Pavement Report_TX USACE STR ACCESS (1).pdf

TOWN BLUFF STRUCTURE ACCESS ROAD

TYLER COUNTY, TEXAS

TX USACE STR ACCESS(1)

PAVEMENT AND MATERIALS REPORT

JUNE 2020

Report prepared by:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Central Federal Lands Highway Division

Lakewood, Colorado http://www.google.com/imgres?sa=X&biw=1280&bih=819&tbm=isch&tbnid=gtpyJEKxSQX6SM:&imgrefurl=http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2010/HUDNo.10-242&docid=0hzyuk4oobnONM&imgurl=http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/images/hudimg?id=dot_logo_41193.jpg&w=520&h=528&ei=uGw7Uoy6Ksjk4AOC_IDQBw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=567&vpy=131&dur=635&hovh=226&hovw=223&tx=151&ty=150&page=1&tbnh=154&tbnw=162&start=0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:26,s:0,i:171

TX USACE STR ACCESS(1) Town Bluff Structure Access Road ii

Written by: ________________________________________________________

Robert Norick, Staff Pavement & Materials Engineer

Reviewed by: ________________________________________________________

Mike Voth, Pavement & Materials Team Lead

Approved for distribution by:

Mike Voth, Pavement & Materials Team Lead

Electronic Distribution:

Construction Project Development Project Management Technical Services iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. EXPLORATION

III. CLIMATE

IV. GEOLOGIC, PAVEMENT, & SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

V. PAVEMENT DESIGN INPUTS

VI. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & DISCUSSION

VII. MATERIALS RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDICES

A – Vicinity Map and Plan & Profile

B – Boring Log & Map and Lab Report

C – Site Investigation Photos

D – Pavement Design Calculations

E – Asphalt Binder and Climate Data

F – Pipe Selection Criteria

G – Project Specific SCRs

I. INTRODUCTION

This report is written to document the existing road conditions and to provide pavement recommendations for the Town Bluff Structure Access Road in Tyler County, Texas. The

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Town Bluff Dam (originally “Dam B”) and associated B.A. Steinhagen Reservoir are located on the Neches River in Southeast

Texas, midway between the towns of Woodville and Jasper (see Vicinity Map in

Appendix A). USACE constructed the dam for flood control, water supply, and electric power generation purposes from 1947 to 1953. The access road is located approximately

5 miles south of U.S. Highway 190 along FM 92 South (farm to market road).

The aforementioned access road (0.19 miles long) provides the west gated access to the dam’s spillway. A plan and profile with stationing is provided in Appendix A. The access road begins on top of the bluff at FM 92’s east edge of asphalt (Station 10+00) and proceeds east and downhill at a steep grade (approximately 15%) to the existing turnaround west of the dam spillway. The turnaround is not included in the project. This access road was constructed in the mid-1950s after the original access was destroyed by a landslide that slid off the bluff and into the river channel below the spillway. The access road was constructed with a 3-inch depth of asphalt with minimal aggregate base. The road was overlaid with an additional 2 inches of asphalt in the 1990s.

The road has experienced rapid deterioration over the past few years due to high rainfall events. Along the steepest section of the road, slope movement has created three transverse pavement cracks near Stations 12+50, 13+20, and 14+70. These cracks have experienced several inches of vertical displacement. Within the forest immediately south of the upper crack (Station 12+50), a vertical scarp from a previous slide is evident (See photo in Appendix C). USACE periodically places asphalt patch material at the transverse cracks, only to have the cracks reappear, especially during high rainfall events.

Additionally, there are two springs along the access road; one near Station 13+90 along the cut slope south of the road (currently active) and one within the pavement near

Station 16+80 (currently inactive). USACE installed an underdrain system uphill and south of the road between Stations 17+00 and 19+30. Similar to the spring at Station

13+90, this underdrain flows continuously.

The existing two lane road is approximately 35 feet wide with corrugated metal pipe

(CMP) ditches. The proposed road cross section consists of a 24-foot asphalt width with riprap ditches.

II. EXPLORATION

On August 22, 2019, a pavement and geotechnical investigation was conducted for the project consisting of nine shallow borings (10-foot deep) using a track-mounted drill rig.

The primary purpose of the investigation was to explore the subsurface conditions in the area of the slope movement and three transverse pavement cracks (i.e. upper, middle, and lower cracks). Six of the borings were drilled within the pavement, above and below the transverse cracks (Stations 12+35, 12+65, 13+30, 14+60, and 15+00) and at the location of the inactive spring (Station 16+80). Three additional borings were drilled on the grass cut slopes adjacent to the road (Stations 11+90, 12+50, and 16+10). Standard penetration testing (SPT) and sampling was performed at 5-foot intervals for each boring.

Additionally, one bulk sample of the pavement subgrade (upper 5-feet) was also collected. During the drilling operation, CFL personnel logged the findings, including pavement and aggregate base thicknesses, depth of soils and groundwater, visual soil classification, SPT data, and pavement distresses. The SPT and bulk subgrade samples were submitted to the CFLHD lab for testing to determine their engineering properties.

The boring log, boring map, and lab report are provided in Appendix B, while Appendix

C provides photos from the field investigation.

II. CLIMATE

Climate data was obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center for the Town Bluff

Dam, Texas weather station. This data is summarized in Table 1 below and provided in

Appendix E. The project area has an average precipitation of approximately 47.13 inches/year. The project site is approximately 200 feet above sea level. The area receives moisture nearly entirely from rain with large rainfall events being fairly common.

Table 1. Weather Data

Month Average

HIGH

Record

HIGH

Average

LOW

Record

LOW

Average

PRECIP.

January 58.5 82 36.4 6 3.58

February 63.1 88 40.0 18 4.48

March 69.4 88 45.7 21 2.90

April 78.5 92 57.2 32 4.55

May 84.6 96 62.9 41 4.34

June 89.8 99 68.0 51 4.34

July 93.3 103 71.1 55 3.98

August 92.9 106 70.3 54 2.92

September 88.7 101 65.6 38 3.96

October 81.0 101 54.8 29 3.18

November 69.9 90 46.1 22 3.82

December 62.2 82 39.0 12 5.08

Temperatures are in °F and precipitations are in inches.

IV. GEOLOGIC, PAVEMENT & SUBSURFACE CONDTIONS

Geology

The project lies within the “Lissie Formation”. The formation is made up of Quaternary and Middle Pleistocene aged rocks and sediments. The major lithologic constituents that encompass this formation are alluvial sand, silt, and clay. Zones of weathering are common in the area as are flood basin mud deposits.

Existing Pavement Section and Pavement Subgrade

The borings within the pavement revealed an existing pavement section consisting of

5 inches of asphalt with minimal aggregate base. Previous USACE asphalt cores at the three transverse pavement cracks revealed asphalt thicknesses between 5 and 9 inches due to the periodic asphalt patching at these locations. Beneath the pavement, the investigation revealed a subgrade consisting of 2 to 6 feet of clayey sands. In addition to the transverse cracks from the slope movement, the existing asphalt is oxidized with block, edge, and alligator cracking that comes with an old age hardened road.

Subsurface Conditions in Area of Slope Movement & Transverse Pavement Cracks

For the upper section of the road above the upper crack (near the top of bluff), the investigation found poorly graded sands for the 11½ foot exploration depth with ground water at a 11-foot depth (Boring BH 19-09). For the area of the road’s slope movement

(approximately 220 feet in length from the location of the upper crack near Station

12+50, past the middle crack, to the location of the lower crack near Station 14+70), the investigation revealed a layer of silty sands (3 to 9 feet thick) sandwiched between the shallow layer of clayey sands immediately beneath the asphalt (2 to 6 feet thick) and the deeper fat clays (encountered at depths between 5 to 12 feet below the surface). Five borings were drilled in this area (Borings BH 19-01 through BH 19-04 and BH 19-08).

Within this area, groundwater was encountered within the silty sand layer at depths between 4½ and 6 feet. The active spring is located on the cut slope immediately south of this area near Station 13+90. Groundwater was not encountered downhill of this spring.

In contrast to the area between the pavement cracks, silty sands were not encountered downhill of the lower pavement crack (Borings BH 19-05 and BH 19-07).

V. PAVEMENT DESIGN INPUTS

Subgrade Soil Resilient Modulus

The pavement design for the Town Bluff Structure Access Road utilized design criteria established in the Federal Lands Highway Project Development Design Manual (PDDM) and the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (AGDPS). The criteria shown in Table 2 below were selected based on the project’s scope and traffic levels.

Table 2. Design Criteria

Design Performance Period 20 years

Initial Serviceability (flexible pavements) 4.2

Terminal Serviceability 2.0

Design Reliability Level 75%

Overall Standard Deviation 0.49

Annual Traffic Volume Growth Rate 2.0%

Directional Distribution (dead end road) 50%

Traffic

The road’s traffic is entirely from USACE’s dam maintenance activities. The road’s two-way average daily traffic (ADT) is estimated to be less than 100 with 90% being passenger vehicles, pickups, and SUVs (FHWA Class 2-3 vehicles). Truck traffic is estimated to be approximately 10% of the road’s ADT as follows: 4% Class 5, two axle trucks (e.g. delivery trucks), 4% Class 6, three axle trucks (e.g. tandem dump trucks), and

2% Class 9, five axle tractor trailers. Accurate traffic load estimates expressed as 18-kip equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) are critical for the pavement design. Load estimates are based on vehicle counts and classifications with a 20-year, 2% growth factor of 24.3.

Standard load equivalency truck factors are used to convert the various vehicle axle loads to 18-kip ESALs. The following truck factors were assumed for the aforementioned vehicle classifications in accordance with PDDM Exhibit 11.2-A: 0.002 for Class 2-3, 0.5 for Class 5, 1.0 for Class 6, and 2.3 for Class 9. Based upon the design criteria and assumptions shown above and the 1993 AASHTO pavement design procedure, the project’s 20-year-18-kip equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) are calculated to be 47,801

(see Appendix D). According to PDDM Section 11.2.1.2, a minimum of 50,000 ESALs shall be used for the design of paved roads.

Subgrade Soil Resilient Modulus

One subgrade soil sample (Boring BH 19-03) was submitted to the CFLHD laboratory to determine an R-Value (resistance value on a scale of 0 to 100 per AASHTO T 190). The boring’s clayey sand was found to have an R-Value of 19 and is representative of the subgrade soils along the length of the road. For sands and gravels, the subgrade Resilient

Modulus (MR) is calculated from the R-Value using the following correlation equation.

Resilient Modulus, MR (psi) = 10[ ( S

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

Based upon an R-Value of 19, the project’s clayey sands have a calculated resilient modulus of 4,800 psi; the design resilient modulus for the project’s pavement design.

Structural Layer Coefficients

Structural layer coefficients of 0.12 and 0.44 were selected for crushed aggregate base

(CAB) and asphalt concrete pavement (ACP), respectively, in accordance with Exhibit

11.2-C of the PDDM. A drainage coefficient of 1.0 was utilized for all proposed layers.

Structural Number Calculations

The 1993 AASHTO pavement design procedure was used to determine the required pavement structural numbers (SN) for the project. Based upon the ESALs, the subgrade

Resilient Modulus, and the aforementioned design criteria, the following required 20-year pavement design structural number is calculated (See Appendix D).

Required SN for Town Bluff Structure Access Road = 2.25 inches

VI. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & DISCUSSION

Slope Movement & Transverse Pavement Cracks

The primary purpose of the pavement and geotechnical investigation was to explore the subsurface conditions in the area of the slope movement and three transverse pavement cracks (i.e. upper, middle, and lower cracks) between Station 12+50 and 14+70 (220 feet in length). The investigation revealed a layer of silty sands (3 to 9 feet thick) sandwiched between the shallow layer of clayey sands immediately beneath the asphalt (2 to 6 feet thick) and the deeper fat clays (encountered at depths between 5 to 12 feet below the surface). Within this area, groundwater was encountered within the silty sand layer at depths between 4½ and 6 feet. An active spring is located on the cut slope immediately south of this area near Station 13+90. Groundwater was not encountered downhill of this spring. In contrast to the area between the pavement cracks, silty sands were not encountered downhill of the lower pavement crack. Refer to the project’s Geotechnical

Report for slope stability discussion and mitigation.

Pavement Recommendation

A pavement rehabilitation (full depth reclamation with asphalt overlay) is feasible for the project; separate from the road’s slope movement issues. Based upon the slope movement issues, the cross functional team (CFT) selected reconstruction for the roadway. In accordance with the 1993 AASHTO pavement design procedure, a 20-year pavement design requires a Structural Number (SN) of 2.25. After evaluating alternatives, the following pavement structural section is recommended for the project.

3 inches of Asphalt Concrete Pavement (SN = 3” x 0.44 = 1.32”)

8 inches of Crushed Aggregate Base (SN = 8” x 0.12 = 0.96”)

TOTAL SN = 2.28 inches

VII. MATERIALS RECOMMENDATIONS, SCRs, AND

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Selection of Asphalt Binder

LTPPBind Online and the PDDM standards were utilized for the selection of the asphalt binder for the project (See Appendix E). A PG 70-22 binder is recommended for the project’s asphalt pavement. This binder grade is readily available and commonly used by the Texas DOT. Outside of the Texas panhandle, TXDOT uses PG binders with a -22°C minimum pavement temperature almost entirely. A PG 64-22 binder is frequently used for subsurface mixes and roads with very little truck traffic.

Prime and Tack Coats, Fog Seal, and Blotter

For this project, a Prime Coat and Blotter applied to the base prior to asphalt placement, a

Tack Coat applied between asphalt lifts, and a Fog Seal applied to the final pavement surface are recommended.

Materials for Culvert Pipe

The project’s fat clays were found to be moderately corrosive with resistivity as low as

729 ohm-cm. To address the corrosive soils, the following pipe materials are recommended for the project: plastic pipe, concrete pipe, and corrugated steel pipe with either 14 gage wall thickness or a polymer coating.

SCRs and Construction Concerns

CFLHD standard SCRs related to pavements and materials are expected to be used with the exception of the following FP-14 sections: Section 602 Culverts and Drains, Section

403 Asphalt Concrete, and Section 703 Aggregate. To address culvert pipe corrosion, a

602 SCR is provided that requires galvanized steel culvert pipe to have 14 gage wall thickness or polymer coating. A 403 SCR provides for a TXDOT asphalt mix, while a

703 SCR provides for a TXDOT aggregate base. The project specific SCRs are provided in Appendix G. Any additional SCRs may be developed as needed.

Bid Items

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

Table 3: Recommended Pay Items

Item

Number Item Description Unit Remarks.

30202-0000 Roadway Aggregate, Method 2 TON

40301-0100 Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Type 1 TON

40601-0000 Fog Seal TON

41102-1000 Prime Coat, Method 1 SQYD

41105-0000 Blotter TON

41201-0000 Tack Coat TON

APPENDICES

A – Vicinity and Plan and Profile

B – Boring Log & Map and Lab Report

C – Site Investigation Photos

D – Pavement Design Calculations

E – Asphalt Binder and Climate Data

F – Pipe Selection Criteria

G – Project Specific SCRs

APPENDIX A – Vicinity Map and Plan & Profile

V

IC

IN

T

Y M

A P

N

APPENDIX B – Boring Log & Map and Lab Report

Boring Number Station -

Offset from c/l Depth

SPT Blow Count

Sample Type Requested Testing

0 to 5' 5' to 11' 6/6/7 11' 11' to 11.5' 4/4/6 0 to 6" 6" to 2.5' 2.5' to 4.5' 4.5' 4.5' to 8' 2/5/4 SPT baggy sample Classification & Moisture 8' to 9' 9' to 11.5' 2/3/5 SPT baggy sample Classification & Moisture

Upper Crack Sta 12+50 0 to 6' SPT from 6' to 9' 5' to 6.5' 1/2/1 SPT baggy sample Classification & Moisture 9' 9' to 11' SPT from 1/3/3 SPT baggy sample None 11' to 11.5' 10' to 11.5' 0 to 5" 5" to 8" 8" to 3' 3' to 5' 5' 1/2/2 SPT baggy sample Classification & Moisture 5' to 11.5' 1/2/2 SPT baggy sample Classification & Moisture

Middle Crack Sta 13+20 0 to 4" 4" to 2.33' 2.33' to 3' 3' to 6' 6' 6' to 9' tan sand, wet 9' to 11.5' 2/3/4 SPT baggy sample Classification & Moisture

Active Spring Sta 13+90 - 30'R 0 to 5" 5" to 7" 7" to 2' 2' to 4' 4' to 5' 5' to 9.5' 2/4/5 SPT baggy sample Classification & Moisture 9.5' to 11.5' 3/5/7 SPT baggy sample Classification & Moisture

Lower Crack Sta 14+70 0 to 5" 5" to 2' 2' to 4'

4/6/8 Combine SPTs Classification, Moisture, pH, 5/8/11 into baggy sample & Resistivity

0 to 2' 2' to 4' 4' to 5' 5' to 10' 3/8/11 SPT baggy sample Classification & Moisture 10' to 11.5' 5/7/11 SPT baggy sample Classification & Moisture 0 to 3" 3" to 1.75' 1.75' to 2.75'

2.75 to 7' 3/2/4 SPT baggy sample Classification & Moisture 7' to 9.5' 9.5' to 11.5' 4/5/5 SPT baggy sample Classification & Moisture

None

4' to 11.5' grey fat clay, damp (SPT from 5 to 6.5') (SPT from 10' to 11.5')

1/1/0 SPT baggy sample brown base material groundwater level SPT from 5' to 6.5 grey clayey sand, wet (SPT from 10' to 11.5')

BH 19-08

Sta 12+50 - 35'R

(on grass slope at upper crack) groundwater level tan silty sand, dry golden silty sand, damp tan sand, wet grey fat clay, wet

Sta 16+80 - 5'L (at location of inactive spring)

TX USACE STR ACCESS(1) BORING LOG (August 22, 2019) - Grey Shading for Landslide Cracks & Encountered Groundwater

BH 19-01

Sta 12+35 - 10'R

(15' west & above upper crack) tan sand, damp Sta 11+90 - 35'R (on grass slope)

BH 19-09

golden clayey sand, wet (SPT from 10' to 11.5') asphalt tan sand, wet (SPT from 10' to 11.5')

BH 19-06

BH 19-02

brown fat clay, damp (SPT from 5 to 6.5')

Sta 12+65 - 10'R (15' east & below upper crack) asphalt groundwater level (SPT from 5' to 6.5') tan clayey sand, damp brown clayey sand, damp tan sandy lean clay, dry asphalt patch material tan silty sand, damp (SPT from 10' to 11.5') golden sandy lean clay, dry grey lean clay, damp (SPT from 10' to 11.5') tan silty sand, damp golden silty sand, damp (SPT from 5' to 6.5') brown fat clay, damp

BH 19-03

Sta 13+30 - 12'L (10' east & below middle crack)

BH 19-04

Sta 14+60 - 12'R

(10' west & above lower crack) asphalt golden clayey sand, damp tan clayey sand, damp tan sand, damp asphalt patch material brown clayey sand, damp red clayey sand, damp golden clayey sand, damp

BH 19-07

Sta 16+10 - 35'L (on grass slope) grey fat clay, damp (SPT from 10' to 11.5')

BH 19-05

Sta 15+00 - 10'R

(30' east & below lower crack) asphalt golden clayey sand, damp tan lean clay, dry tan lean clay, damp (SPT from 5' to 6.5')

Classification, Moisture, pH, & Resistivity

Classification, R-Value, pH, & Resistivity

Boring Observations dark brown base material tan silty sand, damp groundwater level brown clayey sand, damp grey silty sand, damp tan silty sand, wet (SPT from 5' to 6.5') red fat clay, wet tan sand, damp (SPT from 5' to 6.5') groundwater level tan silty sand, wet (SPT from 10' to 11.5') golden clayey sand, damp

Combine SPTs into baggy sample

Bucket sample for 5' depth

APPENDIX C – Site Investigation Photos

Lo ok in g

W es t & U ph ill fr om

L ow er C ra ck

U pp er

C ra ck a t S ta tio n

+5

M id dl e Cr ac k at S ta tio n

+2

Lo w er

C ra ck a t S ta tio n

+7

Looking from the top of a previous slide within the forest south of the road.

Looking back at the locations of borings BH 19-09 (11+90) & BH 19-01 (12+35)

Looking forward at borings BH 19-01 (12+35), BH 19-02 (12+65), & BH 19-08 (12+50)

Looking back at borings BH 19-01 (12+35), BH 19-02 (12+65), & BH 19-03 (13+30)

Location of active spring south of road on grass slope near Station 13+90

Looking forward at locations of active spring (on right) & boring BH 19-04 (14+60)

Brown and grey fat clay at boring BH 19-04 near Station 14+60

Looking forward at borings BH 19-05 (15+00), BH 19-06 (16+80), & BH 19-07 (16+10)

Looking forward at boring BH 19-06 (16+80) in center of aggregate base patch

Looking forward at boring BH 19-07 (16+10) north of riprap ditch and roadway

Boring BH 19-01’s SPT from 5’ to 6.5’ depth, wet tan sand

Boring BH 19-01’s SPT from 10’ to 11.5’ depth, wet golden clayey sand

Boring BH 19-02’s SPT from 5’ to 6.5’ depth, wet tan silty sand

Boring BH 19-04’s SPT from 5’ to 6.5’ depth, damp brown fat clay

Boring BH 19-04’s SPT from 10’ to 11.5’ depth, damp grey fat clay

Boring BH 19-06’s SPT from 10’ to 11.5’ depth, damp tan silty sand

Boring BH 19-08’s SPT from 5’ to 6.5’ depth, damp golden silty sand

Boring BH 19-08’s SPT from 10’ to 11.5’ depth, wet tan sand & wet grey clay

Boring BH 19-09’s SPT from 5’ to 6.5’ depth, damp tan sand

Boring BH 19-09’s SPT from 10’ to 11.5’ depth, wet tan sand

APPENDIX D – Pavement Design Calculations

ESAL Calculations

Project: TX USACE STR ACCESS(1) Town Bluff Structure Access Road Location: Tyler County, Texas Date: 10/2/2019

Performance Period (years) 20 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 100 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of Trucks in Design Lane 100% Percent of Trucks in Design Direction 50%

Accumulated Average Initial 18-kip ESALs for

Vehicle Percent Annual % Growth Truck Factor Performance Class of ADT Growth Factor (ESALs/Truck) Period

2-3 90% 2% 24.30 0.002 798 5 4% 2% 24.30 0.5 8,869 6 4% 2% 24.30 1.0 17,737 9 2% 2% 24.30 2.3 20,398

Total 47,801 Design ESALs 50,000

S H

T O

F L

E X

IB

L

E P

A V

E M

E N

T D

E S

IG

N

S N

D et er m in at io n

D es ig n

In p u ts

W

,0

E S

A Ls

A p pl ic at io ns O ve r

D es ig n

P e rio d

T yp

R an ge

0k t o m ill io n

R

R el ia b ili ty

T yp

R an ge to

5%

S o

0.

S ta nd ar d

D ev ia tio n A

A S

H T

O S ta nd ar d

M R

4, ps i

S ub g ra de R es ili en t

M od ul us

T yp

R an ge to p si

P i =

4.

In iti al S er vi ce ab ili ty

T yp

R an ge

.2 t o

4.

P t =

T er m in al

S e rv ic ea bi lit y

T yp

R an ge

.0 t o

3.

D E

S

IG

N S

N

2.

APPENDIX E – Asphalt Binder and Climate Data

10/2/2019 LTPPBind Online

1/2

General Project Information

Project Number: TX USACE STR ACCESS(1) Project Title: Town Bluff Structure Access Project Description: Tyler County, Texas

Climatic Data Source (MERRA)

Latitude, Degree: 30.79532 Longitude, Degree: -94.18287

Climatic Data

Lowest Yearly Air Temperature, ºC: -14.50 Low Air Temp Standard Deviation, ºC: 2.32 Yearly Degree-Days > 10 Deg. ºC: 4046.14 High Air Temperature of high 7 days: 39.13 Standard Dev. of the high 7 days: 1.84 Low Pavement Temperature 50%: -7.10 Low Pavement Temperature 98%: -12.60 High Avg Pavement Temperature of 7 Days 50%: 62.67 High Avg Pavement Temperature of 7 Days 98%: 66.75

Target Rut Depth

Target Rut Depth (mm): 12.5

Temperature Adjustments

Depth of Layer, mm: 0 Base HT PG: 52

Traffic Adjustments

Traffic loading Cumulative ESAL for the Design Period, Millions: 0.05 Traffic Speed (Fast: >70 km/h, Slow: 20-70 km/h, Standing: < 20 km/h): Fast

Performance Grade

AASHTO M323-13 Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder

PG Temperature High Low Performance Grade Temperature at 50% Reliability 64.1 -7.0

Performance Grade Temperature at 98% Reliability 64.8 -12.6

Adjustment for Traffic (AASHTO M323-13) 0.0

Adjustment for Depth 0.0 0.0

Adjusted Performance Grade Temperature 64.8 -12.6

Selected PG Grade 70 -16

PG Grade M323, PG 70-16

10/2/2019 LTPPBind Online

2/2

AASHTO M 332-14 Performance-Grade Asphalt Binder using Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test

PG Temperature High Low Performance Grade Temperature at 50% Reliability 64.1 -7.0

Performance Grade Temperature at 98% Reliability 64.8 -12.6

Designation for traffic loading S

Selected PG Grade 70 -16

PG Grade M332, PG 70S-16

Temperature Report Lowest Yearly Air Temperature, ºC: -14.50

Low Air Temp Standard Deviation, ºC: 2.32

Yearly Degree-Days > 10 Deg. ºC: 4046.14

High Air Temperature of high 7 days: 39.13

Standard Dev. of the high 7 days: 1.84

Low Pavement Temperature 50%: -7.10

Low Pavement Temperature 98%: -12.60

High Avg Pavement Temperature of 7 Days 50%: 62.67

High Avg Pavement Temperature of 7 Days 98%: 66.75

APPENDIX F – Pipe Selection Criteria

Hydrology and Hydraulics December 2012

7-48 Roadway Hydraulics

7.3.5.5 Recommended Methods

Design and evaluate the performance of energy dissipators according to the methods presented in HEC 14. HEC 14 also contains procedures for estimating scour hole dimensions at pipe outlets.

7.3.5.6 Reporting

The design of outlet protection for culvert, ditch, or storm drain outlets should be supported by documentation containing, at a minimum, the following information:

● Project identification

● Location of proposed installation

● Hydraulic design calculations

7.3.5.7 Plans

For the location and design of riprap outlet protection, prepare plans showing all details necessary to construct the improvements according to the hydraulic design, including the following:

● Location

● Dimensions and extent of riprap

● Gradation

● Bedding and Filter Material or Geotextile

● Grading or slope details

7.3.6 ALTERNATIVE PIPE MATERIALS

It is Federal Lands Highway policy to specify alternative drainage pipe materials on all projects where feasible and to comply with the provisions of 23 CFR 635.411. All suitable pipe materials, including reinforced concrete, steel, aluminum, and plastic will be considered as alternatives for all new cross culverts and storm drain pipes on Federal Lands Highway projects.

Not all pipe materials are appropriate or applicable for all storm drain applications. The design of alternative drainage pipe materials should consider functionally equivalent performance in three areas: structural capacity, durability and service life, and hydraulic capacity. The service life and hydraulic capacity issues are addressed in this section.

7.3.6.1 References

The following references provide source information for the development of the standards, criteria, and guidance of this subsection (most recent editions apply):

1. 23 CFR 635.411 Title 23 CFR 635.411 in 23 CFR 635D, General Material Requirements

Roadway Hydraulics 7-49

2. FHWA-FLP-91-006 FHWA, Durability of Special Coatings for Corrugated Steel Pipe, FHWA FLP-91-006

3. FHWA-RD-97-140 FHWA, Durability Analysis of Aluminized Type 2 Corrugated Metal Pipe, FHWA RD-97-140, 2000.

4. AASHTO HDG

Vol. IV

AASHTO Highway Drainage Guidelines, Volume IV – Hydraulic Design of Culverts

5. AASHTO HDG

Vol. XIV

AASHTO Highway Drainage Guidelines, Volume XIV – Culvert Inspection and Rehabilitation

6. Caltrans Chapter

California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, Chapter 850 – Physical Standards

7.3.6.2 Design Standards

7.3.6.2.1 Service Life

Design cross culvert and storm drain pipes with a minimum maintenance-free service life of 50-years, regardless of pipe material selection. A shorter service life may be used for temporary installations, and a longer service life may be considered in unusual situations.

7.3.6.2.2 Minimum Pipe Classification

Use Class II as the minimum for all reinforced concrete pipes. Determine appropriate pipe class from FLH fill height FLH Standard Drawings.

Use a minimum wall thickness of 0.0625” [1.63 mm] for all steel and aluminum pipes. The appropriate minimum structural metal thickness will be determined from approved FLH fill height tables.

7.3.6.3 Design Guidance

7.3.6.3.1 Service Life

The durability and service life of a storm drain pipe is directly related to the environmental conditions encountered at the site and the type of materials and coatings from which the pipe was fabricated. The two primary causes of early failure in drainage pipe materials are corrosion and abrasion.

Corrosion gradually wears away at the pipe walls by chemical action, and can occur from both the soil and water sides of the pipe. Abrasion wears away at the interior pipe wall by friction from suspended or bed-load sediment.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/hydraulics/97140/97140.pdf http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/hydraulics/97140/97140.pdf http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/chp0850.pdf

7-50 Roadway Hydraulics

7.3.6.3.2 Data Collection

Corrosion

Representative pH and resistivity determinations are required in order to specify pipe materials capable of providing a maintenance-free service life. Samples are taken in accordance with the procedures described in AASHTO T 288 and T 289. Samples should be taken from both the soil and water side environments to ensure that the most severe environmental conditions are selected for determining the service life of the drainage pipe. Soil samples should be representative of backfill material anticipated at the drainage site. Avoid taking water samples during flood flows or for two days following flood flows to ensure more typical readings. In locations where streams are dry much of the year, water samples may not be possible or necessary. In areas of known uniform pH and resistivity readings, a random sampling plan may be developed to obtain the needed information.

In corrosive soil conditions where water side corrosion is not a factor, consider specifying less corrosive backfill material to modify the soil side environment. The mitigating effect of the specified backfill should be taken into account in making alternative pipe materials selections in situations where the soil side conditions control the design.

Abrasion

An estimate of the potential for abrasion is required in order to determine the need for invert protection. Four levels of abrasion are referred to in this guidance and the following guidelines are established for each level:

● Level 1. Nonabrasive conditions exist in areas of no bed load and very low velocities.

This is the condition assumed for the soil side of drainage pipes.

● Level 2. Low abrasive conditions exist in areas of minor bed loads of sand and velocities of 5 ft/s [1.5 m/s] or less.

● Level 3. Moderate abrasive conditions exist in areas of moderate bed loads of sand and gravel and velocities between 5 ft/s and 15 ft/s [1.5 m/s and 4.5 m/s].

● Level 4. Severe abrasive conditions exist in areas of heavy bed loads of sand, gravel, and rock and velocities exceeding 15 ft/s [4.5 m/s].

Abrasion levels are intended as guidance to help the engineer consider the impacts of bed-load wear on the invert of pipe materials. Sampling of the streambed materials is not required, but visual examination and documentation of the size of the materials in the stream bed and the average slope of the channel will give the designer guidance on the expected level of abrasion.

Where existing culverts are in place in the same drainage, the conditions of inverts should also be used as guidance. The expected stream velocity should be based upon a typical flow (i.e., 2-year flow and less) and not a 10-or 50-year design flood.

Roadway Hydraulics 7-51

7.3.6.3.3 Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Reinforced concrete pipe (AASHTO M 170M) is typically specified as an alternative whenever environmental conditions permit. The appropriate pipe class is determined from approved FLH fill height FLH Standard Drawings. If the following guidance on corrosion and abrasion limitations is used, reinforced concrete pipe can be assumed to have a minimum service life of

50 years.

Corrosion

Reinforced concrete pipe should not be specified for extremely corrosive conditions where the pH is less than 3.0 and the resistivity is less than 300 Ω-cm. Where the pH is less than 4.0, or the pipe is exposed to wetting and drying in a salt or brackish water environment, protective coatings (e.g., epoxy resin mortars, poly vinyl chloride sheets) should be used. When the sulfate concentration is greater than 0.2% in the soil or 2,000 parts per million in the water, Type

V cement should be specified. When the sulfate concentration is greater than 1.5% in the soil or 15,000 parts per million in the water, Type V cement should be used with a sulfate resistant pozzolan. A higher cement ratio may also be used (e.g., AASHTO Class V pipe design).

Abrasion

On installations in severe abrasive environments, consider using seven or eight sack concrete or increasing the cover over the reinforcing steel.

7.3.6.3.4 Steel Pipe with Metallic Coatings

Steel pipe will typically be specified as an alternative when the environmental conditions permit.

The appropriate minimum structural metal thickness is determined from approved FLH fill height tables. Federal Lands Highway design policy assumes that steel pipe will provide a useful, maintenance-free service life for a period of time beyond the point of first perforation. This assumes an acceptable risk for most Federal Lands Highway projects, but at locations with erodible soils, large traffic volumes, or high fills where replacement or repair would be unusually difficult or expensive, consider increasing the steel plate by one standard thickness. In unusual situations where very high fills and severe abrasion are combined, or where other environmental concerns would make replacement of a pipe culvert very costly or impractical, consider using a pipe one size larger in diameter to permit re-lining in the future by insertion of another pipe.

The following types of steel pipe with metallic coatings are considered as alternatives on

Federal Lands Highway projects:

● Galvanized steel (AASHTO M 218)

● Aluminum coated steel (Type 2) (AASHTO M 274)

Corrosion

Under non-abrasive and low-abrasive conditions, the service life of steel pipe with metallic coatings may be determined based upon corrosion (i.e., pH and resistivity) factors determined from Exhibit 7.3-B, which shows the relationship between service life and corrosion for plain

7-52 Roadway Hydraulics galvanized steel pipe. It has been adapted from the California Department of Transportation

“Method for Estimating the Service Life of Steel Culverts,” California Test 643. The curves have been modified to show the expected average service life of pipe with a steel thickness of

0.0625” [1.63 mm] assuming a useful, maintenance-free service life 25 percent longer than the number of years to first perforation. Under moderate and severe abrasive conditions, abrasion protection must also be considered.

Under nonabrasive and low abrasive conditions, the metal thickness of galvanized and aluminum coated steel (Type 2) alternatives should be determined from Exhibit 7.3-B based on the resistivity and pH of the site. The minimum metal thickness of steel pipe, as determined from FLH standard fill height tables, may have to be increased, or the additional life of a protective coating may have to be added, in order to provide a 50-year service life. The results included in FHWA-FLP-91-006 indicate that within the environmental range of 5.0 through

9.0 pH and resistivity equal to or greater than 1500 Ω-cm, aluminum coated steel (Type 2) can be expected to give a service life of twice that of plain galvanized pipe.

Exhibit 7.3-B can be used to determine various combinations of increased thicknesses, aluminum coated steel (Type 2), and protective coatings to achieve a 50-year service life, but in no case may the metal thickness specified by the structural requirements be reduced.

Abrasion

Under nonabrasive and low abrasive conditions, the metal thickness of the galvanized, galvalume, and aluminum coated steel alternatives, as determined from Exhibit 7.3-B, should be used.

On installations in moderate abrasive environments where protective coatings are not required for corrosion protection, the thickness of the metal should be increased by one standard metal pipe thickness determined from the diagram for average service life of plain galvanized culverts

(see Exhibit 7.3-B) or invert protection should be provided. Invert protection may consist of bituminous coating with invert paving with bituminous concrete, Portland cement concrete lining, installation of metal plates or rails, or velocity reduction structures.

On installations in severe abrasive environments where protective coatings are not required for corrosion protection, the thickness of the metal should be increased by one standard metal pipe thickness determined from the diagram for average service life of plain galvanized culverts (see

Exhibit 7.3-B) and invert protection should be provided. Invert protection may consist of installation of metal plates or rails, or velocity reduction structures.

Protective coatings are not suitable for corrosion protection in moderate-abrasive and severe abrasive locations. Metal pipes should not be specified in moderate and severe abrasive environments where coatings are required to protect against water-side corrosion.

Roadway Hydraulics 7-53

Exhibit 7.3-B ESTIMATING STEEL PIPE SERVICES LIFE

FE

D

ER

A L

LA

N

D S

H

IG

H W

A Y

M O

D

IF

IE

D

C A

LI

FO

R N

IA

M

ET

H

O D

C H

A R

T

FO

R

ES

TI

M A

TI

N

G S

ER

VI

C E

LI

FE

O F

PL

A

IN

G

A

LV

A N

IZ

ED

S

TE

EL

C

U

LV

ER

TS

S e rv ic e

L if e

E s ti m a ti o n C h a rt f o r

A v e ra g e S e rv ic e

L if e o f

P la in G a lv a n iz e d C u lv e rt s

N O

T E

S

T h e c u rv e s i n t h is

C h a rt a re b a s e d o n t h e d a ta i n F

H W

A -F

L P

-9 -0 w h ic h u s e s t h e f a c to rs i n C a lif o rn ia T e s t

“M e th o d f o r

E s ti m a ti n g th

S e rv ic e L if e o f S te e l C u lv e rt e s e f a c to rs i n c re a s e d t ti m a te d s e rv ic e l if e b y a ft e r fi rs t p e rf o ra ti o n

T h e C h a rt h a s a ls o b e e n m o d if ie d t o r e fl e c t a m in im u m m e ta l th ic k n e s s o f .0 i n c h o r g a g e

.6 m m

U n d e r c o n d it io n s w it h p

H b e tw e e n a n d a n d a b o v e R th a v e ra g e s e rv ic e l if e d e te rm in e d f o r p la in g a lv a n iz e d c u lv e rt s s h o u ld b m u lt ip lie d b y

.0 f o r

A lu m in u m c o a te d s te e l, T y p e

TH

IC

K N

ES

S

FA

C

TO

R

S 0.

8 4.

N ot e:

M ul tip ly th e av er ag e Se rv ic e Li fe b y th e Th ic kn es s

Fa ct or

0.

3.

0.

1.

0.

0.

0.

0.

TH

IC

K N

ES

S, in ch

G

G

E

TH

IC

K

N

ES

S, m m

FA

C

TO

R

7-54 Roadway Hydraulics

7.3.6.3.5 Non-Metallic Protective Coatings for Steel Pipe

Protective coatings may be used to provide additional protection from corrosion or abrasion resulting in an extended service life. Coatings to protect against corrosion may only be used in non-abrasive and low abrasive environments.

The additional service life noted below in bold for each type of protective coating, for corrosion protection, are from Part V of FHWA-FLP-91-006. The added service is applicable only to non-abrasive and moderate abrasive conditions. All of the following types of steel pipe with non-metallic coatings are considered as alternatives on Federal Lands Highway projects:

Bituminous coating

Bituminous coatings (AASHTO M 190) can be expected to add 10 years of service to the water side and 25 years life to the soil side service life of pipe as determined from Exhibit 7.3-B.

Bituminous-coated pipe should not be used in low abrasive environments.

Bituminous paving and coating

Bituminous paved invert with bituminous coatings (AASHTO M 190) can be expected to add

25 years life to water side locations. Under moderate abrasive conditions, bituminous paved pipe may be used for invert protection where corrosion protection is not required.

Concrete lining

Concrete lining (ASTM A 849) can be expected to add 25 years of service life. Due to the natural cracking of concrete, the concrete lining should be applied over an asphalt coating if corrosion protection is needed. Under moderate abrasive conditions, concrete lined pipe may be used for invert protection where corrosion protection is not required.

Polymer coating

Ethylene Acrylic Acid Film coatings (AASHTO M245 and M246) should provide an additional

30 years service life with a 0.009” [0.25 mm] thickness.

Aramid fiber bonded coating

Only limited data is available for the service life of aramid fiber bonded coated (ASTM A 885) and epoxy coated pipes. No additional service life is currently credited with this policy.

7.3.6.3.6 Aluminum Alloy Pipe

Aluminum alloy pipe (AASHTO M 196M) will typically be specified as an alternative when environmental conditions permit. The appropriate minimum structural metal thickness is determined from approved FLH fill height tables. Within the following limits of corrosion and abrasion, aluminum alloy pipe can be assumed to have a service life of 50 years. Additional service life may be achieved where required by abrasion with the addition of protective coatings or additional metal thickness as discussed below:

Roadway Hydraulics 7-55

Corrosion

An aluminum alloy should be allowed if the pH is between four and nine and the resistivity is greater than 500 Ω-cm. An aluminum alloy alternative can also be considered for use in salt and brackish environments when embedded in granular, free draining material.

Abrasion

On installations in non-abrasive and low-abrasive environments, abrasion protection is not required.

On installations in moderately abrasive environments, the thickness should be increased by one standard metal thickness or invert protection should be used. Invert protection may consist of bituminous coating and invert paving with bituminous concrete or Portland cement concrete, installation of metal plates or rails, or velocity reduction structures.

On installations in severe abrasive environments, the thickness of the metal should be increased by one standard metal pipe thickness from that determined for low-abrasive conditions and invert protection should be provided. Invert protection may consist of installation of metal plates or rails or velocity reduction structures.

7.3.6.3.7 Plastic Pipe

Polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride plastic pipe may be specified as alternatives for pipe diameters and minimum resin cell classifications shown in the AASHTO’s Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Division I Design, Section 18, Soil Thermoplastic Pipe

Interaction Systems. The thickness of the plastic alternatives must meet the structural requirements of AASHTO’s Standard Specifications. The assumed service life of plastic pipe designed in accordance with AASHTO Section 18 is 50 years. The maximum allowable fill heights for pipe materials listed below is determined from approved FLH standard fill-height tables which include the following plastic pipe materials:

● Smooth wall polyethylene (ASTM F 714)

● Corrugated polyethylene (AASHTO M 294)

● Ribbed polyethylene (ASTM F 894)

● Smooth wall polyvinyl chloride (AASHTO M 278 and ASTM F 679)

● Ribbed polyvinyl chloride (AASHTO M304 and ASTM F 794)

Corrosion

Plastic alternatives may be specified without regard to the resistivity and pH of the site.

Abrasion

Under nonabrasive and low-abrasive conditions, polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride alternatives should be allowed. Plastic alternatives should not be used under moderate and severe abrasive conditions without invert protection.

7-56 Roadway Hydraulics

Maximum Size

Limit the size of plastic pipe to 48” [1200 mm] under mainline roads.

The locations selected for use of plastic pipes should address partner agency concerns of possible damage due to fire, ultraviolet sunlight, and rodents.

7.3.6.4 Recommended Methods

Design and evaluate the design service life for galvanized steel culvert and storm drain pipes by the Modified California method presented in Exhibit 7.3B. Refer to FHWA-RD-97-140, Durability Analysis of Aluminized Type 2 Corrugated Metal Pipe, for design guidance on aluminized material.

7.3.6.5 Reporting

Documentation of the design service life of culvert and storm drain pipes should be included in the design reporting.

7.3.6.6 Plans

For culvert and storm drain pipes, include information on pipe material, size, class, gauge, and any special coatings in the Plan Drainage Summary.

APPENDIX G – Project Specific SCRs

Section 403. — ASPHALT CONCRETE

Description

403.01 Delete the second paragraph and substitute the following:

Asphalt concrete type is designated as Type I according to Subsection 403.02.

Add the following:

Asphalt binder grade is PG 70-22 in accordance with AASHTO M 320.

Construction Requirements

403.02 Composition of Mix (Job-Mix Formula). Add the following:

The CO may perform mix design-verification testing to confirm the mix meets the contract requirements. If verification testing is required, submit a loose mix sample to the CO 14 days prior to placement.

(a) Type I. Delete the subsection and Table 403-1 and substitute the following:

Submit a state department of transportation volumetric JMF used locally and approved within the past 12 months for approval at least 30 days before production. For each proposed JMF, submit a production certification conforming to state department of transportation specifications.

403.09 Compacting. Add the following:

For HMA, do not roll the mix after the surface cools below 175 ºF (80°C).

Along forms, curbs, headers, walls, and other places not accessible to the rollers, compact the mix with alternate equipment to obtain the required compaction.

403.12 Acceptance. Add the following:

During production placement of the mix, sample loose mix and compacted cores according to

Table 403-2 and submit to the CO for acceptance. Materials that do not meet the approved job-mix formula are considered unacceptable.

Delete Table 403-2 and substitute the following:

Table 403-2

Sampling, Testing, and Acceptance Requirements

Material or

Product (Subsection)

Type of

Acceptance (Subsection)

C h a ra ct er is ti c es t M et h o d s

S p ec if ic a ti o n s

Sampling

Frequency

Point of

Sampling S p li t

S a m p le

Reporting

Time

R em a rk s

Mix Design

Asphalt concrete mixture

Type I

(403.02(a))

Measured and tested for conformance

(106.04)

Job-mix formula

Subsection

403.02(a)

When requested by the CO.

Flowing mix stream

(bin or belt discharge) or behind the paver before compaction.

Yes Before approval of job-mix formula

Tested by the

CO

Production

Asphalt concrete, Type I

(403.02(a))

Measured and tested for conformance

(106.04)

Job-mix formula

Density (1)

Maximum specific gravity

Subsection

403.02

AASHTO

T 166

T 209 (2)

1 per 700 tons

(650 metric tons)

Behind the paver before compaction.

In-place after

Compacting

Behind the paver before compaction

Yes hours

Deliver cores to

CO

for testing

Surface

Tolerance

Straightedge measurement, Subsection

403.11

Continuously, after compaction

Finished pavement surface

No “

Placement temperature

− First load and as determined by

CO thereafter

Hauling vehicle before dumping, or windrow before pickup

No Upon completion of measurement

Table 403-2 (continued)

Sampling, Testing, and Acceptance Requirements

Material or

Product (Subsection)

Type of

Acceptance (Subsection)

C h a ra ct er is ti c es t M et h o d s

S p ec if ic a ti o n s

Sampling

Frequency

Point of

Sampling S p li t

S a m p le

Reporting

Time

R em a rk s

Production

Process control

(153.03)

Gradation at the plant

T 27 & T 11

Contractor determined

Cold feed or hot bins as applicable

No 24 hours

Moisture content of aggregates

T 255

" Stockpile No " −

Density ASTM

D2950

1 per

500 feet

(150 meters)

In-place after compacting

No " −

Asphalt concrete, Type II

(403.02(b))

Measured and tested for conformance

(106.04)

" " 3 per

700 tons

(650 metric tons)

In-place after compacting

No " −

(1) Dry cores to constant mass at 125±5°F (52±3 °C) or vacuum dry, ASTM D7227 before testing. For asphalt concrete

Type I, cut two 6-inch (150-millimeter) diameter side by side cores. Remove them with a core retriever and fill and compact the core holes with asphalt concrete mixture. Label the cores and protect them from damage due to handling and temperature. Submit one core for verification testing. Dry the other core to constant mass at 125±5 °F (52±3 °C) or vacuum dry it according to ASTM D7227 before performing the core density and measuring the thickness. Use

62.245 pounds per cubic foot (997.1 kilograms per cubic meter) to convert specific gravity to density. Use AASHTO T

166 regardless of the volume of water absorbed. Use the average maximum specific gravity value (AASHTO T 209) of the first three samples to determine the percent compaction of each Lot.

(2) Do not use the dry back method (Section 11 of AASHTO T 209).

Section 602. — CULVERTS AND DRAINS

602.03 General. Add the following to the first paragraph:

For corrosion protection, galvanized steel culvert pipe to have a minimum 14 gage wall thickness or polymer coating.

Section 703. — AGGREGATE

703.01 Add the following:

703.01 Fine Aggregate for Concrete.

(c) Sand equivalent value, AASHTO T 176, 75 min.

Alternate Method No. 2

Delete Subsection 703.06 and substitute the following:

703.06 Crushed Aggregate. Furnish hard, durable particles or fragments of crushed stone or gravel conforming to the size and quality requirements for crushed aggregate material normally used locally in the construction and maintenance of highways by Federal or state agencies.

Furnish crushed aggregate with a maximum size of 1½ inch (37.5 millimeters) as determined by

AASHTO T 27 and AASHTO T 11. Furnish crushed aggregate uniformly graded from coarse to fine and free of organic matter, lumps or balls of clay, and other deleterious material.