concrete pavement - ftp.dot.state.tx.usftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tta/ih635/final request...

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

IH 635/ US 75 INTERCHANGE

Dallas County

Texas Department of Transportation

Dallas District

CSJ:2374-01-069CSJ:2774-01-097

January, 1996

JAMES R JANOVSKY_™

NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION,BIDDING OR PERMIT PURPOSES

Q-*, Q.R. Janovsky, P&- -- Date

Pavement Engineer

1001226

CONTENTS

Background and Existing Facility 1

Proposed Work and Objective of Study 1

Pavement Design for Main Lanes and Frontage Roads 2

Pavement Design for Ramps 6

Pavement Drainage Design 6

Conclusion 7

Exhibit A - Location Map 8

Exhibit B - Existing Typical Sections 9-10

Exhibit C - AASHTO Pavement Design Nomograph, Figure 3.7....11-12

Exhibit D - Structural Coefficient, Figure 2.7 13

Exhibit E - Composite Modulus of Subgrade ReactionChart, Fig. 3.3 14-15

Exhibit F - loss of Support Coefficients, Table 2.7 16

Exhibit G - Loss of Support Correction Chart, Figure 3.6 17

Exhibit H - Load Transfer Coefficients, Table 2.6 18

Exhibit I - Annual Precipitation Chart 19

Exhibit J - Reliability Levels, Table 2.2 20

Exhibit K - D-10 Traffic Analysis 21

Exhibit L - Computer Solution of AASHTO Design Equationfor Main Lanes and Frontage Roads 22-25

Exhibit M - Proposed Typical Sectionsfor Main Lanes, Frontage Roads and Ramps 26-27

Appendix A - Subgrade Soils Report 28

Appendix B - Preliminary Guidelines for Rigid Pavement Design..50

Background and Existing Facility

The project under study is the I.H. 635 /U.S. 75 Interchangelocated in Dallas County. The existing three-level interchange isa part cloverleaf, part directional interchange and does notinclude frontage roads traversing through it. A location map isincluded as Exhibit A.

The main-lane pavement for I.H. 635 consists of six inches of limetreated subgrade, six inches of roadbed treatment and eight inchesof Continuous Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP). The outside andinside shoulders are constructed of 6 inches of lime treatedsubgrade, 6 inches of roadbed treatment, 6 3/4 inches of flexiblebase and 1 1/4 inches of Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (ACP). Thefrontage roads consist of six inches of lime treated subgrade, sixinches of roadbed treatment and eight inches of Uniform ConcretePavement. The outside and inside shoulders .are constructed of 6inches of lime treated subgrade, 6 inches of roadbed treatment,6 3/4 inches of flexible base and 1 1/4 inches of ACP.

The northbound main-lane pavement for U.S. 75 consists of 8 inchesof lime treated subgrade, 15 inches of asphaltic concrete and 1 1/2inches of ACP with a curb on the outside pavement edge. Thesouthbound main-lane pavement consists of six inches of a selectmaterial subbase, six inches of flexible base and ten inches ofconcrete pavement. The inside and outside shoulders areconstructed in the same fashion as the northbound main-lanes. Thefrontage roads consist of 8 inches of lime treated subgrade, 8 1/2inches of asphaltic concrete and 1 1/2 inches of ACP with curb andgutter on the pavement edges.

All of the typical sections for the existing pavements are shown inExhibit B. Various ACP overlays have been placed on the roadwayssince construction of the original facility.

Proposed Work and Objective of Study

It is proposed that the existing main-lane, ramp and frontage roadpavements of this facility be removed and replaced with new,Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP). The main-lanepavement section for I.H. 635 will be widened to four through laneswith an auxiliary lane and inside and outside shoulders. The main-lane pavement section for U.S. 75 will be widened to three throughlanes with an auxiliary lane and inside and outside shoulders. TheU.S. 75 and I.H. 635 frontage roads will vary from two to fourlanes, with curbs along the pavement edges, traversing theinterchange project limits.

The objective of this report is to develop the typical sections for

the new pavement structure of the main-lanes, frontage roads andramps of both I.H. 635 and U.S. 75.

Pavement Design for Main Lanes and Frontage Roads

The following discussion refers to both U.S. 75 and I.H. 635 main-lanes and frontage roads unless otherwise noted.

The design procedure from the "AASHTO Guide for Design of PavementStructures, 1986" will be used to design the pavement structure.This document will be referred to as the Guide throughout thisreport. The design procedure is outlined in Part II, Chapter 3,Section 3.2, of the Guide.

The design nomograph for rigid pavement is shown in Figure 3.7,Pages 11-46 and 11-47, of the AASHTO Guide and is included hereinas Exhibit C. The following inputs are reguired to determine thenecessary pavement thicknesses:

1. Effective Modulus of Subgrade/Subbase Reaction, k (pci)

2. Concrete Elastic Modulus, EC (psi)

3. Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture, Sc (psi)

4. Load Transfer Coefficient, J

5. Drainage Coefficient, Cd

6. Design Serviceability Loss, APSI

7. Reliability, R (%)

8. Overall Standard Deviation, So

9. Estimated Total 18-kip ESAL Applications, W18

Determinations of these inputs are presented in the followingsections.

1. Effective Modulus of Subgrade/Subbase Reaction, k

The k value determination for this study will not includean evaluation of the seasonal variations that may occur.This is primarily because there is no data available withthe necessary information for this project. Also, it isassumed that these variations would be insignificant.

The materials to be considered for the design of the main-lanes are the natural subgrade, eight inches of limetreated subgrade and six inches of Hot mix Asphalt (HMAC).

The materials to be considered for the design of thefrontage roads are the natural subgrade, fourteen inches oflime treated subgrade and four inches of HMAC.

The Dallas District, TxDOT, Laboratory determined that thenatural subgrade of this project has a Texas Triaxial Classof 5.0. The Subgrade Soils Report is included asAppendix A. The soil consists of brown silty clay withcaliche, chalk fragments and ferric oxide granulesoverlying the Austin Chalk formation.

The Resilient Modulus (MR) of subgrade soil will bedetermined first. The first step in this determination isto estimate its Structural Coefficient, a3. UsingFigure 2.7, Page 11-23, of the Guide and a Triaxial Classof 5.0, this number is estimated to be 0.045. Figure 2.7is shown in Exhibit D. Using the eguation on Page 11-21 ofthe Guide, the MD can be estimated.K

a3 = 0.277(log10ES8) - 0.839 (Eguation 1)

For this calculation, ESB = MR.

0.045 = 0.227(log10MR) - 0.839

0.227(log1QMR) = 0.884

(log10MR) = 3.894

Mn = 7,839 psi.

Now the Subbase Elastic Modulus, ESB, for the lime treatedsubgrade (LTS) is calculated. A Texas Triaxial Class of3.0 is assumed for the LTS and again, Figure 2.7,Exhibit D is used to determine an estimated StructuralCoefficient, a3, of 0.12. This value is entered intoEquation 1 to yield an estimate of ESB.

a3 = 0.227(log1QESB) - 0.839

0.12 = 0.227(log1QESB) - 0.839

0.227(log1QESB) = 0.959

(log10ESB) = 4.225

E,D = 16,775 psi.

The Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction,k., can now bedetermined for the natural ground and LTS. MR, ESB and theLTS thickness of eight inches for the main-lanes andfourteen inches for the frontage roads are entered into

Figure 3.3, Page 11-41, of the Guide. This figure is shownin Exhibit E. The k. values are 400 pci (main-lanes) and490 pci (frontage roads).

The k. value is now converted to a Composite ElasticModulus of the LTS and the ACP, MRC. The equation fromPage 11-45 of the Guide is used for this determination.

k = M,, / 19.4

For this calculation, k = k. and MR = MRC,

(Equation 2)

Main Lanes(k. = 400 pci)MRC = 19.4 x k.MRC = 19.4 x 400MRC = 7,760 pci.

Frontage Roads(k. = 490 pci)

= 19.4 x k.= 19.4 x 490= 9,506 pci.

Now, the Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction for theACP, LTS and natural ground, kB, can be calculated. TheResilient Modulus of the ACP, EBS/ is assumed to be 400,000psi. This assumption is based on a recommendation from theDallas District Laboratory. The thickness of the ACP willbe six inches for the main-lanes and four inches for thefrontage roads. These values, along with MRC, are used inFigure 3.3 of the Guide, Exhibit E, to give a kB of 700 pcifor the main-lanes and 610 pci for the frontage roads.

Finally, the Effective Modulus of Subgrade/SubbaseReaction, k, can be determined. This is done by correctingthe kB value for potential loss of subbase support. A Lossof Support Factor, LS, of .923 is selected based onTable 2.7, Page 11-29, and the discussion in Section 2.4.3of the Guide. Table 2.7 and Section 2.4.3 are shown inExhibit F. Then, the LS value and kB are used inFigure 3.6, Page 11-44, of the Guide to yield a k of 215pci for the main-lanes and 195 pci for the frontage roads.Figure 3.6 is shown in Exhibit G.

The ELSYM5 program was also used to calculate the k values.The results obtained were k equal to 240 pci and 250 pcifor IH 635 and US 75 main lanes. For the frontage roads ak equal to 235 pci for both US 75 and IH 635 was obtained.Upon comparison of the results between the "long hand"calculation and ELSYM5, the former method results in a moreconservative value and thus was chosen for use in thepavement thickness evaluation.

2. Concrete Elastic Modulus, Ec

It is anticipated that the new coarse aggregate to be usedfor the concrete on this project will be crushed limestone.Therefore, the Concrete Elastic Modulus used for designwill be 4,000,000 psi. This is in accordance with thepreliminary guidelines for rigid pavement design providedby the Design Division of TxDOT. These guidelines wereprovided with a letter from Mr. Frank Holzmann datedJuly 20, 1987. A copy of this document is provided inAppendix B.

3. Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture, Sc

The Sc value will be 720 psi, which represents the averagemodulus of rupture at 28 days using third-point loading.This is equivalent to an average modulus of rupture of 650psi at seven days using a center-point loading (the TxDOTrequirement).

i

4. Load Transfer Coefficient, J

Based on Table 2.6, Page 11-28, of the AASHTO Guide and therecommendation from the Design Division (see Appendix B),the J value for this design will be 2.9. Table 2.6 isincluded as Exhibit H. The type of pavement will be CRCPwith tied concrete shoulders.

5. Drainage Coefficient, Cd

The guidelines suggested by the Design Division are used todetermine C,. Using the Texas Almanac chart showing annualprecipitation amounts from 1951 to 1980, Exhibit I, anannual rainfall of 34 inches is determined for theI.E. 635 /U.S. 75 interchange area. The drainagecoefficient chosen for design is 1.03.

6. Design Serviceability Loss, APSI

The Design Serviceability Loss is 2.0, as suggested by theDesign Division. Initial serviceability is 4.5 andterminal serviceability is 2.5.

7. Reliability, R

The Reliability determination is made using Table 2.2,Page 11-10, of the AASHTO Guide. Table 2.2 is shown inExhibit J. This project involves an urban, interstatefreeway therefore, a Reliability of 99.9% is chosen.

8. Overall Standard Deviation, S0

The overall Standard Deviation is 0.39, as suggested by theDesign Division.

9. Estimated Total 18-kip ESAL Applications, w18

The w18 value for this project was originally determined bythe TxDOT Transportation Planning Division. Their reportis shown as Exhibit K. A lanal distribution factor of 0.60for the I.H. 635 main lanes and 0.70 for U.S. 75 main laneswas applied to the 18-KESAL number. For both U.S. 75 andI.H. 635 frontage roads, a lanal distribution factor of1.0 was used. The design period for the proposed pavementis 30 years. Based on this information, an adjusted wia of30,965,900-18 KESALs for U.S. 75 main.lanes and 4,830,000-18 KESALs for the frontage roads was calculated. For I.H.635 main lanes a value of 39,711,600-18 KESALs and5,632,000-18 KESALs for the frontage roads was calculated.

With the above data, the AASHTO rigid pavement design equation canbe solved. The computer solution is shown in Exhibit L. A slabthickness of fourteen inches for the U.S. 75 and I.H. 635 main-lanes and eight inches for their respective frontage roads arerequired according to the equation. The Dallas District recommendsa minimum slab thickness of ten inches for the frontage roads to beconstructed within the limits of this project. The proposed newpavement sections are shown in Exhibit M.

Pavement Design for Ramps

The ramp pavement design is the same as the main lanes. This isbased on the recommendation in the letter from Mr. M.G. Goode,P.E., to Mr. John Conrado, P.E., dated June 27, 1984 concerningpavement design of ramps. The existing ramp typical sections areshown in Exhibit B and the proposed sections are shown inExhibit M.

Pavement Drainage Analysis

We expect little to no water infiltration from the surface,therefore our analysis concludes that the inflow rate willapproximately be zero. Additionally, the following are reasonswhy a pavement drainage system is not required: swelling clays inthis area would render a permeable base ineffective; in the urbanenvironment where trenching for utility work and pavement wideningare common occurrences, it would be difficult to protect theintegrity of a positive drainage system; to keep a positive

drainage system from being susceptible to back flow from ditches,the ditches would need to be deeper to allow water.to outfall.With deeper ditches, there is a possibility of requiring additionalright of way or retaining walls.

Conclusion

This pavement design is based on available data and the currentlyaccepted practices considered to be sound approaches to providingthe performance required for the facility.

SCALE 0 1 2 3 4 M I L E S

EXHIBIT A

LOCATION MAPDALLAS COUNTYDALLAS DISTRICT

FRONTAGE ROAD

LEGEND

0 l'/?' ASPHALT 1C CONCRETE PAVEMENT (TYPE C)

@ 15- ASPHALT 1C CONCRETE PAVEMENT (TYPE D)

© B'/j- ASPHALT 1C CONCRETE PAVEMENT (TYPE 0)

© 8- 5/. LIME TREATED SUBGRADE

© 13" CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONTRACTION DESIGN

© 3' ASHPALT CONCRETE BASE

© 12- 5/. LIME TREATED SUBCRADE

© 6" SELECT MATERIAL SUBBASE

© 6" COMP FLEXIBLE BASE

© 10- PCC PAVEMENT

0 . 0 4 l 6 7 ' / f t .

0 01l67 ' / f t .

U S 75

6-J.

C

(£

10'

SHLDR.

C

)

P\

\

(

SOUTH BOUND

24 '

2 LANES 0 12'

P/G — ,

0 0208' /ft \

=fe =

D O C) (

ir- J/z-SHLDR.

, ^

ii- »•SHLDR.

\

NORTH BOUND

2 LANES 0 12'

/ — P/G

/ 0. OZOSVf t .

======

i> © 0b c

8'

SHLDR.

;

61;

R E T A I N I N G WALl

B_ RAMP

R E T A I N I N G WALL

EXHIBIT B

EXISTINGTYPICAL SECTION

U S 75

LEGENDRAMP

0 8' CONTINUOUSLY REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT (CRCP)® 8- UNIFORM CONCRETE PAVEMENT© 6' ROBD TRMT (DENSITY CONTROLLED) (TY. C) STABILIZED W/3X LIME

© 6%- FLEXIBLE BASE (DENS. CONT.MTY. A OR. 4) STABILIZED W/2X. LIME© 6' LIME TREATED SUBGRADE (DENSITY CONTROLLED) <3X LIME)© 7- CONTINUOUSLY REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT

6'

/,V

'-,\— f1

A '

~n

I<T '

11

1

lfc • / , | P / r/IB / \ r / O -v1 — — m__ \

6 J

'/?•/•

6'

'*•/•

o ©

/x 5,1

FRONTAGE ROAD

®

6" TOPSOIL

EXHIBIT B

EXISTINGTYPICAL SECTION

IH 635 ,

design of Pavement Structures

r«q

a

r

Oo>

oen~1 - " - I

S ? . ? I *

" ? a I S l= 3 *Mo, - ~ 2

PO x-.

B -34 en

P '!"»!:•o>»"P-'i , .

5 3 2 S 322 o

(O «

•O

"» <J

(!«<0

I ' I 'o o2 o

D1

10

s

,S '»-<

' 1 'o2

n((Jny p wi|npoi

I ' I^X 10 o 0X ., 6 o

|^ B18J3UOQ

10o

T5O

11u

« a

AASHTO PAVEMENT DESIGN NOMOGRAPHEXHIBIT C, PART 1

«E

_*.a•Sn

sa

u(DO

99

_3

CO

s

CO

caE

aa

t<0j:oc

oO

301C

11

Highway Pavement Structural De 11-47

Design Slob Thickness, D (inches)

Estimated Total 18- kip Equivalent Single AxleLoad (ESAL) Applications, W- (millions)

-T*

IOO SO

I" ' ' I ' ^LO 5

I" " II OS

NOTE' Appflcahon of reliabilityin IhU chart reqmrasthe ute of mean vakjeslor all the Input variables

ro so 50I . I . I

Reliability, R (%)

Figure 3 7 Dewgn chart for rigid pavement* based on using mean values foreach input variable (Segment 2).

AASHTO PAVEMENT DESIGN NOMOGRAPHEXHEBIT C, PART 2

12

Design Requirements 11-23

020 -

0 14 -

0 12 -

0 10-

008-

0 06-

o.o*

o

CO

<o 7050 -

— 10cCD

£ 3° '

8 20 .CD

2 10 -o2

C/3

5 -

90 -

_ 80 -' — -.~

QC

CO

o 60 -

50 -

40 -

30 -

25 ~"

_ 2~(N

_

>

4-

ro

20 -

CDX(D

K 15 -

eg 14 -

S 13 -K 12 -

11 -10 -

^m •-

(1) Scale derived from correlations from Illinois

(2) Scale derived from correlations obtained from The Asphalt Institute, California, NewMexico and Wyoming

(3) Scale derived from correlations obtained from Texas

(4) Scale derived on NCHRP project (31

Figure 2.7. Variation in granular subbase layer coefficient (a3) with

various subbase strength parameters (3).

EXHIBIT D

13

f f to f jwav Pavement Structural Design 11-41

Exomple

DSB = 6 inches

ESB - 20,000 psp

MR = 7,000 psi

Solution k - 400 pci

I.OOO.OOO6OO.OOO400,000200,000100,00075,00050,0003O.OOO15,000

IO.OOOI2.OOO

I6.OOO2O.OOO

Figure 3.3 Chart for estimating composite modulus of subgrade reaction, ktn , assuming asemi-infinite subgrade depth. (For practical purposes, a semi-infinite depth isconsidered to be greater than 10 feet below the surface of the subgrade )

EXHIBIT E

14

Highway Pavement Structural Design 11-41

Example

0SB = 6 inches

ESB = 20,000 psi

MR - 7,000 psi

Solution k - 400 pci

1,000,0006OO.OOO400,000200,000100,00073,00050,00030.OOO1 5,000

IOOO

2000

3OOO

WOOTOOO

IO.OOOI2.OOOI6.OOO

ZO.OOO

K b - B lo /°t-i

— ---^

— .

—

— M,

' — —

1

"

•—-

\

"--~-"~,

— .

r^

C^

"••

^J^~-

;ut

-^

^

^~--

--

•<:

~^-i

\\

\t

»base T

IB 16 1

~~~~^

— • -— .

• .1 .

• — -*,

->.""""

_^— —

^-1

^

— -^*^~

—^

•— .

• — ,~~-— ,.~~-C^

—

- —

^ ,--.^^-^>^~^

Subbase ElasticModulus, Eco (psi)

XJ

^

;<

^

\

\

$5

•^

\

^

XS

'x]•iX

hickness,

^x^x^

X^\

s\;

^x

DSB

s^x\>.

x^^vN i^ ;

v

(inch1

\^\

N\NN

les

«.-

^N

)

k 12 IO 8 6

— —

"^^~ --~J

• — ^

^^~

* ,

~~-~~^

---

RoadbedSoil Restlien

odulus, MR (ps

~- ^

--•^^

^^

^-^

"--

t)

^

^

^

^*- j

»S

" v,

*-\^^v

-x

---.

X

X

v

x

\

v^

^

X,

\^xXXj

\

X

X

"X,

XX,

^s

XXX\

h

\

\

V, \

\

\

s\

\^

\

\

N\

\,

\

k

\

\\

X\l\N

\

\

\

S\\N

\\\

\

\

\

\

s\ \

\Ks

\

\

\N.

\

\

\^

N

\\

v sN '

N

^ 's

sPn

Is" ^"

\

X

\

\

br\

\\s

^N\

N

S\sA«

\

\

\\

cs\l\

. \\

sk

1 1 1 1 [ 1

omposite Modulus ofubgrade Reaction,

ka (pa)

\|<A!

N

^

mmes Semi-tnfinite Subgrade -! Depth)

X.o

P>

s

\

\

'f

\\

\

\

t

\

NT\N\\s"i

^\

\

\

s"\

N^\v

VN

\

\

\^ 'N\\\ 1

\\•\

\••

\\

s"\

^s\\NS

X.

\

\

\

. \\

\

\

\

\

\

s\\

\X

\

\\

S.

s

\

Figure 3 3 Chart for estimating composite modulus of subgrade reaction, k^ , assuming asemi-mfinite subgrade depth (For practical purposes, a semi-infinite depth isconsidered to be greater than 10 feet below the surface of the subgrade.)

EXHIBIT E

15

quircmcnrs

Table 2.7. Typical ranges of lo»« of mupport(LS)factor* for various typM of mmUrtals

(6).

Type of Material Lo»« of Support(LSJ

Cement Treated Granular Baso 0 0 to 1 0(E = 1 OOO.OOO to 2.OOO OOO psi)

Cement Aggregate Mixtures O O to 1 0(E = 5OO.OOO to 1 .OOO.OOO psi)

Asphalt Treated Base 0 0 to 1 0(E = 35O OOO to 1 .OOO.OOO psi)

Bituminous Stabilized Mixtures 0 0 to 1 0(E = 40.0OO to 3OO.OOO psi)

Lima Stabilized 1 0 to 3 0IE = 20 OOO to 7O.OOO psi)

Unbound Granular Material* 1 0 to 3 0(£ = 15.000 to45.OOOpsi|

Fin* Grained or Natural 2 0 to 3 0Subgnda Materials(E =3.OOO to 40.OOO psi)

Not*. Emthistable refers to the general symbol for elasticor resilient modulus of the material

2.4.3 Loss of Support

This factor, LS, is included in the design of rigidpavements to account for the potential loss of supportarising from subbase erosion and/or differentialvertical soil movements. It is treated in the actualdesign procedure (discussed m Chapter 3) by dimin-ishing the effective or composite Ic-value based on thesize of the void that may develop beneath the slabTable 2.7 provides some suggested ranges of LSdepending on the type of material (specifically itsstiffness or elastic modulus) Obviously, if varioustypes of base or subbase are to be considered fordesign, then the corresponding values of LS should bedetermined for each type A discussion of how the lossof support factor was derived is present in AppendixLL of Volume 2 of this Guide

The LS factor should also be considered in terms ofdifferential vertical soil movements that may result invoids beneath the pavement Thus, even though anoncrosive subbase is used, a void may still develop,thus reducing pavement life Generally, for activeswelling clays or excessive frost heave, LS values of 2 0to 3.0 may be considered Each agency's experience inthis area should, however, be the key element in theselection of an appropriate LS value Examinat ion ofthe effect of LS on reducing the effective k-valueof theroadbed soil (sec Figure 3 6) may also be helpful inselecting an appropriate value

LOSS OF SUPPORT COEFFICIENTSEXHIBIT F

16

X

HDO

1000

500

(0 CJo <S n>

oo.

m o3 -+>

S CO— cO IDw 3„ a

•o .-.o 5« D

100

50

10

™ 5

(170)

1540)

5 I 10 50 100 500 1000 2000

Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k (pci)

Figure 3.6. Correction of effective modulus of subgrade reaction for potentialloss of subbase support (6).

•s,2=

11-28 Design of Pavement Structures

Table 2 6. Recommended load transfer coefficient for variouspavement types and design conditions.

Shoulder Asphalt Tied P.C.C.

Load TransferDevices Yes No Yes No

Pavement Type

1 Plain Jointedand

Jointed Reinforced

2 CROP

3 2 3 8 - 4 4 2 5 - 3 1 3 . 6 - 4 2

2 9 - 3 2 N /A ( 2 3 - 2 9 } N/A

LOAD TRANSFER COEFFICIENTSEXHIBIT H

18

14 16 18 20

Annual PrecipitationBy Climatic Divisions

(1951-80)

46

22' 2426

EXHIBIT I

19

I in Design o/ Pavement Structure';

Table 2 2 Suggested levels of reliability for various functionalclassifications.

FunctionalClassification

Interstate and otherfreeways

PrincipalArtenals

Collectors

Local

Recommended Level of Reliability

Urban Rural

85 - 99 9 80 - 99 9

80 - 99 75 - 95

80 - 95 75 - 95

50 - 80 50 - 80

Note Results based on a survey of the AASHTO Pavement Design TaskForce

EXHIBIT J

20

DALLASTRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR HIGHWAY DESIGN

11 " > - '• ' ;- . ."- .'" ' - • • ' ' •\'l':\ l\ti<%ws - •;.., '••'-. \'> •• .•;''.''• ••'• , .•„;.". • .. . ,

Description of Location

US 75 - IH 635 Interchange

Sect ion 1 : US 75 From Mahan Roadto Coit Road

Main Lanes

raXnnH Frontage RoadsCD "H

Sect ion 2: IH 635 From Coit Roadto just East of US 75

Main Lanes

Frontage Roads

NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTIONBIDDING OR PERMIT PURPOSES

Alvin R. Luedecke, Jr., PE.Serial Number 3S?53

Dallas County

Average DailyTr

19

1997

146,400146.40C146,400

1997

19,80019., 8QQ19,800

1997

2 2 7 . 8 0 C2 2 7 , 8 0 0227 ,800

1997

2 5 . 7 0 C2 5 . 7 0 C2 5 . 7 0 C

a flic20

2027

237 ,800237,800237,800

2027

43,5.0043,50.043 ,500

2027

305,200305,200305,200

2027

53 ,70053 ,70053 ,700

DlrDlst

_»_26

56-4456-4456-44

56-4456-4456-44

50-5C50-5C50-5C

50-5C50-5C50-5C

KFacto

i

8 . 28 . 28. 2

8 . 28 , 28 , 2

7 . 97 . 97 . 9

7 . 97 . 97 . 9

Percent• Trucks

ADT

4 . 64 .64 . 6

4 . 34 , 34 , 3

3 . 73 . 73 . 7

2 . 92 . 92 . 9

DHV

2 . 12.12 .1

1.91,91.9

1.61,61.6

1,31.31.3

ATHWLD1

12,80012,80012,800

11,30011,300.11,300

12,90012,90012,900

11,30011.30011,300

PercentTandemAxles In

ATHWLD

606060

505050

707070

606060

Total Number o( Equivalent 18kSingle Axle Load ApplicationsOne Direction Expected lor a

Year Design Period(19 to 20 )

FlexiblePavement

3 4 . 5 7 7 . 0 0 C3 4 , 5 7 7 , OOC3 4 , 5 7 7 , O O C

4 , 3 4 5 , 0 0 04,345,0004,345,0.00

47,655,00047,655 ,03047,655,000

,485,000,485 ,000,485 ,000

SN

333

333

333

333

RigidPavement

4 3 , 9 5 5 , 0 0 044,178,0004 4 , 2 3 7 , 0 0 0

4 ,883 ,0004,89.9,0004,an3,noo

6 5 , 5 7 4 , 0 0 066,080,00066,186,000

5 ,632 ,0005,660,0005 , 6 6 7 , 0 0 0

SLAB

10"12"14"

10"12U

14"

10"12"14"

10"12"14"

TEXASSTATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYSAND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAM BASED ONAASHTO RIGID PAVEMENT EQUATION

(1986 GUIDE)

(Program Rev. 12-14-89)

********************** INPUT & OUTPUT DATA *******>

MEAN CONCRETE MODULUS OF RUPTURE, PSI = 720.CONCRETE ELASTIC MODULUS, PSI = 4,000,000.EFFECTIVE MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION, PCI ... = 215.INITIAL SERVICEABILITY INDEX = 4.5TERMINAL SERVICEABILITY INDEX = 2.5LOAD TRANSFER COEFFICIENT = 2.9DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT = , 1.03OVERALL STANDARD DEVIATION = 0.39RELIABILITY, % = 99.90DESIGN TRAFFIC, 18-KIP ESAL = 39,711,500.

SLAB THICKNESS, INCHES = 14.15

COMMENTS : IH 635 MAINLANES

DATE : 12-11-95

DISTRICT 18CONT-SECT-JOB 2374-01-069PROJECTHIGHWAY: IH 635LIMITS: FR. AT US 75

TODALLAS COUNTY

EXHIBIT L

22



(1986 GUIDE)


********************** INPUT & OUTPUT DATA *********************

MEAN CONCRETE MODULUS OF RUPTURE, PSI = 720.CONCRETE ELASTIC MODULUS, PSI = 4,000,000.EFFECTIVE MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION, PCI ... = 195.INITIAL SERVICEABILITY INDEX = 4.5TERMINAL SERVICEABILITY INDEX = 2.5LOAD TRANSFER COEFFICIENT = 2.9DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT = 1.03OVERALL STANDARD DEVIATION = ' 0.39RELIABILITY, % = 85.00DESIGN TRAFFIC, 18-KIP ESAL = 5,632,000.


COMMENTS : IH 635 FRONTAGE ROADS

DATE : 12-11-95

DISTRICT 18CONT-SECT-JOB 2374-01-069PROJECTHIGHWAY: IH 635LIMITS: FR. AT US 75

TODALLAS COUNTY

23

TEXASSTATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

***************!


(1986 GUIDE)


***** INPUT & OUTPUT DATA *********************

MEAN CONCRETE MODULUS OF RUPTURE, PSICONCRETE ELASTIC MODULUS, PSIEFFECTIVE MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION, PCI .. .INITIAL SERVICEABILITY INDEXTERMINAL SERVICEABILITY INDEXLOAD TRANSFER COEFFICIENTDRAINAGE COEFFICIENTOVERALL STANDARD DEVIATIONRELIABILITY, %DESIGN TRAFFIC, 18-KIP ESAL

720.4,000,000.

215.4.52.52.91.030.3999.90

= 30,965,900.

SLAB THICKNESS, INCHES 13.62

COMMENTS : US 75 MAINLANES

DATE : 01-23-96

DISTRICT 18CONT-SECT-JOB 2374-01-069PROJECTHIGHWAY: US 75LIMITS: FR. at US 75

TODallas COUNTY



(1986 GUIDE)


INPUT & OUTPUT DATA *********************

MEAN CONCRETE MODULUS OF RUPTURE, PSI = 720.CONCRETE ELASTIC MODULUS, PSI = 4,000,000.EFFECTIVE MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION, PCI ... = 195.INITIAL SERVICEABILITY INDEX = 4.5TERMINAL SERVICEABILITY INDEX = 2.5LOAD TRANSFER COEFFICIENT = 2.9DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT = , 1.03OVERALL STANDARD DEVIATION = 0.39RELIABILITY, % = 85.00DESIGN TRAFFIC, 18-KIPESAL = 4,883,000.


COMMENTS : US 75 FRONTAGE ROADS

DATE : 12-11-95

DISTRICT 18CONT-SECT-JOB 2374-01-069PROJECTHIGHWAY: US 75LIMITS: FR. AT IH 635

TODALLAS COUNTY

LEGEND

0 14- CONTINUOUSLY REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT (CRCP)

@ 10" CONTINUOUSLY REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT (CRCPI© &• HOT MIX ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (HMAC)

@ 4- HOT MIX ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (HMAC)(D 8" LIME TREATED SUBCRADE (DENSITY CONTROLLED) (57. LIME)(?) M- LIME TREATED SUBCRADE (DENSITY CONTROLLED) (5X LIME)

<t U S. 75

SB US 75

I2i I Mox

EXHIBIT M

PROPOSEDTYPICAL SECTION

NB U.S. 75(S.B U S. 75

SIMILAR)

LEGEND

© II' CONTINUOUSLY REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT (CRCP)

® 10- CONTINUOUSLY REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT (CRCP)© 6' HOT MIX ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (HMAC)

(5) 4' HOT MIX ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (HMAC)

(?) 8- LIME TREATED SUBCRADE (DENSITY CONTROLLED)(5X LIME)(?) 14- LIME TREATED SUBCRADE (DENSITY CONTROLLED) <5X LIME)

E.B. FRONTAGE ROAD R0

EXHIBIT M

PROPOSEDTYPICAL SECTION

E B. I.H. 635W.B. I H 635

SIMILAR

APPENDIX A

28

Form 433-B

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr- John V. Blain, P.E.

FROM: Mr- Charles H. Little, P.lj.

SUBJECT- Soils Profile ReportCSJ: 2374-01-069Hwy.: US 75/IH 635 InterchangeCounty: Dallas

Date June 21, 1993

Originating

Office

The subgrade soils from the above project were sampled, tested, andclassified in accordance with established departmental procedures. Theattached data contains a line diagram showing, the approximate samplelocations, soil descriptions/ soil constants, potential vertical rise(PVR) calculations, and the depth of coverage required to control the(PVR) value. The per cent lime required for stabilization and thetriaxial classification are based upon similar soils.

Based upon this data, it is recommended that the pavement design beprepared for the following type of subgrade soil.

Type of Soil: Brown Silty Clay w/caliche, chalk fragments and ferricoxide granules overlying the Austin Chalk Formation

Liquid Limit:Plasticity Index:Triaxial Classification:PVR (Inches)*Depth of Coverage% Lime for Stabilization:

50305.02.028 inches5.0

*To control the PVR to a one inch maximum.

It is recommended that the PVR value for the subgrade soils berestricted to a one inch maximum for all rigid pavement designs.Nonswelling select material (PI of 20 or less) should be specified forall bridge abutment backfills. Moisture and density control should berequired for all embankment, subgrade/ subbase, or base courses.

Additional information will be furnished upon request.

Tu C- 2S-Charles H. Little,

State Oeparlmont of Highwaysand Public TransportationForm 476A - Rov S-78

SOILS AND BASE MATERIALS TEST REPORT

, ahnratnry Mo 18-93-1094 thOl 1097

DatpRpr'rl 5-20-93 RppnrroH 6~9-93 '

Fnrjmppr John V. Blain, Jr., P.E.AHrir«« Dallas , Texasrnnfr^fnr Preliminarysampi0r James P. KernSamplor'cT.rlp Geol. flSSt- III

cjampipd From Auqer Test HolePrnrliii-pr

Ouantity Rp.presenfpd hy Samplp

Has Rppn Used nn

2374

Control Number

DallasCounty

18District No

. Specification Item No_ Material from Property

. Proposed for Use as

01Section Number

Federal Proiect No

1 P E No Req No

nf Tx. D.O.T-Riqht of Way

Subqrade

069Job Number

I.H. 635Highway No

5-2O-9^Date Sampled

Lab No

-93-1094-93-1095-93-1096-93-1097

LL

38513234

PI

16261114

SL

19.920.620.620.4

LS

8.813.06.07.1

SR

1.721.721.751.78

Class SoilBinder

59705355

WBM% Loss

% Moist.

16.517.3

'16-914.2

1 D

PERCENT RETAINED ON

Lab No

-93-1094-93- 1095-93-1096-93- 1097

Square Mesh Sieve

Opening in Inches

3 2"j 2 '3'«

-

1".

0

00

".

6

11

5'»

8026

"•

1417

14

Sieve Numbers

i4

214

1725

10 "

29113034

20 40

41304745

60 1OO 2OO

Grain Diam

in Millimeters

OS 005 002 001

SpecGrav

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION

Lab No Depth, ft. Location—Properties—Station Numbers Type of Materials

18-93- 109418-93- 109518-93- 109618-93- 1097

1.03.05.07.0

Hole No. 1 - 26.0' left of theI.H. 635 E.B. service road center!line at Sta. No. 348+24. The top]of the hole is approximately 0.5'below the I.H. 635 E.B. serviceroad centerline.

Note Drilling Log

Stale Department of Highways

and Public Transportation

Form 47GA - Rev 5 78


Laboratory No 18-93-1088 thru5-20-93

Engineer .

Contractor

Sampler

6-9-93 -John V. Blain, Jr., P-E.Dallas, TexasPrel i ml naryJames P. Kern

2374Control Number

DallasCounty

18District No

01

Section Number

Federal Project No

1 P E No Req No

O69

Job Number

Highway No

5-20-q lDate Sampled

Sampler's Title Geol. Asst. IllSampled From Auger Test Hole

Producer

Specification Item NoMaterial from Property of Tx. D.O.T.

Right of HayQuantity Represented by SampleHas Been Used on Proposed for Use as Subgrade

Lab No

-93-1088r-93- 1089r-93- 1090r-93-1091-93-1092r-93-1093

LL

535552435544

PI

343630213225

SL

9.99.4

11.218.110.811.5

LS

19.119.918.211.519.215.6

SR

2.092.112.021.782.032.02

Class SoilBinder

949489439999

WBM°» Loss

% Moist

18.722.121.021.935.320.3

1 0

PERCENT RETAINED ON

Lab No

-93-1088-93-10891-93-10901-93-1091r-93- 1092r-93- 1093

Square Mesh Sieve

Opening in Inches

0 70

12

01

170

01426tr.0

Sceve Numbers

237361tr

449461

. tr

66

115711

60 100 200

Gram Diam

m Millimeters

05 005 002 001

SpecGrav


Lab No

18-93- 108818-93- 108918-93- 109018-93- 109118-93- 109218-93- 1093

Depth, ft.

1.03.05.07.09.0

11.0

Location — Properties — Station Numbers

Hole No. 2 - 24.5' left of theI.H. 635 E.B. service road centeline at Sta. No. 381+55. The toof the hole is approximately 1.0below the' I.H. 635 E.B. serviceroad centerline.

Type of Mater ia ls

Note Drilling Log

3

State Department of Highwaysaad PubCic TransportationForm 476A - R«v B-78


LaboratonDate Rec'tEngineer

, Nn 18-93- 1082 thru 1087, 5-20-93 Rppnrtpri 6-9-93 -

John Y. Blain, Jr., P-E.ArlHr-P*.: Dallas , TeXcLS

ContractoSampler _Sampler'sSampled FProducerQuantity FHas Been 1

Lab No

18-93-108218-93-108318-93-1O8418-93-108518-93-108618-93-1087

r PreliminaryJames P. Kern

TitiP Geol- Asst. Illrom Auger Test Bole

tepresented by SampleJspd nn

LL

564944445047

PI

352925253229

SL

8.78.88.98.98.88.4

LS

20.818.816.816.919.018.4

2374 01 069Control Number

DallasCounty

18District No

Specification Item NoMaterial from Property

Section Number

Federal Proiect No

1 P E No Req. No

nf Tx. D.O.T.

Riqht of Way

Job Number

I-H. 63SHighway No

5-2O-9 iDate Sampled

Proposed for Use as Subgrade

PERCENT RETAINED ON

Lab No

18-93- 1Q82118-93- 108318-93- 108418-93- 108518-93- 108618-93- 1087

Square Mesh Steve

Opening in Inches

3 2'~, 2 1]'« 1". ",

0

is'e

1

0

0

".

200tr.0tr.

Sieve Numbers

4

71tr.tr.1tr.

10

1031111

20 40

1242232

60 100 200

Grain Oiarn

m Millimeters

OS 005 002 001

SpecGrav


Lab No

-93- 1082-93- 1083-93- 1084-93- 1085-93- 1086-93- 1087

Depth, ft.

1.03.05.07.09.0

11.0


Hole No. 3 - 39.0' left of theI.H- 635 E.B- service road centeiline at Sta. No. 409+70. The tojof the hole is approximately 0.5above the .I.H. 635 E.B. serviceroad centerline.

Type of Materials

Note Drilling Log

>

Sta.te Department of Highways

and Public TransportationForm 47GA - Rev 5-78


LaboratoryDate Rec'dEngineer

Mn 18-93- 1077 thru 10815-20-93John V.

RppnrtpdBlain, Jr.

6-9-93 /, P.E.

2374 01

Dallas, TexasContractor Preliminary

James P. Kern

Sampler's TitleSampled From .Producer

Geol. Asst. IllAuger Test Hole

Control Number

DallasCounty

18District No

Specification Item No

Material from Property

Section Number

Federal Project No

1 P E No Req No

nf Tx. D.O.T.Right of Way

Job Number

Highway No

5-2O-9^1

Date Sampled

Quantity Represented by SampleHas Been Used on Proposed for Use as Subqrade

Lab No

-93- 1077-•93-, 1078-93- 1079-93- 1080-93- 1081

LL

3939465235

PI

1519243016

si

19.817.817.418.214.2

LS

9.110.313.014.710.4

SR

1.741.801.811.791.92

Class SoilBinder

5451664753

WBMSLoss

% Moist.

14.613.8"14.417.610.8

1 0

PERCENT RETAINED ON

Lab No

-93- 1077r-93- 1078r-93- 1079r-93- 1080,-93- 1081

Square Mesh Sieve

Opening m Inches

0

0

4

02007

3123317

Sieve Numbers

1322]01826

2332193535

4649345347

TOO

Grain Oiam

in Millimeters

05 005 002 001

Spec „

Grav



18-93- 107718-93- 107818-93- 107918-93- 108018-93- 1081

1.03.05.07.0

10.0

Hole No. 4 - 58.0' left of theI.H. 635 E.B. service road centerline at Sta. No. 466*05. The tof the hole is approximately 1.0*below the i.H. 635 E.B- serviceroad centerline.

Note Drilling Log

Sta(e Department of Highwaysand Public TransportationForm 476A - Rev S-78

Laboratory NoDate Rec'dEngineer


1072thru 10765-20-93 6-9-93

Contractor

Sampler's TitleSampled From .ProducerQuantity Represented by SampleHas Been Used on

John V. Blain, Jr., P.E.Dallas, TexasPreliminaryJames P. KernGeol- Asst. IllAuger Test Bole

2374Control Number

DallasCounty

18District No


Proposed for Use as

01Section Number

Federal Project No

1 P E No Req No

nf Tx. D.O.T.

Riqht of Way

Subqrade

069Job Number

I.H. fi?SHighway No

5-20-93Date Sampled

Lab No

18-93- 107218-93- 107318-93-' 107418-93- 107518-93- .1076

LL

4240443936

PI

2117191816

SL

15.115.321.417.917.9

LS

12.811.710.29.98.9

SR

1.881.861.691.801.80

Class SoilBinder

96* 98

794846

WBM% Loss

% Moist

15.817.719.013.415.1

,0. |

PERCENT RETAINED ON

Lab. No

-93- 1072-93- 1073-93- 1074-93- 1075-93- 1076

Square Mesh Sieve

Opening in Inches

3 Z ' j 2 H'4 1".

0

",

1

i5'n

04

3'B

0

09

11

Steve Numbers

4

l012027

10

2153340

20 40

42

215254

60 10O 20O

Gram Diam

in Millimeters

OS 005 002 O01

SpecGrav



18-93- 107218-93- 107318-93- 107418-93- 107518-93- 1076

1.03.05.07.09.0

Hole No. 5 - 22.5' left ofthe I.H. 635 W.B. . onramp center-line at Sta. No. 498+37. Thetop of the hole is approximatelyl-O1 belov, the I.H. 635 W.B. on-rarop centerline.

Note Drilling Log

Sl^te Department. o( Highways

and Public Transportation

Form 47GA - Rev 5-78


1 ahnrarnry Nr> -LO-y J- -L-L^± CTirU J-JA>O

DatP Rer.'ci 5— 2O-93 Rppnrtprl 6—9—93 .

Fnginppr John V. Blain, Jr., P.E.AHHrp<:<: Dallas, TexasCnntrar.tnr PreliminarySampipr James P. KernSamper's TitlP Geol. Asst. Ill

Sampled From Auqer Test HoleProducer

Quantity Reprpspntp.ri hy Sample

Has Been Uspd nn

ZJ/^i

Control Number

DallasCounty

18District No


Proposed for Use as

UJLSection Number

federal Proiect No

1 P E No Req No

r,f Tx- D.O.T.

Right of Way

Subcrrade

U69Job Number

Highway No

5-20-q !Date Sampled

Lab No

-93-1104-93-7 1105-937 U06-93- 1107-93-uoa

LL

4252754149

PI

2025462126

SL

18.721.620.117.619.6

LS

10.912.719.911.313.0

SR

1.791.691.731.831.78

Class SoilBinder

, 9654734646

WBMS. Loss

% Moist

16.018.823.712.314.0

1 D

PERCENT RETAINED ON

" Lab No

-93- 1104r-93- 1105r-93- 1106r-93- 1107r-93- 1108

Square Mesh Sieve

Opening m Inches

3 2' , 2

00

0042

J/0

02tr.1711

Sieve Numbers

182

2922

10

22083934

20 40

446275454

60 1 00 ZOO

Grain Oiam

in Millimeters

OS OO5 OO2 OO1

SpecGrav


Lab No

18-93- 110418-93- 110518-93- 11O618-93- 110718-93- 1108

Depth, ft.

1.03.05.07.09.0

Location — Properties — Station Numbers ,

Hole No. 6 - 36.O1 right of theU.S. 75 S.B. service road center-line at Sta. No. 266+95. Thetop of the hole is approximatelylevel with 'the S.B. service roadcenterline .

Type of Materials

Note Drilling Log

State Department of Highwaysand Public TransportationForm 476A - Rev 5-78


Laboratory No

Fnnin^f^rArlrfrp<;t;

Samplpr

Sampler's TitleSampled FromPrnrlnrpr

Quantity Repres*

18-93-1098 thru 11035-20-93 RPpnrtPH 6-9-93John V. Blain, Jr., P-E.Dallas, TexasPreliminaryJames P. KernGeol. Asst. IllAuqer Test Hole

enterl by Sample

2374 01Control Number Section Number

DallasCounty

18District No

SpecificationMaterial from

Federal Proiect No

1 P E No Req No

Item NoPr^por-fy^f TX . D.O.T-

Riaht of Way

O69Job Number

Highway No

5-20-93Date Sampled

Has Been Used on Proposed for Use as Subqrade

Lab No

-93-1098-93-1099-93-1100-93-1101-93-1102-93- 1103

LL

335547545037

PI

103228332917

SL

20. 1

13.215.015.517.019.1

is

6.718.415.016.814.88.9

SR

1.752.001.941.931.851.78

Class SoilBinder

63• 97

97987155

WBM% Loss

% Moist

13.720.919.621.635.722.7

1 D

PERCENT RETAINED ON

'.

Lab. No. :

18-93- 109818-93- 109918-93- liOQ18-93- 110118-93- 110218-93- 1103

Square Mesh Sieve

Opening m Inches

3 2

0

00

40

4:r.

0074

Steve Numbers

4,

11tr.tr.tr.1313

10

2111

tr.1926

20 40

37332

2945

60 1OO 200

Gram Dtam

m Millimeters

05 OO5 002 001

SpecGrav


Lab No

18-93- 109818-93- 109918-93- 110018-93- 110118-93- 110218-93- 1103

Depth, ft.

1.03.O5.07.0

10.011.0


Hole No. 7 - 23.5' left of theU.S. 75 N.B. service road centerlat Sta. No. 233+5O. The top ofthe hole is approximately 0.5*above the U*S. 75 N.B. serviceroad center line.

Type of Materials

Note Drilling LogLne

State Department of Highwaysand Public TransportationForm 47GA - Rov 5-78


Laboratory NoDat<= Rpr'd

Fnginppr

Arlrlrpcic:

Contractor

Sampler

Sampler's TitleSampled FromProducer

XU-ts /- Jb / / cnru JbtJ410-14-87 Rpportpd 6-9-93 -John V. Blaih, Jr., P.E. "

Ha 1 "1 3=; , TVvx-as

PreliminaryRonnie O. McManusGeol. IllAuger Test Hole

2374 01 069Control Number

DallasCounty

18

Section Number

Federal Project No

Job Number

U.S. 7SHighway No

10-14-S7District No IP E No Req No

Specification Item No.Material from Property of

Date Sampled

Tx. D.O.T.Right of Hay

Quantity Represented by SampleHas Been Used on ^_ Proposed for Use as Subgrade

Lab No

-87-3677-87-3678-87-3679-87-3680-87-3781-87-3682-87-3683-87-3684

LL

5246605051

•376360

PI

3028362829183937

SL

13.611.913.314.114.314.912.012.0

LS

16.715.819.215.916.110.820.519.7

SR

1.911.981.921.901.881.881.931.95

Class SoilBinder

8693888790999792

WBM"= Loss

% Moist

10.813.624.218.820.318.223.916.6

'0 ji

PERCENT RETAINED ON

Lab No

-87-3677-87-3678-87-3679-87-3680-87-3681-87-3682-87-3683-87-3684

Square Mesh Sieve

Opening in Inches

jw.

00

00

021011

0

122221

Tr,

Sieve Numbers

33445101

to

857771Tr.4

20 40

147121310138

60 100 2OO

Gram Otam

in y^illimeterc

05 O05 OO2 001

SpecGrav


Lab No

37-367737-367837-367937-368037-368137-368237-368337-3684

Depth, ft.

1.03.05.07.09.011.013.015.0


Hole No. 8 - 20' left of IB 635E.B. exit ramp centerline atSta. No. 210+68 (approximately0.9 mi. N. of Forest Lane) Thetop of the hole is approximately1.0' below' the existing NorthCentral Expressvay centerline.

Type of Materials

Note Drilling Log

Slate Department of Highways

and"Pubdc Transportation

Form 47GA - Rev S-78


01 069

Dat*. RorM 10-14-87 RppnrrpH 6-9-93 -

FnQinppr John V. Blaih, Jr., P.E.

Address nallac;, TV»vn.<=;

rnntr^rtnr PreliminarySampipr Ronnie O- MeManusSampler'?; Titlf> Geol. Ill

Sampan From Auqer Test HolePrnrinrpr

Onantity Rpprp«;pntpd hy Samplp

Ha<: Rflpn llspH nn

Control Number

Dallas

Section Number

County Federal Project No

18District No 1 P

Specification Item No

Material from Property of

Proposed for 1 ISR as

E No Req No

Tx. D.O.T.

Right of Way

Subqrade

Job Number

U.S. 75Highway No

10-14-87Date Sampled

Lab No

-87-3673-87-3674-87-3675-87-3676

LL

39515452

PI

20252626

SL

14.617.418.517.6

LS

11.914.514.814.7

SR

1.881.791.751.76

Class SoilBinder

75" 90

5849

WBM°» Loss

% Moist

6.0

12.0

14.714.6

1 0

PERCENT RETAINED ON

Lab No , ---

-87-2673-87-3674.-87-3675-87-3676

Square Mesh Sieve

Opening in Inches

3 2"j 2 IV, t"<

00

"•

0

14

l

''•

1

0513

"•

511523

Sieve Numbers

4

932433

10

166

3241

20 40

25104251

60 1OO 2OO

Grain Oiam

in Millimeters

OS OOS 002 O01

Spec

Grav

<



18-87-367318-87-367418-87-367518-87-3676

1.03.05.07.0

Hole No. 9 - 44' left of theexisting N.B. frontage roadcenterline at Sta. No. 185+75(Approximately 0.42 mi. N. ofForest Lane) The top of thehole is approximately 2.0'below the existing North CentralExpressway centerline-

Note Drilling Log

State Department of Highwaysand Public TransportationForm 476A - Rev S-78


Engineer .Address .

No. 18-37-3-19-80 RppnrtPrl 6-9-9!

John V. Blain, Jr., P-E.

2374 01 069

Ha 11 3=;,.

PreliminaryRonnie O. McManus

Control Number

DallasCounty

18

Section Number

Federal Proiect No

Job Number

CJ.S. 7c;Highway No

3-19-80

SamplerSampler's Title Geol. Ill

I P E No Req No

Sampled From Auger Test Hole

Producer

District No

Specification Item No.Material from Property of Tx. D.O.T.

Date Sampled

Right of Way

Quantity Represented by SampleHas Been Used on Proposed for Use as

Lab No

18-87-224818-87-2249.18-87-225018-87-225118-87-2252

LL

3941372424

PI

212319

910

SL

14.515.114.813.513.4

LS

11.812.310.85.96.0

SR

1.881.871.881.951.94

Class SoilBinder

701001002325

W8M% Loss

% Moist

10.9

22.0• 25.2

12.419.0

1 0

PERCENT RETAINED ON

Lab~No":- C

4;

-87-22481-87-2249-87-22501-87-2251.-87-2252 "

Square Mesh Sieve

Opening m Inches

0 7

0

70

2

73

4

116

90

1914

Sieve Numbers

15Tr.

3330

10

21

Tr.0

5253

20 4O

30TrTr7775

60 1 00 2OO

Grain Diam

in Millimeters

OS DOS OO2 OO1

SpecGrav


Lab No

-67-2248r-87-22491-87-225O1-87-22511-87-2P5?

Depth, ft.

1.02.03.05.08.0


Hole No. 10-41' right of theexisting N.B. frontage roadcenterline at Sta. No. 164+39(approximately 0.02 mi. N. of

Type of Materials

Note Drilling Log

Forest Lane) . The top of thehole is approximately even withthe N.B. frontage road centerline -

DRILLING LOG

Laboratory No. 18-93- 1Q88 thru 1097Date Reed. 5-20-93

/.-:( , •

Dist. or Res. Engr.AddressContractorSampler • . -Sampler's TitleSampled From

(PitProducerQuantity RepresentedHas been used onProposed forr use as

Date Reported 6-9-93

John V. Blain, Jr., P.E.Da Tins, TexasPreliminaryJames P. KernGeol. Asst. IllAucrer Test Hole, quarry, car or stkpl)

by Sample

9374 01Contr- No. Sect. No-

DallasCounty Fed. Project

18Dist. No. Req No.

Identification marksSpecification Item No.

OfiQJob No.

I.H. 635No. Hwy.No.

5-20-93Date Sampled.

Material from property ofSuborade Tx. D.O.T. Riaht of Wav

; ?

HOLE NO-

1

DEPTH (FT.)

0.0-6.0*

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

Dk. brown silty clay w/roots, organic mate

1

1

6-0*-1.0

1.O-2.0

2.0-5.0

5.0-6.5

6.5-8.0

caliche (topsoil)

Tan si. sandy clay w/siliceous gravel andHMAC fragments

Buff mostly hard fossiliferous Austin Chalkw/calcite lenses

Tan weathered Austin Chalk w/iron stain

Tan mostly hard and brittle Austin Chalkw/iron stain and tr. fossils

Grey hard and brittle Austin ChaJJc

0.0-1.5

1.5-6.0

6.0-8.0

8.0-9.0

9.0-13.0

Dk. brown laminated silty clay w/caliche,ferric oxide granules and HMAC fragments

Tan-dk. brown mottled and laminated siltyclay w/caliche, chalk fragments and ferric oxidgranules

Grey mostly weathered Austin Chalk w/iron stain

Dk. grey-black silty clay w/tr- chalk: fragments

Grey and orange mottled silty clay w/calcareousroots casts and ferric oxide granules

*Depth in inchesNote: Austin Chalk gradations are a result of crushing and breakage by the earth

auger bit-

DRILLING LOG

Laboratory No. 18-93-1077 thru 1087Date .Reed- 5_po_93

Dist. or Res. Engr.AddressContractorSamplerSampler's TitleSampled From

(PitProducerQuantity RepresentedHas been used onProposed for use as


John V. Blain, Jr., P.E.Dallas, TexasPrp.li urinaryJames P. KernGeol. Asst. IllAuger Test Hole, quarry/ car or stkpl)

by Sample

• 9174 01Contr- No. Sect. No.


18Dist. No. Req No.


"O6QJob No.

I.H. 635No. Hwy.No.


Material ' from property ofSubgrade Tx. D.O.T. Ricrht of Way

HOLE NO.

3

DEPTH (FT. )

0.0-9.0*


Dk. brown silty clay w/roots, organic mater

9.0*-13.5

and caliche (topsoil)

Lt. brown silty clay w/abundant caliche, someferric oxide granules and limestone shellfragments. There were some grey clay lenses a11.0 ft.

0.0-5.0*

5.0*-3.0

3.0-5.0

5.0-9.5

9.5-10.0

Dk. brown silty clay w/roots, organic materialand caliche (topsoil)

Grey chalky clay w/weathered Austin Chalkfragments and iron stain

Grey mostly hard fossiliferous Austin Chalkw/some weathered chalk fragments and ferruginomaterial

Dk. grey-brown mostly weathered Austin Chalkw/iron stain and fossils

Grey hard fossiliferous Austin Chalk w/ironstain and pyrite

*Depth in inches 'Note: Austin Chalk gradations are a result of crushing and breakage by the earth auger bi

DRILLING LOG

Laboratory No. 18-93-1072thru 1076 & 1104 thru 1108Date Reed. 5_?o-93

Dist. or Res. Engr.AddressContractorSamplerSampler's TitleSampled From

(PitProducerQuantity RepresentedHas been used. onProposed for use as


John V. Blain, Jr., P.E.Dallas, TexasPreliminaryJames P. KernGeol. Asst. IllAuaer Test Sole, quarry, car or stkpl)

by Sample

7374 01Contr. No. Sect. No.

Dal 1 asCounty Fed. Project

18Dist. No. Req No.


ofiqJob NO.

I.H. 635/TTNo. Huy.No.


Material from property ofSubgrade Tx. D.O.T. Right of Way

HOLE NO.5

DEPTH (FT.)0.0-3.0

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALDk. brown silty clay w/roots, limestone sh<

5

5

5

3.0-4.5

4.5-5.5

5.5-9.0

9.0-10.0

fragments/ ferric oxide granules and tr. BMACfragments

Lt. tan si chalky clay w/caliche

Grey"and orange chalky clay w/soroe weatheredAustin Chalk fragments

Grey hard fossiliferous Austin Chalk w/iron stai

Buff hard and brittle Austin Chalk w/calciteand iron stain

0.0-1.0*

1.0*-6.0

6.0-9.0

Dk. brown silty clay w/roots and organicmaterial (topsoil)

Grey and orange chalky clay w/weathered AustinChalk fragments, limestone shell fragmentsand tr. HMAC fragments

Grey-Dk. grey mostly hard fossiliferousAustin Chalk w/pyrite

*Depth in inches 'Note: Austin Chalk gradations are a result of crushing and breakage by the earth

auger bit.

MULLING LOG

Laboratory No. 18-93-1098 thru 1103Date Recd._5_2Q_23__Date Reported 6-9-93

Dist- or Res. Engr. John V. Slain, Jr., P.E.Address Dallas, TexasContractorSampler James P. KernSampler's Title_Sampled From

Geol. Asst. IllAuger Test Bole

ProducerQuantity Represented by Sample_Ha 5; been used onProposed for use as suborade

_QLContr. No.

Dallas

Sect. No._Q69_

Job No.

U.S. 75County

18.

Fed. Project No. Ewy.No.

5-20-93

(Pit/ quarry/ car or stkpl)Dist. No. Req No.

Identification marksSpecification Item No.Material'from property of_

Tx. D.O.T. Right of Hav

Date Sampled.

HOLE NO.

-? 'A

DEPTH (FT.)

0.0-5.0*

5.0*-1.5

1.5-9.5

9.5-10.0

10.O-12.0


Dk. brown silty clay w/roots, caliche andorganic material (topsoil)

Tan si. clayey sand w/limestone fragmentsand siliceous gravel (embankment)

Grey silty clay w/caliche, limestone shellfragments and calcareous root casts

Grey chalky caly w/some hard Austin Chalkfragments

Grey mostly hard Austin Chalk

*Depth in inches

Note: Austin Chalk gradations are a result of crushing and breakage by the earth auger bit

DRILLING LOG

Date Reed. 10-14-87 Date Reported 6-9-931 -i *" -

Dist. or Res. Engr. John V. Blain, Jr., P-E.Address '-- Dallas, TexasContractor PreliminarySampler Ronnie O. McManusSampler's Title Geol. IllSampled From Auger Test Hole

(Pit, quarry, car or stkpl)ProducerQuantity Represented by SampleHas been used onProposed for use as Subgrade

2374 01Contr. No. Sect. No.


18Dist. No. Req No.


069Job No.

a.s. 75No. Hwy.No.


Material from property ofTx. D.O.T. Riqht of Way

BOLE NO. DEPTH (FT.) DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

0.0 - 2.5

2.5 - 8.0

Dk. Brown Silty Clay (Top Soil w/gravelfill)

Lt. Grey and Tan w/tr. of Orange chalk

10

10

10

0.0 - 1.5

1.5 - 5.0

5.0 - 8.0

Be own Sandy Clay (w/siliceous gravel anda layer of HMAC - fill)

Tan, Lt. Grey and Orange Silty Clay w/tr. of soft chalk fragments(weathered Austin Chalk)

Tan gravelly coarse sand (wet at 8')

POTENTIAL VERTICAL RISEPI "30

*i.J -

•f O -

M f fj _»J 7. a§ ,~;;§ '-6, y c _> r.s

7,4id

• * O

§cv y •> -tt, 7,4 -

^ / 1 -«< -- -^-7.7

§ y-S y

(V rt O -

Ji n o _l/.a

S n7 -S a7rt n C —i/ U.b

fa n c —p u.afci0 n^ -^ 0.4

O n _.A

O y

\\{

--i

- . _-..

.1

0

THIS

\

\\

'-

\

\: \

\

\\

.

\.

\"l

CSJ" HWY

com

1

\c

: 2374^01-069: US 75/IH 635 InterchanWY: Dallas

*\

\^ \

N, j

X

ge

^^^~^i

6 12 18 24 30 36 42 4B 54 60 66 7

DEPTH OF COVERAGE (Of WCHES)f ,

PVR CURVE IS BASED UPON A MOISTURE FLUCTUATION OF 7 FEET

DALLAS COUNTY. TEXAS - SHEET NUMBER 11

U.S. Dept. of AgricultureSheet No. 11

Control: 2374-01-069Highway: U.S. 75/1.H. 635

Project Limits: Interchange AreaCounty: Dallas

8 Austin-Urban land complex, 0-2% slopes9 Austin-Urban land complex, 2-5% slopes32 Eddy-Urban land complex, 4-8% slopes35 Ferris-Urban land complex, 5-12% slopes38 Frio-Urban land complex45 Houston Black-Urban land complex, 0-4% slopes49 Lewisville-Urban land complex, 0-4% slopes50 Lewisville Urban land complex, 4-8% slopes

s-i^O *> JY ,\ <-. .. i OyC-^^ \ J(,^r<VtC^-VN ;

ijws^

"<v Vvii - «iv."..-

1 V A L L E Y

SPRING VALLEY RD

GRCENHOLLOW

Restlandimorialemetery

RIDGEVIEW OR

SFONESROOK—4

BRIARHAVtN

1

BUN CHE DR

ELLERY DR

GLEN REGAL OR

DR

Q 3 C A M P A N E L L AHamilfon

Park

LAndersonBonner -

SOIL SURVEYTEST HOLE LOCATION MAP

CLODU3 FIELDSControl: 2374-01-069Highway: U.S. 75/1.H. 635


SCALE IN MILES

1/4 1/2

VALLEYDALE

FOREST GREENWINDY CRES r <WEBB KAY

o •CLAYCO

pus r/_BRADY

BANFF

HANFORDBELLMEA Dt

SPRING VALLEY RD

SOIL SURVEYTEST BOLE LOCATION MAP

WITH P.I. and P.V-R- DATA

Control: 2374-01-069Highway: U.S. 75/1. H. 635


.Anderspn.Bonner -Park-

W/NDV CREST <UJ

FOREST CREEKRICKS C/R

A. /

,

SPRING VALLEY RD

•7PEENHOLLOW

SOIL SURVEYTEST EiOLE LOCATION MAP

WITS P.I. and P.V.R. DATA

Control: 2374-01-069Highway: U.S. 75/1.H. 635


-fUGHES) O-

' CLIFFSCALE IN MILES

1/4Restland

morimetery

8UNCHE DR

GLEN REGAL OR

CAMPANELLA

L/HTM 1 1 i it /

DYKES

Tl /PW"

^ S

/ ,WAY

IA/A V

CHU

Sta. No. 348+24 381+55

'ORE

Depth, ft.1.03.05.07.09.011.0

AVG. P.I.PVR, in.*

16261114

180.50

343630213225

291.47

352925253229

291.63

1519243016

230.50

2117191816

190.79

Based on a moisture fluctuation depth of 7 ft-

ccUJ

u

FOREST CREEK

RICKS CIROO

RFI I nf

APPENDIX B

COMMISSION STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS ENGINEER-DIRECTORAND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION " E ™™ •*

ROBERT C LANIER M.WI11 C. CKZZJt RATE HIGHWAY •LOG.

RAY STOKER JR tmi A HUKM

July 20, 1987

IN REPLY REFER TO

D-8PDSUBJECT: Rigid Pavement Design

TO: DISTRICT ENGINEERSATTN: District Pavement Managers

The attached preliminary guidelines for Rigid Pavement Designhave been prepared to assist in the design and documentation ofrigid pavements. These guidelines are based on The 1986 AASHTOfGuide For Design of Pavement Structures. The new materialprovided here should significantly improve our pavement designcapabilities. These guidelines should also help to improve theuniformity of designs prepared statewide, prior to theirsubmission to the FHWA.

This --.driflf t • -dot%liiD.snt jtmly Covers the preparation of designs fornew <^o-n,8truction ( the- .:r«j-h.a.bili tatiovr.' .portion is currently beingprepared).

We are asking Distri-n^s to begin implement ing th.' s material liathe preparation of their rigid pavem_e.Tj;t. d^sis'tv doc\ime"nt-ation .-Please contact the Pavement Design jS 'SKt3^ °f the "Highway-" DesignDivision with any questions or conLmej$£tf 'you might have^ regardingthese guidelines. •

Sincerely ,

^ *™

Frank D. HolzmaniChief Engineer, Highway Design

At t a c hmentcc: Engineer-Director

Deputy DirectorsInternal ReviewGeneral CounselD-18

PRELIMINARYSUBJECT TO REVISION

RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN

(Draft 1/27/1987)(Revised 5/18/1987)

The following guidelines have been adapted from the 1986 AASHTOGuide For Design of Pavement Structures. If desired, additionalinformation can be obtained on the various topics by referring tothe articles of The AASHTO Guide indicated in parenthesis.

MEAN CONCRETE MODULUS OF RUPTURE (720 psi)(Article 2.3.4, Page 11-17)

Texas SDHPT currently specifies an average modulus ofrupture of 650 psi 7 day center point loading. The new designprocedure requires an average modulus of rupture at 28 days usingthird point loading. Utilizing the appropriate correction factorsour specification can be equated with a value of 720 psi at 28days for third point loading.

Please note that this value has NO safety factor applied toit as was done in the past. The design procedure requires thatthe value input be the average modulus of rupture at 28 daysusing third point loading. Safety factors (reliability indesign) are accommodated elsewhere in the design.

CONCRETE ELASTIC MODULUS (4 or 5 million psi)(Article 2.3.3, Page 11-14)

For the concrete elastic modulus, two values will berecommended based on the coarse aggregate anticipated for theproject under consideration. These values are identical to thoserecommended in the past:

4,000,000 psi for crushed limestone5,000,000 psi for siliceous river gravels

The actual modulus values may vary. The aggregate type thatis used on the job may even be something other than thatanticipated. It should be noted however that these eventualitieswill not significantly alter the design and should therefore notcause al arm .

The values recommended above are provided strictly tomaintain some level of consistency in design.

011 PRELIMINARYSUBJECT TO REVISION

R l s l d '""•" "r 8" ' pige 2 SUb^TTOREVISIONEFFECTIVE MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION (100-400 pci)

(Article 2.3.1, Page 11-13)(Article 2.3.2, Page 11-14)(Article 2.4.3, Page 11-28)(Article 3.2.1, Page 11-37)

The new design procedure allows the designer to moreaccurately predict the support provided to a given pavementstructure over its life span. This is accomplished throughseveral modifications that have been made:

1.) Subgrade strength values are now approximatedby incorporating the modulus values and layerthicknesses of all the significant layerslocated beneath the concrete slab.

2.) Loss of support due to erosion, ordeterioration can be incorporated into thedesign as well .

It should be noted that these modifications are fairlysimilar to the material that has been provided in theDepartment's design manual. This material has not been fullyutilized in the past however partially due to the lack ofemphasis placed on subgrade support in the design equations.

In reviewing this material it has been determined that theadditional credit due with the use of less-erosive stabilizedsubbases will produce reductions in slab thickness worth noting.Therefore, rather than using the values of 100-200 pciexclusively as in the past values of 300-400 pci will now be usedwhen stabilized subbase are to be provided.

SERVICEABILITY LOSS (2.0)(Article 2.2.1, Page 11-12)

Rather than establishing the appropriate values for initialand terminal serviceability it has been 'determined that thedifference between the two is the only value of realsignificance. Therefore rather than attempting to predict whatinitial ride quality will be provided or at what point thepavement will be considered failed, it is requested that a valueof two (2.0) be used as the difference between these two pointsin time .

Rig id P a v e m e n t E ign / Page 3 I K tL imlNAKY

SUBJECT TO REVISIONLOAD TRANSFER COEFFICIENT (2.9 - A.2)

(Article 2.A.2, Page 11-27)

The load transfer coefficient has been reincorporated in thedesign equation primarily to allow designers to account for theused of tied concrete shoulders. The load transfer coefficientalso takes into account provisions made for load transfer acrosstransverse joints and or cracks.

The following values are provided for the variousconditions:

With Tied PCC shoulders, Curb and Gutter, or greater than 2lanes of traffic in one direction;

Steel provided at transverse joints and cracksYes ,<f27|>No J-3.7

No Tied PCC shoulders;Steel provided at transverse joints and cracks

Yes J»3.2 (1P-CP Lo<J -fvc sj-e - (5No J = A.2 Zy Ue re,Jr -

lo-f- 4e.£_ \These values should be used consistently in the design of

all concrete pavement types (CRCP,JRCP,CPCD). This is intendedto avoid the design of different thicknesses based on pavementtype. No findings have yet been produced to warrant such adifferential.

DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT (0.91 - 1.16)(Article 2.A.I, Page 11-22)

A drainage coefficient has been incorporated in the designequation to account for the significant impact water has on- theperformance of PCC pavements. The coefficient likewise has a Verysignificant impact on the pavement design.

It is suggested that the values used here should be based onanticipated exposure to moisture as well as the quality of thedrainage provided. As a whole, the state has not been typicallyproviding significant drainage systems for its concretepavements. This is primarily based on the belief that suchefforts are not warranted at this time. The non-erosivestabilized subbases currently used around- the state areperforming satisfactorily in most cases. It is believed thatthese stabilized subbases provide a "fair" level of drainage.With this in mind the drainage coefficient will be selected basedsolely on the anticipated exposure to water, anticipating that anon-erosive stabilized subbase will be provided.


R 1 . d p „ . . - 4 PREUiViiNAiV/Elgld pave"ent Dr B°' pag= 4 SUBJLJT TO REVISIONFor our purposes we will use annual rainfall data to

represent the anticipated exposure to water, as shown on theaiiebtnx sheet from the Texas Almanac. Drainage coefficientswill be assigned as follows:

Annual DrainageRainfall Coefficients(inches )58-50 0.91-0.9548-40 0.96-1.0038-30 1.01-1.0528-20 1.06-1.1018-8 1.11-1.16

If something other than a non-erosive stabilized subbase isto be provided and/or the drainage is anticipated to be somethingother than fair, the drainage coefficient should be appropriatelyaltered in cooperation with D-8PD.

ERALL STANDARD DEVIATION (0.39)(Article 4.3, Page 1-62)(Article 2.2.3, Page II-9)

.(O

^

The overall standard deviation has been added to representvariability of the input values used. For rigid pavements a

range of 0.30 to 0.40 is indicated with 0.35 being the overallM ;P standard deviation at the AASHO Road Test. It is our belief that^ .11, the inputs we will be utilizing in design will be considerablyH; less accurate than those of the Road Test. For this reason a

conservative value of 0.39 has been selected until a better valuecan be developed.

RELIABILITY (85,95,99,99.9)(Article 4.4, Page 1-62)(Article 2.1.3, Page II-9)

One reliability factor is now provided to accommodate thedesigners desire to economically assure adequate performance.This "factor of safety" was applied primarily to the concretestrength in the past. This reliability is now provided as aseparate input to encourage designers to establish their desiredreliability independent of the other design inputs used.


K1Eid D '•*" ' P8ge 5 PRELIMINARYSUBJECT TO REVISION

In an effort to provide more consistency in the use of thesereliability factors it is being proposed that these values beassigned based on the ADT projected for the end of the designlife as provided by D-10. The tentative breakdown will be asfollows :

Proj-ected APT/ Lane ,

Contolled AccessFreeway

N/A<15,000

15,000 - 20,000>20,000

OtherHighways

<15,00015,000 - 20,00021,000 - 25,000

>25,000

RecommendedReliability

85959999.9

(X)

DESIGN TRAFFIC(Article 2.1.2, Page 11-7)

Traffic data will be requested from D-10 as in the past.The 18 kip equivalent single axle loads (KESAL) will also stillbe corrected for the number of lanes to be provided. We willcontinue to use the following lanal distribution factors (basedon the total number of lanes in both directions):

-4

j l -0 -6.7 -0.6 -

laneslaneslanes

and less

or more

The only realthe design life.(30) years will

change in. For rigidnow be used.

the designpavements a

— — t-^ F&&. tv\ftjf<j£Asv £• F-£JJ*t r a f f i c used will be in

design l i f e of t h i r t y


Memorandum

TO: Mr. Joe Thompson, P.E.

FROM: Ghaleb M. Sunna, P.

SUBJECT: Review of Pavement Design

DATE:

DESK:. JTJ/

Attached is a Pavement Design for the above referenced projectPlease review it and provide us with your comments.

Attachment

MEMORANDUM

To: Mr. Ghaleb Surma, P. E.

From: Joe B. Thompson, P.E.

January 22, 1996

Originating Office:Dallas District/JBT

Subject: Pavement Design ReportControl: 2374-01-069

2374-01-097I635/US75 InterchangeDallas County

Reference is made to your memo of January 17, 1996 asking forreview of the above report.

The report is satisfactory for submission to the Design Divisionsubject to the following comments:

1. On Sheet #6 the lanal distribution for US 75(six lanes)probably should be 0.6. This will not affect the proposeddesign.

2. You could explain in the narrative that the 14" of LTS isproposed to reduce the PVR to 1".

I have signed the Title Sheet and have attached the report.

Attachments

B. Thompson, pvements Engineer

' Texasepanroent

Yat TransportationMemorandum

TO: Design Division, Pavement SectionAttn:KenFults, P.E

FROM: Charles R Tucker, P.E.

SUBJECT: Control: 2374-01-069,097I.H. 635: At U.S. 75/I.H 635 InterchangeDallas County

DATE: January 24, 1996

DESK: Roadway DesignJJ

We are submitting for your review and approval the proposed pavemeat design for the above referencedproject.

Attachment

I&^LJ-

Charles R. Tucker, P.E.Director of TransportationPlanning and Development

JJ.amgcc: Carroll

u C-5

From:To:Date:Subject:

Joe ThompsonGSUNNA11/25/98 9:11amIH 635 Pavemen

Control: 2374/01/069IH 635: At U.S. 75 InterchangeDallas County

Reference is made to your memo dated November 24, 1998 on the abovesubject.

The Pavement Report is hereby approved.

CC: KLIMBER, CMAY, CTUCKER

MEMORANDUMTexas

Departmentof Transportation

TO: Joe Thompson, P.E.

FROM: Ghaleb Surma, P.E.

SUBJECT: Control: 2374-01-069I.H. 635: At U.S. 75 InterchangeDallas County

Pavement Report

November 24, 1998

Attached is the Pavement Design Report for the above referenced project. This report was originallydistributed to you on Jan. 17, 1996, and we subsequently received your comments on Jan. 22, 1996 (seeattached memos). After we incorporated your comments into the report, we transmitted the report forapproval to Ken Fults, P.E., of Design Division, Pavement Section (see attached memo). We have yet toreceive any comments from Austin regarding the Design Report.

During a phone conversation with Mr. Fults, P.E. on November 23, 1998, he suggested we resubmit thereport to Austin or to our District Pavement Design Engineer.

Please provide us with your comments or final approval of the attached Pavement Design Report.

If there are any questions, please contact Kim Limberg, P.E. at (214) 320-6656 or Tony May, at (214)320-6624.

Attachments

IH 635 Managed Lanes ProjectDocument Filing and Distribution

X

y,%

X

K

K

A

X

Owner/TxDOTMark Ball - Public InformationTracey Friggle - District ConstructionPraxedis Garza - NW Area ConstructionJohn Hudspeth - IH-635 Project DirectorMatt MacGregor - Tollway Program DirectorRichard Mason - Urban DesignGary Moonshower - SE ConstructionTim Nesbitt - Urban PlanningAndy Oberlander - TrafficTony Okafor - StructureScott Stockburger - ROW/UtihtiesPaul Williams - NE Construction

LBJMP PcE Management TeamMichael BauerAndrew GemperlmePeter JewellJohn LaRueRandy Poucket

Contracts/Scheduling/EstimatesNestor AndayaLisa Thomas

Discipline LeadsSyed AftabDoug BettsConnie BillsGlenn CelenerRonnie DobbsDavid DunniganDon DygertCharlie HoodCourt MugghWalter RagsdaleChad St JohnGeorge TeetesDebbie Wilson

VIX

Internal Engineering SupportAbe BekeleKen LindseyTon ShermanTerry Williams

External SupportPamela BaileyRon DrakeKatie NeesRandy PierceShelle PopeKevin VolkertRussell Zapalac

Legal CounselCorey A. Boock - NossamanBrian Papernik - NossamanJohn Wright - OGC

KPMG Financial AdvisorsBrad WatsonGoran Nilsson

Texas Turnpike Authority (TTA)Diana Vargas

Date 2. File Structure No.

Naming of Document (Subject) CoViarefo.

Keywords

Serial No

K"

Access/Viewing Restrictions Submitted by

Revised 2/24/2006

concrete pavement - ftp.dot.state.tx.usftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tta/ih635/final request...

Documents