Report_2_Pavement.pdf

PAVEMENT REPORT NUMBER FY14-01

FHWA Project RRP-LIS 10(1) Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge

Obion County, Tennessee

Aggregate Surface Pavement Construction and Rehabilitation of Boundary Line Road

January 2014

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

RRP-LIS 10(1) Pavement Report No. FY14-01

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

Pavement Condition Subsurface Condition

III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

1. PAVEMENT DESIGN

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. PAVEMENT SECTION

2. EARTHWORK

V. DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Project Location and Geological Maps Appendix B - Boring Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results

Appendix D - Low-Volume Road 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 FY14-01

FHWA Project RRP-LIS 10(1)

Obion County, Tennessee

Aggregate Surface Pavement Construction and Rehabilitation of Boundary Line Road

I. INTRODUCTION

1. General

This report presents the results of the pavement and subsurface investigations, analysis, design, and recommendations for Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge Boundary Line Road in Obion County, Tennessee. A Project Location Map is presented in Appendix A.

2. Project Description

Project RRP-LIS 10(1) consists of constructing and rehabilitating approximately 2.9 miles of Boundary Line Road (FWS Route 10) between Milepost 0.00 and Milepost 2.90. Boundary Line Road is an aggregate surface road. The existing ditches are in poor condition and filled with sediment due to adjacent farming operations. In order to alleviate drainage issues, the roadway will be raised and widened, with partial realignments to stay within refuge boundaries.

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 that will grant access and mobility within the Refuge, with a long-term service life within the project limits. This project will realign portions of the existing road, and raise the profile and establish proper ditches.

4. Regional Geology

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the project site is underlain by Reelfoot Silt Loam (Re), Worthen Silt Loam (Wo) and Reelfoot (Rf) Silty Clay Loam. A Soil Survey 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 13 borings (Borings B-01 through B-13) between January 31, 2012 and February 1, 2012. All borings were advanced using a flight auger on a model CME 850 rotary drill rig. Borings were advanced to a depth of 5.0 feet. The Boring Logs are presented in Appendix B.

2. Sampling

Sampling of materials beneath the tip of the flight augers was performed in all borings as they were advanced. Continuous sampling was conducted from 1 to 5 feet by split-barrel sampling. 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, while Laboratory Test Results are documented in Appendix C.

3. 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.

The locations of Borings B-01 through B-13 were determined from features present on-site and by referencing the existing roadway centerlines and vehicle odometer readings. 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.

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. No water was encountered during the drilling of any borings as noted in the boring logs. 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 7 soil samples from Borings B-01 through B-13. Laboratory tests on the samples included gradation (AASHTO

T-88), Atterberg limits (AASHTO T-89, T-90), moisture content (AASHTO T-265), soil classification (AASHTO T-145). Laboratory test results are 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)

B-03 J-2 3-5 69.4 33 13 A-6(7) 26.1 B-04 J-1 1-3 95.2 64 40 A-7-6(43) 31.5 B-06 J-2 3-5 33.9 N/D N/P A-2-4(0) 16.4 B-07 J-2 3-5 50.4 32 14 A-6(4) 17.2 B-08 J-1 1-3 40.1 24 8 A-4(0) 14.9 B-11 J-1 1-3 89.0 61 37 A-7-6(36) 21.4 B-12 J-2 3-5 79.9 35 14 A-6(10) 24.3

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 C for more detailed information. Ground water was not encountered during any of the borings as noted in the boring logs. Fluctuations in the water level due to seasonal and climatic effects should be expected.

Pavement Condition

Boundary Line Road (FWS Route 10) is an aggregate surface road, with portions experiencing complete aggregate loss and rutting due to poor subgrade conditions (see Figures 1-3 below). Ditches are currently in poor condition and are blocked with debris as a result of adjacent farming operations. The lack of a raised embankment in many areas has contributed to poor drainage and inadequate cover for pipes, leading to weakened subgrade conditions.

Figure 1. Typical existing conditions (Route 10)

Figure 2. Poor subgrade conditions (Route 10)

Figure 3. Inadequate cover

Subsurface Condition

Borings B-01 through B-13 were taken along Boundary Line Road. The existing aggregate surface course thickness along Boundary Line Road is 3.0 inches.

Brown silty clay (A-7-6) and/or sandy clay (A-6) was encountered in all 13 borings below the existing aggregate surface course. Based on laboratory testing of the silty clay (A-7-6) material, water content ranged from 21.4 to 31.5% with an average of 26.5%, liquid limit ranged from 61 to 64 with an average of 62.5, and plasticity index ranged from 37 to 40 with an average of 38.5. Based on laboratory testing of the sandy clay (A-6) material, water content ranged from 17.2 to 26.1% with an average of 22.5%, liquid limit ranged from 32 to 35 with an average of 33.3, and plasticity index ranged from 13 to 14 with an average of 13.7.

Brown clayey sand (A-4) was encountered in 1 boring below the existing aggregate surface course. Based on laboratory testing of the clayey sand material, water content was 14.9%, liquid limit was 24, and the plasticity index was 8.

Brown silty sand (A-2-4) was encountered in 1 boring below the existing aggregate surface course. Based on laboratory testing of the silty sand material, water content was 16.4%, and was determined to be non-plastic.

III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Pavement Design

Low-Volume Road design analyses for aggregate surfaced roads were performed in accordance with 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design procedure, using the accompanying nomograph design charts, for the proposed roadways. The low-volume road design analysis was for performance periods of 5, 7, 10, 15, and 20 years. The design must meet criteria for rutting and serviceability loss, as well as aggregate loss. An aggregate loss rate of 1/2 inch per year was used. Due to the extremely low traffic volume experienced, the 18-kip ESALs for the roadway was taken as a minimum of 500 ESALs per year (minimum standard 10,000 ESAL’s for 20-year design). The effective roadbed soil resilient modulus (MR) was determined from seasonal values for Region II, and calculated based on seasonal lengths of 1 month for Winter, 0.5 months for Spring-Thaw, 7 months for Spring/Fall and 3 ½ months for Summer. For Region II roadbed soil MR in very poor condition, Winter MR is taken as 20,000 psi, Spring-Thaw as 1,500 psi, Spring/Fall MR as 2,500 psi, and Summer MR as 4,000 psi. Other parameters specified in the analysis included an elastic modulus for aggregate base material (EBS) of 30,000 psi, an allowable rutting depth of 2.0 inches, and an overall change in serviceability index as 3.0. The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix D.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following pavement recommendations are based on the existing conditions at the time of the field investigation in January 2012. 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 surface aggregate pavement sections with performance periods for the project are provided below in Table 2.

Table 2. Expected Performance Periods

Layer Thickness (in)

Performance Period (years)

Aggregate Surface Course 5 5 Aggregate Surface Course 6 8 Aggregate Surface Course 7 12 Aggregate Surface Course 8 16

Boundary Line Road (FWS Route 10)

In order to rehabilitate Boundary Line Road, and correct drainage issues, we are recommending the following. All topsoil and/or vegetative material should be scalped and disposed of prior to embankment construction. Any unsuitable material and/or wet spots should be sub-excavated to a minimum depth of 2 feet and backfilled with unclassified borrow over Type I-B geotextile according to the CO. Embankments should be constructed using 1-2 feet of unclassified borrow over Type I-B geotextile. The embankment profile should be constructed as needed to raise the profile to alleviate drainage issues. Ditches should be established prior to embankment construction. An aggregate surface course should be constructed overtop the established embankment material. The aggregate surface course, at a minimum, should meet the requirements laid out below in Table 3.

Table 3. Route 10 Rehabilitation Recommendations

Layer Minimum Thickness (in)

Comments

Aggregate Surface Course

Surface Course Aggregate, as per Subsection 703.05(c) of the FP-03

Specifications

Embankment Material 12-24

Unclassified Borrow, as per Subsection 704.06 of the FP-03

Specifications

Geotextile --- Geotextile, Type I-B, as per Section 714 of the FP-03 Specifications

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. All native topsoil and/or vegetative material should be scalped and disposed of to a minimum depth of 6-inches prior to subgrade preparation. If unsuitable subgrade materials/muck are encountered in isolated areas, sub-excavation of unsuitable materials is recommended to a minimum depth of 2-feet. The sub-excavated areas should then be backfilled with unclassified borrow over Type I-B geotextile according to the CO. All sub-excavation and embankment construction should be in accordance with Section 204 of the FP-03 Specifications.

Embankment/Ditch Establishment: Embankments should be constructed using 1-2 feet of unclassified borrow as needed to raise the profile to alleviate drainage issues. Place embankment material over Type I-B geotextile. Ditches should be established prior to embankment construction to alleviate drainage issues.

Borrow/Fill Material: All fill for sub-excavated areas and embankment establishment should be unclassified borrow according to Subsection 704.06 of the FP-03 Specifications.

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

Sean O’Brien Pavement Engineer

Reviewed by:

Bill Eshbaugh Pavement Team Leader

APPENDIX A – Project Location and Geological Maps

Source: Google Earth (2014)

SE

SHEET

NO. PROJECT

STATEREG

RRP-LIS 10(1)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1TN

FIGURE 1

STATE LOCATION MAP EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

TOTAL

SHEETS

Source: Google Earth (2014)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1TN

FIGURE 2

LOCATION MAP EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

TOTAL

SHEETS

SE

SHEET

NO. PROJECT

STATEREG

RRP-LIS 10(1)

Obion County, Tennessee (2014) Source: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

Re - Reelfoot Silt Loam Typical profile 0 to 14 inches: Silt Loam 14 to 38 inches: Silt Loam, Silty Clay Loam 38 to 72 inches: Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Loam

Wo - Worthen Silt Loam Typical profile 0 to 72 inches: Silt Loam

Rf - Reelfoot Silty Clay Loam Typical profile 0 to 13 inches: Silty Clay Loam 13 to 44 inches: Silt Loam, Silty Clay Loam 44 to 72 inches: Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Loam

SE

SHEET

NO. PROJECT

STATEREG

RRP-LIS 10(1)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

1TN

FIGURE 3

SOIL SURVEY MAP EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

TOTAL

SHEETS

APPENDIX B – Boring Logs

J-1

J-2

0.3

3.0

5.0

0.9

1.4

6-12-6-8

2-2-4-4

3-inches GRAVEL

Very stiff, brown SILTY CLAY, (moist to dry)

Medium, brown and gray SILTY CLAY, (moist)

Bottom of borehole @ 5 feet

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B-01

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

LIS-10(1)

Lake Isom NWR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in

20 60 80

140 lbs/AUTO 4 in

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/31/12 Flight auger

1/31/12 Thornton Kingsley Cloudy

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

MP 0

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

No ground water was encountered during or after drilling began.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/2

/1

0.3

3.0

5.0

1.2

1.4

3-4-7-8

4-1-1-1

3-inches GRAVEL

Stiff, dark brown SILTY CLAY, (moist)

Soft, dark brown SILTY CLAY, (moist)

Bottom of borehole @ 5 feet

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B-02

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

LIS-10(1)

Lake Isom NWR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in

20 60 80

140 lbs/AUTO 4 in

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/31/12 Flight auger

1/31/12 Thornton Kingsley Cloudy

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

MP .25

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

No ground water was encountered during or after drilling began.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/2

/1

0.3

3.0

5.0

1.1

1.8

3-4-4-5

0-1-2-3

3-inches GRAVEL

Stiff, brown SILTY CLAY, (moist)

Soft, brown SANDY CLAY (A-6(7)), (moist)

Bottom of borehole @ 5 feet

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B-03

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

LIS-10(1)

Lake Isom NWR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in

20 60 80

140 lbs/AUTO 4 in

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/31/12 Flight auger

1/31/12 Thornton Kingsley Cloudy

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

MP .50

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

No ground water was encountered during or after drilling began.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/2

/1

0.3

3.0

5.0

1.1

1.2

2-3-3-4

1-2-3-4

3-inches GRAVEL

Medium, brownish gray SILTY CLAY (A-7-6(43)), (moist)

Soft, brown SILTY CLAY, some gravel (moist)

Bottom of borehole @ 5 feet

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B-04

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

LIS-10(1)

Lake Isom NWR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in

20 60 80

140 lbs/AUTO 4 in

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/31/12 Flight auger

1/31/12 Thornton Kingsley Cloudy

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

MP .75

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

No ground water was encountered during or after drilling began.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/2

/1

0.3

3.0

5.0

0.6

1.2

3-7-5-6

3-2-4-4

3-inches GRAVEL

Stiff, brown SILTY CLAY, some gravel (moist)

Medium, brown SILTY Clay, (moist)

Bottom of borehole @ 5 feet

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B-05

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

LIS-10(1)

Lake Isom NWR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in

20 60 80

140 lbs/AUTO 4 in

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/31/12 Flight auger

1/31/12 Thornton Kingsley Cloudy

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

MP 1

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

No ground water was encountered during or after drilling began.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/2

/1

0.3

3.0

5.0

0.9

1.4

4-5-4-4

2-2-3-3

3-inches GRAVEL

Stiff, brown SANDY CLAY, trace of silt (moist)

Medium, brown SILTY SAND (A-2-4(0)), trace of silt (moist)

Bottom of borehole @ 5 feet

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B-06

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

LIS-10(1)

Lake Isom NWR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in

20 60 80

140 lbs/AUTO 4 in

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/31/12 Flight auger

1/31/12 Thornton Kingsley Cloudy

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

MP 1.25

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

No ground water was encountered during or after drilling began.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/2

/1

0.3

5.0

1.1

1.5

2-3-3-3

3-4-4-4

3-inches GRAVEL

Medium, brown SANDY CLAY (A-6(4)), (moist)

Bottom of borehole @ 5 feet

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B-07

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

LIS-10(1)

Lake Isom NWR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in

20 60 80

140 lbs/AUTO 4 in

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/31/12 Flight auger

1/31/12 Thornton Kingsley Cloudy

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

MP 1.50

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

No ground water was encountered during or after drilling began.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/2

/1

0.3

3.0

5.0

1.1

1.4

2-5-5-3

2-2-3-4

3-inches GRAVEL

Stiff, brown CLAYEY SAND (A-4(0)), (moist)

Medium, brown SANDY CLAY, (moist)

Bottom of borehole @ 5 feet

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B-08

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

LIS-10(1)

Lake Isom NWR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in

20 60 80

140 lbs/AUTO 4 in

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/31/12 Flight auger

1/31/12 Thornton Kingsley Cloudy

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

MP 1.75

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

No ground water was encountered during or after drilling began.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/2

/1

0.3

3.0

5.0

0.9

1.4

3-5-6-9

2-2-4-5

3-inches GRAVEL

Stiff, brown SILTY CLAY, (moist)

Medium, brown SILTY CLAY, (moist)

Bottom of borehole @ 5 feet

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B-09

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

LIS-10(1)

Lake Isom NWR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in

20 60 80

140 lbs/AUTO 4 in

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 1/31/12 Flight auger

1/31/12 Thornton Kingsley Cloudy

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

MP 2

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

No ground water was encountered during or after drilling began.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/2

/1

0.3

3.0

5.0

0.8

1.4

2-2-4-5

2-2-2-2

3-inches GRAVEL

Medium, dark brown CLAY, trace of silt and some gravel (moist)

Soft, brown SILTY CLAY, (moist)

Bottom of borehole @ 5 feet

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B-10

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

LIS-10(1)

Lake Isom NWR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in

20 60 80

140 lbs/AUTO 4 in

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 2/1/12 Flight auger

2/1/12 Thornton Kingsley Cloudy

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

MP 2.25

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

No ground water was encountered during or after drilling began.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/2

/1

0.3

3.0

5.0

1.1

1.5

2-4-5-5

0-1-2-3

3-inches GRAVEL

Stiff, brown SILTY CLAY (A-7-6(36)), (moist)

Soft, brown CLAY, trace of silt

Bottom of borehole @ 5 feet

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B-11

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

LIS-10(1)

Lake Isom NWR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in

20 60 80

140 lbs/AUTO 4 in

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 2/1/12 Flight auger

2/1/12 Thornton Kingsley Cloudy

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

MP 2.50

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

No ground water was encountered during or after drilling began.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/2

/1

0.3

3.0

5.0

0.8

1.4

2-4-5-6

2-3-3-4

3-inches GRAVEL

Stiff, brown SILTY CLAY, (moist)

Medium, brown CLAY (A-6(10)), trace of sand (moist)

Bottom of borehole @ 5 feet

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B-12

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

LIS-10(1)

Lake Isom NWR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in

20 60 80

140 lbs/AUTO 4 in

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 2/1/12 Flight auger

2/1/12 Thornton Kingsley Cloudy

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

MP 2.75

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

No ground water was encountered during or after drilling began.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/2

/1

0.3

5.0

0.4

1.4

2-3-4-4

2-3-4-5

3-inches GRAVEL

Medium, brown SILTY CLAY, (moist)

Bottom of borehole @ 5 feet

(Blows / ft)

Groundwater Depth:

At Completion:

La ye r D ep th ft)

D ep th S ca le ft)

Completed:

Hole Diameter:

Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture T yp e

Boring Location:

Boring No.:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Liquid Limit

Standard Penetration Test Data

B-13

Weather:

Operator:

Inspector:

R ec

SAMPLE

LIS-10(1)

Lake Isom NWR hrs

B lo w s pe r in

Remarks:

G ra ph ic

Lo g

Auger Cuttings UD

30 in

20 60 80

140 lbs/AUTO 4 in

BORING LOG

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Hammer Wt. & Type:

Surface Elevation: Boring Began: 2/1/12 Flight auger

2/1/12 Thornton Kingsley Cloudy

Project Name:

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Water Content %

SPT Rock Core Penetrometer

N o.

Sample Types:

Encountered at:

After

Project Location:

Plastic Limit

MP 2.90

Sheet: 1 of 1

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

No ground water was encountered during or after drilling began.

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P J

F H

W A

_V A

.G D

T

/2

/1

APPENDIX C – Laboratory Test Results

SOIL DATA

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

RRP-LIS 10(1)

FHWA/EFLHD

A-6(7)13332026.13-5B-3/J-2MP 0.5

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-7-6(43)40642431.51-3B-4/J-1MP 0.75

A-2-4(0)NPNVNP16.43-5B-6/J-2MP 1.25

A-6(4)14321817.23-5B-7/J-2MP 1.50

A-4(0)8241614.91-3B-8/J-1MP 1.75

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.

USCSDESCRIPTION

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

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

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 0.5 1.4 1.0 27.7 69.4

(ft.)

RRP-LIS 10(1)

FHWA/EFLHD

MP 0.5 B-3/J-2 3-5 Sandy lean clay CL

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 3.3 95.2

MP 0.75 B-4/J-1 1-3 Fat clay CH

0.0 0.0 4.4 3.2 11.4 47.1 33.9

MP 1.25 B-6/J-2 3-5 Silty sand SM

0.0 0.0 2.5 2.8 1.7 42.6 50.4

MP 1.50 B-7/J-2 3-5 Sandy lean clay CL

0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.7 54.2 40.1

MP 1.75 B-8/J-1 1-3 Clayey sand SC

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

RRP-LIS 10(1)

FHWA/EFLHD

A-7-6(36)37612421.41-3B-11/J-1MP 2.50

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-6(10)14352124.33-5B-12/J-2MP 2.75

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.

USCSDESCRIPTION

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

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

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 0.0 1.0 4.3 5.7 89.0

(ft.)

RRP-LIS 10(1)

FHWA/EFLHD

MP 2.50 B-11/J-1 1-3 Fat clay CH

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 1.7 0.8 2.1 15.5 79.9

MP 2.75 B-12/J-2 3-5 Lean clay with sand CL

APPENDIX D – Low-Volume Road Design Analysis

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

4 5 6 7 8

To ta l D am ag e

Performance Period

Projected Performance Period for 5" Aggregate Surface Course

Fail Line

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

4 6 8 10 12

To ta l D am ag e

Performance Period

Projected Performance Period for 6" Aggregate Surface Course

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

4 6 8 10 12 14 16

To ta l D am ag e

Performance Period

Projected Performance Period for 7" Aggregate Surface Course

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

4 9 14 19 24

To ta l D am ag e

Performance Period

Projected Performance Period for 8" Aggregate Surface Course

Design (years) = 5 DBS, (inches) = 5.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Season (Roadbed Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 208 220000 0.00 20000 0.01

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 105 1800 0.06 1200 0.09

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 1458 2800 0.52 2100 0.69

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 729 4200 0.17 3900 0.19

Total Traffic = 2500 Total Damage = 0.75 Total Damage = 0.98

Design (years) = 5 DBS, (inches) = 6.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Season (Roadbed Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 208 300000 0.00 31000 0.01

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 105 2800 0.04 2200 0.05

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 1458 3100 0.47 4100 0.36

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 729 6000 0.12 6800 0.11

Total Traffic = 2500 Total Damage = 0.63 Total Damage = 0.52

Serviceability Criteria, Rutting Criteria, Serviceability Criteria, Rutting Criteria, Trial Base Thickness,Performance Period, Performance Period, Trial Base Thickness, Design (years) = 5 DBS, (inches) = 7.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 208 400000 0.00 53000 0.00

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 105 3100 0.03 3900 0.03

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 1458 5400 0.27 6000 0.24

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 729 8000 0.09 9900 0.07

Total Traffic = 2500 Total Damage = 0.40 Total Damage = 0.35

Design (years) = 5 DBS, (inches) = 8.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Season (Roadbed Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 208 500000 0.00 72000 0.00

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 105 4100 0.03 5700 0.02

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 1458 6900 0.21 8900 0.16

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 729 11000 0.07 12000 0.06

Total Traffic = 2500 Total Damage = 0.30 Total Damage = 0.25

Serviceability Criteria, Rutting Criteria, Serviceability Criteria, Rutting Criteria, 0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

4 5 6 7 8 9

To ta l D am ag e

Base Thickness (inches)

5 Year Performance Period Damage Growth vs. Base Thickness

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

Design (years) = 7 DBS, (inches) = 5.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 291.2 220000 0.00 20000 0.01

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 147 1800 0.08 1200 0.12

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 2041.2 2800 0.73 2100 0.97

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 1020.6 4200 0.24 3900 0.26

Total Traffic = 3500 Total Damage = 1.05 Total Damage = 1.37

Design (years) = 7 DBS, (inches) = 6.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Season (Roadbed Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 291.2 300000 0.00 31000 0.01

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 147 2800 0.05 2200 0.07

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 2041.2 3100 0.66 4100 0.50

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 1020.6 6000 0.17 6800 0.15

Total Traffic = 3500 Total Damage = 0.88 Total Damage = 0.72

Trial Base Thickness,Performance Period, Performance Period, Trial Base Thickness, Serviceability Criteria, Rutting Criteria, Design (years) = 7 DBS, (inches) = 7.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 291.2 400000 0.00 53000 0.01

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 147 3100 0.05 3900 0.04

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 2041.2 5400 0.38 6000 0.34

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 1020.6 8000 0.13 9900 0.10

Total Traffic = 3500 Total Damage = 0.55 Total Damage = 0.49

Design (years) = 7 DBS, (inches) = 8.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Season (Roadbed Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 291.2 500000 0.00 72000 0.00

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 147 4100 0.04 5700 0.03

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 2041.2 6900 0.30 8900 0.23

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 1020.6 11000 0.09 12000 0.09

Total Traffic = 3500 Total Damage = 0.43 Total Damage = 0.34

Performance Period, Trial Base Thickness, Performance Period, Trial Base Thickness, 0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

4 5 6 7 8 9

To ta l D am ag e

Base Thickness (inches)

7 Year Performance Period Damage Growth vs. Base Thickness

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

Design (years) = 10 DBS, (inches) = 5.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 416 220000 0.00 20000 0.02

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 210 1800 0.12 1200 0.18

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 2916 2800 1.04 2100 1.39

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 1458 4200 0.35 3900 0.37

Total Traffic = 5000 Total Damage = 1.51 Total Damage = 1.96

Design (years) = 10 DBS, (inches) = 6.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Season (Roadbed Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 416 300000 0.00 31000 0.01

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 210 2800 0.08 2200 0.10

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 2916 3100 0.94 4100 0.71

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 1458 6000 0.24 6800 0.21

Total Traffic = 5000 Total Damage = 1.26 Total Damage = 1.03

Performance Period, Trial Base Thickness, Serviceability Criteria, Rutting Criteria, Design (years) = 10 DBS, (inches) = 7.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 416 400000 0.00 53000 0.01

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 210 3100 0.07 3900 0.05

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 2916 5400 0.54 6000 0.49

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 1458 8000 0.18 9900 0.15

Total Traffic = 5000 Total Damage = 0.79 Total Damage = 0.69

Design (years) = 10 DBS, (inches) = 8.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Season (Roadbed Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 416 500000 0.00 72000 0.01

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 210 4100 0.05 5700 0.04

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 2916 6900 0.42 8900 0.33

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 1458 11000 0.13 12000 0.12

Total Traffic = 5000 Total Damage = 0.61 Total Damage = 0.49

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

4 5 6 7 8 9

To ta l D am ag e

Base Thickness (inches)

10 Year Performance Period Damage Growth vs. Base Thickness

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

Design (years) = 15 DBS, (inches) = 5.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 624 220000 0.00 20000 0.03

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 315 1800 0.18 1200 0.26

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 4374 2800 1.56 2100 2.08

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 2187 4200 0.52 3900 0.56

Total Traffic = 7500 Total Damage = 2.26 Total Damage = 2.94

Design (years) = 15 DBS, (inches) = 6.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Season (Roadbed Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 624 300000 0.00 31000 0.02

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 315 2800 0.11 2200 0.14

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 4374 3100 1.41 4100 1.07

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 2187 6000 0.36 6800 0.32

Total Traffic = 7500 Total Damage = 1.89 Total Damage = 1.55

Design (years) = 15 DBS, (inches) = 7.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 624 400000 0.00 53000 0.01

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 315 3100 0.10 3900 0.08

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 4374 5400 0.81 6000 0.73

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 2187 8000 0.27 9900 0.22

Total Traffic = 7500 Total Damage = 1.19 Total Damage = 1.04

Design (years) = 15 DBS, (inches) = 8.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Season (Roadbed Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 624 500000 0.00 72000 0.01

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 315 4100 0.08 5700 0.06

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 4374 6900 0.63 8900 0.49

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 2187 11000 0.20 12000 0.18

Total Traffic = 7500 Total Damage = 0.91 Total Damage = 0.74

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4 5 6 7 8 9

To ta l D am ag e

Base Thickness (inches)

15 Year Performance Period Damage Growth vs. Base Thickness

15 Year PSI 15 Year RUT

Power (15 Year PSI) Power (15 Year RUT)

Design (years) = 20 DBS, (inches) = 5.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 832 220000 0.00 20000 0.04

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 420 1800 0.23 1200 0.35

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 5832 2800 2.08 2100 2.78

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 2916 4200 0.69 3900 0.75

Total Traffic = 10000 Total Damage = 3.01 Total Damage = 3.92

Design (years) = 20 DBS, (inches) = 6.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Season (Roadbed Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 832 300000 0.00 31000 0.03

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 420 2800 0.15 2200 0.19

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 5832 3100 1.88 4100 1.42

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 2916 6000 0.49 6800 0.43

Total Traffic = 10000 Total Damage = 2.52 Total Damage = 2.07

Design (years) = 20 DBS, (inches) = 7.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 832 400000 0.00 53000 0.02

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 420 3100 0.14 3900 0.11

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 5832 5400 1.08 6000 0.97

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 2916 8000 0.36 9900 0.29

Total Traffic = 10000 Total Damage = 1.58 Total Damage = 1.39

Design (years) = 20 DBS, (inches) = 8.0 ∆PSI = 3.0 RD (inches) = 2.0

Season (Roadbed Moisture Condition)

Roadbed Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)

Base Elastic Modulus, EBS

(psi)

Projected 18-kip ESAL Traffic, W18

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)PSI

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)PSI

Allowable 18-kip ESAL Traffic, (W18)RUT

Seasonal Damage, W18/(W18)RUT

Winter (Frozen) 20000 30000 832 500000 0.00 72000 0.01

Spring/Thaw (Saturated) 1500 30000 420 4100 0.10 5700 0.07

Spring/Fall (Wet) 2500 30000 5832 6900 0.85 8900 0.66

Summer (Dry) 4000 30000 2916 11000 0.27 12000 0.24

Total Traffic = 10000 Total Damage = 1.21 Total Damage = 0.98

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

4 5 6 7 8 9

To ta l D am ag e

Base Thickness (inches)

20 Year Performance Period Damage Growth vs. Base Thickness

20 Year PSI 20 Year RUT

Power (20 Year PSI) Power (20 Year RUT)