NP ROCR 503(1) 24(2) Geotechnical Engineering Report-Waterside Drive_Final.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL AND PAVEMENT ENGINEERING REPORT

Waterside Drive, Washington, DC EFL Project No.: NP ROCR 503(1) 24(2)

Schnabel Reference 20C23027 July 5, 2024

Prepared for:

July 5, 2024

Ms. Martha Alunkal, PE

WSP USA

13530 Dulles Technology Drive, Suite 300 Herndon, Virginia 20171

Subject: Geotechnical and Pavement Engineering Report for Waterside Drive, Washington, DC, Project NP ROCR 503(1) 24(2) (Schnabel Reference 20C23027)

Dear Ms. Alunkal:

SCHNABEL ENGINEERING, LLC (Schnabel) is pleased to submit our geotechnical engineering report for Waterside Drive. This study was performed in accordance with our proposal dated May 7, 2020, as authorized by you in Task Order No. 03. This report has been revised based on September 2021 design team comments.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service for this project. Please call us if you have any questions regarding this report.

Sincerely, SCHNABEL ENGINEERING, LLC

Christopher Clarke, PE Senior Associate

Steve Fung, PE Senior Associate

VE:FAC:KD:CC:sam:KA:jdb

\\EGNYTEDRIVE\EGNYTE PROJECTS\STERLING\2020\20C23027 - PINEY BRANCH PARKWAY AND WATERSIDE DRIVE\03-SE PRODUCTS\03-REPORTS\WATERSIDE

DRIVE\01-DRAFT\20C23027- PAVEMENT REPORT WATERSIDE DR- DRAFT.DOCX

Waterside Drive

Project No. 20C23027 Page i Schnabel Engineering, LLC July 5, 2024 ©2024 All Rights Reserved

GEOTECHNICAL AND PAVEMENT ENGINEERING REPORT

WATERSIDE DRIVE

WASHINGTON, DC

NP ROCR 503(1) 24(2)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

3.1 Site Description

3.2 Proposed Construction

3.3 Traffic Data

4.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Site Geology

4.2 Test Borings and Pavement Cores

4.3 Soil Laboratory Tests

4.4 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

4.5 Groundwater

5.0 PAVEMENT ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Pavement Condition Assessment

5.2 Pavement Recommendations

6.0 SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK

6.1 Compacted Fill Subgrades

6.2 Compacted Fill

6.3 Earthwork Geotextiles

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Site Grading and Earthwork

7.2 General Specification Recommendations

8.0 LIMITATIONS

Project No. 20C23027 Page ii Schnabel Engineering, LLC

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Pavement Condition Index Map Figure 3: Geologic Map

LIST OF TABLES

No table of figures entries found.Table 5: Pavement Recommendations

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Subsurface Exploration Data (2014) Appendix B: PCI Survey Data Appendix C: Pavement Distress Photo Log Appendix D: Pavement Design Calculation

Project No. 20C23027 Page 1 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of our visual pavement condition assessment (2021), our previous subsurface exploration and laboratory testing data performed in 2014, and our geotechnical engineering analysis and recommendations for the proposed pavement rehabilitation for Waterside Drive located in Rock Creek Park in Washington, DC. We are providing this executive summary solely for purposes of overview. Any party that relies on this report must read the full report. This executive summary omits several details, any one of which could be very important to the proper application of the report.

• Subsurface and pavement information mentioned in this report and used in our geotechnical analysis is developed based on geotechnical and pavement information presented in the “Pavement Report Number FY 15-01, FHWA Project NP-ROCR 503(1)” prepared in October 2014 by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This report is referred as “FHWA Pavement Report, October 2014”.

• The 2014 asphalt pavement thickness ranged from 3.5 to 7 inches with an average of 5 inches.

The pavement was milled and overlaid in late 2018 and specific information on milling and overlay depths were not available at the writing of this report. Thus, pavement thicknesses may differ from the 2014 data.

• Subsurface conditions in 2014 consisted of soft to medium consistency existing fill soils, extending to depths ranging from 0.7 to 5.0 ft. AASHTO classifications range from A-4(0), A-4(2), A-5 (O), A-6(5), and A-6(8). The SPT N-values within the fill soils ranged from 4 to 11 blows per foot (bpf).

• We observed generally good functional pavement conditions along Waterside Drive between Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway and on Massachusetts Avenue NW (Waterside South) in June of 2021. Our pavement analyses indicate the existing pavement structure may be insufficient to support the projected traffic loading, which might be the cause for fatigue distresses observed and documented in FHWA Pavement Report, October 2014. We believe the good pavement functional condition is attributed to the mill and overlay completed in 2018. We understand that frequent pavement rehabilitations have been required in the past. Thus, we recommend a complete pavement reconstruction to extend the pavement service life.

• High severity functional and structural distresses were observed along Waterside Drive north of Massachusetts Ave NW (Waterside North). We suspect that poor pavement material and inadequate subgrade strength are contributing to the pavement failure at these locations.

Roadway geometry and poor drainage may also seem to be contributing factors. We recommend removing the existing pavement, replacing with suitable compacted fill, placing a new full depth pavement at this location, and improving pavement surface drainage.

• We recommend complete reconstruction of the Waterside pavements within the project area.

The new pavement section consists of 7.5 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of aggregate base.

• The new full depth pavements must be supported on suitable, firm soils that are approved by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction. Some undercutting of unsuitable subgrade soils is expected. An estimated quantity and a cost allowance should be included in the project documents for subgrade repair.

Project No. 20C23027 Page 2 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

Our proposal dated May 7, 2020 and the “Statement of Work” NP ROCR 503 (1) (24) 2” defines the scope of services for this project. The project includes geotechnical and pavement engineering services for Piney Branch Parkway and Waterside Drive in Washington, DC. This report includes the 2021 results of our condition assessment of Waterside Drive. A separate report discusses our study and findings pertaining to Piney Branch Parkway segment.

Our scope of services for Waterside Drive includes our review of previous subsurface data, conducting a visual pavement condition assessment, and preparing this geotechnical and pavement engineering report. This report includes recommendations for the proposed pavement rehabilitation for Waterside Drive between its southern intersection with Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway NW and northern intersection with Massachusetts Avenue NW and a second segment of Waterside Drive from Massachusetts Avenue NW to the south to its northern intersection with Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway.

The scope of services for this geotechnical engineering report includes the following:

• Estimated subsurface conditions and groundwater levels within the area explored based on data collected in the subsurface exploration conducted in 2014.

• A discussion of pavement condition assessment methods and the results of our assessment.

• Recommendations for pavement rehabilitation, or replacement based on the observed site conditions, subsurface conditions, and design traffic. Pavement evaluation was performed in accordance with AASHTO 1993 pavement design guidelines.

• Earthwork recommendations for subgrade preparation and compaction criteria.

• Construction considerations related to the implementation of our recommendations.

Project No. 20C23027 Page 3 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

3.1 Site Description

Waterside Drive is located within Rock Creek Park and is managed by the National Park Service (NPS) in Northwest, Washington, DC. Waterside Drive is a 0.41 mile, two-lane, asphalt-paved roadway that provides access to Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway NW from Massachusetts Avenue NW and vice versa. A site vicinity map is included as Figure No. 1.

Waterside Drive is split by Massachusetts Avenue NW into two sections. North of Massachusetts Avenue (Waterside North), Waterside Drive is a single lane roadway traveling in one direction to the north, while south of Massachusetts Avenue (Waterside South) it is two lanes in each direction. Pavement widths range from approximately 11 to 22 ft. Other roadway features include curb and gutter pan, painted median and grass median, one bridge structure over Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway NW, tight radii corners and storm drains. It appears the storm drains are aligned to run the length of the roadway under the pavement. Based on the information presented in the Design Scoping Report, ROCR 503(1), 24(2) for Rock Creek Park dated August 2019, (Scoping Report) we understand that at least a portion of Waterside Drive was milled and overlaid with asphalt by DDOT in late 2018 to early 2019. Specific milling and replacement depths are not included in this information, but we have assumed that at least Waterside South was resurfaced back to existing grades since no records of curb or gutter replacement were provided. We also understand from this same document that Waterside Drive was milled and resurfaced in June 2004 as an emergency repair for President Reagan’s funeral and that no pavement condition assessment was conducted for this repair.

Schnabel obtained the site information from the reports and plans provided by WSP USA, from our onsite observations during our pavement condition assessment survey, and through review of available site aerial imagery.

3.2 Proposed Construction

The project includes reconstruction or rehabilitation of the existing pavement on Waterside Drive, both south and north of the intersection with Massachusetts Avenue NW. The project also includes the replacement of culverts and drainage inlets, as needed, along Waterside Drive. We understand that it is desired to keep the existing curb and gutter pans in place, where possible.

3.3 Traffic Data

For our analyses and recommendations, we have considered the traffic data presented in the Scoping Report and the Pavement Report Number FY 15-01, FHWA Project NP-ROCR 503(1) (EFL Report) prepared by Eastern Federal Lands (EFL) for our analyses and recommendations. The pavement design assumptions that are specified in the Scoping Report and extrapolated to the estimated construction year of 2022 considering a growth rate of 1.0 percent.

The 2019 Scoping Report indicates a seasonally adjusted ADT of 12,041 in 2010 and a future ADT in 2030 of 14,697 which results in a growth rate of 1.0 percent. A directional distribution of 56 and 44 percent is reported as well in the same report. We have assumed a single unit truck percentage of 1.0 percent for our analyses.

Project No. 20C23027 Page 4 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

4.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Site Geology

We reviewed existing geologic data and the previous test borings performed within Waterside Drive as presented in the EFL Report. Based on this information, the site is primarily underlain by bedrock of the Kensington Tonalite formation of the Ordovician Age. The bedrock is overlain by residual soils and disintegrated rock derived from the weathering of the parent bedrock. This information was obtained from the “Geological Map of Washington West Quadrangle” (1994) by Fleming et. al. An excerpt of the geologic map is included as Figure 3.

Existing fill soils were found in previous test borings below the pavement section and above the natural residual soils. The existing fill soils are likely associated with the construction and grading of the existing roadway and underground utilities. We expect that the roadway subgrades will mostly consist of existing fill soils.

4.2 Test Borings and Pavement Cores

A subsurface exploration was not performed for Waterside Drive as part of this study. Instead, the geotechnical data provided in “Pavement Report Number FY 15-01, FHWA Project NP-ROCR 503(1)”, was used to evaluate the existing pavement thickness and to identify the subsurface stratigraphy underlying the site. The FHWA Pavement Report, dated October 2014, includes six test borings (Borings B-1 through B-6) that were drilled on March 25, 2014 by Schnabel. All borings were advanced using 2 ¼ inch Hollow Stem augers with a model CME 45 track mounted drill rig. Borings were advanced to depths of 5.0 ft or to auger refusal. The Boring Location Plan and test boring logs are presented in Appendix A.

Below the pavement section, subgrade soils were sampled continuously using a split-barrel sampler and Standard Penetration Testing (SPT).

Please note that the test boring logs depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and times indicated. Subsurface conditions, including the material properties of soil and water levels, may differ from conditions reported on the logs with the passage of time.

4.3 Soil Laboratory Tests

The EFL Report, include laboratory test results that were conducted on five soil samples collected from Borings B-1 through B-4. The laboratory tests performed on the samples included gradation (AASHTO T- 88), Atterberg limits (AASHTO T-89, T-90), moisture content (AASHTO T-265), soil classification (AASHTO T-145). Laboratory test results are included in Appendix A and are summarized in Table 1.

Project No. 20C23027 Page 5 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Table 1: Results of Laboratory Testing (2014)

Boring Sample Sample Depth

(ft) Stratum

%Passing #200 Sieve

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

AASHTO

Class.

USCS

Class.

Moisture Content

B-1 S-1 and S-2 1 to 5 A and B 38 50 8 A-5(0) SC 25.9

B-2 S-1 and S-2 1 to 5 A 45.5 24 5 A-4(0) SC 23.3

B-3 S-1 1 to 3 A 72.6 34 13 A-6(8) CL 33.3 B-3 S-2 3 to 5 B 48.8 28 9 A-4(2) SC 23.1 B-4 S-1 1 to 3 A 56.2 33 14 A-6(5) CL 15.9

4.4 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

We characterized the following generalized subsurface stratigraphy based on the results of the previous subsurface exploration and associated laboratory testing.

4.4.1 Existing Asphalt Pavement

The existing pavement section in 2014 generally consisted of asphalt overlying gravel or sand base. The table below summarizes the observations of existing asphalt, base thicknesses at each 2014 test boring location.

Table 2: Waterside Drive Pavement Core Summary

Pavement Core ID

Location Asphalt Thickness (inches)

Sub-Base Thickness (inches)

Sub-Base Description Coordinates Elevation3 (ft) Depth (ft)

B-1 N 454034.62 E 1296909.77

38 5 3.5 – 4.0 4.0 Gravel base

B-2 N 454295.13 E 1296655.58

50 5 5.0 3.0 Gravel base

B-3 N 454655.45 E 1296239.96

66 5 7.0 2.0 Gravel base

B-4 N 455199.73 E 1295904.14

32 5 5.0 2.0 -1

B-5 N 455580.45 E 1296173.64

34 5 5.0 5.0 Cementitious Sand Base

B-6 N 455861.68 E 1296496.42

33 1.42 5.0 7.0 Sand

1. 10 inches of crumbled asphalt was observed below the pavement section.

2. Boring refused on rock

3. No grading plans were provided. Elevations were estimated from open source topographic information.

Project No. 20C23027 Page 6 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

We understand from the “Design Scoping Report (ROCR 503(1), 24(2)” that Waterside Drive was milled and resurfaced in late 2018. Thus, the core data above does not reflect the 2018 work.

4.4.2 Stratum A: Existing Fill

Below the asphalt pavement, we encountered the existing fill material of Stratum A in five of the six borings to depths of 3.0 to 5.0 ft. The existing fill of Stratum A classified as Sandy LEAN CLAY (CL), Sandy FAT CLAY (CH), Sandy SILT (ML) per the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), with lesser amounts of asphalt, gravel, and mica. AASHTO classifications range from A-4(0), A-4(2), A-5 (O), A-6(5), and A-6(8). The SPT N-values within the existing fill soils ranged from 4 to 11 blows per foot (bpf) indicating soft to firm consistency.

Five soil samples collected from Stratum A were tested for index properties and moisture content. The results are summarized in Table 1 and are included in Appendix A.

4.4.3 Stratum B: Residual Soils

Underlying the existing pavement or the existing fill soils of Stratum A, we encountered natural residual soils of Stratum B in test borings B-1 and B-3 to depths of 3.0 ft to 5 ft, the maximum depth explored in these borings. The Stratum B soils consisted of LEAN CLAY (CL) and SANDY SILT (ML) per the USCS and contained lesser amounts of mica and gravel. The SPT N-values within the residual soils ranged from 7 to 21 blows per foot (bpf), indicating firm to very stiff consistency.

One soil sample collected from Stratum B was tested for index properties and moisture content. The results are shown in Table 1 above and included in Appendix A.

4.4.4 Stratum C: Disintegrated Rock

Below the existing Asphalt layer, Disintegrated Rock of Stratum C was encountered in boring B-6 to a depth of 1.4 ft, at this location, where the boring encountered auger refusal. The disintegrated rock was sampled as Silty Sand (SM) per the USCS.

Disintegrated rock is defined as residual material with uncorrected N values in excess of 60 bpf and less than 50 blows for one inch of penetration. Penetration resistance of 50 blows or more per one inch or less of penetration is designated as sampler refusal.

As mentioned, the boring could not penetrate the ground below 1.4 ft depth. We are not certain if this is due to bedrock, or a large boulder within the fills.

4.5 Groundwater

During the subsurface exploration, groundwater was not encountered within the 5 ft deep borings.

Variation in groundwater levels may occur depending on variation in precipitation, surface runoff, leaking utilities, lake levels, and similar factors.

Project No. 20C23027 Page 7 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

5.0 PAVEMENT ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Pavement Condition Assessment

Schnabel performed a Pavement Condition Assessment (PCA) of the existing pavements along Waterside Drive in accordance with the “Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys (ASTM D6433)”. The assessment was performed on April 23 and April 30, 2021 to estimate the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and document visible surface distresses. The Pavement Condition Assessment for Waterside Drive involved:

• Waterside Drive was divided into five segments within the project limits. The segments are shown on Figure No. 2 enclosed and are described in Table 3 below.

• The pavement area in each segment was subdivided into approximately equal sized sections (12’ X 200’).

• A Schnabel engineer walked adjacent to the roadway, stopping occasionally to record their visual observations of pavement distresses (i.e. cracking area, crack width, length, surface rutting, etc.).

• At the end of the survey, the survey sheets for each sample unit were tallied for distress type and severity. We computed the Pavement Condition Index value (PCI) based on PCI deduct values.

These deduct values are derived from the deduct curves specified in ASTM D6433 for the PCI calculation.

• For each segment, the average PCI value was determined based on individual sectional PCI values.

• Table 3 below shows the overall PCI value calculated for each segment along with predominant distresses observed.

Table 3: PCI Value for Each Segment

Segment Description Approx.

Station

Average PCI Value

Predominant Distresses

Segment

Waterside Drive NB from Rock Creek & Potomac Parkway to

Merge Area

100+40 to

114+00 100 -

Segment

Waterside Drive SB from Rock Creek & Potomac Parkway to

Merge Area

196+00 to

205+11 100 -

Segment 3A

Waterside Drive NB (Merge Area to Massachusetts Avenue)

114+00 to

125+10 89 Fatigue Cracking & Patching

Segment 3B

Waterside Drive SB (Massachusetts Avenue to Merge

Area

114+00 to

125+10

Fatigue Cracking, Patching and Potholes

Segment

Waterside Drive NB (Massachusetts Avenue to Rock

Creek & Potomac Parkway)

150+00 to

158+21

Fatigue Cracking, Longitudinal & Transverse Cracking, Patching and Potholes

Project No. 20C23027 Page 8 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for various segments of the roadway are shown on the PCI index map included as Figure 2. Summary sheets of our PCI calculations for each segment are documented in Appendix B. Photographs of the predominant pavement distresses observed during our condition assessment are included in Appendix C.

Please note that our assessment depicts the conditions observed only at the specific locations and times indicated. Also, our observations in select areas were obtained by walking the sides of the roads, and some very faint and minor distresses may not have been observed. We expect that the pavement condition will change with the passage of time.

The pavement condition on Waterside South from Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway in both directions (Segments 1 and 2) were classified as good functional condition with a PCI value of 100. Substantial distresses were not observed within these segments. Minor distresses may not have been observed from the side of the road.

The pavement condition on Waterside South from the merge area (Segments 3A and 3B) was classified as in good functional condition with low to medium severity fatigue and poor patching distresses closer to Massachusetts Avenue.

Based on our field investigation, the existing pavement on Waterside North (Segment 4) is in poor functional and structural condition exhibiting high severity fatigue cracking, poorly performing patches, potholes, and poor ride quality. Based on our visual observations, the pavement distresses were observed for approximately 5 to 10 percent of the roadway area. Based on our observations and the existing subsurface information, we believe that poor subgrade support may be contributing to some of the pavement distresses (fatigue cracking).

We note that the majority of the pavements along Waterside Drive fall within a good condition classification. Thus, a mill and overlay solution could be justified for this roadway. However, based on the Scoping Report we understand that mill and resurfacing occurred in late 2018 to address high severity structural and functional distresses exhibited along the road. It is our opinion that our recent condition assessment and PCI ratings presented in this report is most likely reflective of the recent milling and resurfacing repair work and does not reflect the likely structural issues that may be hidden by the recent overlay. Based on our analysis of the pavement section, considering the existing pavement thickness presented in the EFL Report, traffic data, and the previously reported pavement condition; we estimate that the pavement will develop more severe structural distresses within the next two years and likely will not be structurally adequate for a design life greater than five years if new mill and resurfacing is performed.

5.2 Pavement Recommendations

We developed the recommended pavement sections according to the AASHTO 1993 design method for flexible pavements. The following design assumptions were used for our design of the reconstruction of the flexible pavement, generally following parameters used by the Federal Highway Administration specified in the Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM). Our analysis is included in Appendix D.

Project No. 20C23027 Page 9 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Traffic data and pavement thickness data from the Scoping Report and our pavement condition assessment information were used to develop our recommendations for the proposed pavement sections.

Most of the design parameters are the same as used for the 2014 study. The annual average daily traffic (AADT) was selected as 13,979, which was extrapolated from the AADT of 12,041, specified in the Scoping Report. This extrapolation was performed using a 1.0 percent of growth rate as specified in the same report and assuming the construction year as 2025. We selected the design subgrade resilient modulus based on our experience and the 2014 test boring logs.

The design parameters used for our analyses are:

Design Life = 25 years Layer Coefficients:

HMA surface = 0.42 HMA Base = 0.42 Graded Aggregate Base = 0.12

Subgrade Resilient Modulus = 4,500 psi Initial Serviceability Index = 4.2 Final Serviceability Index = 3.0 Reliability Level = 90% Overall Standard Deviation = 0.49

Considering the existing pavement condition, the history of frequent of pavement rehabilitation (mill and resurfacing) along Waterside Drive, our pavement engineering analysis, the pavement conditions described in the EFL Report, and considering long term maintenance and serviceability benefits, we recommend that the entire roadway be reconstructed.

The table below are our recommendations for the entire length of Waterside Drive within this project.

Table 4: Pavement Recommendations

Full Depth Reconstruction Mix Specification Layer Thickness (inch)

Surface Asphalt Gyratory mix, 9.5mm NMAS, 0.3 to 3 [Million] ESALS (Item 40101-0600), PG64-22 1.5

Base Asphalt Gyratory mix, 25mm NMAS, 0.3 – 3 [Million] ESALS (Item 40101-1400), PG64-22 61

Aggregate Base (Item 30101-0000) 6

1. The base asphalt should be split into two equal lifts of 3 inches.

The Contractor should prepare pavement subgrades and place compacted fill for pavement support as described in Section 6.0 of this report and FP-14 Section 204. Final pavement subgrades must be proofrolled under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer immediately prior to placing subbase, aggregate base, and the initial lift of asphalt concrete to evaluate their suitability to support the pavement.

All pavement subgrades should be evaluated in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction to determine if soft, loose, wet, or highly plastic soils are present. These unsuitable soils should be undercut in their entirety or to a depth of at least 2 ft, whichever is less, and replaced with suitable compacted fill or aggregate base. We note that high plasticity soils were encountered in boring B-3 during the 2014 subsurface exploration. Soft or loose soils should be stabilized with geotextile fabric as described below in section 6.3 of this report.

Project No. 20C23027 Page 10 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

6.0 SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK

Pavement rehabilitation for Waterside Drive should consist of full-depth pavement reconstruction with asphalt concrete and aggregate base. We recommend that the existing pavement section along with subbase be removed in its entirety below the new pavement section. The subgrade may need to be removed or replaced with new compacted fill as necessary to match the proposed pavement thickness and the existing curb and gutter elevations.

The exposed pavement subgrades must be evaluated, repaired, and approved per FP-14 Section 204.09.

Recommendations for compacted fill subgrade preparation, fill soil requirements, placement and compaction criteria are presented in the subsequent sections.

6.1 Compacted Fill Subgrades

Subgrades to support compacted fill or the proposed pavement sections may consist of suitable, non-deleterious existing fill soils of Stratum A the natural soils of Stratum B, or the disintegrated rock of Stratum C. Subgrades that contain soft, loose, or wet materials as identified by the Geotechnical Engineer, should be undercut and replaced as described in section 5.2 of this report.

Based on our observations of the pavement distresses and the 2014 subsurface data, we expect that some subgrade undercutting will be required. We recommend the project specifications include subgrade evaluation, undercutting, and repairs as described in this section. We suggest that an add/deduct quantity of undercutting be included in the construction documents so that an allowance is included in the contractor’s base bid.

The Geotechnical Engineer should evaluate the suitability of the fill subgrades. To evaluate the subgrade suitability for support of the compacted fill prior to any undercutting or initiation of fill placement, the stripped subgrades should be proofrolled with a loaded dump truck or other suitable construction equipment. Areas that exhibit excessive pumping, weaving, or rutting should be scarified, dried and recompacted, or undercut and replaced with aggregate base fill as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer.

When excavation of unsuitable materials is required, it should be performed in a manner to limit disturbance of the underlying suitable material. The excavation should be performed under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer.

Adequate control of surface drainage will be a very important consideration for the overall performance of the pavements. The area surrounding pavements should be graded to direct surface water away from paved areas. Compacted fill and aggregate base subgrades should be kept free of ponded water. If springs or other flowing water is present at the compacted structural fill subgrade level, the Contractor should direct water to discharge beyond the fill limits. Recommendations for discharging springs should be provided by the Geotechnical Engineer if encountered during construction.

The aggregate base and pavement asphalt subgrades should be free of snow, ice, and frozen soils. If snow, ice, or frozen soils are present at subgrade levels, these materials should be removed as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer.

Project No. 20C23027 Page 11 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

6.2 Compacted Fill

We recommend that compacted fill placed as backfill of undercut soils within the roadway prism consist of compacted fill or aggregate base per FP-14 Section 204.

Compacted fill should consist of common borrow soils that are non-organic soils classifying as SC, SM, SP, SW, GM, GP, or GW according to ASTM D2487 (A-1 through A-4, A-6 according to AASHTO M 145).

Compacted fill materials should exhibit Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index values of less than 40 and 20, respectively. Fill and backfill materials should not contain particles larger than 3 inches. Some of the onsite soils of Strata A, B, and C were observed to consist of CL or CH materials or materials with liquid limits greater than 40 and are not anticipated to meet the requirements for reuse as compacted fill.

Imported borrow soils are expected to be required to repair unsuitable subgrades. Borrow soils should exhibit a resilient modulus of at least 4,500 psi which is approximately equivalent to a CBR of 3.0.

Compacted fill should be placed in maximum 8-inch thick horizontal, compacted lifts. Fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per AASHTO T-180. Compaction effort and soil moisture contents at the time of compaction should conform to FP-14 Section 204.11.

Backfill placed in excavations, trenches, and other areas that large compaction equipment cannot access should be placed in maximum 6-inch-thick lifts. Backfill should meet the material, placement, and compaction requirements outlined above.

Successful re-use of the excavated, on-site soils as compacted structural fill will depend on their natural moisture contents during excavation. Based on available laboratory test data, the onsite soils are expected to be wet of optimum moisture content. Scarifying and drying of these soils should be anticipated to achieve the recommended compaction. Drying of these soils will likely result in some delays, and may not be possible during cooler, wetter weather. We recommend that the earthwork be performed during the warmer, drier times of the year.

6.3 Earthwork Geotextiles

PDDM Chapter 11 recommends the use of geotextiles at the bottom of the sub-excavation on weak soils to provide separation and additional strength. Geotextiles used to stabilize subgrade soils should be placed smoothly and free of tension, stress, or wrinkles in accordance with FP-14 Section 207. The geotextile should be overlapped a minimum of 2 ft at the end sides of adjoining sheets or sew the geotextile joints according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. Equipment should not be operated directly on top of the geotextile. The cover material should be spread maintaining a minimum lift thickness of 8 inches.

Project No. 20C23027 Page 12 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Site Grading and Earthwork

The on-site subgrade soils are expected to be susceptible to moisture changes, will be easily disturbed, and will be difficult to compact under wet weather conditions. Drying and reworking of the soils are likely to be difficult during periods of wet months. We recommend that the pavement reconstruction phase of this project be performed during the warmer, drier times of the year, if possible, to limit the potential for disturbance of on-site soils.

The Contractor should provide site drainage to maintain subgrades free of water and to avoid saturation and disturbance of the subgrade soils before placing aggregate base, compacted fill, compacted backfill, and pavement section materials. This site drainage will be important during all phases of the construction work. The Contractor should be responsible for reworking of subgrades and compacted fill and backfill that were initially considered suitable but were later disturbed by equipment and/or weather.

Test boring B-6 (2014) refused on an obstruction or rock at 1.4 ft depth below the pavement surface.

This may have been on a cobble or boulder sized rock, or a utility, or bedrock. Thus, some obstructions or difficult excavation may be required for this project. We would expect the extent to be limited, and likely removed by hoe-ramming.

7.2 General Specification Recommendations

An allowance should be established to account for possible additional costs that may be required to construct earthwork and pavements as recommended in this report. Additional costs may be incurred for a variety of reasons including need for borrow fill material, wet on-site soils, rock excavation, obstructions, etc.

The project specifications should indicate the Contractor's responsibility for providing adequate site drainage during construction. Inadequate drainage will most likely lead to disturbance of soils by construction traffic and increased volume of undercut.

This report may be made available to prospective bidders for informational purposes. Additional data and reports prepared by others that could have an impact upon the Contractor's bid should also be made available to prospective bidders for informational purposes.

Project No. 20C23027 Page 13 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

8.0 LIMITATIONS

We based the analyses and recommendations submitted in this report on the information revealed by our previous subsurface exploration and the available records of pavement repair. We attempted to provide for normal contingencies, but the possibility remains that unexpected conditions may be encountered during construction.

This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of this site and to assist in the design of the project.

It is intended for use concerning this specific project. We based our recommendations on information on the site and proposed construction as described in this report. Substantial changes in road use and condition should be brought to our attention so we can modify our recommendations as needed. We would appreciate an opportunity to review the plans and specifications as they pertain to the recommendations contained in this report, and to submit our comments to you based on this review.

We have endeavored to complete the services identified herein in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality and under similar conditions as this project. No other representation, express or implied, is included or intended, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report or other instrument of service.

Project No. 20C23027 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Waterside Drive NW PCI Index Map Figure 3: Geologic Map

³ 7/6

/20

T his

M ap w as

C rea ted In

Sc hn ab el

En gin ee rin gs Si te Vic ini ty

Ma p A pp lica tio n

NOT TO SCALE

arc gis

SITE VICINITY

MAP

FIGURE 1

WATERSIDE DRIVE PAVEMENT STUDY

WATERSIDE DRIVE, ROCK CREEK PARK

WASHINGTON, DC.

PROJECT NO. 20C23027

Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the

© Schnabel Engineering, 2021. All Rights Reserved.

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE DATA (2014)

Subsurface Investigation Procedures Test Location Plans Test Boring Logs Particle Size Distribution Liquid and Plastic Limits

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Test Borings – Hollow Stem Augers

The borings are advanced by turning an auger with a center opening of 2¼ or 3¼ inches. A plug device blocks off the center opening while augers are advanced. Cuttings are brought to the surface by the auger flights. Sampling is performed through the center opening in the hollow stem auger by standard methods after removal of the plug. Usually, no water is introduced into the boring using this procedure.

Standard Penetration Test Results

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is performed in the borings at regular depth intervals to collect soil samples. The numbers in the Sampling Data column of the boring logs represent SPT results. Each number represents the blows needed to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1⅜-inch I.D. split-spoon sampler 6 inches, using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The sampler is typically driven a total of 18 or 24 inches.

The first 6 inches are considered a seating interval. The total of the number of blows for the second and third 6-inch intervals is the SPT “N-value.” The Standard Penetration Test is performed according to

AASHTO T206.

The SPT samples were obtained using a hydraulically driven automatic trip hammer (ATH). Most correlations with SPT data are based on N-values collected with a safety hammer. The energy applied to the split-spoon sampler using the ATH is about 33 percent greater than that applied using the safety hammer, resulting in lower N-values. The hammer blows shown on the boring logs are uncorrected for the higher energy. However, we correct SPT N-values for the higher energy when using N-values in our analyses.

Soil Classification Criteria

The group symbols on the logs represent the Unified Soil Classification System Group Symbols (ASTM D2487) and AASHTO Classifications (M-145) based on visual observation and limited laboratory testing of the samples. Criteria for visual identification of soil samples are included in this appendix. Some variation can be expected between samples visually classified and samples classified in the laboratory.

Test Locations and Elevations

Test boring and pavement core locations were staked by Schnabel personnel with a handheld GPS unit with an accuracy of +/- 5 ft. The approximate locations are shown on Figure A1, Test Location Plan.

Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were obtained from publicly available satellite imagery and are indicated on the boring logs. Locations and elevations should be considered no more accurate than the methods used to determine them.

SOIL DATA

NO. AASHTODESCRIPTIONDEPTHSAMPLESOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

PE

R

C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3"

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 0.0 5.1 5.6 16.4 34.9 38.0

(ft.)

ROCR 503(1)

Rock Creek NP

FHWA/EFLHD

Waterside Dr. B-1/S-1,2 1-5 Silty sand A-5(0)

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 5.6 10.0 3.5 8.8 26.6 45.5

Waterside Dr. B-2/S-1,2 1-5 Silty, clayey sand with gravel A-4(0)

0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 5.8 19.9 72.6

Waterside Dr. B-3/S-1 1-3 Lean clay with sand A-6(8)

0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 12.7 37.2 48.8

Waterside Dr. B-3/S-2 3-5 Clayey sand A-4(2)

0.0 0.0 8.7 5.5 4.5 25.1 56.2

Waterside Dr. B-4/S-1 1-3 Sandy lean clay A-6(5)

NO. AASHTODESCRIPTIONDEPTHSAMPLESOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

PE

R

C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% + 3"

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 10.3 24.4 11.3 7.3 23.5 23.2

(ft.)

ROCR 503(1)

Rock Creek NP

FHWA/EFLHD

Waterside Dr. B-4/S-2 3-5

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.) AASHTO

ROCR 503(1)

Rock Creek NP

FHWA/EFLHD

A-5(0)8504225.91-5B-1/S-1,2Waterside Dr.

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-4(0)5241923.31-5B-2/S-1,2Waterside Dr.

A-6(8)13342133.31-3B-3/S-1Waterside Dr.

A-4(2)9281923.13-5B-3/S-2Waterside Dr.

A-6(5)14331915.91-3B-4/S-1Waterside Dr.

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

PL

AS

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

PI

=L

L-

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

A-7-6

A-6 or A-2-6

A-7-5 or A-2-7

APPENDIX B

PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX (PCI) SURVEY DATA

PCI Summary

Average: 100 Minimum: 100 Maximum 100 Std Dev: 0.00

Se PCI Statistics

Se Sample Distress Quanitities (Not Extrapolated)

Total Se Area

Pavement Type Flexible

S Area Surveyed

Surveyed Sample Units

No Distress None 0 0.00 %

Sample PCI Distress Data

Route Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 1 - NB Waterside Drive (Rock Creek & Potomac Pkwy to Merge Area

From RC & P Pkwy

To Merge Area

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

NB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/23/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

No Distress None 0

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 1 - NB Waterside Drive (Rock Creek & Potomac Pkwy to Merge Area

From RC & P Pkwy

To Merge Area

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

NB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/23/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 1 - NB Waterside Drive (Rock Creek & Potomac Pkwy to Merge Area

From RC & P Pkwy

To Merge Area

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

NB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/23/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 1 - NB Waterside Drive (Rock Creek & Potomac Pkwy to Merge Area)

From RC & P Pkwy

To Merge Area

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

NB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/23/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 2 - SB Waterside Drive (Rock Creek & Potomac Pkwy to Merge Area)

From RC & P Pkwy

To Merge Area

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

SB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/23/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 2 - SB Waterside Drive (Rock Creek & Potomac Pkwy to Merge Area)

From RC & P Pkwy

To Merge Area

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

SB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/23/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Average: 89 Minimum: 32 Maximum 100 Std Dev: 27.76

PCI Statistics

Section Sample Distress Quanitities (Not Extrapolated)

Flexible

Area Surveyed

14400

Surveyed Sample Units

Alligator Cracking Medium 1200 SF 8.33 %

Patching Low 120 SF 0.83 %

No Distress None 0 0.00 %

Total Se Area

Pavement Type Flexible

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 3A - NB Waterside Drive (Merge Area to Massachusetts Ave)

From Merge Area

To Mass. Avenu

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

NB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 3A - NB Waterside Drive (Merge Area to Massachusetts Ave)

From Merge Area

To Mass. Avenu

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

NB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 3A - NB Waterside Drive (Merge Area to Massachusetts Ave)

From Merge Area

To Mass. Avenu

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

NB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 3A - NB Waterside Drive (Merge Area to Massachusetts Ave)

From Merge Area

To Mass. Avenu

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

NB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 3A - NB Waterside Drive (Merge Area to Massachusetts Ave)

From Merge Area

To Mass. Avenu

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

NB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 3A - NB Waterside Drive (Merge Area to Massachusetts Ave)

From Merge Area

To Mass. Avenu

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

NB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Alligator Cracking Medium 1200 SF

Patching Low 120 SF

PCI Statistics

Section Sample Distress Quanitities (Not Extrapolated)

Total Area

Pavement Type

Area Surveyed

Surveyed Sample Units

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 3B - SB Waterside Drive (Merge Area to Massachusetts Ave)

From Merge Area

To Mass. Avenu

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

SB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Potholes Medium 1 Number

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 3B - SB Waterside Drive (Merge Area to Massachusetts Ave)

From Merge Area

To Mass. Avenu

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

SB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 3B - SB Waterside Drive (Merge Area to Massachusetts Ave)

From Merge Area

To Mass. Avenu

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

SB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 3B - SB Waterside Drive (Merge Area to Massachusetts Ave)

From Merge Area

To Mass. Avenu

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

SB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 3B - SB Waterside Drive (Merge Area to Massachusetts Ave)

From Merge Area

To Mass. Avenu

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

SB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Alligator Cracking Medium 120 SF

Patching Medium 56 SF

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 3B - SB Waterside Drive (Merge Area to Massachusetts Ave)

From Merge Area

To Mass. Avenu

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

SB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Patching Medium 36 SF

Area Surveyed

Flexible

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 4 - NB Waterside Drive (Mass Ave to Rock Creek & Potomac Pkwy

From Mass. Avenu

To RC & P Pkwy

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

NB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Long/Trans Cracking Low 60 LF

Long/Trans Cracking Medium 20 LF

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 4 - NB Waterside Drive (Mass Ave to Rock Creek & Potomac Pkwy

From Mass. Avenu

To RC & P Pkwy

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

NB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Alligator Cracking Medium 120 SF

Long/Trans Cracking Low 60 LF

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 4 - NB Waterside Drive (Mass Ave to Rock Creek & Potomac Pkwy

From Mass. Avenu

To RC & P Pkwy

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract No Description Waterside Drive NW Pavement Condition Analysis

Pavement Type Flexible

RNum RSuff

NB

PCI

Date of Survey 04/30/2021

Survey Rater

Sample Unit Area

Start of Sample Unit

End of Sample Unit

Sample Unit #

Alligator Cracking High 400 SF

Patching Medium 300 SF

Potholes Medium 2 Number

Other

SectID

County

Location Segment 4 - NB Waterside Drive (Mass Ave to Rock Creek & Potomac Pkwy

From Mass. Avenu

To RC & P Pkwy

Sample Distress Quanitities

ProjID

Contract…