VA NP BLRI 1K1_PVT_Memo_adv.pdf

PAVEMENT REPORT NUMBER FY25-01

Project VA NP BLRI 1K1

Blue Ridge Parkway Bedford County, Virginia

Pavement Design Recommendations for

Blue Ridge Parkway Mainline MP 86.0 to 89.0 October 2024

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 22001 Loudoun County Parkway

Ashburn, VA 20147

VA NP BLRI 1K1 Pavement Report No. FY25-01

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.2 Project Description

1.3 Project Purpose and Need

2 PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

2.1 PAVEMENT CONDITION ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

2.2 SUBSURFACE EVALUATION PROCEDURE

2.3 FINDINGS

2.3.1 Existing Pavement Conditions

2.3.2 Laboratory Testing Results

2.3.3 Subsurface Conditions

2.3.4 Compaction and CBR Test Results

2.3.5 Groundwater

3 PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS

3.1 Traffic Loading

3.2 Vehicle Class Distribution Percentages, Truck Factors and Design ESALs

3.2 Flexible Pavement Design Variables

4 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Blue Ridge Parkway Full Depth Reclamation

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Project Location Map Appendix B - Roadway Condition Summary Report Appendix C - Site Photographs Appendix D - Pavement Coring Logs Appendix E - Soil Boring Logs Appendix F - Laboratory Testing Results Appendix G - Pavement Design Analysis

Note: Design changes, made subsequent to distribution of this report and prior to project advertisement, will be documented by a memo inserted after the title page

PAVEMENT REPORT NUMBER FY25-01

Project VA NP BLRI 1K1

Bedford County, Virginia

Pavement Design Recommendations for Blue Ridge Parkway (MP 86.0 to MP 89.0)

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report discusses the findings and recommendations for Project VA NP BLRI 1K1 located in Bedford County, Virginia. A Project Location Map is presented in Appendix A.

1.2 Project Description

Project VA NP BLRI 1K1 consists of full depth reclamation along a 3-mile section between milepost (MP) 86.0 and 89.0. The routes included in this project are listed below.

Blue Ridge Parkway Mainline (BLRI-0001AC) is a 2-lane, 2-way, asphalt concrete (AC) pavement that serves seasonal tourist and commuter traffic.

1.3 Project Purpose and Need

The Purpose-and-Need for this project is to rehabilitate pavement condition and structural performance between MP 86.0 and 89.0 of the Blue Ridge Parkway mainline.

2 PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

2.1 PAVEMENT CONDITION ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

Assessment of pavement condition has been completed through multiple methods.

In May 2021, the EFLHD Road Inventory Program (RIP) collected the road condition data for the NPS using the Data Collection Vehicle (DCV) for the Cycle 6 (C6) collection process.

The collected road condition data provides an overall Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) which indicates pavement condition. Pavement condition ratings are categorized into the following ranges.

Excellent (95-100) Good (85-94) Fair (61-84) Poor (0-60)

2.2 SUBSURFACE EVALUATION PROCEDURE

In May 2023, EFLHD’s Subsurface Exploration Team extracted a total of 12 pavement cores between MP 86.0 to 89.0. In addition to the pavement cores, 10 soil borings were drilled from Milepost 86 to 89 of the Blue Ridge Parkway. Borings were drilled to a depth of 5 feet.

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed using a 2-inch (outer diameter) split-spoon sampler in accordance with AASHTO T 206/ASTM D1586. SPT soil samples were recovered by driving the split spoon sampler 24 inches, into the undisturbed soil under the action of a 140-pound automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler through each 6-inch interval was recorded on field boring logs. The sum of the blows required for penetration of the second and third 6-inch increments.is designated as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N-value. Soil samples were stored in labeled, glass jars then sent to the EFLHD Materials Testing Laboratory in Sevierville, TN for testing and storage. Boring logs are provided in Appendix E.

Laboratory testing on samples collected include:

Thirteen Grain Size Distribution Analyses (AASHTO T-11 and T-27) Thirteen Natural Moisture Contents (AASHTO-265) Thirteen Plastic Limit, Liquid Limit, and Plasticity Indices of soils (AASHTO T-89 and AASTHO T-90) Two California Bearing Ratio (AASTHO T-193) Two Standard Proctor Compaction (AASHTO T-99)

2.3 FINDINGS

The findings of the pavement condition assessment and subsurface investigation are summarized below.

2.3.1 Existing Pavement Conditions

A summary of pavement condition ratings (PCRs) based on the RIP data for Cycle 6 in May 2021 and the pavement condition from the May 2023 survey are included in Table 1.

Appendix B summarizes the 2021 RIP Data for BLRI-0001AC.

Table 1. Pavement Conditions

Roadway Name PCR (2021)

Pavement Condition (Condition Survey – May 2023)

Blue Ridge Parkway Peaks of Otter Sub-

District (BLRI-0001AC)

94/90* (Good)

Milepost 86 to 87.5 exhibited moderate severity transverse cracking, moderate severity edge cracking, raveling of the existing chip seal, high severity patching, and localized low to moderate severity fatigue cracking. Mileposts 87.5 to 89 exhibited moderate to high severity fatigue cracking and high severity patching.

Unlike Milepost 86 to 87.5, distresses in this segment were consistent throughout the entire segment and not localized.

*The second PCR was obtained from MP 85.89 to 89.892 and calculated with a weighted average, instead of using the PCR for the entire Route.

Table 2. Pavement Core Data

Roadway Name Number of Pavement

Cores

AC

Thickness

Range (Inches)

ACP

Thickness Average (inches)

Pavement Cores Conditions

Blue Ridge Parkway Peaks of Otter Sub-District

(BLRI-0001AC)

Milepost 86 to 89

12 7.0-9.0 7.5 Milepost 86.0 to 87.5: Bond loss was observed at depths ranging from 4.0 to 5.75 inches. Average AC thickness in this section is 7.0 inches.

Milepost 87.5 to 89.0: Bond loss was observed at depths ranging from 2.5 to 6.5”.

Stripping was the cause of bond loss for all recovered core samples.

2.3.2 Laboratory Testing Results

Table 3 summarizes the laboratory testing results for the upper 5 feet of subgrade soil based on the borings drilled. Full laboratory test results can be found in Appendix F.

Table 3. Laboratory Testing Results Boring

ID Depth (ft)

Sample

ID

Moisture content

Liquid Limit

PI

AASHTO

Classification Description

PV23-01 1.0-3.0 J-1 15.6 31.6 8.1 A-4(0) Silty Sand PV23-02 3.0-5.0 J-2 8.6 23.6 NP A-1-b Silty Sand with Gravel PV23-03 3.0-5.0 J-2 14.6 22.6 NP A-2-4(0) Silty Sand PV23-04 1.0-3.0 J-1 5.3 NV NP A-1-b Silty Sand with Gravel PV23-04 3.0-5.0 J-2 17.0 27.5 5.3 A-4(0) Silty, Clayey

Sand PV23-05 1.0-3.0 J-1 10.7 18.3 NP A-2-4(0) Silty Sand PV23-06 3.0-5.0 J-2 48.3 25.2 5.7 A-2-4(0) Silty, Clayey

Sand PV23-07 1.0-3.0 J-1 41.3 26.4 12.9 A-2-6(0) Clayey Sand with Gravel PV23-07 3.0-5.0 J-2 12.6 NV NP A-2-4(0) Silty Sand with Gravel PV23-08 1.0-3.0 J-1 9.3 34.6 13.7 A-2-6(1) Clayey Sand PV23-08 3.0-5.0 J-2 9.7 22.4 NP A-2-4(0) Silty Sand PV23-09 1.0-3.0 J-1 16.6 27.1 5.6 A-2-4(0) Silty, Clayey

Sand PV23-12 1.0-3.0 J-1 16.1 20.0 NP A-2-4(0) Silty Sand Key to abbreviations:

NV = No value NP = Non-plastic -- Indicates no test performed

A void was observed in boring PV23-07 at a depth of 5.0 to 7.67 feet. A possible explanation for the void is internal erosion, as the flow of water can carry soil particles and lead to subsurface voids and instability. It could also be attributed to how the original road embankment was built possibly by pushing materials, including boulders, in-place without adequate compaction. The sample recovered from this boring had a noticeably high moisture content of 41.3% which supports this explanation. No groundwater was encountered, so as no other sources of water such as a leaking water line can be determined as the reason for the void and high moisture content. It is our understanding that the only existing utilities within the project limits are underground power and telephone, so any water lines would be abandoned and no longer in official use. It should be noted that this incident was discussed with EFLHD Geotech, and two probe borings were drilled at an offset of 6 ft from each side of the subject boring to see if the voids extend that far. No void was encountered in any of the probe borings. The void was eventually filled using commercial polymer patching mortar product.

2.3.3 Subsurface Conditions

Fill soils were encountered in all borings immediately beneath the asphalt and extending to depths of up to the boring termination depth at 5 ft. The fill was classified as Silty Sand (SM), Clayey Sand (SC), and Silty, Clayey Sand (SC-SM) with varying amounts of gravel.

Blow count range for the sample coarse grained soils, gravel, and sand, range from 3 to 56 blows per foot. This blow count range indicates loose to very dense apparent density. Auger refusal was encountered in borings PV23-02 and PV23-05, at depths of 4.25 and 2.83 feet, respectively.

Laboratory tests performed on fill soils measured liquid limits ranging from 20.6 to 24.1 percent and plasticity indices of non-plastic to 5.8 percent. Natural moisture contents ranged from 10.1 to 12.8 percent.

2.3.4 Compaction and CBR Test Results

Two bulk samples were collected. These samples had liquid limit values of up to 24.1, plasticity indices of up to 5.8. The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) was determined to be 4% and 10%, which corresponds to a Resilient Modulus (Mr) range of 4,500 psi to 15,000 psi.

Results from the Proctor and CBR tests can be shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Proctor Compaction and CBR Test Results

Boring ID Depth (ft)

Liquid Limit

PI

(%) AASHTO

Max. Dry Density pcf

Optimum Moisture Content

CBR %

Swell

PV23-09 0-5.0 20.6 NP A-2-4(0) 119.6 12.8 4 0

PV23-12 0-5.0 24.1 5.8 A-1-b 126.6 10.1 10 0.1

2.3.5 Groundwater

No groundwater was encountered in any borings during or after drilling. However, fluctuations in the groundwater conditions due to seasonal changes in water should be anticipated.

3 PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS

3.1 Traffic Loading

Traffic loading for the project considers the traffic count and growth data provided by NPS.

We considered the following traffic data for our analysis: An ADT of 302 vehicles per day, 2 percent trucks, an annual growth rate of 2.0 percent, and a 25-year service life.

3.2 Vehicle Class Distribution Percentages, Truck Factors and Design ESALs Table 5 details the estimated 18,000-pound equivalent single axle load (ESALs) for design analysis for each vehicle class.

Table 5. Calculated ESALs FHWA Vehicle

Class Percentage of

AADT

Design Truck

Factor ESALs*

Class 1-4 98 0.0008 1,609 Class 5 2 0.5 20,517

Total ESALs 22,125 *An ESAL of 50,000 was used in the final pavement analysis according to the traffic standards outlined in the Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM) section 11.2.1.2 Pavement design analyses were performed in accordance with the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design procedure using the DARWin (version 3.01) Pavement Design System to determine the required structural number (SN) necessary for the proposed roadways.

3.2 Flexible Pavement Design Variables

A resilient modulus of 4,500 psi was used for pavement design. Other parameters specified in the analysis included a reliability of 75 percent, an overall standard deviation of 0.49, and initial serviceability of 4.2, and a terminal serviceability of 2.0 The results of the pavement design analysis are presented in Appendix G.

4 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the pavement conditions observed during the field view and the subsurface investigation, we recommend the following pavement rehabilitation strategies. The recommendations included here reference the FP-14, “Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects.”

A 1.5-inch mill and overlay was the original recommendation from MP 86.0 to 87.5;

however, a 30% project review deemed this recommendation to be cost-ineffective. A full depth reclamation is favored over the extensive quantities of patching required by the mill and overlay treatment.

4.1 Blue Ridge Parkway Full Depth Reclamation

Blue Ridge Parkway Milepost 86.0-89.0

For this section of the Blue Ridge Parkway mainline, we recommend a full depth reclamation of the pavement. Observations during field assessment confirm truck through traffic;

therefore, a full depth reclamation is recommended to improve pavement structural integrity.

This consists of pulverizing and stabilizing with cement, the existing asphalt, aggregate base, and possibly a portion of the subgrade for a final thickness of 8 inches. To maintain the roadway profile, a portion of the existing asphalt should be milled prior to in place pulverization or excess pulverized material must be removed prior to placement of the asphalt. Afterwards, 4.0 inches of AC split into two lifts will be placed on the FDR. Table 6 summarizes the minimum pavement structure requirements for FDR.

Table 6. Full Depth Reclamation with Cement

Layer Minimum Thickness (in)

Comments

AC Surface Course 1.5 GACP, 0.3 to < 3 Million ESAL, 3/8” NMSA, as per Section 401, Type III-B

Roughness Asphalt Tack Coat --- AC Tack Coat as per Section 412

AC Base Course 2.5 GACP, 0.3 to < 3 Million ESAL, 3/4” NMSA, as per Section 401

FDR (Cement) 8.0 FDR as per Section 305

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and tests described in the section on Procedures and Results have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these explorations and tests represent conditions at the specific locations indicated. Subsurface and conditions between these locations may vary. The Analysis and Conclusions section and the Recommendations section in this report include interpretations and recommendations developed by the Government in the process of preparing the design.

These interpretations are not intended as a substitute for the personal investigation, independent interpretation, and judgment of the Contractor.

Prepared by:

Kenneth Nguyen

Pavement Engineer

Reviewed by:

Anthony Maloche

Acting Pavement Team Leader

ANTHONY G

MALOCHE

Digitally signed by

ANTHONY G

MALOCHE

Date: 2024.10.17 15:36:36 -04'00'

KENNET

H

NGUYEN

Digitally signed by KENNETH

NGUYEN

Date: 2024.10.17 16:05:44 -04'00'

APPENDIX A – Project Location Map

NP BLRI 1K1 PROJECT LOCATION/BORING MAP

APPENDIX A

NP BLRI 1K1 PROJECT LOCATION/BORING MAP

APPENDIX A

Original Photo: © 2017 Google®

APPENDIX B – Roadway Condition Summary Report

APPENDIX C – Site Photographs

Appendix C – Site Photographs NP VA BLRI 1K1

Figure 1: High Severity Fatigue Cracking and Patching

Appendix C – Site Photographs NP VA BLRI 1K1

Figure 2: High Severity Fatigue Cracking

Appendix C – Site Photographs NP VA BLRI 1K1

Figure 3: High Severity Fatigue Cracking and Patching

Appendix C – Site Photographs NP VA BLRI 1K1

Figure 4: Moderate Severity Fatigue Cracking

APPENDIX D – Pavement Coring Log

Pavement Coring Log APPENDIX D Project: VA NP BLRI 1K1

Notes:

1. Photographed cores show top of core on left-hand side, unless otherwise noted.

Core No. Core Photograph / Side View Location Key

PV23-01

5/1/23

Core Description Location / GPS 7” Asphalt Concrete Asphalt stripping resulting to loss of bond at 4.0” and 5.75”.

Location: Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 86.12, Bedford County, Virginia

GPS: 37.444481°, -79.612913°

Core No. Core Photograph / Side View Location Key

PV23-02

5/1/23

Core Description Location / GPS 7.0” Asphalt Concrete Asphalt stripping resulting to loss of bond at 4.25” and 5.5”. Asphalt core disintegration at 5.5”

Location: Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 86.57, Bedford County, Virginia

GPS: 37.447455°, -79.618592°

PV23-03

5/1/23

Core Description Location / GPS 7.0” Asphalt Concrete Asphalt stripping resulting to loss of bond at 5.5” and 6.5”.

Location: Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 87.34, Bedford County, Virginia

GPS: 37.455362°, -79.626297°

Core No. Core Photograph / Side View Location Key

PV23-04

8.0” Asphalt Concrete Asphalt stripping resulting to loss of bond at 2.5” and 4”. Asphalt core disintegration at 4”.

Location: Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 87.60, Bedford County, Virginia

GPS: 37.457645°, -79.629512°

PV23-05

5/1/23

Core Description Location / GPS 7.0” Asphalt Concrete Asphalt stripping resulting to loss of bond at 5” and 6”.

Location: Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 87.64, Bedford County, Virginia

GPS: 37.458160°, -79.629610°

Core No. Core Photograph / Side View Location Key

PV23-06

Asphalt stripping resulting to loss of bond at 5.5”

Location: Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 87.72, Bedford County, Virginia

GPS: 37.459395°, -79.630020°

PV23-07

5/1/23

Core Description Location / GPS 8.5” Asphalt Concrete Asphalt core intact.

Location: Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 87.83, Bedford County, Virginia

GPS: 37.460479°, -79.631251°

Core No. Core Photograph / Side View Location Key

PV23-08

Asphalt core deterioration at 2.5”

Location: Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 88.08, Bedford County, Virginia

GPS: 37.462412°, -79.634583°

PV23-09

5/1/23

Core Description Location / GPS 7.0” Asphalt Concrete Asphalt stripping resulting to loss of bond at 4.5” and 5.75”

Location: Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 88.44, Bedford County, Virginia

GPS: 37.465706°, -79.636491°

Core No. Core Photograph / Side View Location Key

PV23-10

Asphalt core disintegration at 4”

Location: Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 88.62, Bedford County, Virginia

GPS: 37.467422°, -79.638488°

PV23-11

5/1/23

Core Description Location / GPS 9” Asphalt Concrete Asphalt stripping resulting to loss of bond at 4.5” and 7.25”.

Location: Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 88.81, Bedford County, Virginia

GPS: 37.470223°, -79.637909°

Core No. Core Photograph / Side View Location Key

PV23-12

8.0” Asphalt Concrete Asphalt stripping resulting to loss of bond at 3.0”, 5.0” and 6.5”

Location: Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 88.97, Bedford County, Virginia

GPS: 37.471670°, -79.639978°

APPENDIX E – Soil Boring Logs

APPENDIX F – Laboratory Testing Results

Tested By: CJ

Particle Size Distribution Report

PE

R C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.1110

Coarse % Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium % Sand

Fine Silt % Fines

0.0 14.4 6.6 21.6 19.3 38.1

4.5 19.5 12.5 28.8 16.2 18.5

0.0 2.6 0.9 30.7 34.8 31.0

0.0 33.9 12.8 20.7 14.0 18.6

0.0 3.9 2.2 21.3 26.7 45.9

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SOIL DATA

SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH Material Description USCSNO. (ft.)

FHWA

Sevierville, TN

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

FHWA/EFHD

Blue Ridge Parkway

VA NP BLRI 1K1 0173-0177

Blue Ridge 01/J-1 1.0-3.0 sandy silt SM

Blue Ridge 02/J-2 3.0-5.0 silty sand with gravel SM

Blue Ridge 03/J-2 3.0-5.0 silty sand SM

Blue Ridge 04/J-1 1.0-3.0 silty sand with gravel SM

Blue Ridge 04/J-2 3.0-5.0 silty, clayey sand SC-SM

PE

R C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.1110

Coarse % Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium % Sand

Fine Silt % Fines

0.0 11.2 7.6 27.4 24.1 29.7

0.0 13.1 3.4 23.8 26.4 33.3

5.6 12.3 6.4 24.3 22.3 29.1

0.0 24.4 5.5 22.1 22.5 25.5

2.3 5.0 4.5 32.0 26.7 29.5

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SOIL DATA

SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH Material Description USCSNO. (ft.)

FHWA

Sevierville, TN

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

FHWA/EFHD

Blue Ridge Parkway

VA NP BLRI 1K1 0178-0182

Blue Ridge 05/J-1 1.0-3.0 silty sand SM

Blue Ridge 06/J-2 3.0-5.0 silty, clayey sand SC-SM

Blue Ridge 07/J-1 1.0-3.0 clayey sand with gravel SC

Blue Ridge 07/J-2 3.0-5.0 silty sand with gravel SM

Blue Ridge 08/J-1 1.0-3.0 clayey sand SC

PE

R C

EN

T

FI

N

ER

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.1110

Coarse % Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium % Sand

Fine Silt % Fines

0.0 0.0 1.3 42.9 30.3 25.5

2.1 10.7 5.3 26.2 24.9 30.8

0.0 12.2 4.4 26.4 26.3 30.7

5.8 32.1 3.6 12.3 20.5 25.7

3.4 33.2 8.6 14.5 16.3 24.0

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SOIL DATA

SOURCE SAMPLE DEPTH Material Description USCSNO. (ft.)

FHWA

Sevierville, TN

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

FHWA/EFHD

Blue Ridge Parkway

VA NP BLRI 1K1 0183-0187

Blue Ridge 08/J-2 3.0-5.0 silty sand SM

Blue Ridge 09/J-1 1.0-3.0 silty, clayey sand

Blue Ridge 12/J-1 1.0-3.0 silty sand SM

Blue Ridge 03/Bulk 0.0-5.0 silty gravel with sand GM

Blue Ridge 09/Bulk 0.0-5.0 silty, clayey sand with gravel SC-SM

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

PL

AS

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

LIQUID LIMIT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

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

SOIL DATA

SYMBOL SOURCE

NATURAL

AASHTOSAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY

NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX

FHWA

Sevierville, TN

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

FHWA/EFHD

Blue Ridge Parkway

VA NP BLRI 1K1 0173-0177

Blue Ridge 01/J-1 1.0-3.0 15.6 23.5 31.6 8.1 A-4(0)

Blue Ridge 02/J-2 3.0-5.0 8.6 NP 23.6 NP A-1-b

Blue Ridge 03/J-2 3.0-5.0 14.6 NP 22.6 NP A-2-4(0)

Blue Ridge 04/J-1 1.0-3.0 5.3 NP NV NP A-1-b

Blue Ridge 04/J-2 3.0-5.0 17.0 22.2 27.5 5.3 A-4(0)

Tested By:

PL

AS

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

LIQUID LIMIT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

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

SOIL DATA

SYMBOL SOURCE

NATURAL

AASHTOSAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY

NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX

FHWA

Sevierville, TN

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

FHWA/EFHD

Blue Ridge Parkway

VA NP BLRI 1K1 0178-0182

Blue Ridge 05/J-1 1.0-3.0 10.7 NP 18.3 NP A-2-4(0)

Blue Ridge 06/J-2 3.0-5.0 48.3 19.5 25.2 5.7 A-2-4(0)

Blue Ridge 07/J-1 1.0-3.0 41.3 13.5 26.4 12.9 A-2-6(0)

Blue Ridge 07/J-2 3.0-5.0 12.6 NP NV NP A-2-4(0)

Blue Ridge 08/J-1 1.0-3.0 9.3 20.9 34.6 13.7 A-2-6(1)

Tested By:

PL

AS

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

LIQUID LIMIT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

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

SOIL DATA

SYMBOL SOURCE

NATURAL

AASHTOSAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY

NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX

FHWA

Sevierville, TN

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

FHWA/EFHD

Blue Ridge Parkway

VA NP BLRI 1K1 0183-0187

Blue Ridge 08/J-2 3.0-5.0 9.7 NP 22.4 NP A-2-4(0)

Blue Ridge 09/J-1 1.0-3.0 16.6 21.5 27.1 5.6

Blue Ridge 12/J-1 1.0-3.0 16.1 NP 20.0 NP A-2-4(0)

Blue Ridge 03/Bulk 0.0-5.0 NP 20.6 NP A-2-4(0)

Blue Ridge 09/Bulk 0.0-5.0 18.3 24.1 5.8 A-1-b

COMPACTION TEST REPORT for Curve No. 1

D ry d en si ty

, p cf

Water content, %

6 8 10 12 14 16 18

12.8%, 119.6 pcf

Test specification: AASHTO T 99-15 Method D Standard

0.0-5.0 GM A-2-4(0) 20.6 NP 5.8 25.7

silty gravel with sand

VA NP BLRI 1K1 FHWA/EFHD

T-193 (CBR) = 4 Swell= 0.0%

06/01/23

Elev/ Classification Nat.

Sp.G. LL PI

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. 3/4 in. No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Date:

Source of Sample: Blue Ridge Sample Number: 03/Bulk

FHWA

Sevierville, TN Figure

Maximum dry density = 119.6 pcf

Optimum moisture = 12.8 %

COMPACTION TEST REPORT

D ry d en si ty

, p cf

117.5

122.5

127.5

Water content, %

4 6 8 10 12 14 16

10.1%, 126.6 pcf

Test specification: AASHTO T 99-15 Method D Standard

0.0-5.0 SC-SM A-1-b 24.1 5.8 3.4 24.0 silty, clayey sand with gravel

VA NP BLRI 1K1 FHWA/EFHD

T-193 (CBR)= 10 Swell= 0.1%

06/01/23

Elev/ Classification Nat.

Sp.G. LL PI

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. 3/4 in. No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Date:

Source of Sample: Blue Ridge Sample Number: 09/Bulk

FHWA

Sevierville, TN Figure

Maximum dry density = 126.6 pcf

Optimum moisture = 10.1 %

APPENDIX G – Pavement Design Analysis

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare Computer Software Product

Overlay Design Module

1.5 inch Mill and Overlay

AC Overlay of AC Pavement

Structural Number for Future Traffic 2.39 in

Design Method

Effective Existing Structural Number (in)

Overlay Structural Number (in)

Component Analysis 1.85 0.54 Remaining Life - -

Non-Destructive Testing - -

Structural Number for Future Traffic

Future 18-kip ESALs Over Design Period 63,007 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2 Reliability Level 75 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Subgrade Resilient Modulus 4,500 psi

Calculated Structural Number for Future Traffic 2.39 in

Effective Pavement Thickness - Component Analysis Method

Layer

Material Description

Structural Coefficient

Drainage Coefficient

Thickness (in)

1 Existing Asphalt (7.0 inch minimum) 0.25 1 7 2 Existing Aggregate Base 0.1 1 6

Milling Thickness 2 in

Calculated Results

Calculated Pavement Structural Number Before Milling 2.35 in Calculated Effective Pavement Structural Number 1.85 in

Specified Layer Design

Struct Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Thickness (Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in) 1 AC Surface Course (3/8" NMSA) 0.44 1 1.5 12 0.66

Total - - - 1.50 - 0.66

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare Computer Software Product

Flexible Structural Design Module

Pavement section at deep patch repair location

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 82,067 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2 Reliability Level 75 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 4,500 psi Stage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 2.49 in

Simple ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 25 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 302 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 60 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 100 % Percent Heavy Trucks (of ADT) FHWA Class 5 or Greater 2 % Average Initial Truck Factor (ESALs/truck) 2 Annual Truck Factor Growth Rate 0 % Annual Truck Volume Growth Rate 2 % Growth Simple

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 82,067

Specified Layer Design

Struct Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Thickness (Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in) 1 AC Surface Course (3/8" NMSA) 0.44 1 1.5 12 0.66 2 AC Base Course (3/4" NMSA) 0.44 1 2.5 12 1.10 3 FDR (Cement) 0.15 1 8 12 1.20

Total - - - 12.00 - 2.96