavement Requirements

Layer Thickness (in)

Comments

AC Surface Course 1 ½ Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (HACP) Class C, Grading E, as per Section 402 and Subsection

703.07 of the FP-03 Specifications

AC Base Course 2 ½ Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (HACP) Class C, Grading C, as per Section 402 and Subsection

703.07 of the FP-03 Specifications

Additional Aggregate Base Course

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

Aggregate Base Course 4 Reuse the existing material. Additional import material should be included in the project quantity

The calculated required design SN for Auto Tour Exit Road was 2.1. The design pavement SN for the minimum recommended pavement section in Table 3 is 2.2.

Routes 100, 101, 103, and 104

All deleterious or vegetation should be scalped prior to placing aggregate surface course.

Based on the analyses, proposed 6-inch thick aggregate surface course would yield a performance period of 5 years, 8 inches would yield 10 years, and 10 inches would yield 15 years. All import aggregate surface course should be Base Aggregate, Grading C or D. All cross-slope of gravel roads should be 4% for better drainage and pavement performance.

2. Earthwork

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

Subgrade Preparation: Proposed subgrade should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches below the subgrade and should be re-compacted to at least 95% of maximum density in accordance with the AASHTO T 180 Method D. If unsuitable subgrade materials are encountered in isolated areas, sub-excavation of unsuitable materials is recommended. The sub-excavated areas should then be backfilled with aggregate base material specified below.

Aggregate Base Course: Immediately after subgrade preparation, 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.

V. 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 Maps and Geological Map

APPENDIX B – Boring Location Plan and Boring Logs

Boring No.:

Boring Location:

Ty peDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture hrs Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

Vane Shear

Operator:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

C R

K

(1 ).G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/1 5/

RRP-CRK 10(1)

SAMPLE

R ec

Inspector:

Weather:

AT-1

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

5-8-10-11

6-13-17-111.2

5.0

3.0

0.5

J-2

J-1

1.7

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge La ye r

D ep th (f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)

Borehole terminated @ depth 5'

Very stiff, Reddish/Brown CLAY, some Silt, trace of Gravel.

-moist.

Very stiff, Brown CLAY some Silt, trace of Gravel(A-6 (5)).

-moist.

6-inch thick GRAVEL SURFACE COURSE

Visitor Center Parking Area (Route 10)

SPT

No ground water was encountered during or after boring.

BORING LOG FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Sheet: 1 of 1

Plastic Limit Water Content %

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Rock Core Penetrometer

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

Sample Types:

N o.

Auger Cuttings

30 in.

UD

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

B lo w s pe r in

6/5/07

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Name:

CLEAR

Thornton/Chang 140 lbs/Auto

Flight Auger 6/5/07

Caved at:

Kingsley/Hutchins4.5 in.

Boring Began:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation:

Ty pe

Rock Core Diam:

Boring No.:

Boring Location:

Liquid Limit Standard Penetration Test DataDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Vane Shear

10B lo w s pe r in

SAMPLE

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

C R

K

(1 ).G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/1 5/ hrs

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge

RRP-CRK 10(1)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring Method:

R ec

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:

AT-2

2.0 6-10-12-15

4-6-8-12

6-inch thick GRAVEL SURFACE COURSE

Stiff to very stiff, Brown CLAY some Silt, trace of Gravel, trace of Sand (A-4 (3)).

- moist

1.9

5.0

0.5

J-2

J-1

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)

Borehole terminated @ depth 5'

At Completion:

Sheet: 1 of 1

Water Content %

SPT

No ground water was encountered during or after boring.

BORING LOG

Penetrometer

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Visitor Center Parking Area (Route 10)

Plastic Limit

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Rock Core

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

Sample Types:

N o.

806020

30 in.

4.5 in.140 lbs/Auto

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

Kingsley/Hutchins

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Name:

CLEAR

Caved at: Thornton/Chang 6/5/07

Flight Auger

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 6/5/07

Rock Core Diam:

Boring No.:

Boring Location:

Liquid Limit Standard Penetration Test DataDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Vane Shear

10B lo w s pe r in

SAMPLE

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

C R

K

(1 ).G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/1 5/ hrs

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge

RRP-CRK 10(1)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring Method:

R ec

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:

PA-1

1.3 2-3-3-4

5-4-3-3

5-inch thick GRAVEL SURFACE COURSE

Medium, Dark brown CLAY, trace of Silt and Sand (A-7-6 (13)).

-moist.

1.7

5.0

0.4

J-2

J-1

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)

Borehole terminated @ 5'

At Completion:

Sheet: 1 of 1

Water Content %

SPT

No ground water was encountered during or after boring.

BORING LOG

Penetrometer

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pool 2 Access (Route 101) MP 0.1

Plastic Limit

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Rock Core

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

Sample Types:

N o.

806020

30 in.

4.5 in.140 lbs/Auto

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

Kingsley/Hutchins

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Name:

CLEAR

Caved at: Thornton/Chang 6/4/07

Flight Auger

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 6/5/07

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Boring No.:

Boring Location:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Ty pe

Liquid Limit

Vane Shear

Rock Core Diam:

R ec hrs

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

C R

K

(1 ).G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/1 5/

RRP-CRK 10(1)

SAMPLE

Completed:

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:

PA-2

Standard Penetration Test Data

3-3-4-4

14-26-26-7

Boring Method:

1.2

Meduim, Dark Brown CLAY, some Sand, trace of Silt.

-moist.

5.0

3.0

0.4

J-2

J-1

0.4

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

5-inch thick GRAVEL SURFACE COURSE

(Blows / ft)

Very dense, Redish/Brown SAND, some Clay, trace of Silt.

-dry.

Borehole terminated @ depth 5'

Hole Diameter:

Sheet: 1 of 1

Water Content %

SPT

No ground water was encountered during or after boring.

BORING LOG

Penetrometer

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pool 2 Access (Route 101) MP 0.4

Plastic Limit

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge

B lo w s pe r in

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Rock Core

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

Sample Types:

N o.

UD

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

Thornton/Chang

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Name:

Kingsley/Hutchins4.5 in.

6/4/07 Flight AugerCaved at:

CLEAR

6/4/07

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began:

Boring No.:

Boring Location:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Ty pe

Liquid Limit

Vane Shear

Rock Core Diam:

R ec hrs

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

C R

K

(1 ).G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/1 5/

RRP-CRK 10(1)

SAMPLE

Completed:

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:

PA-3

Standard Penetration Test Data

2-1-1-2

5-4-4-3

Boring Method:

1.5

Soft, Light brown CLAY,trace of Sand and Silt.

-moist.

5.0

3.0

0.2

J-2

J-1

1.7

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

2-inch thick GRAVEL SURFACE COURSE

(Blows / ft)

Medium, Dark brown CLAY, trace of Sand and Silt.

-moist.

Borehole terminated @ depth 5'

Hole Diameter:

Sheet: 1 of 1

Water Content %

SPT

No ground water was encountered during or after boring.

BORING LOG

Penetrometer

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pool 2 Access (Route 101) MP 0.6

Plastic Limit

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge

B lo w s pe r in

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Rock Core

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

Sample Types:

N o.

UD

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

Thornton/Chang

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Name:

Kingsley/Hutchins4.5 in.

6/4/07 Flight AugerCaved at:

CLEAR

6/4/07

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Boring Location:

Ty peDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture hrs Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

Vane Shear

Operator:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

C R

K

(1 ).G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/1 5/

RRP-CRK 10(1)

SAMPLE

R ec

Inspector:

Weather:

PA-4

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

2-2-3-4

4-7-6-41.4

5.0

3.0

0.2

J-2

J-1

1.3

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge La ye r

D ep th (f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)

Borehole terminated @ depth 5'

Medium, Dark Brown CLAY, some Silt, trace of Sand.

-dry.

Stiff, Dark Brown CLAY, some Silt, trace of Sand (A-6 (10)).

-dry.

2-inch thick GRAVEL SURFACE COURSE

Pool 2 Access (Route 101) MP 0.9

SPT

No ground water was encountered during or after boring.

Control Point (CP 3124)

BORING LOG FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Sheet: 1 of 1

Plastic Limit Water Content %

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Rock Core Penetrometer

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

Sample Types:

N o.

Auger Cuttings

30 in.

UD

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

B lo w s pe r in

6/4/07

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Name:

CLEAR

Thornton/Chang 140 lbs/Auto

Flight Auger 6/4/07

Caved at:

Kingsley/Hutchins4.5 in.

Boring Began:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Boring Location:

Ty peDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture hrs Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

Vane Shear

Operator:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

C R

K

(1 ).G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/1 5/

RRP-CRK 10(1)

SAMPLE

R ec

Inspector:

Weather:

PA-5

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

1-2-3-5

3-4-4-31.6

5.0

3.0

0.2

J-2

J-1

1.6

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge La ye r

D ep th (f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)

Borehole terminated @ depth 5'

Medium, Dark brown CLAY, some Silt, trace of Sand

- dry

Medium to stiff, Brown SILT, trace of Clay and Sand (A-7-6 (10)).

-Dry

2-inch thick GRAVEL SURFACE COURSE

Pool 2 Access (Route 101) MP 1.2

SPT

No ground water was encountered during or after boring.

BORING LOG FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Sheet: 1 of 1

Plastic Limit Water Content %

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Rock Core Penetrometer

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

Sample Types:

N o.

Auger Cuttings

30 in.

UD

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

B lo w s pe r in

6/4/07

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Name:

CLEAR

Thornton/Chang 140 lbs/Auto

Flight Auger 6/4/07

Caved at:

Kingsley/Hutchins4.5 in.

Boring Began:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Standard Penetration Test Data Liquid Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring Location:

Weather:

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

Vane Shear

Boring No.:

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

C R

K

(1 ).G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/1 5/ hrs

PS-1RRP-CRK 10(1)

SAMPLE

R ec

Inspector:

Operator:

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge

1.4

Medium to stiff, Light Brown CLAY, trace of Silt, trace of Sand.

-moist.

2-inch thick GRAVEL SURFACE COURSE

2-6-7-10

2-3-3-7

1.9

5.0

0.2

J-2

J-1

Rock Core Diam:

Boring Method:

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

Borehole terminated @ depth 5'

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)

B lo w s pe r in

.D ep th S ca le

(f t)

Sheet: 1 of 1

Rock CoreSPT

No ground water was encountered during or after boring.

BORING LOG

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

N o.

Pool 2 Access Spur (Route 103) Parking Area

Plastic Limit

Remarks:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Penetrometer

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

Sample Types:

4.5 in.

Water Content %

806020

30 in.

Caved at:

140 lbs/Auto

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

CLEAR

E le va tio n (fe et

Kingsley/Hutchins Thornton/Chang

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Project Name:

Hammer Drop:

6/4/07Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 6/4/07 Flight Auger

Boring No.:

Boring Location:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Ty pe

Liquid Limit

Vane Shear

Rock Core Diam:

R ec hrs

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

C R

K

(1 ).G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/1 5/

RRP-CRK 10(1)

SAMPLE

Completed:

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:

RT- 2

Standard Penetration Test Data

2-2-2-2

3-4-4-4

Boring Method:

1.4

Dark Brown Fine SAND, trace of Silt.

-moist

5.0

4.1

0.3

J-2

J-1

1.7

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

At Completion:

Groundwater Depth:

3-inch thick GRAVEL SURFACE COURSE

(Blows / ft)

Medium, Dark brown CLAY, some Silt, trace of Sand.

-moist.

Borehole terminated @ depth 5'

Hole Diameter:

Sheet: 1 of 1

Water Content %

SPT

No ground water was encountered during or after boring.

BORING LOG

Penetrometer

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Rattlesnake Interpretive Trail Access (Rt. 104) MP 0.01

Plastic Limit

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge

B lo w s pe r in

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Rock Core

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

Sample Types:

N o.

UD

30 in.

140 lbs/Auto

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

Thornton/Chang

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Name:

Kingsley/Hutchins4.5 in.

6/4/07 Flight AugerCaved at:

CLEAR

6/4/07

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Rock Core Diam:

Boring No.:

Boring Location:

Liquid Limit Standard Penetration Test DataDensity, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

Vane Shear

10B lo w s pe r in

SAMPLE

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

C R

K

(1 ).G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/1 5/ hrs

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge

RRP-CRK 10(1)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring Method:

R ec

Inspector:

Operator:

Weather:

RT-1

1.7 1-2-3-5

3-4-3-3

4-inch thick GRAVEL SURFACE COURSE

Medium, Grayish Brown CLAY, trace of Sand and Silt (A-6 (4)).

-moist

1.7

5.0

0.4

J-2

J-1

Hole Diameter:

Completed:

D ep th S ca le

(f t)

La ye r D ep th

(f t)

Groundwater Depth:

(Blows / ft)

Borehole terminated @ depth 5'

At Completion:

Sheet: 1 of 1

Water Content %

SPT

No ground water was encountered during or after boring.

BORING LOG

Penetrometer

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Rattlesnake Interpretive Trail Access (Rt. 104) MP 0.2

Plastic Limit

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Rock Core

Project Location:

After

Encountered at:

Sample Types:

N o.

806020

30 in.

4.5 in.140 lbs/Auto

UDAuger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Remarks:

Kingsley/Hutchins

E le va tio n (fe et

Project Name:

CLEAR

Caved at: Thornton/Chang 6/4/07

Flight Auger

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 6/4/07

APPENDIX C – Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Results

Project: Date:

Location: Personnel:

Weather:

Number of BlowsA

Cumulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration per Blow

Hammer FactorE DCP Index CBR DESIGN CBR Calculated MR

(mm)B (mm)C (mm)D mm/blowF %G %H psiI

0 920 -- -- -- -- -- 5 995 75 15.0 1 15.0 14.07 14.07 13874.38 5 1090 95 19.0 1 19.0 10.79 10.79 11711.85 5 1160 70 14.0 1 14.0 15.20 15.20 14577.78 5 1230 70 14.0 1 14.0 15.20 15.20 14577.78

13685.45 A number of hammer blows between test readings F footnote D X Footnote E.

B cumulative penetration after each set of hammer blows. G from CBR versus DCP index correlation.

C difference in cumulative penetration (Footnote B) between readings. H If CBR > 10 use equation 292/DCP1.12, If CBR < 10, use equation 1/0.002871*DCP D footnote C divided by Footnote A. I If CBR > 10, use equation 2555*CBR0.64, if CBR < 10, use equation 1500*CBR E enter 1 for 8-kg (17.6-lb) hammer; 2 for 4.6-kg (10.1-lb) hammer. Form Created 11-05

DCP Data Sheet

Visitor Center Access Loop (Route 10) @ Boring AT-1

RRP-CRK 10(1)

Depth of zero point below surface (in):

6/5/2007

C. Chang and S. O'Brien Hammer Weight (kg): 8.0

Material Classification:

Pavement Conditions:

Average MR

Clear Water Table Depth:

Project: Date:

Location: Personnel:

Weather:

Number of BlowsA

Cumulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration per Blow

Hammer FactorE DCP Index CBR DESIGN CBR Calculated MR

(mm)B (mm)C (mm)D mm/blowF %G %H psiI

0 920 -- -- -- -- -- 5 950 30 6.0 1 6.0 39.25 39.25 26758.21 5 990 40 8.0 1 8.0 28.44 28.44 21772.14 5 1030 40 8.0 1 8.0 28.44 28.44 21772.14 5 1070 40 8.0 1 8.0 28.44 28.44 21772.14 5 1120 50 10.0 1 10.0 22.15 22.15 18553.93 5 1180 60 12.0 1 12.0 18.06 18.06 16280.92 5 1250 70 14.0 1 14.0 15.20 15.20 14577.78 5 1340 90 18.0 1 18.0 11.47 11.47 12174.65 5 1410 70 14.0 1 14.0 15.20 15.20 14577.78 5 1480 70 14.0 1 14.0 15.20 15.20 14577.78

18281.75 A number of hammer blows between test readings F footnote D X Footnote E.

B cumulative penetration after each set of hammer blows. G from CBR versus DCP index correlation.

C difference in cumulative penetration (Footnote B) between readings. H If CBR > 10 use equation 292/DCP1.12, If CBR < 10, use equation 1/0.002871*DCP D footnote C divided by Footnote A. I If CBR > 10, use equation 2555*CBR0.64, if CBR < 10, use equation 1500*CBR E enter 1 for 8-kg (17.6-lb) hammer; 2 for 4.6-kg (10.1-lb) hammer. Form Created 11-05

Average MR

Clear Water Table Depth:

Material Classification:

Pavement Conditions:

DCP Data Sheet

Visitor Center Access Loop (Route 10) @ Boring AT-2

RRP-CRK 10(1)

Depth of zero point below surface (in):

6/5/2007

C. Chang and S. O'Brien Hammer Weight (kg): 8.0

APPENDIX D – Laboratory Test Results

Uncontrolled Copy

Federal Highway Administration Federal Lands Highway Office

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Materials Testing Laboratory

112 Industrial Park, Sevierville, TN 37862

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge RRP-CRK 10(1) Stewart

TN

C. Chang

AT-1/J-1

Geotech

Jars

SS

Project Name: State:

County:

Submitted By:

Field Sample No:

Sampled By:

Sample Type:

Boring No: Sample No:

Project Number:

Type of Containers:

J-1 Depth: 1-3AT-1

Report of Subsurface Soil Tests

Soil Classification (AASHTO M 145)

Classification A-6 (5)

Moisture Content (AASHTO T 265)

Moisture Content, % 13.8

Sieve - in. (mm) % Passing Particle Size Analysis (AASHTO T 88)

1 (25) 100

3/4 (19) 96

1/2 (12.5) 93

3/8 (9.5) 92

#4 (4.75) 89

#10 (2.00) 80

#40 (0.425) 73

No. 200 (0.075) 65.2

Liquid Limit (AASHTO T 89)

LL 27

Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index (AASHTO T 90)

PL 15

PI 12

Page 1 of 2 8/7/2007 11:08 AM

Charles W. McCown, Jr. - Laboratory Team Leader Date

Lab Control No: E-07-0381

Federal Highway Administration Federal Lands Highway Office

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Materials Testing Laboratory

112 Industrial Park, Sevierville, TN 37862

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge RRP-CRK 10(1) Stewart

TN

C. Chang

AT-2/J-2

Geotech

Jars

SS

Project Name: State:

County:

Submitted By:

Field Sample No:

Sampled By:

Sample Type:

Boring No: Sample No:

Project Number:

Type of Containers:

J-2 Depth: 3-5AT-2

Report of Subsurface Soil Tests

Soil Classification (AASHTO M 145)

Classification A-4 (3)

Moisture Content (AASHTO T 265)

Moisture Content, % 16.0

Sieve - in. (mm) % Passing Particle Size Analysis (AASHTO T 88)

1/2 (12.5) 100

3/8 (9.5) 99

#4 (4.75) 98

#10 (2.00) 86

#40 (0.425) 69

No. 200 (0.075) 59.2

Liquid Limit (AASHTO T 89)

LL 25

Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index (AASHTO T 90)

PL 16

PI 9

Page 1 of 1 8/7/2007 10:47 AM

Lab Control No: E-07-0382

Federal Highway Administration Federal Lands Highway Office

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Materials Testing Laboratory

112 Industrial Park, Sevierville, TN 37862

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge RRP-CRK 10(1) Stewart

TN

C. Chang

PA-1/J-1

Geotech

Jars

SS

Project Name: State:

County:

Submitted By:

Field Sample No:

Sampled By:

Sample Type:

Boring No: Sample No:

Project Number:

Type of Containers:

J-1 Depth: 1-3PA-1

Report of Subsurface Soil Tests

Soil Classification (AASHTO M 145)

Classification A-7-6(13)

Moisture Content (AASHTO T 265)

Moisture Content, % 22.1

Sieve - in. (mm) % Passing Particle Size Analysis (AASHTO T 88)

#4 (4.75) 100

#10 (2.00) 99

#40 (0.425) 82

No. 200 (0.075) 64.2

Liquid Limit (AASHTO T 89)

LL 45

Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index (AASHTO T 90)

PL 22

PI 23

Page 1 of 1 8/7/2007 10:50 AM

Lab Control No: E-07-0383

Federal Highway Administration Federal Lands Highway Office

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Materials Testing Laboratory

112 Industrial Park, Sevierville, TN 37862

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge RRP-CRK 10(1) Stewart

TN

C. Chang

PA-4/J-1

Geotech

Jars

SS

Project Name: State:

County:

Submitted By:

Field Sample No:

Sampled By:

Sample Type:

Boring No: Sample No:

Project Number:

Type of Containers:

J-1 Depth: 1-3PA-4

Report of Subsurface Soil Tests

Soil Classification (AASHTO M 145)

Classification A-6 (10)

Moisture Content (AASHTO T 265)

Moisture Content, % 6.8

Sieve - in. (mm) % Passing Particle Size Analysis (AASHTO T 88)

1/2 (12.5) 100

3/8 (9.5) 99

#4 (4.75) 98

#10 (2.00) 93

#40 (0.425) 81

No. 200 (0.075) 59.3

Liquid Limit (AASHTO T 89)

LL 40

Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index (AASHTO T 90)

PL 19

PI 21

Page 1 of 1 8/7/2007 10:51 AM

Lab Control No: E-07-0384

Federal Highway Administration Federal Lands Highway Office

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Materials Testing Laboratory

112 Industrial Park, Sevierville, TN 37862

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge RRP-CRK 10(1) Stewart

TN

C. Chang

PA-5/J-1

Geotech

Jars

SS

Project Name: State:

County:

Submitted By:

Field Sample No:

Sampled By:

Sample Type:

Boring No: Sample No:

Project Number:

Type of Containers:

J-1 Depth: 1-3PA-5

Report of Subsurface Soil Tests

Soil Classification (AASHTO M 145)

Classification A-7-6 (10)

Moisture Content (AASHTO T 265)

Moisture Content, % 10.7

Sieve - in. (mm) % Passing Particle Size Analysis (AASHTO T 88)

3/8 (9.5) 100

#4 (4.75) 97

#10 (2.00) 96

#40 (0.425) 87

No. 200 (0.075) 64.1

Liquid Limit (AASHTO T 89)

LL 41

Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index (AASHTO T 90)

PL 22

PI 19

Page 1 of 1 8/7/2007 10:53 AM

Lab Control No: E-07-0385

Ucontrolled Copy

Federal Highway Administration Federal Lands Highway Office

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Materials Testing Laboratory

112 Industrial Park, Sevierville, TN 37862

Cross Creek National Wildlife Refuge RRP-CRK 10(1) Stewart

TN

C. Chang

RT-1/J-1

Geotech

Jars

SS

Project Name: State:

County:

Submitted By:

Field Sample No:

Sampled By:

Sample Type:

Boring No: Sample No:

Project Number:

Type of Containers:

J-1 Depth: 1-3RT-1

Report of Subsurface Soil Tests

Soil Classification (AASHTO M 145)

Classification A-6 (4)

Moisture Content (AASHTO T 265)

Moisture Content, % 18.1

Sieve - in. (mm) % Passing Particle Size Analysis (AASHTO T 88)

3/8 (9.5) 100

#4 (4.75) 98

#10 (2.00) 92

#40 (0.425) 80

No. 200 (0.075) 55.1

Liquid Limit (AASHTO T 89)

LL 33

Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index (AASHTO T 90)

PL 21

PI 12

Page 1 of 1 8/7/2007 10:54 AM

Lab Control No: E-07-0386

APPENDIX E – Pavement Design Analysis

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare Computer Software Product

Overlay Design Module

RRP-CRK 10(1)

Stewart County, TN Visitor Center Access Loop (Route 10) and Auto Tour Exit Road (Route 12)

AC Overlay of AC Pavement

Structural Number for Future Traffic 2.1 in

Design Method

Effective Existing Structural Number (in)

Overlay Structural Number (in)

Component Analysis 0.4 1.70 Remaining Life - -

Non-Destructive Testing - -

Structural Number for Future Traffic

Future 18-kip ESALs Over Design Period 105,684 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2 Reliability Level 75 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Subgrade Resilient Modulus 8,000 psi

Calculated Structural Number for Future Traffic 2.10 in

Effective Pavement Thickness - Component Analysis Method

Layer

Material Description

Structural Coefficient

Drainage Coefficient

Thickness (in)

1 Existing Aggregate Base 0.1 1 4

Milling Thickness 0 in

Calculated Results

Calculated Pavement Structural Number Before Milling 0.40 in Calculated Effective Pavement Structural Number 0.40 in

Future Rigorous 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 50 %

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

2 75 2 0.0006 0 263 3 10 2 0.0022 0 129 4 5 2 1 0 29,248 5 5 2 0.5 0 14,624 6 1 2 1.5 0 8,774 7 1 2 1.5 0 8,774 8 1 2 1.5 0 8,774

11 2 2 3 0 35,097 Total 100 - - - 105,684

Growth Compound

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 105,684

Specified Layer Design

Layer

Material Description

Struct Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Thickness (Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in) 1 HMA Pavement 0.4 1 4 11 1.60 2 Leveling Base 0.1 1 2 11 0.20

Total - - - 6.00 - 1.80

...\Analyses\Gravel Design.dgn 6/12/2007 4:01:13 PM

Routes 100 through 104

Performance Period (years) 5 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 40 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

2 75 2 0.0006 0 17 3 10 2 0.0022 0 8 4 5 2 1 0 1,901 5 5 2 0.5 0 950 6 1 2 1.5 0 570 7 1 2 1.5 0 570 8 1 2 1.5 0 570

11 2 2 3 0 2,281 Total 100 - - - 6,868

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 6,868

Performance Period (years) 10 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 40 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

2 75 2 0.0006 0 36 3 10 2 0.0022 0 18 4 5 2 1 0 3,999 5 5 2 0.5 0 2,000 6 1 2 1.5 0 1,200 7 1 2 1.5 0 1,200 8 1 2 1.5 0 1,200

11 2 2 3 0 4,799 Total 100 - - - 14,451

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 14,451

Performance Period (years) 15 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 40 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

2 75 2 0.0006 0 57 3 10 2 0.0022 0 28 4 5 2 1 0 6,316 5 5 2 0.5 0 3,158 6 1 2 1.5 0 1,895 7 1 2 1.5 0 1,895 8 1 2 1.5 0 1,895

11 2 2 3 0 7,580 Total 100 - - - 22,824

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 22,824