Geotech Report_Raba Kistner.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY

FOR

KERVILLE VA MEDICAL CENTER PAVEMENT ANALYSIS

KERVILLE, TEXAS

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY

For

KERRVILLE VA MEDICAL CENTER PAVEMENT ANALYSIS

KERRVILLE, TEXAS

Prepared for

HFS Company San Antonio, Texas

Prepared by

RABA KISTNER CONSULTANTS, INC.

San Antonio, Texas

PROJECT NO. ASA17-060-00

December 21, 2017

Project No. ASA17-060-00

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

INTRODUCTION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

LIMITATIONS

BORINGS AND LABORATORY TESTS

PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY

PAVEMENT OPTIONS

SUBGRADE CONDITIONS

DESIGN INFORMATION

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

RIGID PAVEMENTS

DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS

MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES

BUDGETING FOR CONSTRUCTION TESTING

ATTACHMENTS

The following figures are attached and complete this report:

Boring Location Map .......................................................................................................................... Figure 1 DCP/laboratory results ............................................................................................................ Figures 2 to 21 Rough Parking Lot Designation Map ................................................................................................ Figure 22

INTRODUCTION

RABA KISTNER Consultants Inc. (RKCI) has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and pavement analysis for the pavements on the Kerrville Veterans Medical Center located in Kerrville, Texas, as illustrated on Figure 1. This report briefly describes the procedures utilized during this study and presents our findings along with our pavement recommendations together with other pavement options.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The facilities being considered in this study include approximately 240,000 square feet of parking lots and roadways comprising the campus of the Kerrville Veterans Affairs Medical Center located in Kerrville, Texas. Our understanding of pavement priorities, locations, and square foot areas that at the time of this study were provided in various emails by HFS Company representatives.

LIMITATIONS

This engineering report has been prepared in accordance with accepted Geotechnical Engineering practices in the region of south central Texas and for the use of HFS Company (CLIENT) and its representatives for design purposes. This report may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or other uses. This report is not intended for use in determining construction means and methods. The attachments and report text should not be used separately.

The recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from 20 borings drilled at this site, our understanding of the project information as it was provided to us, and the assumption that site grading will result in only minor changes in the existing topography. If the project information described in this report is incorrect, is altered, or if new information is available, we should be retained to review and modify our recommendations.

This report may not reflect the actual variations of the subsurface conditions across the site. The nature and extent of variations across the site are unlikely to become evident until construction commences. The construction process itself may also alter subsurface conditions. If variations appear evident at the time of construction, it may be necessary to reevaluate our recommendations after performing on-site observations and tests to establish the engineering impact of the variations.

The scope of our Geotechnical Engineering Study does not include an environmental assessment of the air, soil, rock, or water conditions either on or adjacent to the site. No environmental opinions are presented in this report.

BORINGS AND LABORATORY TESTS

Subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by 20 borings drilled at the locations shown on the Boring Location Map, Figure 1. These locations are approximate and distances were measured using a hand-held, recreational-grade GPS locator; tape; angles; pacing; etc. Subsurface materials were evaluated to a depth of approximately five feet below the existing ground surface using a truck-mounted drilling rig and a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP). Grab samples were taken at each location. Ground water was not found or noted in any of the borings.

Each sample was visually classified in the laboratory by a member of our geotechnical engineering staff.

The geotechnical engineering properties of the strata were evaluated by the following tests:

Type of Test Number Conducted Result Range

Natural Moisture Content 4 10.3% -19.0%

Atterberg Limits (PI) 3 7-14

Percent Passing a No. 200 Sieve 4 34.1%-46.2%

Sulfate Content (ppm) 3 700-780

The results of all laboratory tests are presented in graphical or numerical form on the boring/DCP logs illustrated on Figures 2 through 21.

DCP testing was conducted at each boring location. DCP testing results are recorded as “blows per millimeter”. These results have been correlated to California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Resilient Modulus (MR) using established equations. In general the higher the DCP result the stiffer/stronger the material being interrogated. In nearly every case the on this project testing was terminated when the equipment met refusal, indicating very stiff material.

In addition to the above listed testing and sampling, a bulk sample of the surficial soils was collected for use in a laboratory California Bearing Ratio (CBR). Based on the three point method allowed by ASTM D1883, the CBR at 95% of maximum dry density is 5.0.

Samples will be retained in our laboratory for 30 days after submittal of this report. Other arrangements may be provided at the request of the Client.

The results of the measurements can be seen in the table below

HMA

Thickness, inch

Base Thickness, inch

Average

CBR

Maximum 3.75 12.25 50

Average 2.0 8.5 21

Minimum 0.5 3.25 8*

* Minimum measured CBR ~ 3

PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY

A pavement distress survey was conducted on December 19, 2017 by members of the RKCI professional staff. To perform the survey, the pavements were walked and pavement condition/distresses were visually observed and noted. In general we offer the following observations:

• Pavements are in a general state of failure, most exhibiting moderate to severe block cracking degrading to alligator cracking.

o Pavement cracks have been sealed and maintained in some locations but not throughout

• Utility cuts and patches abound across most of the pavement

• With a few exceptions the failures appear to be caused by the oxidation and general aging of the

HMA rather than by deep subgrade failures.

• There are a few locations where the subgrade appears to have failed. There are a few locations were trees roots and other vegetation appear to have damaged the pavements.

Based parking lot designations written on the rough, hand marked pavement priority map we were provided by HFS representatives (Figure 22 attached to this report for reference) we offer the following details:

Pavement Condition

Location Description

Parking Lot A Severe block cracking degrading to alligator cracking and disintegration. Pavement surface is rough and overwashed with gravel. No curbs were observed in this area. Parking stall reconfiguration and lack thereof has currently left vehicles parked on un paved areas. HMA appears oxidized and aging. No significant subgrade issues/failures were observed in this area.

Parking Lot B Moderate block cracking degrading to alligator cracking, particularly in the south west corner.

The HMA surface is rough and overgrown with vegetation. The area is traversed by many utility cuts, some of which have been poorly repaired if at all. No curbs were observed

The parking lot currently occupied by Alterman Electric displayed only moderate block cracking with smooth surface.

Parking Lot C Including access road near the lot; generally good to fair condition with the exception of one failed utility patch which pumped under foot pressure during our visit. No curbs were observed in this area.

Parking Lot D Moderately to severe block cracking degrading to alligator cracking particularly towards the west.

The roadway north of the lot contains an area of good to fair HMA and then, further north, two failed patches, approximately 4ft x 4ft and 8ft x 13ft in dimension, where the subgrade appears to have failed.

Parking Lot E Moderate block cracking; one poorly performing patch towards the south end

Parking Lot F Moderate block cracking with one moderately performing and rough patch running down the center of the area. Six inch curbs in this area

Parking Lot G Moderate to severe block cracking. Ribbon curb in this area

Roadway from Lot G to Entrance

Severe block cracking. One failed patch, approximately 5ft by 25ft in dimension. Six inch curbs along this roadway

Delivery Roadway Moderate block cracking; pavements generally in fair condition. Exceptions are several failed patches, approximately 5ft x 5ft to 5ft by 25ft in dimension. These patches may have been required due to utility cuts/work. Six inch curbs in this area are severely cracked and spalling with the exception of a newly replaced section.

Parking Lot H Multiple utility cuts, six inch curbs, rough HMA surface.

Parking Lot I Fair to Good HMA; no curbs

1307 N Fair to Good HMA; fair performing utility cut. Six inch curbs

Parking Lot J Fair to Good HMA, moderate to slight block cracking – noted vegetation growing in one of the cracks.

Roadway around Lot J Poor to failing HMA; moderate to severe block cracking degrading to alligator cracks. Unpaved utility cuts. Four inch curbs.

Pavement Condition

Location Description

Park Lot K and Surrounding Poor to failing HMA generally; moderate to severe block cracking with multiple utility cuts. Six inch curbs.

Lots Surrounding Maintenance

Poor to failing HMA; multiple utility cuts. Curbs and driveways of varying depths

PAVEMENT OPTIONS

Given the condition of the pavements, we recommend that they all be replaced. Prioritizing roadways to be repaired first and to what extent is beyond the scope of this study, but several permutations of the following options could be considered based on the parking requirements of the campus and budgetary restraints.

Options for both flexible and rigid pavements are presented in this report. The Owner and/or design team may select either pavement type depending on the performance criteria established for the project. Generally rigid pavements perform better over time with generally less maintenance than flexible pavements. Depending on the availability and expertise of local contractors, the project size and material costs, which fluctuate both seasonally and regionally, rigid pavements can be more expensive than flexible pavements based on initial cost. Rigid pavements may also pose different scheduling issues compared to flexible pavements, e.g., cure times verses over excavation and testing time requirements.

Our report gives our recommended pavement options for this project. We based those recommendations on typical construction practices and typically available materials and costs and our understanding of the project requirements and budget. RKCI is not engaged as a pavement contractor and cannot give accurate bid estimates based on current contractor means and methods. To obtain better options we recommend that plan sheets and alternative bid options be allowed. This choice allows for a more diversified pool of contractors bidding the project

For any pavement type, drainage conditions will have a significant impact on long term performance, particularly where permeable base materials are utilized in the pavement section. Drainage considerations are discussed in more detail in a subsequent section of this report.

SUBGRADE CONDITIONS

A thin layer of clay appears to overlay solid subgrade, consisting of marl, or rock across the project site.

Conservatively, we have assumed the subgrade in pavement areas will consist of onsite clays. Based on our experience with similar subgrade soils and the results of our CBR testing, we have assigned a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 3.0 for use in pavement thickness design analyses.

DESIGN INFORMATION

This report was prepared following the recommendations of the 1993 “Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures” by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO). The following recommendations were prepared assuming a 30-yr design life for both rigid and flexible pavements, based on the current guidelines given by the City of Kerrville for Developments, dated January 2005. No traffic or anticipated Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL’s) were given for this project. The Project Civil Engineer should review anticipated traffic loading and frequencies to verify that the assumed traffic loading and frequency is appropriate for the intended use of the facility.

The following inputs were assumed for the AASHTO Analysis:

AASHTO 1993 Data Input

Input Value

Standard Deviation (Flex) 0.45

Standard Deviation (Rigid) 0.35

PSI Initial (Flex) 4.2

PSI Initial (Rigid) 4.5

PSI Final 2.0

Reliability 90% (Zr = -1.282)

Sc of Concrete* 506 psi

Compressive Strength of Concrete 4000 psi (28-day)

Young’s Modulus of Concrete* 3.6 x 106 psi

Joint Transfer (Rigid) No

Resilient Modulus (subgrade) 4500 psi

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 300 psi/in

Layer Coefficient HMA 0.44

Layer Coefficient Type B 0.32

Layer Coefficient Untreated Base 0.14

Layer Coefficient Cement treated Base 0.28

Layer Coefficient Geogrid Supported Base 0.20

Drainage Factor 1.0

Design Life (Rigid and Flexible) 30 years**

* Derived from compressive strength of concrete ** Typical design life for Flexible pavements is 20 years but the City of Kerrville Guidelines for Developers (Jan 2005) recommends 30 years. For consistency we have used that value in our analysis.

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT

We offer three options for flexible pavements: Full Depth Reclamation (recommended), Full Depth Replace with Geo Grid, and Full Depth Replace without Geo Grid. The nature and typical construction methods of Full Depth Reclamation generally preclude the use of Geo Grid.

For reference and comparison we have back-calculated the Average Dailey Traffic (ADT) or average number of large trucks the pavement would support, per day before theoretical failure occurs, assuming a pavement life of 30 years, 365 days a year, with no growth factor. As demonstrated by current condition of the HMA pavements on the campus, the HMA itself is likely to crack, oxidize, and fail due to weather and insufficient maintenance before the structure of the pavement will fail due to traffic loading.

Also for reference, the City of Kerrville Guidelines for Development (Jan 2005) show the following pavement sections:

City of Kerrville Pavement Sections

Road Type/Class

HMA

Thickness, inches

Type B Black Base Thickness, inches

Section Provided

SN

Estimated Large Truck

ADT

Residential 2 4 2.16 0.6

Collector 2 6 2.80 3.4

Based on the average findings from our borings, if constructed new, the average current section is:

Existing Veterans Affairs Medical Center Pavement Section (average)

HMA

Thickness, inches

Untreated Base Thickness, inches

Section Provided

SN

Estimated Large Truck

ADT

Residential 2 8.5 2.07 0.5

This is probably adequate for the type of traffic typically experienced by the pavements on the campus.

This translates in to 6500 passenger vehicles every day, 365 a year, which is far more than we estimate the campus sees.

Flexible Re-Pavement Options

Full Depth Reclamation (FDR):

Full depth Reclamation can save on schedule and hauling and material costs while still providing an excellent product. It is environmentally friendly because the method recycles previously used material rather than landfilling it. This also extends the benefit of the original investment in to those materials.

We recommend this option for all areas but the parking lot currently covered with solar panel canopies (Parking Lot B).

Full Depth Reclamation Pavement Sections

Type/Class

HMA Thickness, inches

FDR Thickness, inches

Section Provided

SN

Estimated Large Truck

ADT

Light Duty 2 6 2.56 1.9

Heavy Duty 4 6 3.44 13.1

Heavy Duty sections include the Entrance Roadway and the Roadway to and surrounding the Maintenance Buildings on the north east portion of the campus.

To build an FDR section the contractor pulverizes the existing HMA, base, and typically some subgrade until the material is relatively homogeneous and will pass through a 2 inch sieve. Milling of the HMA prior to pulverization is allowed and sometimes desired. Those millings can be incorporated as Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) in the new HMA surface. Although not required, pulverization is typically performed in place. As it is typical, we have assumed that the HMA will not be milled and that pulverization will be done in place. Grading and shaping of the pulverized mass is performed to ensure proper roadway drainage and curb reveal, if curbs exist. Cement, either in slurry or powdered form, is then spread over the mass and then the cement and soil are mixed thoroughly with enough water to bring the base to Optimum Moisture Content (OMC). The base is then compacted, at least 95% of Maximum Dry Density (MDD) at OMC +/- 2% at the time of compaction, sealed, and allowed to cure.

We recommend that Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) be utilized for FDR.

The base should be either sealed or watered until subsequent layers are placed on top of it.

Assumptions:

• The FDR Base mixture will have 250 psi to 500 psi in 7-day Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS). As UCS is highly dependent on material type and characteristics, including gradation, angularity, and percent RAP and insitu base material, a recommendation from RKCI for percentage of cement is not possible. We recommend that the contractor prepare and submit a mix design prior to full production to demonstrate an optimized cement content. We recommend periodic Quality Acceptance (QA) testing to verify continuing compliance. For bid purposes, based on similar projects, the percent cement is likely to range between 2% and 6%, by dry weight of constituents.

• We recommend micro cracking all FDR Base Mixtures and recommend micro cracking be required of FDR base mixtures likely to exceed 500 psi in 7-day UCS. Micro cracking is described in TxDOT Item 275.4.7 (2014).

• As noted we assumed that subgrade will not be exposed. Localized subgrade failures should be identified and repaired prior pulverization. The contractor may elect to remove the existing base and HMA, stockpile and process, and then re-place the material. Any subgrade exposed should be proof rolled, soft or weak areas identified and corrected, and then scarified and compacted to at least 90% of MDD at OMC +/- 2%, at the time of compaction, per Modified Proctor Effort (ASTM D1557).

• When mixed with calcium rich products, like cement or lime, sulfates in the soil can react to form an expansive by-product. With the expansion comes a loss of uniformity in the surface and a loss of grade control. RKCI tested the subgrade soils found in our borings with no indication of concerning sulfate content (maximum found 780 parts per million (ppm). A typical threshold for any concern with sulfate content is 3000 ppm with a detrimental threshold of 7000 ppm. We recommend that additional testing be performed as roadways subgrades and bases are exposed.

• The treated FDR must be allowed to cure before being trafficked or ruts may be formed.

Curing times vary and should be part of a contractor’s means and methods for producing a quality material.

• Cement should be provided by a vendor on the TxDOT Approved Vendors List for hydraulic cement. As mentioned, slurry or dry cement options are available and are both acceptable.

The slurry option may be more desirable for this application. A dust mitigation plan should be submitted for approval if dry option is elected. A cement source and placement plan should be submitted for approval prior to construction.

• HMA layer shall conform to TxDOT Item 340/341, Type D, and a binder with a PG grading of 64- 22, unless otherwise approved. Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS) are not acceptable for this project but RAP may be. Density requirements for the HMA apply. An HMA mix design should be submitted for approval prior to construction.

• Pulverization will be done with a reclaimer with a rotating drum. Blade mixing is not acceptable.

Full Depth Replace WITH Geo Grid:

Geo grid reinforced pavement sections can produce a superior performing pavement compared to either an FDR or simple remove and replace. Countless empirical examples can be shown of the successful use of Geo Grids in pavements. Geo Grid is placed on top of the natural subgrade and below a base layer. Full excavation is required and reclaiming or mixing of materials above the Geo Grid is typically not successful. Geo Grid is most often used with virgin aggregate bases but could be used with reclaimed material, with all the advantages of recycling, if that material were excavated and stockpiled. In the sections given below we have assumed virgin base – non treated FDR base is likely to produce a similar but slightly less robust section. There is additional cost for materials and labor for Geo Grid.

Full Depth Remove and Replace with Geo Grid Pavement Sections

Type/Class

HMA Thickness, inches

Virgin Base Thickness, inches

Section Provided

SN

Estimated Large Truck

ADT

Light Duty 2 10 2.88 4.0

Heavy Duty 4 10 3.76 24.0

Assumptions:

• Assumed high quality Geo Grid. There are several producers/vendors in the vicinity of the project that regularly produce high quality product. Selecting a reputable vendor is critical in our opinion as laboratory qualification tests, while critical, do not always ensure long lasting durable product. If this option is selected, the contractor should submit for approval the type and manufacturer of the geo grid intended for use. For bid purposes a Geo Grid equal to or superior to a Tensar BX1200 would be acceptable. Alternative or value added solutions may be available, acceptable, and desirable with more modern geo grids. Other acceptable producers/vendors include but are not limited to Geo Solutions, Tencate/Mirifi, and Huesker.

• Any subgrade exposed should be proof rolled, soft or weak areas identified and corrected, and then scarified and compacted to at least 90% of MDD at OMC +/- 2%, at the time of compaction, per Modified Proctor Effort (ASTM D1557).

• Virgin base will conform to TxDOT Item 247 Type A, B, or D Grades 1-2, 3 and 5. Data that substantiates conformity should be submitted for approval.

• Virgin Base should be compacted to 95% of MDD at OMC +/-2% at the time of compaction based on Modified Proctor Effort (ASTM D1557)

• HMA layer shall conform to TxDOT Item 340/341, Type D, and a binder with a PG grading of 64- 22, unless otherwise approved. Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS) are not acceptable for this project but RAP may be. Density requirements for the HMA apply. An HMA mix design should be submitted for approval prior to construction.

Full Depth Replace WITHOUT Geo Grid:

The traditional method for building a roadway is to place HMA over virgin base material over subgrade.

This is an acceptable option but does not offer the benefits of innovation or the cost savings of recycling.

Full Depth Remove and Replace without Geo Grid Pavement Sections

Type/Class

HMA Thickness, inches

Virgin Base Thickness, inches

Section Provided

SN

Estimated Large Truck

ADT

Light Duty 2 10 2.28 0.9

Heavy Duty 4 10 3.16 7.4

Assumptions:

• Any subgrade exposed should be proof rolled, soft or weak areas identified and corrected, and then scarified and compacted to at least 90% of MDD at OMC +/- 2%, at the time of compaction, per Modified Proctor Effort (ASTM D1557).

• Virgin base will conform to TxDOT Item 247 Type A, B, or D Grades 1-2, 3 and 5. Data that substantiates conformity should be submitted for approval.

• Virgin Base should be compacted to 95% of MDD at OMC +/-2% at the time of compaction based on Modified Proctor Effort (ASTM D1557)

• HMA layer shall conform to TxDOT Item 340/341, Type D, and a binder with a PG grading of 64- 22, unless otherwise approved. Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS) are not acceptable for this project but RAP may be. Density requirements for the HMA apply. An HMA mix design should be submitted for approval prior to construction.

RIGID PAVEMENTS

The City of Kerrville recommends a minimum rigid pavement section of six inches of concrete over six inches of base material. Based on the 1993 AASHTO Design guide this section conservatively yields an estimated Large Truck ADT of 7.0 assuming a 30 year design life. Concrete should not be placed directly on top of existing HMA pavements but may placed on six inches of virgin base or reclaimed material for equal structural value. The base layer may serve as a construction platform.

The options for concrete come in the way the concrete is batched, formed, placed, and finished, particularly the saw cutting. As mentioned, rigid pavements are not always more expensive in initial cost and frequently offer better, simpler, long term solutions than flexible paving options. We strongly recommend that rigid pavement options plan sheets be prepared and that alternative bids be allowed during the bidding process.

Rigid pavement options include but are not limited to:

Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement: Normal strength concrete is designed with a slump that will allow it to be placed for a given method. Generally concrete pavement can be slip formed (requires little to no slump) or can be formed with traditional form boards (typical slump ranges between 3 inches and 5 inches although modern admixtures can increase that range with no detriment). Because the tight working conditions (low overhead obstructions, multiple non movable pedestals, etc.) we recommend traditionally formed jointed plain concrete in the parking lot under the solar panel canopies on the north west side of the campus (Lot B). Jointed Plain concrete pavement has no steel reinforcement but is saw cut on 10ft to 12ft centers for the section given above. We recommend that the contractor submit a paving plan for approval. A saw cut plan should be part of that submittal.

Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC): RCC combines the advantages of an optimized aggregate gradation with the advantages of a high density HMA paver to produce a concrete pavement that typically has superior performance to normal strength concrete. RCC is a variant of Jointed Plain concrete with no reinforcement. RCC can offer cost and schedule savings. Contractor experience is critical to the success of an RCC design, typically done by the contractor, placement, and finishing. There are several experienced RCC contractors that operate in the south central Texas region. As there is substantial investment for the contractor in producing RCC a minimum job size is typically required. This project is on the smaller side of that minimum range. Also, this method favors unobstructed stretches making the option less desirable for parking lots with many obstructions and tight turns.

Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement: Steel reinforcement is placed in the concrete to prevent or mitigate concrete shrinkage that occurs during the hydration process and as the concrete expands and contracts with changes in weather during a day and through the seasons. Steel dowels are placed at saw cut locations to help bridge cracks that will likely form there. This option utilizes a combination of a minimum amount of steel and saw cuts spaced somewhat further than Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement. This creates reduction in the total cost in steel from costs associated with Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement. The option is somewhat simple to build and is similar to slab on grade construction for which many concrete contractors are familiar.

Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavements: Enough steel reinforcement is placed in the concrete to keep volume change cracks very small if they exist at all. This method is appropriate for large highways and tends to be much more expensive than other methods.

Rigid Pavement Assumptions:

• Base should be compacted to 95% of MDD at OMC +/-2% at the time of compaction based on Modified Proctor Effort (ASTM D1557)

• The concrete reinforcing should be placed approximately 1/2 the slab thickness below the surface of the slab. The reinforcing should not extend across expansion joints.

• Joints in concrete pavements aid in the construction and control the location and magnitude of cracks. Where practical, lay out the construction, expansion, control and sawed joints to form square panels, but not to exceed ACI 302.69 Code recommendations. The ratio of slab length-to-width should not exceed 1.25.

• All control joints should be formed or sawed to a depth of at least 1/4 the thickness of the concrete slab. Sawing of control joints should begin as soon as the concrete will not ravel, generally no more than a day after placement.

• Expansion joints are needed to separate the concrete slab from fixed objects such as drop inlets, light standards and buildings. Expansion joint spacings are not to exceed a maximum of 75 ft and no expansion or construction joints should be located in a swale or drainage collection locations.

• Reinforced concrete pavement should be cured as deemed necessary by the contractor as part of contractor means and methods to produce a quality product free of ruts, surface scaling, and other defects.

• As the concrete is likely to see freeze thaw action, the concrete should be air entrained with an air content 4% +/- 1% air.

• A liquid membrane-forming curing compound should be applied as soon as practical after broom finishing the concrete surface. The curing compound will help reduce the loss of water from the concrete. The reduction in the rapid loss in water will help reduce shrinkage cracking of the concrete.

• Materials used in concrete paving shall conform to the materials requirements found in TxDOT Item 360. Concrete mix designs should be prepared and submitted for approval.

Summary of Pavement Options:

For convenience we have prepared the following table summarizing the pavement options.

Pavement Section Summary

Pavement Options Surface Thickness, Inch

FDR Base Thickness, inch

Virgin Base Thickness, inch

Black Base Thickness, inch

Section Provided

SN

Estimated Large Truck

ADT

Kerrville Residential 2.0 - - 4.0 2.16 0.6

Kerrville Collector 2.0 - - 6.0 2.80 3.4

Existing Average 2.0 - - 8.5 2.07 0.5

FDR Light (recommended section) 2.0 6.0 - - 2.56 1.9

FDR Heavy 4.0 6.0 - - 3.44 13.1

Full Depth Replace w/ GeoGrid – Light 2.0 - 10.0 - 2.88 4.0

Full Depth Replace w/ GeoGrid– Heavy 4.0 - 10.0 - 3.76 24.0

Full Depth Replace w/o GeoGrid – Light 2.0 - 10.0 - 2.28 0.9

Full Depth Replace w/o Geo Grid – Heavy 4.0 - 10.0 - 3.16 7.4

Concrete (recommended section) 6.0 - 6.0 - - 7.0

DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS

As with any soil-supported structure, the satisfactory performance of a pavement system is contingent on the provision of adequate surface and subsurface drainage. Insufficient drainage which allows saturation of the pavement subgrade and/or the supporting granular pavement materials will greatly reduce the performance and service life of the pavement systems.

Surface and subsurface drainage considerations crucial to the performance of pavements at this site include (but are not limited to) the following:

1) Any known natural or man-made subsurface seepage at the site which may occur at sufficiently shallow depths as to influence moisture contents within the subgrade should be intercepted by drainage ditches or below grade French drains.

2) Final site grading should eliminate isolated depressions adjacent to curbs which may allow surface water to pond and infiltrate into the underlying soils. Curbs should completely penetrate base materials and should be installed to sufficient depth to reduce infiltration of water beneath the curbs.

3) Pavement surfaces should be maintained to help minimize surface ponding and to provide rapid sealing of any developing cracks. These measures will help reduce infiltration of surface water downward through the pavement section.

4) There are several locations where the root bulbs and drip lines of trees over lap the pavement boundaries. Roots tend to exacerbate moisture issues, particularly drying, and push up into the pavement surface. A mitigation plan for tree roots will be part of a successful pavement plan and included in project plans and specifications.

5) The pavement should be graded and sloped to develop a minimum slope of 0.015 ft/ft to provide surface drainage.

MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS

No HMA or concrete pavement will last indefinitely without maintenance. Maintenance is crucial.

Pavement maintenance includes but is not limited to:

• Drainage considerations as listed above.

o Drainage structures should be maintained, clean, and unobstructed.

• Crack sealing of flexible pavements. A regular schedule for identifying and then sealing cracks that are likely to develop in the HMA surface. Cracks should be cleaned prior to sealing.

• Joint sealing of rigid pavements. This should be done on a regular basis. Joints should be cleaned prior to sealing.

• Surface treatments for flexible pavements. Fog seals help to prevent the oxidation of binder oils in the HMA. Likewise chip seals prevent oxidation of the binder and restore pavement friction.

Mill and fill treatments replace a portion of the upper section of the HMA layer and can restore structure and friction.

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES

Subsurface conditions can vary across a project site. The conditions described in this report are based on interpolations derived from a limited number of data points. Variations will be encountered during construction, and only the geotechnical design engineer will be able to determine if these conditions are different than those assumed for design.

Construction problems resulting from variations or anomalies in subsurface conditions are among the most prevalent on construction projects and often lead to delays, changes, cost overruns, and disputes.

These variations and anomalies can best be addressed if the geotechnical engineer of record, RKCI is retained to perform construction observation and testing services during the construction of the project.

This is because:

• RKCI has an intimate understanding of the geotechnical engineering report’s findings and recommendations. RKCI understands how the report should be interpreted and can provide such interpretations on site, on the client’s behalf.

• RKCI knows what subsurface conditions are anticipated at the site.

• RKCI is familiar with the goals of the owner and project design professionals, having worked with them in the development of the geotechnical workscope. This enables RKCI to suggest remedial measures (when needed) which help meet the owner’s and the design teams’ requirements.

• RKCI has a vested interest in client satisfaction, and thus assigns qualified personnel whose principal concern is client satisfaction. This concern is exhibited by the manner in which contractors’ work is tested, evaluated and reported, and in selection of alternative approaches when such may become necessary.

• RKCI cannot be held accountable for problems which result due to misinterpretation of our findings or recommendations when we are not on hand to provide the interpretation which is required.

BUDGETING FOR CONSTRUCTION TESTING

Appropriate budgets need to be developed for the required construction testing and observation activities. At the appropriate time before construction, we advise that RKCI and the project designers meet and jointly develop the testing budgets, as well as review the testing specifications as it pertains to this project.

Once the construction testing budget and scope of work are finalized, we encourage a preconstruction meeting with the selected contractor to review the scope of work to make sure it is consistent with the construction means and methods proposed by the contractor. RKCI looks forward to the opportunity to provide continued support on this project, and would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Project Team to develop both a scope and budget for these services.

ATTACHMENTS

LOOP 534

LEGION

DRIVEWAY

STATE HWY 27

B-9 B-8

B-7 B-6

B-5 B-4

B-3

B-2 B-1

B-20

B-19 B-18

B-17

B-16

B-15 B-14

B-13 B-12

B-11

B-10

BORING LOCATION MAP

VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER - PARKING LOTS

KERRVILLE, TEXAS

PROJECT No.:

ASA17-060-00

DRAWN BY:

ISSUE DATE:

REVIEWED BY:

CHECKED BY:

CCL

11/30/2017

GLB

SR

NOTE: This Drawing is Provided for Illustration Only, May Not be to Scale and is Not Suitable for Design or Construction Purposes µLEGEND

!? BORING

KerrvilleKerrville

UV173

UV16

UV27

UV534

UV19

UV100

Kerr

SITE LOCATION MAP

S I T E

FIGURE

1KERR

COUNTY

TBPE Firm Number 3257

12821 West Golden Lane San Antonio, Texas 78249

(210)699-9090 TEL

(210)699-6426 FAX

www.rkci.com

0 150 30075

FEET

1 INCH = 300 FEET

SOURCE: Aerial Photography Obtained from Google Earth Pro - 2017

Project Number: ASA17-060-00 Test Date:

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

1 1 27 8.1 7 8.9 1 1 23 9 9 10.4 1 3 17 9.6 42 27.9 1 2 1 9.7 635 158.6

- - - - - - Average Asphalt Thickness 2.25 Inches

- - - - - - Base/Reclaimed Thickness 4.75 inches

- - - - - - Note: Thicknesses are approximate

- - - - - - LL 24

- - - - - - PI 7

- - - - - - Insitu Moisture 10.3%

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Sulfate content (ppm) 780 Figure 2

Kerville, Texas

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-1 VA Medical Center- Parking Lots

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9.2

9.4

9.6

9.8

1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9.2

9.4

9.6

9.8

0.00 100.00 200.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

MR, ksi

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

1 1 22 12.9 9 10.4 1 1 12 13.3 18 16.2 1 1 12 13.8 18 16.2 1 1 13 14.3 17 15.6 1 1 11 14.8 20 17.3 1 1 16 15.4 13 13.2 1 1 18 16.1 11 11.8 1 1 20 16.9 10 11.1 1 1 22 17.7 9 10.4 1 1 23 18.7 9 10.4 1 1 15 19.2 14 13.8 1 1 15 19.8 14 13.8 1 1 21 20.7 10 11.1 1 1 14 21.2 15 14.4 1 1 6 21.4 39 26.6 1 1 10 21.8 22 18.4 1 1 24 22.8 8 9.6 1 1 22 23.7 9 10.4 1 1 10 24 22 18.4 1 1 8 24.4 28 21.5 1 1 10 24.8 22 18.4 1 1 12 25.2 18 16.2 1 1 8 25.5 28 21.5 1 1 8 25.9 28 21.5 1 1 7 26.1 33 23.9 1 1 8 26.4 28 21.5 1 2 13 27 36 25.3 1 2 21 27.8 21 17.9 1 2 28 28.9 15 14.4 1 1 15 29.5 14 13.8 1 1 10 29.9 22 18.4 Average Asphalt Thickness 3.75 Inches 1 1 13 30.4 17 15.6 Base/Reclaimed Thickness 8.25 inches 1 1 17 31.1 12 12.5 Note: Thicknesses are approximate 1 1 15 31.6 14 13.8 1 1 20 32.4 10 11.1 1 1 20 33.2 10 11.1 1 1 21 34 10 11.1 1 1 19 34.8 11 11.831 1 1 25 35.8 8 9.6498 1 1 20 36.6 10 11.131

1 1 25 37.6 8 9.6498 LL 38

- - - - - - PI 22

- - - - - - Insitu Moisture 14.7%

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Figure 3

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-2 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

1.00 10.00 100.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

1 1 16 7.6 13 13.2 1 1 6 7.9 39 26.6 1 1 7 8.1 33 23.9 1 1 11 8.6 20 17.3 1 1 13 9.1 17 15.6 1 1 17 9.8 12 12.5 1 1 21 10.6 10 11.1 1 1 23 11.5 9 10.4 1 1 5 11.7 48 30.4 1 1 3 11.8 85 43.8 1 1 12 12.3 18 16.2 1 1 36 13.7 5 7.1 1 1 40 15.3 5 7.1 1 1 33 16.6 6 8.0 1 1 55 18.7 3 5.2 1 1 30 19.9 6 8.0 1 1 10 20.3 22 18.4 1 1 10 20.7 22 18.4 1 1 10 21.1 22 18.4 1 1 15 21.7 14 13.8 1 1 20 22.5 10 11.1 1 1 25 23.5 8 9.6 1 1 25 24.4 8 9.6 1 1 25 25.4 8 9.6 1 1 22 26.3 9 10.4 1 1 27 27.4 7 8.9 1 1 10 27.7 22 18.4

- - - - - - Average Asphalt Thickness 0.75 Inches

- - - - - - Base/Reclaimed Thickness 6.25 inches

- - - - - - Note: Thicknesses are approximate

- - - - - - Sieve

- - - - - - #4

- - - - - - #10

- - - - - - #40

- - - - - - #200

- - - - - - -#200

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Figure 4

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-3 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

Percent Retained Percent Passing

11.1 88.9

19.1 80.9

34.9 65.1

53.8 46.2 100 -

1.00 10.00 100.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

1 1 37 13.5 5 7.1 1 1 34 14.8 6 8.0 1 1 34 16.1 6 8.0 1 1 30 17.3 6 8.0 1 1 25 18.3 8 9.6 1 1 28 19.4 7 8.9 1 1 27 20.5 7 8.9 1 1 2 20.5 134 58.6

- - - - - - Average Asphalt Thickness 3.5 Inches

- - - - - - Base/Reclaimed Thickness 8.5 inches

- - - - - - Note: Thicknesses are approximate

- - - - - - LL 30

- - - - - - PI 14

- - - - - - Insitu Moisture 19.0%

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Figure 5

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-4 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

0.00 50.00 100.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

1 1 25 11.5 8 9.6 1 1 10 11.9 22 18.4 1 1 7 12.2 33 23.9 1 1 7 12.4 33 23.9 1 1 6 12.7 39 26.6 1 1 8 13 28 21.5 1 1 6 13.2 39 26.6 1 1 5 13.4 48 30.4 1 2 10 13.8 48 30.4 1 2 7 14.1 72 39.4 1 2 8 14.4 62 35.8 1 2 5 14.6 105 50.1 1 2 11 15 43 28.3 1 2 9 15.4 54 32.8 1 2 9 15.7 54 32.8 1 2 8 16.1 62 35.8 1 2 8 16.4 62 35.8 1 2 7 16.6 72 39.4 1 2 8 17 62 35.8 1 2 8 17.3 62 35.8 1 2 7 17.5 72 39.4 1 2 8 17.9 62 35.8 1 2 8 18.2 62 35.8 1 2 10 18.6 48 30.4 1 2 14 19.1 33 23.9 1 2 10 19.5 48 30.4 1 2 9 19.9 54 32.8 1 2 6 20.1 85 43.8 1 2 7 20.4 72 39.4 1 2 12 20.9 39 26.6 1 2 16 21.5 28 21.5 Average Asphalt Thickness 1.75 Inches

- - - - - - Base/Reclaimed Thickness 8.75 inches

- - - - - - Note: Thicknesses are approximate

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Figure 6

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-5 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

1 1 12 6.5 18 16.2 1 1 4 6.6 62 35.8 1 1 5 6.8 48 30.4 1 3 9 7.2 85 43.8 1 2 5 7.4 105 50.1 1 1 1 7.4 292 96.5

- - - - - - Average Asphalt Thickness 1.5 Inches

- - - - - - Base/Reclaimed Thickness 4.5 inches

- - - - - - Note: Thicknesses are approximate

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Figure 7

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-6 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

1 1 39 12 5 7.1 1 1 23 12.9 9 10.4 1 1 7 13.2 33 23.9 1 1 3 13.3 85 43.8 1 1 12 13.8 18 16.2 1 1 15 14.4 14 13.8 1 1 13 14.9 17 15.6 1 1 7 15.2 33 23.9 1 1 4 15.3 62 35.8 1 1 7 15.6 33 23.9 1 1 7 15.9 33 23.9 1 1 6 16.1 39 26.6 1 1 7 16.4 33 23.9 1 1 7 16.7 33 23.9 1 1 10 17.1 22 18.4 1 1 10 17.5 22 18.4 1 1 6 17.7 39 26.6 1 1 9 18.1 25 20.0 1 1 7 18.3 33 23.9 1 1 8 18.6 28 21.5 1 1 2 18.7 134 58.6 1 1 3 18.8 85 43.8 1 1 3 19 85 43.8

- - - - - - Average Asphalt Thickness 1.75 Inches

- - - - - - Base/Reclaimed Thickness 8.75 inches

- - - - - - Note: Thicknesses are approximate

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Figure 8

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-7 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

0.00 50.00 100.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

1 1 15 9.6 14 13.8 1 1 10 10 22 18.4 1 1 13 10.5 17 15.6 1 1 4 10.7 62 35.8 1 1 2 10.7 134 58.6

- - - - - - Average Asphalt Thickness 1.75 Inches

- - - - - - Base/Reclaimed Thickness 7.25 inches

- - - - - - Note: Thicknesses are approximate

- - - - - - Sieve

- - - - - - #4

- - - - - - #10

- - - - - - #40

- - - - - - #200

- - - - - - -#200

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Figure 9

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-8 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

Percent Retained Percent Passing

15.1 84.9

22.7 77.3

34.0 66.0

60.5 39.5 100 -

9.4

9.6

9.8

10.2

10.4

10.6

10.8

1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

9.4

9.6

9.8

10.2

10.4

10.6

10.8

0.00 50.00 100.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

1 1 30 10.45 6 8.0 1 1 42 12.05 4 6.2 1 1 80 15.25 2 4.0 1 1 30 16.45 6 8.0 1 1 20 17.25 10 11.1 1 1 15 17.75 14 13.8 1 1 25 18.75 8 9.6 1 1 5 18.95 48 30.4 1 1 15 19.55 14 13.8 1 1 18 20.25 11 11.8 1 1 13 20.75 17 15.6 1 1 8 21.15 28 21.5 1 1 1 21.15 292 96.5 1 2 1 21.15 635 158.6 1 1 3 21.25 85 43.8

- - - - - - Average Asphalt Thickness 1.5 Inches

- - - - - - Base/Reclaimed Thickness 7.75 inches

- - - - - - Note: Thicknesses are approximate

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Figure 10

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-9 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

0.00 100.00 200.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

1 1 20 5.8 10 11.1 1 1 10 6.2 22 18.4 1 1 5 6.4 48 30.4 1 1 7 6.7 33 23.9 1 1 3 6.8 85 43.8 1 1 5 7 48 30.4 1 2 6 7.2 85 43.8 1 2 9 7.6 54 32.8 1 2 10 8 48 30.4 1 2 13 8.5 36 25.3 1 2 14 9 33 23.9 1 2 18 9.7 25 20.0 1 1 7 10 33 23.9 1 1 11 10.4 20 17.3 1 1 14 11 15 14.4 1 1 18 11.7 11 11.8 1 1 22 12.6 9 10.4 1 1 23 13.5 9 10.4 1 1 28 14.6 7 8.9 1 1 52 16.6 3 5.2 1 1 60 19 3 5.2 1 1 45 20.7 4 6.2 1 1 22 21.6 9 10.4 1 1 21 22.4 10 11.1 1 1 22 23.3 9 10.4 1 1 25 24.3 8 9.6 1 1 30 25.5 6 8.0 1 1 10 25.9 22 18.4 1 1 10 26.3 22 18.4 1 1 5 26.5 48 30.4 1 1 7 26.7 33 23.9 Average Asphalt Thickness 1.75 Inches 1 2 8 27 62 35.8 Base/Reclaimed Thickness 3.25 inches 1 2 35 28.4 12 12.5 Note: Thicknesses are approximate 1 2 25 29.4 17 15.6 1 2 20 30.2 22 18.4

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Figure 11

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-10 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

1.00 10.00 100.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

1 1 16 13.6 13 13.2 1 1 20 14.4 10 11.1 1 1 4 14.6 62 35.8 1 1 12 15 18 16.2 1 1 10 15.4 22 18.4 1 1 10 15.8 22 18.4 1 1 5 16 48 30.4 1 1 8 16.3 28 21.5 1 1 10 16.7 22 18.4 1 1 8 17.1 28 21.5 1 1 9 17.4 25 20.0 1 1 13 17.9 17 15.6 1 1 10 18.3 22 18.4 1 1 11 18.7 20 17.3 1 1 14 19.3 15 14.4 1 1 11 19.7 20 17.3 1 1 15 20.3 14 13.8 1 1 19 21.1 11 11.8 1 1 18 21.8 11 11.8 1 1 12 22.3 18 16.2 1 1 8 22.6 28 21.5 1 1 12 23 18 16.2 1 1 10 23.4 22 18.4 1 1 25 24.4 8 9.6 1 1 22 25.3 9 10.4 1 1 23 26.2 9 10.4 1 1 10 26.6 22 18.4 1 1 5 26.8 48 30.4

- - - - - - Average Asphalt Thickness 1 Inches

- - - - - - Base/Reclaimed Thickness 12 inches

- - - - - - Note: Thicknesses are approximate

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Sulfate content (ppm) 720 Figure 12

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-11 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

1.00 10.00 100.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

0.00 20.00 40.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

- - - - - - Average Asphalt Thickness 0.5 Inches

- - - - - - Base/Reclaimed Thickness 7.5 inches

- - - - - - Note: Thicknesses are approximate

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Figure 13

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-12 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.00 10.00 100.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.00 20.00 40.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

1 1 20 8.8 10 11.1 1 1 9 9.1 25 20.0 1 1 7 9.4 33 23.9 1 1 8 9.7 28 21.5 1 1 4 9.9 62 35.8 1 1 6 10.1 39 26.6 1 1 5 10.3 48 30.4 1 2 9 10.7 54 32.8 1 3 5 10.9 165 66.9 1 3 7 11.1 113 52.5 1 3 11 11.6 68 38.0 1 2 4 11.7 134 58.6 1 2 1 11.8 635 158.6

- - - - - - Average Asphalt Thickness 0.75 Inches

- - - - - - Base/Reclaimed Thickness 7.25 inches

- - - - - - Note: Thicknesses are approximate

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Figure 14

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-13 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

0.00 100.00 200.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

1 1 60 16.4 3 5.2 1 1 30 17.5 6 8.0 1 1 10 17.9 22 18.4 1 3 8 18.3 97 47.7 1 3 15 18.8 48 30.4 1 2 12 19.3 39 26.6 1 2 13 19.8 36 25.3 1 2 14 20.4 33 23.9 1 2 13 20.9 36 25.3 1 2 20 21.7 22 18.4 1 1 10 22.1 22 18.4 1 1 8 22.4 28 21.5 1 1 4 22.5 62 35.8 1 2 8 22.9 62 35.8 1 3 13 23.4 57 33.9 1 3 12 23.8 62 35.8 1 3 13 24.4 57 33.9 1 3 10 24.7 76 40.8

- - - - - - Average Asphalt Thickness 3 Inches

- - - - - - Base/Reclaimed Thickness 11 inches

- - - - - - Note: Thicknesses are approximate

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Figure 15

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-14 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

1.00 10.00 100.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

- - - - - - Average Asphalt Thickness 2.25 Inches

- - - - - - Base/Reclaimed Thickness 7.75 inches

- - - - - - Note: Thicknesses are approximate

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Sulfate content (ppm) 700 Figure 16

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-15 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.00 10.00 100.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.00 10.00 20.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type No. of of Blows Incre. Cumm. MR

Ham. (mm) (in) (%) (ksi)

1 1 17 13.7 12 12.5 1 1 10 14.1 22 18.4 1 1 13 14.6 17 15.6 1 1 13 15.1 17 15.6 1 1 9 15.4 25 20.0 1 1 8 15.8 28 21.5 1 1 10 16.1 22 18.4 1 1 3 16.3 85 43.8 1 1 5 16.5 48 30.4 1 1 8 16.8 28 21.5 1 1 12 17.3 18 16.2 1 1 14 17.8 15 14.4 1 1 3 17.9 85 43.8 1 1 2 18 134 58.6 1 3 6 18.2 134 58.6 1 2 1 18.3 635 158.6

- - - - - - Average Asphalt Thickness 2 Inches

- - - - - - Base/Reclaimed Thickness 11 inches

- - - - - - Note: Thicknesses are approximate

NOTES: Hammer 17.6 lbs = 1 Hammer 10.1 lbs = 2 Figure 17

Penetration

CBR

December 5, 2017

DCP TEST DATA

B-16 VA Medical Center-Parking Lots

Kerville, Texas

1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

CBR

0.00 100.00 200.00

D E

P T

H , c m

D E

P T

H , i n

Type…