Report_Pavement.pdf

PAVEMENT REPORT NUMBER FY12-02

FHWA Project PRA-FOOT 8E21, F9

Foothills Parkway Blount and Sevier Counties, Tennessee

Pavement Rehabilitation for Mainline Parkway and Adjacent Pull-offs and Parking Areas.

January 2012

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

PRA-FOOT 8E21, F9 Pavement Report No. FY12-02 Foothills Parkway

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE-AND-NEED

1.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

2 PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

2.1 PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY

2.2 PAVEMENT CORING AND SOIL BORING

2.3 SAMPLING

2.4 FIELD TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS

2.5 DATA SUMMARY

2.6 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION

2.7 FINDINGS

Pavement Condition Subsurface Condition

3 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

3.1 PAVEMENT DESIGN

4 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 PAVEMENT SECTION

4.2 EARTHWORK

5 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

APPENDICES

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

Page 1 of 2 Pages

Form FHWA-201 (Rev. 11-67)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message comment is to be retained as file material. Do not prepare carbons. Not to be used in lieu of Form FHWA- 121 for informal correspondence. MINUTE-MEMO

M:\Projects\foot\8e21\techserv\pavement\Correspondence\PRA-FOOT 8E21_F9 Pavement Report Addendum.doc

SUBJECT: Addendum to Pavement Report for PRA-FOOT 8E21, F9

TO MESSAGE/COMMENT FROM/DATE

K.

McCool

PS&E

Project Manager

And:

A.

Feleke Highway Design Manager

Through:

A.

Teikari Highway Design Engineer

To support developing 70% PS&E for the project, we’re submitting our review and analysis of the results of the second Value Engineering (VE) Study for the project PRA- FOOT 8E21, F9. The project site is located in Foothills Parkway in Sevier and Blount Counties, TN. The project consists of rehabilitation and paving of the existing unpaved portions of the mainline parkway sections E and F (NPS Routes 008E and 008F) and adjacent pull-offs from milepost 39.1 to milepost 55.2.

VE Results

Based on the findings of the second VE study (report dated May 2013), the following alternatives were brought forth:

• Reduce Pavement Thickness – The VE team considered an alternative of 1 ½-inch surface course of hot asphalt concrete pavement (HACP), 4-inch HACP binder course (1-lift), and 6-inches Full-Depth Reclamation (FDR) with cement stabilization.

• FDR without cement – The VE team considered an alternative of pulverizing without cement stabilization, or a combination of FDR with cement for Section 8F and pulverizing only for Section 8E.

• Use of Warm Mix Asphalt – Use of warm mix asphalt was considered in lieu of conventional HACP.

Recommendations

After further analysis of the design alternatives proposed during the second VE study, we are providing the following recommendations.

Revised Pavement Structure

As per the original pavement design recommendations, the required structural number (SN) for anticipated traffic loads is 2.63. A design structural number of 3.00 was given for the original design of 1 ½-inch HACP surface course, 3 ½-inch HACP binder course, and 5-inches of FDR with cement stabilization (see attached design analysis). During the first VE study, increasing the binder course thickness to 4 ½-inches for anticipated construction traffic was considered and incorporated into the resulting plans. As the second VE looks to reduce this to a 4-inch lift making it constructible in a single lift, the original required SN is still achieved. Therefore, a revised pavement structure consisting of 1 ½-inch HACP surface course, 4-inch HACP binder course, and 5-inch FDR with cement will meet the design requirements. Use of Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) in lieu of conventional HACP was also proposed by the VE team, and its use is encouraged. We recommend incorporating the WMA permissive specifications into the Special Contract Requirements for this project.

S. O’Brien Acting Pavement Team Leader

Through:

S.

Whittemore Technical Services Engineer

6/25/2013

Page 2 of 2 Pages

Form FHWA-201 (Rev. 11-67)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Use this form in lieu of transmittal slips within Dept. of Trans. When message comment is to be retained as file material. Do not prepare carbons. Not to be used in lieu of Form FHWA- 121 for informal correspondence. MINUTE-MEMO

M:\Projects\foot\8e21\techserv\pavement\Correspondence\PRA-FOOT 8E21_F9 Pavement Report Addendum.doc

TO MESSAGE/COMMENT FROM/DATE

FDR Method

The current design calls for the existing chip seal (where present) and aggregate base course to be pulverized to a 5-inch depth and treated with cement stabilization prior to constructing the final HACP binder and surface courses. The VE team looked at the option to replace FDR with cement with pulverization only. This option was rejected by the VE team for the 8F section, but recommended for the 8E section. After further design analysis (see attached), this alternative is viable with a design SN of 2.81 assuming the binder course will be increased to 4-inches. As this alternative was also analyzed as part of the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, it is worth noting that this alternative had a higher life-cycle cost than FDR with cement. This is due to the risk of premature failures, and increased maintenance activities and frequencies. While the service life of both alternatives are similar, the overall performance of this option has the potential for accelerated deterioration, and lower ride quality, than that of the option for cement stabilization. Additionally, the VE assumed a 6-inch depth for FDR, whereas the original design called for 5-inches. It was noted that this is for constructability issues; however, isolated areas from test locations showed no more than 5-inches of existing aggregate, therefore care should be taken during construction to ensure unsuitable subgrade material is not incorporated into the stabilized base material if 6-inches depth FDR is specified.

Attached are copies of the alternative pavement design analyses.

cc: Pavement (S. O’Brien), Highway Design (M. Hoover), TS Reading w/ attachments

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare Computer Software Product

Flexible Structural Design Module

5-inch FDR with cement

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 425,387 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 85 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 10,000 psi Stage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 2.63 in

Simple ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 25 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 1,933 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 60 % Percent Heavy Trucks (of ADT) FHWA Class 5 or Greater - % Average Initial Truck Factor (ESALs/truck) - Annual Truck Factor Growth Rate - % Annual Truck Volume Growth Rate - % Growth Simple

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs - *

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

Rigorous ESAL Calculation

Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 1,933 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 60 %

Vehicle Class

Percent of

ADT

Annual

Growth

Average Initial Truck Factor

(ESALs/ Truck)

Annual % Growth in

Truck Factor

Accumulated 18-kip ESALs over Performance Period

1 98 2 0.0007 0 9,009 2 1 2 0.6 0 78,793 3 1 2 1.2 0 157,586

Growth

Average Initial Truck Factor

(ESALs/ Truck)

Annual % Growth in

Truck Factor

Accumulated 18-kip ESALs over Performance Period

Total 100 - - - 245,387

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 245,387

Specified Layer Design

Layer

Material Description

Struct Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Thickness (Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in) 1 AC Overlay 0.42 1 5 9 2.10 2 FDR with cement 0.18 1 5 9 0.90

Total - - - 10.00 - 3.00

Layered Thickness Design

Thickness precision Actual

Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Spec Thickness (Di)(in)

Min Thickness (Di)(in)

Elastic Modulus

(psi)

Calculated

(in)

Total - - - - - - - - -

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare Computer Software Product

Flexible Structural Design Module

5-inch Pulverization

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 425,387 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 85 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 10,000 psi Stage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 2.63 in

Simple ESAL Calculation

Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 1,933 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 60 % Percent Heavy Trucks (of ADT) FHWA Class 5 or Greater - % Average Initial Truck Factor (ESALs/truck) - Annual Truck Factor Growth Rate - % Annual Truck Volume Growth Rate - %

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs - *

Rigorous ESAL Calculation

Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 1,933 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 60 %

Growth

Average Initial Truck Factor

(ESALs/ Truck)

Annual % Growth in

Truck Factor

Accumulated 18-kip ESALs over Performance Period

1 98 2 0.0007 0 9,009

Growth

Average Initial Truck Factor

(ESALs/ Truck)

Annual % Growth in

Truck Factor

Accumulated 18-kip ESALs over Performance Period

Total 100 - - - 245,387

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 245,387

Specified Layer Design

Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

(Di)(in)

1 AC Overlay 0.42 1 5.5 9 2.31 2 FDR with cement 0.1 1 5 9 0.50

Total - - - 10.50 - 2.81

Layered Thickness Design

Thickness precision Actual

Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Spec Thickness (Di)(in)

Min Thickness (Di)(in)

Elastic Modulus

(psi)

Calculated

(in)

PAVEMENT REPORT NUMBER FY12-02

FHWA Project PRA-FOOT 8E21, F9

Foothills Parkway Blount and Sevier Counties, Tennessee

Pavement Rehabilitation and Resurfacing for Mainline Parkway 8E and 8F Sections and Adjacent Pull-offs and Parking Areas

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report presents the results of the pavement and subsurface investigations, analysis, design, and recommendations for Foothills Parkway Sections E and F in Blount and Sevier Counties, Tennessee. A Project Location Map is presented in Appendix A.

1.2 Project Description

Project PRA-FOOT 8E21, F9 consists of rehabilitating and paving approximately 16.1 miles of the Mainline Parkway Sections E and F (NPS Routes 008E and 008F) between Milepost

39.1 and Milepost 55.2. The Blue Ridge Parkway, Sections E and F (NPS Routes 008E and 008F) are currently two-lane, aggregate surface roads.

1.3 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 Park, with a long-term (25-year) service life within the project limits.

1.4 Regional Geology

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the project site is underlain by Lenoir Limestone and Knox Group formations consisting of limestones, basal clastic rocks, dolomite, and sandstones. A Geologic Map of the project site is presented in Appendix A.

2 PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

2.1 Pavement Condition Survey

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) Pavement Section conducted a pavement condition survey on September 12th, 2011. Identified pavement distresses and their quantified severity levels were recorded in accordance with “The Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Project, 1993” by the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP).

2.2 Pavement Coring and Soil Boring

The EFLHD Subsurface Exploration Team drilled a total of 54 borings (Borings E-01 through E-16, F-01 through F-36, RA-01, and RA-02) on September 12th, 2011 through September 15th, 2011. All borings were advanced using a flight auger on a model CME 45 rotary drill rig. Borings were advanced to a depth of 5.0 feet. Boring Logs are presented in Appendix B.

2.3 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.

2.4 Field Tests and Measurements

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

The locations of Borings E-01 through RA-02 were determined from features present on-site and by referencing the existing roadway centerlines, milepost markers, preliminary roadway plans, and ground stationing. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed and resistance was recorded during the recovery of each split barrel sample in accordance with AASHTO T206-87. The sampler was driven into the soil using an automatic hammer.

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

2.5 Data Summary

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.

2.6 Laboratory Investigation

At the conclusion of the fieldwork, laboratory testing was conducted on 16 soil samples from Borings E-01 through RA-02. Laboratory tests on the samples included gradation (AASHTO T-88), Atterburg 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)

E-02 J-2 3-5 70.3 51 26 A-7-6(18) 19.0 E-06 J-2 3-5 41.7 32 N.P. A-4(0) 15.5 E-07 J-1 1-3 31.2 N.D. N.P. A-2-4(0) 9.1 E-11 J-1 1-3 51.9 34 N.P. A-4(0) 15.8 E-15 J-1 1-3 23.8 N.D. N.P. A-1-b 9.6 E-16 J-1 1-3 26.5 N.D. N.P. A-2-4(0) 7.3 F-03 J-1 1-3 74.6 31 N.P. A-4(0) 18.4 F-04 J-1 1-3 34.7 28 N.P. N-2-4(0) 9.6 F-09 J-2 3-5 66.6 35 N.P. A-4(0) 19.8 F-12 J-1 1-3 55.4 36 N.P. A-4(0) 13.1 F-15 J-2 3-5 44.4 30 N.P. A-4(0) 13.7 F-18 J-2 3-5 55.3 35 N.P. A-4(0) 12.9 F-22 J-1 1-3 20.0 26 N.P. A-1-b 6.4 F-26 J-1 1-3 3.1 N.D. N.P. A-1-a 3.6 F-27 J-2 3-5 42.1 N.D. N.P. A-4(0) 12.3 F-36 J-1 1-3 26.4 N.D. N.P. A-2-4(0) 9.8

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

2.7 Findings

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

Based on the pavement condition survey conducted by EFLHD Pavement Section in September, the most prevalent pavement distress types exhibited on the Parkway was moderate to high severity fatigue and potholes within the project limits as seen in Figures 1 and 2 below.

Figure 1. Route 8E Typical Existing Conditions

Figure 2. Route 8F Typical Existing Conditions

Subsurface Condition

Borings E-01 through RA-02 were taken along the Mainline Parkway and ramps. The existing surface consists of a double chip seal. Aggregate base course thickness ranged from

5.0 to 18.0 inches with an average of 10.3 inches.

Brown and gray silty gravel (A-1-a to A-1-b) were encountered in 6 borings below the aggregate base course. Based on laboratory testing of this silty gravel material, water content ranged from 3.6 to 9.6% with an average of 6.5%, and were determined to be non-plastic.

Brown and gray silty sand (A-2-4(0)) were encountered in 9 borings below the aggregate base course. Based on laboratory testing of this silty sand material, water content ranged from 7.3 to 12.3% with an average of 9.6%, and were determined to be non-plastic.

Brown, red, orange, and gray sandy silt (A-4(0)) were encountered in 32 borings below the aggregate base course. Based on laboratory testing of this sandy silt material, water content ranged from 9.6 to 19.8% with an average of 14.9%, liquid limit ranged from 28 to 36 with an average of 33, and were determined to be non-plastic.

Brown and orange sandy clay (A-7-6(18)) were encountered in 5 borings below the aggregate base course. Based on laboratory testing of this sandy clay material, water content was 19.0%, liquid limit was 51, and had a plasticity index of 26.

Brown and gray weathered rock was encountered in 23 boring below the aggregate base course and existing sub-grade material.

3 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

3.1 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 and overlay design analysis were for a 25-year performance period. The design analysis to determine the 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) for the roadway was performed using the Rigorous ESAL Calculation in DARWin and based upon average daily traffic of 1,933. Vehicle classifications included 98% passenger vehicles, 1% heavy maintenance truck, and 1% light truck traffic vehicle volume for the project. The traffic growth rate of 2% was assumed for future traffic volume increases. The vehicle classification data and traffic volumes were interpreted and adjusted based on information provided by Highway Design. Additionally, anticipated construction traffic for this and adjacent on-going projects was included, and the resulting accumulated 18-kip ESAL’s for the 25-year performance period was determined to be 425,387. The effective roadbed soil resilient modulus (MR) was determined based on information obtained from the subsurface investigation and laboratory test results. The average value of MR was determined to be 10,000 psi. Other parameters specified in the analysis included a reliability of 85 percent, an overall standard deviation of 0.49, and initial serviceability index of 4.2, and a terminal serviceability index of 2.5. The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix D.

4 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following pavement recommendations are based on the existing conditions at the time of the field investigation in September 2011. The recommendations included here reference the

FP-03, “Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects” (FP-03 Specifications).

4.1 Pavement Section

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

Mainline Parkway Sections E and F (NPS Routes 008E and 008F) and Ramps

The existing Mainline Parkway currently consist of a chip seal over an aggregate base course, ranging from 5 to 18-inches with an average of 10-inches. The existing chip seal is exhibiting moderate to high severity fatigue cracking and potholes throughout. We are recommending the existing chip seal and aggregate base course be full-depth recycled (FDR) with cement stabilization to a depth of 5-inches, and overlaid with 5-inches of AC pavement according to the minimum requirements laid out below in Table 2. The permissive specifications for Warm-Mix Asphalt (WMA) should also be included in the SCR’s.

Table 2. Minimum Pavement Recommendations (Routes 008E and 008F)

Layer Minimum Thickness (in) Comments

AC Surface Course 1 ½

Superpave Asphalt Concrete Pavement (SACP), 0.3 to < 3 x 106 ESAL’s, 3/8”

Nominal Maximum Size Aggregate (NMSA), Type III Smoothness

Asphalt Tack Coat --- AC Tack Coat as per Section 412 of the

FP-03 Specifications AC Base Course 3 ½ SACP, 0.3 to < 3 x 106 ESAL’s, ¾”

NMSA

Asphalt Tack

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

Full-Depth Recycled

(FDR) Base Course

FDR Aggregate Base Course with

Cement Stabilization as per Section 304 of the FP-03 Specifications

The calculated average design SN for a 25-year performance period for future traffic for Mainline Parkway Sections E and F is 2.63. The effective design SN for the rehabilitation provided in Table 2 is 3.0.

Pull-offs

The existing pull-offs and parking areas should be reconstructed according to the minimum requirements laid out below in Table 3.

Table 3. Pull-off Construction Recommendations

Layer Minimum Thickness

(in)

Comments

AC Surface Course 1 ½ SACP, < 0.3 x 106 ESAL’s, 3/8” NMSA, Type VII smoothness

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

AC Base Course 2 ½ SACP, < 0.3 x 106 ESAL’s, ¾”

NMSA

Asphalt Tack (for FDR Option) or Prime Coat (for Aggregate Base

Option)

--- AC Prime Coat as per Section 411 of the FP-03 Specifications

FDR

or

Aggregate Base Course

FDR Aggregate Base Course with Cement Stabilization as per Section

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

Preliminary Costs

Preliminary pavement costs for the recommended treatments are provided in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Preliminary Cost Estimates for Pavement Alternatives Route Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost

008E&F 5-inch AC Overlay 62,500 TON

FDR w/ cement 230,000 SQYD

Pull-offs

AC 3,600 TON

Aggregate Base 5,000 TON Total:

4.2 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 to a minimum depth of 6-inches. The sub-excavated areas should then be backfilled with aggregate base material specified below. Ditches should be established prior to roadwork to provide suitable drainage and run-off.

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. Any additional material should be Base Aggregate, Grading C or D as per Section 703.05(b) of the FP-03 Specifications.

5 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

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

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

Prepared by:

Sean O’Brien Pavement Engineer

Reviewed by:

Jason Dietz Pavement Team Leader

Sean O'Brien

Digitally signed by Sean O'Brien DN: cn=Sean O'Brien, o=Federal Highway Administration, ou=Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, email=sean.obrien@dot.gov, c=US Date: 2012.02.07 08:25:43 -05'00'

Jason Dietz

Digitally signed by Jason Dietz DN: cn=Jason Dietz, o=EFLHD, ou=HFTS-15, email=jason.dietz@dot.gov, c=US Date: 2012.02.08 10:36:18 -05'00'

APPENDIX A – Project Location and Geological Maps

FO

O

T 8E

FO

O T

8F9

FO

O

T 8E

M ultiple and

FO

O T

8E

M issing

Link B ridges

Geological Map

APPENDIX B – Boring Logs

SOIL BORING GENERAL NOTES

Drilling and Sampling Symbols

SS: Split Spoon - 1 3/8” I.D., 2” O.D., except where noted ST: Shelby Tube - 2” O.D., except where noted PA: Power Auger Sample

Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated elevations are considered reliable ground water levels. In impervious soils, the accurate determination of ground water elevations is not possible, even after several days, and additional evidence on ground water elevations must be sought.

VISUAL METHODS FOR SOILS CLASSIFICATION

Component Distinguishing Features

Boulders Larger than 12” (300 mm)

Cobbles 3” to 12” (75 mm to 12 mm)

Gravel Larger than No. 4 sieve and smaller than a 3” sieve, described with any of the following terms (or any combination):

Coarse 3” to 3/4” (75 mm to 19 mm) sieve Medium 3/4” to 3/8” (19 mm to 9.5 mm) sieve Fine 3/8” to No. 4 (9.5 mm to 4.75 mm) sieve

Sand The finest sand grains are just visible to the naked eye, while the largest would pass a No. 4 (4.75mm) sieve (pinhead size). Described with any of the following terms (or any combination):

Coarse No. 4 to No. 10 (4.75 mm to 2.0 mm) sieve Medium No. 10 to No. 40 (2.0 mm to 0.42 mm) sieve Fine No. 40 to No. 200 (0.42 mm to 0.075 mm) sieve

Silt 1. Lumps are easily crumbled when are-dried.

2. Feels gritty between the teeth.

3. A moist pat when shaken in the palm of the hand will appear shiny and wet. When squeezed it will appear dry and dull.

Clay 1. Lumps are comparatively hard when air-dried.

2. Threads (1/8” diameter) of considerable length will support their own weight when held by one end.

3. A moist pat will appear the same whether shaken in the palm of the hand or squeezed.

Order of Description

1. Soil Density (or consistency) – see table below

2. Color

3. Major Grain Size – Composes more than 50% of the sample

4. Modifying Term – “and” : 40% to 50% of the minor grain size

“some” : 30% to 40% “little” : 10% to 30% “trace” : 10% or less

5. Minor Grain Size(s)

6. Other (plasticity, etc.)

7. Moisture Content (by field test) – “dry” : Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch “moist” : Damp but no visible water

“wet” : Visible free water, usually soil is below water table

8. General Classification – Fill, Residual Soil, Weathered Rock

SOIL DENSITY (OR CONSISTENCY) TABLE

Coarse-Grained Soil (Gravel, Sand) Fine-Grained Soil (Clay, Silt)

Apparent Density SPT (# blows / ft) Consistency SPT (# blows / ft) Very loose 0-4 Very soft 0-2

Loose 5-10 Soft 3-4 Medium dense 11-30 Medium stiff 5-8

Dense 31-50 Stiff 9-15 Very dense >50 Very stiff 16-30

Hard >30

Examples:

1. Dense to very dense, brown to light brown, SILTY SAND, some gravel [A-7-6(10)] (Moist)

-FILL-

Criteria for Describing Soil Structure

Description Criteria

Bed A sedimentary layer bounded by depositional surfaces.

Blocky A characteristic in which cohesive soil can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further breakdown.

Bonded Attached or adhering.

Fissured Broken along definite planes of fracture.

Foliated Planar arrangement of textural or structural features.

Frequent More than one per foot of thickness.

Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout.

Interbedded Alternating soil layers of different composition.

Laminae A very thin cohesive layer.

Layer A general term for material lying essentially parallel to the surfaces against which it was formed.

Lens A lenticular deposit, larger than a pocket.

Occasional One or less per foot of thickness.

Parting A very thin granular layer.

Pocket Small erratic deposits less than 12” in thickness.

Seam A thin layer separating two distinctive layers of different composition or greater magnitude.

Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or color.

Stratum A stratigraphic unit.

Varve A cyclic sedimentary couplet consisting of a coarser and a finer layer representing the variation in depositional energy resulting from the annual freeze-thaw cycle typically found in glaciolacustrine environments.

APPENDIX C – Laboratory Test Results

SOIL DATA

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

FOOT 8E21,F9

Foothills Parkway

FHWA/EFLHD

A-7-6(18)26512519.03-5V-1/J-2MP 0.5

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-4(0)NP32NP15.53-5V-3/J-2MP 1.5

A-2-4(0)NPNVNP7.31-3V-8/J-1MP 4.0

A-1-bNPNVNP9.61-3V-9/J-1MP 3.75

A-4(0)NP34NP15.81-3V-11/J-1MP 2.75

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S

TI

C

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. USCSDESCRIPTIONDEPTHSAMPLESOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N 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 1.6 2.4 11.9 13.8 70.3

(ft.)

FOOT 8E21,F9

Foothills Parkway

FHWA/EFLHD

MP 0.5 V-1/J-2 3-5 Fat clay with sand CH

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 9.7 6.6 2.3 15.8 23.9 41.7

MP 1.5 V-3/J-2 3-5 Silty sand with gravel SM

0.0 0.0 7.6 6.3 35.2 24.4 26.5

MP 4.0 V-8/J-1 1-3 Silty sand SM

0.0 7.0 12.1 4.0 32.6 20.5 23.8

MP 3.75 V-9/J-1 1-3 Silty sand with gravel SM

0.0 1.8 6.6 2.4 16.3 21.0 51.9

MP 2.75 V-11/J-1 1-3 Sandy silt ML

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

FOOT 8E21,F9

Foothills Parkway

FHWA/EFLHD

A-2-4(0)NPNVNP9.11-3V-13/J-1MP 1.75

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-4(0)NP31NP18.41-3B-2/J-1MP 0.5

A-4(0)NP35NP19.83-5B-5/J-2MP 2.0

A-4(0)NP30NP13.73-5B-8/J-2MP 3.5

A-4(0)NPNVNP12.33-5B-14/J-2MP 6.5

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

E X

PI

=L

L-

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

A-7-6

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N 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 3.3 6.3 4.8 24.0 30.4 31.2

(ft.)

FOOT 8E21,F9

Foothills Parkway

FHWA/EFLHD

MP 1.75 V-13/J-1 1-3 Silty sand SM

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 3.3 0.9 4.8 16.4 74.6

MP 0.5 B-2/J-1 1-3 Silt with sand ML

0.0 0.0 13.4 0.9 3.1 16.0 66.6

MP 2.0 B-5/J-2 3-5 Sandy silt ML

0.0 0.0 1.6 2.8 18.4 32.8 44.4

MP 3.5 B-8/J-2 3-5 Silty sand SM

0.0 0.0 11.0 7.7 14.7 24.5 42.1

MP 6.5 B-14/J-2 3-5 Silty sand SM

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

FOOT 8E21,F9

Foothills Parkway

FHWA/EFLHD

A-2-4(0)NPNVNP9.81-3B-18/J-1MP 9.0

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-1-aNPNVNP3.61-3B-24/J-1MP 6.25

A-1-bNP26NP6.41-3B-26/J-1MP 5.25

A-4(0)NP35NP12.93-5B-28/J-2MP 4.25

A-4(0)NP36NP13.11-3B-31/J-1MP 2.75

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

E X

PI

=L

L-

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

A-7-6

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N 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 6.1 17.8 4.1 22.4 23.2 26.4

(ft.)

FOOT 8E21,F9

Foothills Parkway

FHWA/EFLHD

MP 9.0 B-18/J-1 1-3 Silty sand with gravel SM

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 14.1 36.9 20.3 12.2 13.4 3.1

MP 6.25 B-24/J-1 1-3 Poorly graded gravel with sand GP

0.0 15.4 27.9 11.2 10.0 15.5 20.0

MP 5.25 B-26/J-1 1-3 Silty gravel with sand GM

0.0 0.0 2.0 4.1 23.6 15.0 55.3

MP 4.25 B-28/J-2 3-5 Sandy silt ML

0.0 0.0 5.5 7.0 16.2 15.9 55.4

MP 2.75 B-31/J-1 1-3 Sandy silt ML

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

FOOT 8E21,F9

Foothills Parkway

FHWA/EFLHD

A-2-4(0)NP28NP9.61-3B-35/J-1MP 0.75

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

E X

PI

=L

L-

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

A-7-6

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N 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 11.8 13.5 23.0 8.9 8.1 34.7

(ft.)

FOOT 8E21,F9

Foothills Parkway

FHWA/EFLHD

MP 0.75 B-35/J-1 1-3 Silty sand with gravel SM

Particle Size Distribution Report

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

APPENDIX D – Pavement Design Analysis

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System A Proprietary AASHTOWare Computer Software Product

Flexible Structural Design Module 5-inch FDR with cement

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 425,387 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 85 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 10,000 psi Stage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 2.63 in

Simple ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 25 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 1,933 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 60 % Percent Heavy Trucks (of ADT) FHWA Class 5 or Greater - % Average Initial Truck Factor (ESALs/truck) - Annual Truck Factor Growth Rate - % Annual Truck Volume Growth Rate - % Growth Simple

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs - *

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

Rigorous ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 25 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 1,933 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 60 %

Vehicle Class

Percent of

ADT

Annual

Growth

Average Initial Truck Factor

(ESALs/ Truck)

Annual % Growth in

Truck Factor

Accumulated 18-kip ESALs over Performance Period

1 98 2 0.0007 0 9,009

Class

Percent of

ADT

Annual

Growth

Average Initial Truck Factor

(ESALs/ Truck)

Annual % Growth in

Truck Factor

Accumulated 18-kip ESALs over Performance Period

Total 100 - - - 245,387

Growth Simple

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 245,387

Specified Layer Design

Layer Material Description

Struct Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Thickness (Di)(in)

Width (ft)

Calculated SN (in)

1 AC Overlay 0.42 1 5 9 2.10 2 FDR with cement 0.18 1 5 9 0.90

Total - - - 10.00 - 3.00

Layered Thickness Design

Thickness precision Actual

Layer Material Description

Struct Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Spec Thickness (Di)(in)

Min Thickness (Di)(in)

Elastic Modulus

(psi) Width

(ft)

Calculated Thickness

(in) Calculated

SN (in)