Pavement Report CO FLAP MES 18(1) 18 Road 20240613.pdf

CO FLAP MES 18(1) 18 Road

PAVEMENT AND MATERIALS REPORT

Revised June 12, 2024

Report Prepared By

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Central Federal Lands Highway Division Lakewood, Colorado ii

Written by: Marty Fey, Pavements & Materials Engineer

Revised by:

Darin Lockhart, Pavements & Materials Engineer

Reviewed and approved for distribution by:

Mike Voth, Pavements and Materials Team Lead

Distribution:

Project Development Project Management Construction Materials Pavements Geotech iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. CLIMATE

III. EXPLORATION

IV. EXISTING PAVEMENT & SOILS

V. PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATION INPUTS

VI. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & DISCUSSION

VII. MATERIALS RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDICES

A – Location Map B – Laboratory Reports and Boring Log C – Photographs D – AASHTO ’93 Flexible Pavement Design E – PG LTPPBIND Software F – Preliminary Pavement Recommendation Memo

I. INTRODUCTION

This report is written to provide pavement and materials recommendations for CO FLAP MES 18(1) 18 Road. The project is located north of Fruita, Colorado in Mesa County. 18 Road runs from the Government Canal on the south end of the project to the BLM North Fruita Campground on the north end. The project will include realignments, widening, grade changes, and a new roadway surface. See Appendix A for location map.

The Preliminary Pavement Recommendations Memo was issued in March 2021. The memo provided the pavement recommendations as well as the proposed pay items. This memo is found in Appendix F. The pavement recommendations have been finalized and are discussed in Part VI of this report.

Revision to the final document include updating the report date, updating the results on corrosivity ratings based on soil resistivity, pH and sulfate and chloride exposure and Appendix B Laboratory Reports to include AASHTO T 290 Sulfate Content and AASHTO T 291 Chloride Content test results revised on 02/18/2021.

II. CLIMATE

Climate data was obtained from noaa.gov. This data is summarized in Table 1 below.

The average annual precipitation for this area is approximately 9.66 inches. The project is in a high desert area and at an elevation that receives both snow and rain, dependent upon the time of year.

Table 1: Weather Data

Month Average

HIGH (°F)

Average

LOW (°F)

Average

MEAN (°F)

Average PRECIP. (in)

January 38.2 13.4 25.8 0.63 February 45.8 20.9 33.3 0.65

March 57.5 28.6 43.0 0.93 April 66.1 35.1 50.6 0.85 May 76.3 44.0 60.2 0.75 June 86.9 51.9 69.4 0.58 July 92.7 59.0 75.8 0.69

August 89.6 57.4 73.5 0.89 September 80.9 47.0 63.9 1.03

October 67.7 35.1 51.4 1.23 November 52.4 24.9 38.6 0.74 December 39.8 16.6 28.2 0.69

III. EXPLORATION

On June 9th, 2020 CFLHD pavement & material engineer Marty Fey completed a field investigation which included boring and subgrade sampling. DA Smith Drilling was hired through the CFLHD BPA to assist with the field investigation. A CME 55 track-mounted drill rig with a 6” O.D. solid stem auger was used to complete the borings. Pavement borings were logged at 16 locations, subgrade samples were collected and tested in the laboratory. CFL personnel logged the borings; this included depth of boring, visual soil classification, and pavement thickness when applicable. Boring locations, test results, and other information is shown in Appendix B.

IV. EXISTING PAVEMENT & SOILS

The existing roadway was observed to consist of old, oxidized asphalt pavement with high severity fatigue cracking, large areas of patching, chip seals, and poorly performing gravel surfaces extending throughout the length of the project. Due to highly variable existing sections and large amount of embankment work, a full reconstruction is recommended for this project. Because this project is located in a high desert area, boulders and cobbles may be encountered during construction.

Pavement thickness was found to be 0 to 6.5 inches in depth at the locations drilled, supported by 0 to 6 inches of aggregate road base.

Drilling efforts were relatively easy. The subgrade materials encountered are of moderate quality. The subgrade soils encountered consisted primarily of silty and clayey sands to sandy clays and were classified primarily as A-2-4(0) and A-4. Subgrade soils exhibited low plasticity and had R-values of 14 to 48.

3 samples were used for estimating the corrosion potential through the following tests Soil Resitivity, pH, Water Soluble Sulfate Content and Water Soluble Chloride Content.

Soil Resistivity for 3 samples were measured at 730, 800 and 660 ohm-cm indicating corrosive to extremely corrosive soils, where less than 1000 ohm-cm is considered extremely corrosive based on Roberge (2012).

pH values were measured at 7.9 for all 3 samples which indicates a normal range for corrosion potential.

Sulfate Content for the 3 samples were measured at 3,620, 1240 and 2,440 ppm which is within the range of 1,500 – 10,000 which is considered Severe (S2).

Chloride Content for the 3 samples were measured at 47, 53 and 128 ppm chloride contents greater than 500 ppm are corrosive to ferrous materials. The measured values are less than what is considered corrosive.

See the laboratory reports and boring logs in Appendix B for more information. Ratings and classifications are based on standard industry criteria.

V. PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATION INPUTS

Design Parameters

Traffic counts were provided with the FLAP application and were used to develop ESAL estimates. An average daily traffic (ADT) of 259 and a truck factor of 7% class 5, resulted in a calculated cumulative equivalent single axel load (ESALs) of 50,000 for a 20-year period. The assumptions made in the ESAL calculations as well as related design factors are included in Appendix D. Design factors used in the ESALs calculations as well as the structural coefficients were taken from the CFLHD Project Development Design Manual (PDDM), Chapter 11.

Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus

The soil resilient modulus was converted from R-Values, AASHTO T 190, using the following equation:

Resilient Modulus (psi) = 10[ ( S

+ 18.72 ) / 6.24 ] where S1 = [(R-Value – 5) / 11.29] + 3

The average R-value was found to be 31. However, due to high variability in in the subgrade, an R-value of 15 was selected to generate a design resilient modulus of 5,000 psi.

VI. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & DISCUSSION

Utilizing AASHTO 93 Flexible Pavement Design (Appendix D), a 20-year pavement design required a Calculated Design Structural Number (SN) of 2.21. After evaluating alternatives and performing various iterations, the following is the recommended pavement structural section:

Table 2: Recommended Pavement Section Layer Thickness

HACP 3 inches (two lifts) Aggregate Base Course 8 inches

SN = 2.28

VII. MATERIALS RECOMMENDATIONS

Selection of Asphalt Binder

LTPPBind software was utilized to assist in the selection of asphalt binder. The information presented in LTPPBind is shown in Appendix E. LTPPBind indicated that a PG 64-22 binder should be used. Consideration was given to the location of the project as well as performance of past projects in similar conditions.

Prime and Tack Coats, Blotter and Fog Seal

Prime Coat and Blotter are recommended for this project. A tack coat applied between pavement lifts is recommended. It is also recommended that a fog seal be applied to the final surfacing.

Drainage and Subexcavation

During the field investigation, areas of pavement distress were present. However, they appeared to be caused due to fatigue and age. No major water damage or drainage problems pertaining to the existing traveled way were observed. If any drainage issues are encountered, the scope of the project allows for partial reconstruction. A quantity of 100 cubic yards of subexcavation should be included in the contract. This quantity should remain in the Contract in the event that areas in need of repair are encountered.

Bid Items

Suggested FP-14 pay items for the proposed structural section are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Recommended Pay Items Item Number Item Description Unit

20402-0000 Subexcavation CUYD

30101-0000 Aggregate Base TON

40101-0600 Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Gyratory Mix, ½” Nominal Max Size Aggregate, 0.3 to < 3 Million ESAL

TON

40105-3000 Antistrip Additive Type 3 TON

40601-0000 Fog Seal TON

41101-1000 Prime Coat, Method 1 TON

41105-0000 Blotter TON

41201-0000 Tack Coat TON

APPENDICES

A – Location Map

B – Laboratory Reports and Boring Log

C – Photographs

D – AASHTO ’93 Flexible Pavement Design

E – PG LTPPBind Software

F – Preliminary Pavement Recommendation Memo

Appendix A: Location Map

Appendix B: Laboratory Reports and Boring Logs

Project:

Sample Number

Station or Location

Offset from CL

Date Sampled

Depth of Bore

Container Type

Pavement/ABC Thickness R‐Value Class Liquid

Limit/PI Resistivity, ohm.cm pH Sulfate % Chloride %

0 to 2"

2" to 5" CL / A‐4 (2) 5" to 5'

0 to 5"

5" to 8"

8" to 5'

0 to 3"

3" to 5"

8" to 5'

0 to 6"

6" to 5' 58 SM / A‐1‐b (0)

0 to 5'

22 CL‐ML / A‐4 (4)

0 to 4"

4" to 4.5' SC‐SM / A‐4 (0) 4.5' to 5'

0 to 5"

5" to 5'

0 to 4"

4" to 6" 24 CL / A‐4 (3) 6" to 5'

0 to 6.5"

6.5" to 12.5" CL / A‐4 (3) 12.5" to 5'

0 to 1"

1" to 4" 50 SM / A‐4 (0) 4" to 5'

0 to 0.5"

0.5" to 1' 55 1' to 5'

0 to 0.5"

0.5" to 3"

3" to 1.5'

1.5' to 5'

0 to 1"

1" to 3" 22 3" to 5'

0 to 1"

1" to 2' 23 CL / A‐4 (2) 2' to 5'

0 to 6"

6" to 1.5' SC / A‐4(0) 1.5' to 5'

0 to 5"

5" to 2'

2' to 3.5'

3.5' to 5'

Clay Sandy, Brown

Aggregate Base Course, Brown Sand Silty, Brown

4" / 2"

34 SM / A‐4 (0)

P‐8 2.5 Mi N of Gvmt Canal

6' Rt 6/9/2020 5' 5‐gal bucket

Asphalt Classification, R‐ValueAggregate Base Course, Brown

Clay Sandy, Brown

CME 55 track mounted (6"O.D. SSA)

DA Smith Pavement Investigation ‐ Shallow Borings and Cores ‐ Log & Sampling Summary

7.9

7.9

7.9

4" / 0"

5" / 0"

6.5" / 6"

1" / 3"

0.5" / 0"

0.5" / 2.5"

0" / 5"

1" / 2"

ML / A‐4 (0)

SC / A‐6 (2)

SC / A‐4 (1)

1" / 0"

23 / 8

6.0 Mi N of

Gvmt Canal

2' Lt Sand Silty, Brown

Sand, Brown

P‐13 4.5 Mi N of Gvmt Canal

4' Lt 6/9/2020 5' 5‐gal bucket

Chip Seal Classification, R‐Value

P‐14 5.0 Mi N of Gvmt Canal

Classification, R‐Value

Gravel Sandy, Brown P‐16

P‐11 3.5 Mi N of Gvmt Canal

P‐9 3.0 Mi N of Gvmt Canal

1' Lt 6/9/2020 5' 5‐gal bucket

Asphalt

Sand Clayey, Brown Silt Sandy, Brown

5' 5‐gal bucket

Asphalt Classification, R‐ValueSilt Sandy, Brown

5‐gal bucket

Chip Seal Classification, R‐Value

5‐gal bucket

Classification, R‐Value, Resistivity and pH

P‐2

0.15 Mi N

of Gvmt Canal

4' Rt 6/9/2020 5' 5‐gal bucket

Asphalt Classification Patched AreaAggregate Base Course, Brown

Sand Silty, Brown

P‐4 1.1 Mi N of Gvmt Canal

1' Rt 6/9/2020

Sand Silty, Brown Classification, R‐Value, Resistivity and pH

Culvert

5'

P‐6

P‐5

1.5 Mi N of

Gvmt Canal

5‐gal bucket

30' Lt

0.6 Mi N of

Gvmt Canal

Asphalt

Clay Sandy, Brown ClassificationAggregate Base Course, Brown

Sand Silty, Brown

P‐7 2.0 Mi N of Gvmt Canal

2' Lt 6/9/2020

Comments

30' Lt of Ceterline

Testing Requested

CO FLAP MES 18(1) 18 Road Contractor:

Logged By: Equipment:Sampled By:Marty Fey Marty Fey

6/9/20202' Rt

0.1 Mi N of

Gvmt Canal

Boring Observations (grey = sample depth )

Asphalt Aggregate Base Course, Brown Sand Silty, Brown

Asphalt P‐3 0.5 Mi N of

Gvmt Canal 1' Lt 6/9/2020

2" / 3"

5" / 3"

Classification, R‐Value

Classification, R‐Value, Resistivity and pH

Culvert

5‐gal bucket

6/9/2020

Gravel, Brown 5' 0" / 6"

N/A

5' 5‐gal bucket

Classification, R‐Value

Sand Silty, Brown

3" / 2"

5‐gal bucket

6/9/2020 5' 5‐gal bucket

Gravel w/ RAP, Gray

Classification, R‐Value

6/9/2020 Clay Sandy, Brown

Aggregate Base Course, Brown

Classification, R‐Value

5' Lt 6/9/2020 5' 5‐gal bucket

Chip Seal

P‐10 3.2 Mi N of Gvmt Canal

6/9/20204' Rt 5'

P‐12 4.0 Mi N of Gvmt Canal

3' Lt 6/9/2020 5'

5'

4' Rt

Chip Seal

Sand Clayey, Brown

Aggregate Base Course, Brown Silt Sandy, Brown

Chip Seal Aggregate Base Course, Brown

Clay Sandy, Brown

2' Rt

P‐1 5' 5‐gal bucket

6/9/2020 5' 5‐gal bucket

Classification

Clay Sandy, Brown Silt Sandy, Brown

P‐15 5.5 Mi N of Gvmt Canal

2' Rt 6/9/2020 5' 5‐gal bucket

Gravel w/ RAP, Gray Classification 0" / 6"Gravel w/ Cobbles, Gray Brown

Silt Sandy, Brown

17 23 / 9

33 / 17

NV / NP

NV / NP

23 / 7

21 / 6

23 / 9

24 / 10

CL / A‐6 (9)

14 CL / A ‐4 (0)

18 / 3

NV / NP

19 27 / 13

25 / 10

24 / 9

32 23 / 8SC / A‐2‐4 (0)

23 / 8

Appendix C: Photographs

Photo 1: 18 Road, Typical Pavement

Photo 2: Start of project

Photo 3: Asphalt Pavement

Photo 4: Aggregate Surfacing

Photo 5: Aggregate Surfacing

Photo 6: Typical Roadway Prism

Photo 7: Large Culvert

Photo 8: Washboarding

Photo 9: End of Project

Appendix D: AASHTO ’93 Flexible Pavement Design

AASHTO FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN

Layer Thickness Determination Using Trial and Error

Layer Drainage Layer Layer No. Description Coefficient, ai Coefficient, mi Thickness, in SN

(topmost) Layer 1 AC Layer 0.44 1.00 3.00 1.32 Layer 2 FDR or ABC 0.12 1.00 8.00 0.96 Layer 3 FDR w/ Cement 0.22 1.00 0.00 0.00 Layer 4 Gran. Subbase 0.12 1.00 0.00 0.00 Layer 5 Select Borrow 0.08 0.90 0.00 0.00 Layer 6 0.00 Layer 7 0.00

(bottommost) Layer 8 0.00 Subgrade Subgrade N/A N/A N/A N/A

AC Layer 401 = 0.44 Trial SN 2.28 403 = 0.40

CAB 301 = 0.14 Design SN to Match 2.21 Subbase/Minor agg 302 = 0.12 FDR w/ Cement 305 = 0.22 FDR 304 = 0.12 Design is sufficient Select borrow 204 = 0.06 to 0.08 (Refer to Exhibit 11.2-C in Chapter 11 of PDDM for additional guidance on coefficients)

AASHTO FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN

SN Determination

Design Inputs W18 = 50,000 ESALs Applications Over Design Period Typ. Range 50k to 10 million

R = 75 % Reliability Typ. Range 75 to 95%

So = 0.49 Standard Deviation AASHTO Standard

MR = 5,000 psi Subgrade Resilient Modulus Typ. Range 3000 to 15000 psi

Pi = 4.2 Initial Serviceability Typ. Range 4.2 to 4.4

Pt = 2 Terminal Serviceability Typ. Range 2.0 to 3.0

DESIGN SN = 2.21

R-Value = 14 S1 = 3.797 MR = 4060 R-Value = 48 S1 = 6.809 MR = 12335

R‐Value Correlation to Resilient Modulus*

Only change the R-values in C4 or C5. The rest is automatically calculated.

*CDOT method. Similar to results from Figure FF.6 in Volume 2 of AGDPS and used by CFLHD.

ADT 259 Annual Growth R0.02 Design Years 20

Directional Distribution

0.6

Lane Distribution

Classification Percent Truck Factor

Growth Factor ADT Yr 1 Design Lane ESALs ADT at N

Autos 53.0% 0.0006 137 0 204 Values Pickups, Vans 40.0% 0.004 24.29737 104 2205 154

385 (calculated) Class 4 buses 0.0% 1.5 24.29737 0 0 0 259 Class 5 trucks/RVs 7.0% 0.5 24.29737 18 48236 27 2020 Class 6 0.0% 1 24.29737 0 0 0 2040 Class 8 0.0% 1.5 24.29737 0 0 0

2 Class 9 0.0% 2 24.29737 0 0 0 100.00% 50441 385

(118 ADT * 9 mo + 681 ADT * 3 mo) / 12 month = 259 AADT (refer to Exhibit 11.2‐A in the PDDM for additional guidance on truck factors)

GR = Growth Rate (%)

Future ADT Calculation ADTf = ADTi (1 + GR)(F‐I)

ADTf = Average daily traffic for future year ADTi = Average daily traffic for initial year

I = Initial year for ADT F = Future year for ADT

Appendix E: PG LTPPBind Software

BindReport‐5Closest.txt

Five Closest Weather Stations For Latitude/Longitude= 39.126/108.736 Report Date: 3/19/2021 (LTPPBind V3.0 Alpha)

18 Road

General A=3 km B=5 km C=16 km D=26 km E=32 km Station ID CO1772 CO3146 CO3488 CO3489 CO6266 County/District mesa mesa mesa mesa mesa Weather Station colorado natl m fruita 1 w grand junction grand junction palisade Elevation, m 1637 1269 1371 1348 1362 Latitude, Longitude 39.1 ,108.73 39.17 ,108.75 39.1 ,108.55 39.05 ,108.45 39.12 ,108.35 Last Year Data Available 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997

Air Temperature Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) High Temperature 35.9 (13,34) 36.4 (10,33) 36.9 (13,35) 36.2 (13,34) 37.6 (15,32) Low Temperature ‐17.7 (39,35) ‐23 (60,34) ‐19.7 (49,35) ‐18.6 (46,34) ‐17.1 (47,32) Low Temperature Drop 22.5 (27,35) 28 (23,34) 22.4 (22,35) 24.8 (23,34) 24.7 (24,32) Degree‐Days > 10C 3210 (230,34) 3379 (190,33) 3372 (168,35) 3284 (192,34) 3483 (248,32)

PG High Low Rel. High Low Rel. High Low Rel. High Low Rel. High Low Rel.

Pavement Temperature, C 58.2 ‐11.7 59.5 ‐15.5 59.5 ‐13.1 58.8 ‐12.3 60.3 ‐11.2 50% Reliability PG 64‐16 (98,89) 64‐16 (98,54) 64‐16 (98,76) 64‐16 (98,83) 64‐16 (98,88) >50% Reliability PG 64‐22 (98,98) 64‐22 (98,91) 64‐22 (98,98) 64‐22 (98,98) 64‐22 (98,98) = 64‐28 (98,98)

Appendix F: Preliminary Pavement Recommendation Memo

Subject: Preliminary Pavement & Materials Recommendations (V1)

From: Marty Fey Pavement & Materials Engineer, CFLHD

Through: Mike Voth Pavement & Materials Team Lead, CFLHD

To: Thomas Sohn, Project Manager, CFLHD Darin Lockhart, Design Engineer, CFLHD

INTRODUCTION

This memorandum provides preliminary pavement and material recommendations for the 18 Road project located in Mesa County, north of Fruita, Colorado.

18 Road, runs from the Government Canal on the south end of the project to the BLM North Fruita Campground on the north. The project will include reconstruction of the roadway surface along with minor realignments and widening.

CFLHD standards and guidelines were used to complete the pavement and materials recommendations.

FIELD INVESTIGATION

On June 9th, 2020 CFLHD pavement & material engineer Marty Fey completed a field investigation which included boring and subgrade sampling. DA Smith Drilling was hired through the CFLHD BPA to assist with the field investigation. A CME 55 track-mounted drill rig with a 6” O.D. solid stem auger was used to complete the borings. Pavement boring were logged at 16 locations, subgrade samples were collected and tested in the laboratory. See the attached boring and testing logs for more detailed information.

Technical Memorandum

Date: March 19, 2021

The primary objectives of this field investigation were as follows:

Measure and record existing pavement and subgrade layer depths;

Gather subgrade soil samples for follow-up testing to determine engineering properties;

Evaluate and record pavement distress conditions;

Evaluate roadway and project area for constructability concerns.

The existing roadway was observed to consist of old, oxidized asphalt pavement with high severity fatigue cracking, large areas of pathing, chip seals, and poorly performing gravel surfaces extending throughout the length of the project. This roadway would be a good candidate for full depth reclamation. Additional roadbase will need to be added in areas where existing asphalt is thin or nonexistent.

The information gathered as described above was used to support pavement rehabilitation, structural design, and material recommendations.

Below are summary tables of data gathered and test results. For more complete and detailed results, see the attached logs and lab test reports.

Summary of Sampling & Test Results

Pavement Depth

Roadbase Depth

R‐value, subbase

R‐value, subgrade Comments

0 to 6.5 inches

0 to 6 inches

N/A 14 ‐ 48

Subgrade material consists primarily of Silty and Clayey Sands to Sandy Clays, A‐2‐4(0) and A‐4.

Resistivity values are moderate and indicate a lower risk of sulfate and chloride attack.

TRAFFIC:

Traffic counts were provided with the FLAP application and used to developed estimates for ESALs. The road is primarily used for recreational access with very little to no commercial use.

Truck counts were based on engineering judgement and are assumed to be very low. The counts appear generally consistent with other historical traffic data and they align with what was experienced during the field investigation. The following is a summary of traffic data as well as the estimated ESALs used for design:

2020 AADT = 259

2040 AADT = 385 (2% growth rate) 2020 % trucks = 7% Class 5 (trucks/RVs) Directional factor = 60% Design Lane ESAL’s = 50,000

DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The pavement design, rehabilitation method, and other recommendations are included below.

In developing the pavement structural and rehabilitation recommendations the following criteria was used:

Design Criteria Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.0 Design Reliability Level 75% Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Soil Resilient Modulus 5,000 psi Performance Period (3R) 20 years 20-year ESAL 50,000 Existing Borrow Material R-Value 20 Calculated Structural Number (SN) 2.21

The following is the recommended pavement structural section:

Pulverize and Overlay Layer Thickness

HACP 3 inches (two lifts) Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) or Aggregate Base Course 8 inches

SN = 2.28

Portions of the roadway with asphalt patches thicker than 6” were observed. The contractor should be made aware that the FDR depth of 6” is a minimum and that isolated areas of thicker pavement are present and will need to be addressed.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS:

The asphalt binder grade should be PG 64-22. This aligns with recommendations from LTPPBind.

Include a nominal amount of subexcavation (~100 cu yd) to be used at discretion of the

CO.

Recommend the following bid items.

Item Number Item Description Unit 20402-0000 Subexcavation CUYD 30202-2000 Roadway Aggregate, Method 2 TON 30401-5300 Full Depth Reclamation, Method 2, 6-inch SQYD

40101-0600 Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Gyratory Mix, ½” Nominal Max Size Aggregate,

0.3 to < 3 Million ESAL

TON

40105-3000 Antistrip Additive, Type 3 TON 40601-0000 Fog Seal TON 40605-0000 Blotter TON 41101-0000 Prime Coat TON 41105-0000 Blotter TON 41201-0000 Tack Coat TON

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS & SPECIAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS

CFLHD standard SCR’s related to pavements & materials will be used.

Attachments:

Boring Logs & Charts Lab Test Reports LTPPBind Report Pavement Design

VI. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & DISCUSSION