EXHIBIT F - CTL Thompson Pavement Design Dated August 7 2023.pdf

CTL|Thompson, Inc.

Denver, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Glenwood Springs, Pueblo, Summit County – Colorado

Cheyenne, Wyoming and Bozeman, Montana

PAVEMENT DESIGN

POWER TRAIL UNDERPASS

Fort Collins, Colorado

Prepared for:

Otak 371 Centennial Parkway, Suite 210

Louisville, Colorado 80027

Attention:

Dan Beltzer

Project No. FC10823.000-125 R2

August 7, 2023

Table of Contents

SCOPE

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

SITE CONDITIONS

INVESTIGATION

EXPANSIVE SOIL MITIGATION

PAVEMENT DESIGN

Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Consideration………………

PAVEMENT MATERIALS

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

MAINTENANCE

CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS

GEOTECHNICAL RISK

LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX A – LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX B – PAVEMENT MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL DESIGN

APPENDIX C – SAMPLE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

APPENDIX D – PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

FIGURE 1 – LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING

FIGURE 2 – SUMMARY LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING

OTAK

CTLT PROJECT NO. FC10823.000-125 R2

Scope

This report presents the results of our Pavement Design for the installation of a pedestrian underpass structure below Harmony Road, west of Timberline Road in Fort Collins, Colorado.

The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate pavement support characteristics and provide design pavement alternatives.

This report was prepared from data developed during field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and experience with similar conditions. The data collected and presented in the geotechnical report for the underpass structure was re-used for this report. The report includes a description of the subgrade soils found in exploratory boring, laboratory test results, alternative pavement sections, and construction and materials recommendations. The pavement alternative presented in this report was based on CDOT design criteria, and our experience. If plans change significantly, we should be contacted to review our recommendations. A summary of our conclusions and recommendations is presented below, with more detailed criteria and recommendations contained in the report.

Summary of Conclusions

1. Subsoils found in our boring generally consisted of sandy clay fill and sandy clay at depths affecting pavements. Claystone bedrock was encountered at a depth greater than 10 feet below the ground surface. Samples of the on-site soils exhibited a swell ranging from 0.1 consolidation to 0.6 percent swell.

2. Existing asphalt concrete was reported to be 8 inches thick with aggregate base course of 14 inches.

3. Our pavement alternative includes asphalt concrete over aggregate base course matching the existing asphalt thickness. Design thickness, material properties, and construction criteria for the pavements are presented in the report.

Site Conditions

The site is located on Harmony Road between Innovation Drive and Timberline Road in

Fort Collins, Colorado (Figure 1). A pedestrian underpass structure is planned to be installed to cross Harmony Road and will require cutting and replacing pavement across all lanes.

CTLT PROJECT NO. FC10823.000-125 R2

Investigation

Subsurface conditions at the site were investigated by drilling an exploratory boring to a depth of 30 feet, at the approximate location shown on Figure 1. The existing Asphalt Concrete

(AC) thickness was reported to be 8 inches. Aggregate Base Course (ABC) was reported to be

14 inches in this area of Harmony Road. Subsoils found in our boring generally consisted of sandy clay soils. Claystone bedrock and groundwater were greater than 10 feet below ground surface at the time of drilling.

Laboratory testing was designed to provide index properties of the soils sampled and subgrade support values for those soil types which influence the pavement design. To evaluate potential heave, swell-consolidation testing was performed on samples of the onsite soils. The swell test results ranged from 0.1 percent compression to 0.6 percent swell. Results of laboratory tests are presented in Appendix A and summarized in Table A-I.

A composite sample of the subgrade soil was subjected to a Hveem Stabilometer (R-

Value) test to determine the design support values for the subgrade soils. An R-Value of 22 was determined for this design which correlates to a resilient modulus of 8,053 psi using equation 4-1 from the CDOT M-E Pavement Design Manual. Results of the R-value testing can be found in

Appendix A.

Soluble sulfates were measured with result of less than 0.01 percent. The purpose of the sulfate testing was to determine the likelihood of sulfate attack if Portland cement concrete is used. Table 601-2 of the CDOT Construction Specifications designates that Class I or Class II cement can be used in concrete at this site.

Expansive Soil Mitigation

The subgrade soils at this site are generally non-expansive. No swell mitigation procedures are necessary at this time. Additional future testing may identify differing conditions.

Pavement Design

Based on a traffic analysis report by Apex Design (dated March 19, 2019) and an EDLA of 500 from previous work on Harmony Road, we back calculated a yearly truck count of 1,536.

We have assumed growth factor of 1.04 percent and a growth rate of 0.196 percent. The ESAL determination is presented in Appendix B.

Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Considerations

CDOT requires use of the AASHTO mechanistic-empirical (M-E) design procedure to calculate pavement responses to stress, strain, and deflection, and use those responses to compute incremental damage over time. This is an iterative process using the AASHTO Ware

Pavement M-E design software where pavement distress and smoothness are calculated, and not pavement thickness. A trial design is created and evaluated against performance criteria and reliability values through the prediction of distresses and smoothness.

The most current climate data was taken from the nearest weather station in the

Loveland/Fort Collins area of Colorado with the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of

40.45oN and -105.00oW.

We understand there is a preference for PG 58-28 asphalt mix with an S grading and a

PG 76-28 for SX grading for this project, however, these specific options do not exist in the

AASHTO M-E software. CDOT recommends the use of PG 76-28 binder for surface lifts. We have therefore selected asphalt options that most closely resemble the preferred options.

Harmony Road is classified as a Principal Arterial. We have considered one pavement design alternative for this portion of Harmony Road: asphalt concrete placed over aggregate base course, which matches the planned pavement reconstruction plan over the underpass. The aggregate base course shall have a minimum R-Value of 78 (Class 6).

We understand that a thinner pavement section directly over the underpass may be necessary. We considered a system of reduced ABC to obtain a minimum thickness over structures. Our minimum pavement thickness results are presented on the table below and included in Appendix B. If sufficient space is available, we recommend using a section that matches the Harmony Road pavement section. Areas adjacent to the underpass, no depth limitation exists, therefore we recommend matching the existing Harmony Road pavement section.

MINIMUM PAVEMENT THICKNESS

Harmony Road (Principal Arterial)

Asphalt Concrete + Aggregate Base Course

(AC + ABC)

Over the Power Trail Underpass Structure 8.0” AC + 4.0” ABC

Adjacent to the Underpass Structure 8.0” AC + 14.0” ABC

Selected for the composite design was a 100 gyration SX mixture with a PG 76-28 binder and a 100 gyration S mixture with a PG 64-22 binder. In accordance with Table 6.13 of the CDOT

Pavement Design Manual, the actual mixes used for construction should be 75 gyration mixes based the ESAL and temperature category. The 100 gyration mixes were used for the design as there are currently no 75 gyration mixes available as .xml files for the software.

We recommend the asphalt in the composite design be laid in 3 lifts: two 3.0 inches lifts of S (75) PG 64-22 base, and a 2.0 inches SX (75) PG 58-28 surface lift.

Pavement Materials

Material properties and construction criteria should meet CDOT requirements. Materials planned for construction should be submitted and the applicable laboratory tests performed to verify compliance with the CDOT specifications.

Construction Details

The design of a pavement system is as much a function of the quality of the paving materials and construction as the support characteristics of the subgrade. During construction, careful attention should be paid to the following details:

• Placement and compaction of trench/structure backfill.

• Compaction at curblines and around the underpass structure and any utilities.

• Excavation of completed pavements for utility construction and repair.

• Design slopes of the adjacent ground and pavement to rapidly remove water from the pavement surface.

Maintenance

Routine maintenance, such as sealing and repair of cracks, is necessary to achieve the long-term life of a pavement system. We recommend a preventive maintenance program be developed and followed for all pavement systems to assure the design life can be realized.

Choosing to defer maintenance usually results in accelerated deterioration leading to higher future maintenance costs, and/or repair.

Construction Observations

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Otak, and the City of Fort Collins, for the purpose of providing geotechnical design and construction criteria for the proposed project.

The information, conclusions, and recommendations presented herein are based upon consideration of many factors including, but not limited to, the type of construction, geologic setting, and subsurface conditions encountered. The conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are not valid for use by others. Standards of practice change continuously in the area of geotechnical engineering. The recommendations provided are appropriate for about three years. If the proposed pavements are not constructed within about three years, we should be contacted to determine if we should update this report.

We recommend that CTL|Thompson, Inc. provide construction observation services to allow us the opportunity to confirm whether soil conditions are consistent with those found during this investigation. If others perform these observations, they must accept responsibility to judge whether the recommendations in this report remain appropriate.

Geotechnical Risk

The concept of risk is an important aspect with any geotechnical evaluation primarily because the methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. We never have complete knowledge of subsurface conditions. Our analysis must be

4 5 tempered with engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the recommendations presented in any geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free. We cannot provide a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and pavements will be as desired or intended. Our recommendations represent our judgment of those measures that are necessary to increase the chances that the streets will perform satisfactorily. It is critical that all recommendations in this report are followed during construction. The City of Fort Collins must assume responsibility for maintaining the streets and use appropriate practices regarding maintenance and repair.

Limitations

Our boring was spaced within proposed streets to obtain a reasonably accurate indication of pavement conditions for the proposed construction. The boring is representative of conditions encountered only at the exact boring location. Variations in the subsoil conditions not indicated by our boring are possible. A representative of our firm should observe subgrade preparation and pavement construction.

We believe this investigation was conducted with that level of skill and care ordinarily used by geotechnical engineers practicing in this area at this time. No warranty, express or implied, is made. If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this report or in the analysis of the influence of subsoil conditions on design of the pavements, please call or email.

CTL | THOMPSON, INC.

R.B. “Chip” Leadbetter, III, P.E.

Senior Engineer

TH-1

HARMONY ROAD

IN

N

O

VA

TI

O

N D

R

IV

E

OAKRIDGE DRVE

M cM

U R

R Y

AV

E. E. HARMONY RD.

IN

N

O

VA

TI

O

N D

R

.MONTE CARLO DR.

S

TI

M

BE

R

LI

N E

R D

SITE

LEGEND:

INDICATES APPROXIMATE

LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY

BORING

TH-1

FIGURE 1

VICINITY MAP

(FORT COLLINS, COLORADO)

NOT TO SCALE

175'87.5'

APPROXIMATE

SCALE: 1" = 175'

0'

Location of Exploratory Boring

OTAK

CTL I T PROJECT NO. FC10823.000-125 R2

9/12

WC=22.2

DD=102

SW=-0.1

SS=<0.01

8/12

WC=9.0

DD=123

UC=3,465

10/12

WC=21.3

DD=105

LL=36 PI=22

-200=84

10/12

WC=16.7

DD=113

SW=0.5

8/12

9/12

50/8

TH-1

FILL, CLAY, SANDY, MOIST, MEDIUM STIFF, BROWN

(CL)

LEGEND:

SAND, CLAYEY, SLIGHTLY GRAVELLY TO GRAVELLY,

VERY MOIST, LOOSE, BROWN (SC)

CLAY, SLIGHTLY SANDY TO SANDY, MOIST, MEDIUM

STIFF TO STIFF, BROWN (CL)

DRIVE SAMPLE. THE SYMBOL 9/12 INDICATES 9

BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES

WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2.5-INCH O.D. SAMPLER

12 INCHES.

Boring

NOTES:

THE BORING WAS DRILLED ON MAY 18TH, 2020 USING

4-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS-FLIGHT AUGERS AND

A TRUCK-MOUNTED DRILL RIG.

THESE LOGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXPLANATIONS,

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THIS REPORT.

3.

WATER LEVEL MEASURED AT TIME OF DRILLING.

1.

2.

Exploratory Summary Log of

FIGURE 2

WC

DD

SW

-200

LL

PI

UC

SS

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

INDICATES MOISTURE CONTENT (%).

INDICATES DRY DENSITY (PCF).

INDICATES SWELL WHEN WETTED UNDER

APPROXIMATE OVERBURDEN PRESSURE (%).

INDICATES PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (%).

INDICATES LIQUID LIMIT.

INDICATES PLASTICITY INDEX.

INDICATES UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf).

INDICATES SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT (%).

CLAYSTONE, SANDY, SILTY, MOIST, HARD, BROWN,

GREY

OTAK

CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC10823.000-125 R2

APPENDIX A

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 102 PCF

From TH - 1 AT 2 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT= 22.2 %

Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT= 113 PCF

From TH - 1 AT 14 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT= 16.7 %

APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF

C O

M P

R E

S S

IO

N

E

X P

A N

S

IO

N

Swell Consolidation

FIGURE A-1

C O

M P

R E

S S

IO

N

E

X P

A N

S

IO

N

-4

-3

-2

-1

REDNUNOSSIPREMNAL COIOTDIDA

TOUENT PREATSN E DSURSOC

GNTIEW T

0.1 10 1001.0

0.1 1.0 10 100

APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF

-4

-3

-2

-1

TNSTAONER CION UNDANSPXE

GINTETWTOP RE DUESSUER

OTAK

Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) GRAVEL 0 % SAND

From LOT 19, BLOCK 5 AT 24 FEET SILT & CLAY LIQUID LIMIT %

PLASTICITY INDEX %

Sample of SAND, GRAVELLY (SP) GRAVEL 0 % SAND #### %

From LOT 30, BLOCK 5 AT 19 FEET SILT & CLAY % LIQUID LIMIT %

PLASTICITY INDEX %

Gradation

Test Results

0.002

15 MIN.

.005

60 MIN.

.009

19 MIN.

.019

4 MIN.

.037

1 MIN.

.074

*200

.149

*100

.297

*50

0.42

*40

.590

*30

1.19

*16

2.0

*10

2.38

*8

4.76

*4

9.52

3/8"

19.1

3/4"

36.1

1½"

76.2

3"

5"

6"

8"

.001

45 MIN.

CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)

SANDS

FINE MEDIUM COARSE

GRAVEL

FINE COARSE COBBLES

DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS

25 HR. 7 HR.

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS

TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G

P E

R C

E N

T R

E T

A

IN

E D

0.002

15 MIN.

.005

60 MIN.

.009

19 MIN.

.019

4 MIN.

.037

1 MIN.

.074

*200

.149

*100

.297

*50

0.42

*40

.590

*30

1.19

*16

2.0

*10

2.38

*8

4.76

*4

9.52

3/8"

19.1

3/4"

36.1

1½"

76.2

3"

5"

6"

8"

.001

45 MIN.

CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)

SANDS

FINE MEDIUM COARSE

GRAVEL

FINE COARSE COBBLES

DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS

25 HR. 7 HR.

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS

TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G

P E

R C

E N

T R

E T

A

IN

E D

84 %

16 %

FIGURE A-2

OTAK

UNCONFINED PASSING WATER-

MOISTURE DRY LIQUID PLASTICITY APPLIED COMPRESSIVE NO. 200 SOLUBLE R-

DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY LIMIT INDEX SWELL* PRESSURE STRENGTH SIEVE SULFATES VALUE

BORING (FEET) (%) (PCF) (%) (PSF) (PSF) (%) (%) DESCRIPTION

TH-1 2 22.2 102 -0.1 500 <0.01 CLAY, SANDY (CL)

TH-1 4 9.0 123 3,465 CLAY, SANDY (CL)

TH-1 9 21.3 105 36 22 84 CLAY, SANDY (CL)

TH-1 14 16.7 113 0.6 1,800 CLAY, SANDY (CL)

Bulk 1-2 22.0 CLAY, SANDY (CL)

SWELL TEST RESULTS*

TABLE A-I

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

* NEGATIVE VALUE INDICATES COMPRESSION.

OTAK

CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10823.000-125 R2

Specification Title: Onsite/Native (Clay or Silt)

ASTM D75 / AASHTO T2 / CDOT CP30

Material Description:

Sample Location:

Brown, sandy CLAY

CTL Project FC-10823 Bulk Composite

R-Value (ASTM D2844)

0100200300400500600700

Exudation Pressure (psi)

R -V al ue

Test Point

Moisture

Exudation Pressure

(psi) R-Value

1 13.6 187 15

2 10.1 410 27

3 11.8 306 22

R- Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure

Remarks:

10.1 11.8 13.6

0100200300400500600700

Exudation Pressure (psi)

M oi st ur e C on te nt

Sampling Method:

CTL Thompson 400 North Link Lane Fort Collins, CO 80524

Craig Ellis

CTL Thompson - 2021-2022 Misc Lab Testing

Client:

Report Date:

Soil/Aggregate Laboratory Summary

21-0609.SoilSampling.0034; ver: 1Jul 20, 2023 Work Order No.:

Work Order Date: Jul 3, 2023 Reviewed by: Joe Zorack

Results apply only to the specific items and locations referenced and at the time of testing, observations or special inspections. Unless noted otherwise, samples were received in adequate condition.

This report should not be reproduced, except in full, without the written permission of GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc.

41 Inverness Drive East, Englewood, Colorado www.groundeng.com 303-289-1989 Englewood | Commerce City | Loveland | Granby | Gypsum | Colorado Springs Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX B

PAVEMENT MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL DESIGN

18 KIP EQUIVLENT SINGLE AXLE LOAD (ESAL) APPLICATIONS - CDOT

Project Name:

Job Number:

Date:

Location: Harmony Road & Innovation Drive Design Period (n): 20 Years

Pavement Type: Growth Rate (r): 0.196%

Total Number of Lanes: 6

Traffic Growth:

Current ADT: T1 = 44,650

Growth Factor: Tf = 1.04

Future ADT: T = 46,433

Midpoint Traffic: Tm = 45,542

Percent Future Load Equivalent Daily Total Design

ADT ADT Factor ESAL Period ESAL

95.20% 43,356 0.003 130

2.20% 1,002 0.249 249

2.60% 1,184 1.087 1,287

100% 45,542 1,667 12,166,482

Lane Distribution DESIGN

Factor ESAL

0.30 3,649,945

20 YEAR DESIGN ESAL = 3,649,945

DESIGN EDLA = 500

08/03/23

FC10,823.000-125

Power Trail Underpass

Flexible

Vehicle Types

Period ESAL

12,166,482

Passenger Cars

Single Unit Trucks

Combination Trucks

TOTAL

Total Design

Design Inputs

Age (year) Heavy Trucks (cumulative)

2023 (initial) 1,536 2033 (10 years) 1,697,990 2043 (20 years) 3,429,560

TrafficDesign Structure

Layer type Material Type Thickness (in)

Flexible R1 Level 1 SX(100) PG 76-28 2.0

Flexible R1 Level 1 S(100) PG 64- 22 3.0

Flexible R1 Level 1 S(100) PG 64- 22 3.0

NonStabilized A-1-a 4.0 Subgrade A-2-4 Semi-infinite

Volumetric at Construction:

Effective binder content (%) 11.1

Air voids (%) 5.2

Distress Type Distress @ Specified

Reliability Reliability (%) Criterion Satisfied?Target Predicted Target Achieved

Terminal IRI (in/mile) 200.00 158.11 95.00 99.88 Pass Permanent deformation - total pavement (in) 0.65 0.44 95.00 100.00 Pass AC bottom-up fatigue cracking (% lane area) 25.00 11.65 95.00 99.99 Pass AC thermal cracking (ft/mile) 1500.00 130.98 95.00 100.00 Pass AC top-down fatigue cracking (ft/mile) 2500.00 340.01 95.00 100.00 Pass Permanent deformation - AC only (in) 0.50 0.29 95.00 100.00 Pass

Distress Prediction Summary

FLEXIBLEDesign Type:

20 yearsDesign Life:

November, 2023Traffic opening:

Pavement construction: October, 2023

October, 2023Base construction: Climate Data Sources (Lat/Lon)

40.452, -105.001

Design Outputs

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 1 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM by: Created ApprovedVersion:

2.3.1+66

Distress Charts

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 2 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Traffic Volume Monthly Adjustment Factors

Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13

Graphical Representation of Traffic Inputs

Traffic Inputs

Operational speed (mph) 55.0

Percent of trucks in design direction (%): 50.0

60.06 Percent of trucks in design lane (%):Number of lanes in design direction:

1,536Initial two-way AADTT:

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 3 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Traffic Wander Mean wheel location (in) Traffic wander standard deviation (in) Design lane width (ft)

18.0 10.0 12.0

Axle Configuration Average axle width (ft) 8.5 Dual tire spacing (in) Tire pressure (psi)

12.0 120.0

Average Axle Spacing Tandem axle spacing (in) Tridem axle spacing (in) Quad axle spacing (in)

51.6

49.2

49.2

Wheelbase does not apply

Number of Axles per Truck

Vehicle Class

Single Axle

Tandem Axle

Tridem Axle

Quad Axle

Class 4 1.53 0.45 0 0 Class 5 2.02 0.16 0.02 0 Class 6 1.12 0.93 0 0 Class 7 1.19 0.07 0.45 0.02 Class 8 2.41 0.56 0.02 0 Class 9 1.16 1.88 0.01 0

Class 10 1.05 1.01 0.93 0.02 Class 11 4.35 0.13 0 0 Class 12 3.15 1.22 0.09 0 Class 13 2.77 1.4 0.51 0.04

Axle Configuration

Volume Monthly Adjustment Factors Level 3: Default MAF

Month Vehicle Class 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

January 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 February 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 March 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 April 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 May 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 June 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 July 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 August 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 September 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 October 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 November 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 December 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

Distributions by Vehicle Class

Growth Factor

Rate (%) Function 0.196% Compound 0.196% Compound 0.196% Compound 0.196% Compound 0.196% Compound 0.196% Compound 0.196% Compound 0.196% Compound 0.196% Compound 0.196% Compound

Vehicle Class

AADTT

Distribution (%) (Level 3)

Class 4 5.1% Class 5 32.3% Class 6 18% Class 7 0.3% Class 8 4.9% Class 9 36.8% Class 10 1.2% Class 11 0.7% Class 12 0.5% Class 13 0.2%

Truck Distribution by Hour does not apply

Tabular Representation of Traffic Inputs

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 4 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

AADTT (Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic) Growth

* Traffic cap is not enforced

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 5 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Climate Inputs

Climate Data Sources:

Climate Station Cities: Location (lat lon elevation(ft))

40.45200 -105.00100 5016FORT COLLINS, CO

Monthly Climate Summary:

Annual Statistics:

Mean annual air temperature (ºF) 48.89 Mean annual precipitation (in) 11.81 Freezing index (ºF - days) 388.05 Average annual number of freeze/thaw cycles: 82.60 Water table depth

(ft) 10.00

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 6 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

< -13º F

Hourly Air Temperature Distribution by Month:

-13º F to -4º F -4º F to 5º F 5º F to 14º F 14º F to 23º F 23º F to 32º F 32º F to 41º F 41º F to 50º F

59º F to 68º F50º F to 59º F 68º F to 77º F 77º F to 86º F 86º F to 95º F 95º F to 104º F 104º F to 113º F

> 113º F

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 7 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

HMA Design Properties

Layer Name Layer Type Interface Friction

Layer 1 Flexible : R1 Level 1 SX

(100) PG 76-28 Flexible (1) 1.00

Layer 2 Flexible : R1 Level 1 S

(100) PG 64-22 Flexible (1) 1.00

Layer 3 Flexible : R1 Level 1 S

(100) PG 64-22 Flexible (1) 1.00

Layer 4 Non-stabilized Base : A-1-a Non-stabilized Base (4) 1.00

Layer 5 Subgrade : A-2-4 Subgrade (5) -

Use Multilayer Rutting Model False Using G* based model (not nationally calibrated) False

Is NCHRP 1-37A HMA Rutting Model Coefficients True

Endurance Limit - Use Reflective Cracking True

Structure - ICM Properties AC surface shortwave absorptivity 0.85

Design Properties

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 8 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Thermal Cracking (Input Level: 1)

Indirect tensile strength at 14 ºF (psi) 595.00 Creep Compliance (1/psi)

Loading time (sec) -4 ºF 1 3.46e-007 2 3.83e-007 5 4.34e-007 10 4.85e-007 20 5.29e-007 50 5.99e-007 100 6.87e-007

14 ºF 4.12e-007 4.76e-007 5.97e-007 7.25e-007 8.45e-007 1.05e-006 1.32e-006

32 ºF 7.13e-007 9.57e-007 1.33e-006 1.80e-006 2.29e-006 3.25e-006 4.24e-006

Thermal Contraction Is thermal contraction calculated? True Mix coefficient of thermal contraction (in/in/ºF) - Aggregate coefficient of thermal contraction (in/in/ºF) 5.0e-006

Voids in Mineral Aggregate (%) 16.3

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 9 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

HMA Layer 1: Layer 1 Flexible : R1 Level 1 SX(100) PG 76-28

File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 10 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

HMA Layer 2: Layer 2 Flexible : R1 Level 1 S(100) PG 64-22

File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 11 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

HMA Layer 3: Layer 3 Flexible : R1 Level 1 S(100) PG 64-22

File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 12 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Analysis Output Charts

File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 13 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 14 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 15 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 16 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Layer Information Layer 1 Flexible : R1 Level 1 SX(100) PG 76-28

Asphalt Binder

Temperature (ºF) Binder Gstar (Pa) Phase angle (deg)

179.6 493 68 158 1559 64

168.8 859 66

T ( ºF) 0.5 Hz 14 1821960 40 761414 70 186328 100 59960 130 32727

25 Hz 2743629 1972669 866370 256712 84345

1 Hz 2284749 1245330 368894 102426 44234

10 Hz 2635719 1773800 694551 195476 68258

Asphalt Dynamic Modulus (Input Level: 1)

Asphalt Thickness (in) 2.0 Unit weight (pcf) 143.5 Poisson's ratio Is Calculated? False

Ratio 0.35 Parameter A - Parameter B -

General Info

Name Value Reference temperature (ºF) 70 Effective binder content (%) 11.1 Air voids (%) 5.2 Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-ºF) 0.67 Heat capacity (BTU/lb-ºF) 0.23

Field Value Display name/identifier R1 Level 1 SX(100) PG 76-28

Description of object Mix ID # FS 1939

Author CDOT Date Created 4/3/2013 12:00:00 AM Approver CDOT Date approved 4/3/2013 12:00:00 AM State Colorado District County Highway Direction of Travel From station (miles) To station (miles) Province User defined field 1 SX User defined field 2 User defined field 3 Revision Number 0

Identifiers

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 17 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Layer 2 Flexible : R1 Level 1 S(100) PG 64-22

Asphalt Binder

Temperature (ºF) Binder Gstar (Pa) Phase angle (deg)

147.2 1857 81.6 158 889 83.1

168.8 451 85

T ( ºF) 0.5 Hz 14 2969000 40 2743500 70 2279700 100 1618700 130 942200

25 Hz 3078700 2982200 2761700 2376100 1827300

1 Hz 2996000 2800900 2389100 1773200 1094700

10 Hz 3060900 2942500 2676500 2227200 1624700

Asphalt Dynamic Modulus (Input Level: 1)

Asphalt Thickness (in) 3.0 Unit weight (pcf) 142.9 Poisson's ratio Is Calculated? True

Ratio - Parameter A -1.63 Parameter B 3.84E-06

General Info

Name Value Reference temperature (ºF) 70 Effective binder content (%) 12.09 Air voids (%) 6.78 Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-ºF) 0.67 Heat capacity (BTU/lb-ºF) 0.23

Field Value Display name/identifier R1 Level 1 S(100) PG 64-22

Description of object Mix ID # FBR 044A-010

Author CDOT MP Date Created 5/3/2016 12:00:00 AM Approver CDOT Date approved 5/3/2016 12:00:00 AM State Colorado District County Highway Direction of Travel From station (miles) To station (miles) Province User defined field 1 S User defined field 2 User defined field 3 Revision Number 0

Identifiers

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 18 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Layer 3 Flexible : R1 Level 1 S(100) PG 64-22

Asphalt Binder

Temperature (ºF) Binder Gstar (Pa) Phase angle (deg)

147.2 1857 81.6 158 889 83.1

168.8 451 85

T ( ºF) 0.5 Hz 14 2969000 40 2743500 70 2279700 100 1618700 130 942200

25 Hz 3078700 2982200 2761700 2376100 1827300

1 Hz 2996000 2800900 2389100 1773200 1094700

10 Hz 3060900 2942500 2676500 2227200 1624700

Asphalt Dynamic Modulus (Input Level: 1)

Asphalt Thickness (in) 3.0 Unit weight (pcf) 142.9 Poisson's ratio Is Calculated? True

Ratio - Parameter A -1.63 Parameter B 3.84E-06

General Info

Name Value Reference temperature (ºF) 70 Effective binder content (%) 12.09 Air voids (%) 6.78 Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-ºF) 0.67 Heat capacity (BTU/lb-ºF) 0.23

Field Value Display name/identifier R1 Level 1 S(100) PG 64-22

Description of object Mix ID # FBR 044A-010

Author CDOT MP Date Created 5/3/2016 12:00:00 AM Approver CDOT Date approved 5/3/2016 12:00:00 AM State Colorado District County Highway Direction of Travel From station (miles) To station (miles) Province User defined field 1 S User defined field 2 User defined field 3 Revision Number 0

Identifiers

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 19 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Layer 4 Non-stabilized Base : A-1-a

Liquid Limit Plasticity Index 1.0

6.0

Sieve Size % Passing 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm #200 8.7 #100 #80 12.9 #60 #50 #40 20.0 #30 #20 #16 #10 33.8 #8 #4 44.7 3/8-in. 57.2 1/2-in. 63.1 3/4-in. 72.7 1-in. 78.8 1 1/2-in. 85.8 2-in. 91.6 2 1/2-in.

3-in.

3 1/2-in. 97.6

Is User Defined? False af 7.2555 bf 1.3328 cf 0.8242 hr 117.4000

Sieve

Is User Defined? Value

Maximum dry unit weight (pcf) False 127.7

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr) False 5.054e-02

Specific gravity of solids False 2.7

Water Content (%) False 7.4

User-defined Soil Water Characteristic Curve

(SWCC)

TrueIs layer compacted?

Unbound Layer thickness (in) 4.0 Poisson's ratio 0.35 Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0) 0.5

Resilient Modulus (psi) 17500.0

Modulus (Input Level: 3)

Analysis Type: Modify input values by temperature/moisture

Method: Resilient Modulus (psi)

Use Correction factor for NDT modulus? - NDT Correction Factor: -

Field Value Display name/identifier A-1-a

Description of object Default material

Author AASHTO Date Created 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM Approver Date approved 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM State District County Highway Direction of Travel From station (miles) To station (miles) Province User defined field 1 User defined field 2 User defined field 3 Revision Number 0

Identifiers

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 20 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Layer 5 Subgrade : A-2-4

Liquid Limit Plasticity Index 0.0

0.0

Sieve Size % Passing 0.001mm 0.002mm 0.020mm #200 22.0 #100 #80 46.7 #60 #50 #40 76.3 #30 #20 #16 #10 93.0 #8 #4 94.9 3/8-in. 96.9 1/2-in. 97.5 3/4-in. 98.3 1-in. 98.8 1 1/2-in. 99.3 2-in. 99.6 2 1/2-in.

3-in.

3 1/2-in. 99.9

Is User Defined? False af 8.7769 bf 0.8691 cf 0.7314 hr 100.0000

Sieve

Is User Defined? Value

Maximum dry unit weight (pcf) False 112.6

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr) False 5.157e-04

Specific gravity of solids False 2.7

Water Content (%) False 8.7

User-defined Soil Water Characteristic Curve

(SWCC)

FalseIs layer compacted?

Unbound Layer thickness (in) Semi-infinite Poisson's ratio 0.35 Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0) 0.5

Resilient Modulus (psi) 8053.0

Modulus (Input Level: 3)

Analysis Type: Modify input values by temperature/moisture

Method: Resilient Modulus (psi)

Use Correction factor for NDT modulus? - NDT Correction Factor: -

Field Value Display name/identifier A-2-4

Description of object Default material

Author AASHTO Date Created 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM Approver Date approved 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM State District County Highway Direction of Travel From station (miles) To station (miles) Province User defined field 1 User defined field 2 User defined field 3 Revision Number 0

Identifiers

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 21 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Calibration Coefficients k1: 0.007566 k2: 3.9492 k3: 1.281 Bf1: 130.3674 Bf2: 1 Bf3: 1.217799

AC Fatigue

AC Layer K1:-3.35412 K2:1.5606 K3:0.3791 Br1:4.3 Br2:1 Br3:1

0.1414 * Pow(RUT,0.25) + 0.001

AC Rutting

AC Rutting Standard Deviation

Level 1 K: 6.3 Level 2 K: 0.5 Level 3 K: 6.3

Level 1 Standard Deviation: 0.1468 * THERMAL + 65.027 Level 2 Standard Deviation: 0.2841 * THERMAL + 55.462 Level 3 Standard Deviation: 0.3972 * THERMAL + 20.422

Thermal Fracture k1: 1 k2: 1 Bc1: 0.75 Bc2:1.1

CSM Fatigue

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 22 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

Subgrade Rutting

Granular Fine k1: 2.03 Bs1: 0.22 k1: 1.35 Bs1: 0.37 Standard Deviation (BASERUT)

0.0104 * Pow(BASERUT,0.67) + 0.001

Standard Deviation (BASERUT)

0.0663 * Pow(SUBRUT,0.5) + 0.001 c1: 7 c2: 3.5

200 + 2300/(1+exp(1.072-2.1654*LOG10

(TOP+0.0001)))

AC Cracking

1 + 15/(1+exp(-3.1472-4.1349*LOG10

(BOTTOM+0.0001)))

AC Top Down Cracking AC Bottom Up Cracking c3: 0 c4: 1000 c3: 6000c2: 2.35c1: 0.021 AC Cracking Top Standard Deviation AC Cracking Bottom Standard Deviation

C1: 0 C2: 75

CSM Cracking

C4: 3C3: 5

CTB*1

CSM Standard Deviation

IRI Flexible Pavements

C3: 0.0111 C4: 0.02C1: 50 C2: 0.55

Harmony Road Underpass File Name: C:\Users\pavementme\Desktop\DBT ME Designs 2023\Harmony Road Underpass.dgpx

Report generated on:

8/3/2023 10:36 AM Page 23 of 23 by:

on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM on: 8/26/2015 12:00 AM

APPENDIX C

SAMPLE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

CTLT PROJECT NO. FC10823.000-125 R2

C-1

SAMPLE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

1. DESCRIPTION

This item shall consist of the excavation, transportation, placement, and compaction of materials from locations indicated on the plans, or staked by the Engineer, as necessary to achieve site elevations.

2. GENERAL

The Soils Engineer shall be the Owner's representative. The Soils Engineer shall approve fill materials, method of placement, moisture contents, and percent compaction, and shall give written approval of the completed fill.

3. CLEARING JOB SITE

The Contractor shall remove all trees, brush, and rubbish before excavation or fill placement is begun. The Contractor shall dispose of the cleared material to provide the Owner with a clean, neat appearing job site. Cleared material shall not be placed in areas to receive fill or where the material will support structures of any kind.

4. SCARIFYING AREA TO BE FILLED

All topsoil and vegetable matter shall be removed from the ground surface upon which fill is to be placed. The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a depth of 8 inches until the surface is free from ruts, hummocks, or other uneven features, which would prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.

5. COMPACTING AREA TO BE FILLED

After the foundation for the fill has been cleared and scarified, it shall be disked or bladed until it is free from large clods, brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to not less than 95 percent of maximum density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 698.

6. FILL MATERIALS

Materials classifying as CL, SC, SM, SW, SP, GP, GC, and GM are acceptable. Fill soils shall be free from organic matter, debris, or other deleterious substances, and shall not contain rocks or lumps having a diameter greater than three (3) inches.

7. MOISTURE CONTENT

Fill materials shall be moisture treated. Clay soils should be moisture-treated to between optimum and 3 percent above optimum moisture content as determined from Standard Proctor compaction tests. Sand soils should be moistened to within 2 percent optimum moisture content. Sufficient laboratory compaction tests shall be made to determine the optimum moisture content for the various soils encountered in borrow areas.

CTLT PROJECT NO. FC10823.000-125 R2

C-2

The Contractor may be required to add moisture to the excavation materials in the borrow area if, in the opinion of the Soils Engineer, it is not possible to obtain uniform moisture content by adding water on the fill surface. The Contractor may be required to rake or disk the fill soils to provide uniform moisture content through the soils.

The application of water to embankment materials shall be made with any type of watering equipment approved by the Soils Engineer, which will give the desired results. Water jets from the spreader shall not be directed at the embankment with such force that fill materials are washed out.

Should too much water be added to any part of the fill, such that the material is too wet to permit the desired compaction from being obtained, rolling, and all work on that section of the fill shall be delayed until the material has been allowed to uniformly dry to the required moisture content. The Contractor will be permitted to rework wet material in an approved manner to hasten its drying.

8. COMPACTION OF FILL AREAS

Selected fill material shall be placed and mixed in evenly spread layers. After each fill layer has been placed, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than the specified percentage of maximum density. Fill materials shall be placed such that the thickness of loose material does not exceed 8 inches and the compacted lift thickness does not exceed 6 inches.

Compaction, as specified above, shall be obtained by the use of sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other equipment approved by the Engineer.

Compaction shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. Compaction of each layer shall be continuous over the entire area. Compaction equipment shall make sufficient trips to ensure that the required density is obtained.

9. COMPACTION OF SLOPES

Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment.

Compaction operations shall be continued until slopes are stable, but not too dense for planting, and there is no appreciable amount of loose soil on the slopes. Compaction of slopes may be done progressively in increments of three to five feet (3' to 5') in height or after the fill is brought to its total height. Permanent fill slopes shall not exceed 3:1 (horizontal to vertical).

10. DENSITY TESTS

Field density tests shall be made by the Soils Engineer at locations and depths of his choosing. Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches. Density tests shall be taken in compacted material below the disturbed surface. When density tests indicate that the density or moisture content of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that required, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density or moisture content has been achieved.

CTLT PROJECT NO. FC10823.000-125 R2

C-3

11. COMPLETED PRELIMINARY GRADES

All areas, both cut and fill, shall be finished to a level surface, and shall meet the following limits of construction:

a. Overlot cut or fill areas shall be within plus or minus 2/10 of one foot.

b. Street grading shall be within plus or minus 1/10 of one foot.

The civil engineer, or duly authorized representative, shall check all cut and fill areas to observe that the work is in accordance with the above limits.

12. SUPERVISION AND CONSTRUCTION STAKING

Observation by the Soils Engineer shall be continuous during the placement of fill and compaction operations so that he can declare that the fill was placed in general conformance with specifications. All site visits necessary to test the placement of fill and observe compaction operations will be at the expense of the Owner. All construction staking will be provided by the Civil Engineer or his duly authorized representative. Initial and final grading staking shall be at the expense of the owner. The replacement of grade stakes through construction shall be at the expense of the contractor.

13. SEASONAL LIMITS

No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen, thawing, or during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy precipitation, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed materials are as specified.

14. NOTICE REGARDING START OF GRADING

The contractor shall submit notification to the Soils Engineer and Owner advising them of the start of grading operations at least three (3) days in advance of the starting date.

Notification shall also be submitted at least 3 days in advance of any resumption dates when grading operations have been stopped for any reason other than adverse weather conditions.

15. REPORTING OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS

Density tests made by the Soils Engineer, as specified under "Density Tests" above, shall be submitted progressively to the Owner. Dry density, moisture content, of each test taken, and percentage compaction shall be reported for each test taken.

16. DECLARATION REGARDING COMPLETED FILL

The Soils Engineer shall provide a written declaration stating that the site was filled with acceptable materials or was placed in general accordance with the specifications.

APPENDIX D

PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

CTLT PROJECT NO. FC10823.000-125 R2

D-1

SUBGRADE PREPARATION

1. The subgrade should be stripped of organic matter, scarified, moisture treated and compacted to the specifications stated below in Item 2. The compacted subgrade should extend at least 3 feet beyond the edge of the pavement where no edge support, such as curb and gutter, are to be constructed.

2. Sandy and gravelly soils (A-1-a, A-1-b, A-3, A-2-4, A-2-5, A-2-6, A-2-7) should be moisture conditioned near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698, AASHTO T 99).

Clayey soils (A-6, A-7-5, A-7-6) should be moisture conditioned between optimum and 3 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698, AASHTO T 99).

3. Utility trenches and all subsequently placed fill should be properly compacted and tested prior to paving. As a minimum, fill should be compacted to 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density.

4. Final grading of the subgrade should be carefully controlled so the design cross-slope is maintained and low spots in the subgrade that could trap water are eliminated.

5. Once final subgrade elevation has been compacted and tested to compliance and shaped to the required cross-section, the area should be proof-rolled using a minimum axle load of 18 kips per axle. The proof-roll should be performed while moisture contents of the subgrade are still within the recommended limits. Drying of the subgrade prior to proof-roll or paving should be avoided.

6. Areas that are observed by the Engineer that have soft spots in the subgrade, or where deflection is not uniform of soft or wet subgrade shall be ripped, scarified, dried or wetted as necessary and recompacted to the requirements for the density and moisture. As an alternative, those areas may be sub-excavated and replaced with properly compacted structural backfill. Where extensively soft, yielding subgrade is encountered; we recommend a representative of our office observe the excavation.

CTLT PROJECT NO. FC10823.000-125 R2

D-2

PAVEMENT MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION

Aggregate Base Course (ABC)

1. A Class 5 or 6 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) specified ABC should be used.

2. Bases should have a minimum Hveem stabilometer value of 78, or greater. ABC must be moisture stable. The change in R-value from 300-psi to 100-psi exudation pressure should be 12 points or less.

3. ABC bases should be placed in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches and moisture treated to near optimum moisture content. Bases should be moisture treated to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698, AASHTO T 99).

4. Placement and compaction of ABC should be observed and tested by a representative of our firm. Placement should not commence until the underlying subgrade is properly prepared and tested.

Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)

1. HMA should be composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler, hydrated lime, and asphalt cement. Some mixes may require polymer modified asphalt cement, or make use of up to 20 percent reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). A job mix design is recommended and periodic checks on the job site should be made to verify compliance with specifications.

2. HMA should be relatively impermeable to moisture and should be designed with crushed aggregates that have a minimum of 80 percent of the aggregate retained on the No. 4 sieve with two mechanically fractured faces.

3. Gradations that approach the maximum density line (within 5 percent between the

No. 4 and 50 sieves) should be avoided. A gradation with a nominal maximum size of 1 or 2 inches developed on the fine side of the maximum density line should be used.

4. Total void content, voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA) and voids filled should be considered in the selection of the optimum asphalt cement content. The optimum asphalt content should be selected at a total air void content of approximately 4 percent. The mixture should have a minimum VMA of 14 percent and between 65 percent and 80 percent of voids filled.

5. Asphalt cement should meet the requirements of the Superpave Performance

Graded (PG) Binders. The minimum performing asphalt cement should conform to the requirements of the governing agency.

D-3

6. Hydrated lime should be added at the rate of 1 percent by dry weight of the aggregate and should be included in the amount passing the No. 200 sieve.

Hydrated lime for aggregate pretreatment should conform to the requirements of ASTM C 207, Type N.

7. Paving should be performed on properly prepared, unfrozen surfaces that are free of water, snow, and ice. Paving should only be performed when both air and surface temperatures equal, or exceed, the temperatures specified in Table 401-3 of the 2006 Colorado Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.

8. HMA should not be placed at a temperature lower than 245oF for mixes containing

PG 64-22 asphalt, and 290oF for mixes containing polymer-modified asphalt. The breakdown compaction should be completed before the HMA temperature drops 20oF.

9. Wearing surface course shall be Grading S or SX for residential roadway classifications and Grading S for collector, arterial, industrial, and commercial roadway classifications.

10. The minimum/maximum lift thicknesses for Grade SX shall be 1½ inches/2½ inches. The minimum/maximum lift thicknesses for Grade S shall be 2 inches/3½ inches. The minimum/maximum lift thicknesses for Grade SG shall be 3 inches/5 inches.

11. Joints should be staggered. No joints should be placed within wheel paths.

12. HMA should be compacted to between 92 and 96 percent of Maximum Theoretical

Density. The surface shall be sealed with a finish roller prior to the mix cooling to 185oF.

13. Placement and compaction of HMA should be observed and tested by a representative of our firm. Placement should not commence until approval of the proof rolling as discussed in the Subgrade Preparation section of this report. Sub-base, base course or initial pavement course shall be placed within 48 hours of approval of the proof rolling. If the Contractor fails to place the sub-base, base course or initial pavement course within 48 hours or the condition of the subgrade changes due to weather or other conditions, proof rolling and correction shall be performed again.

Calibration Coefficients