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
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 ... = 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.
SLAB THICKNESS, INCHES = 7.76
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
***************!
PROGRAM BASED ONAASHTO RIGID PAVEMENT EQUATION
(1986 GUIDE)
(Program Rev. 12-14-89)
***** 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
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 ... = 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.
SLAB THICKNESS, INCHES = 7.57
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
SOILS AND BASE MATERIALS TEST REPORT
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
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
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
SOILS AND BASE MATERIALS TEST REPORT
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
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
Lab No
-93- 1082-93- 1083-93- 1084-93- 1085-93- 1086-93- 1087
Depth, ft.
1.03.05.07.09.0
11.0
Location — Properties — Station Numbers
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
SOILS AND BASE MATERIALS TEST REPORT
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
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
Lab No Depth, ft. Location—Properties—Station Numbers Type of Materials
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
SOILS AND BASE MATERIALS TEST REPORT
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
Specification Item NoMaterial from Property
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
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
Lab No Depth, ft. Location—Properties—Station Numbers Type of Materials
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
SOILS AND BASE MATERIALS TEST REPORT
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
Specification Item NoMaterial from Property
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
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
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
SOILS AND BASE MATERIALS TEST REPORT
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
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
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
Location — Properties — Station Numbers
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
SOILS AND BASE MATERIALS TEST REPORT
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
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
Lab No
37-367737-367837-367937-368037-368137-368237-368337-3684
Depth, ft.
1.03.05.07.09.011.013.015.0
Location — Properties — Station Numbers
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
SOILS AND BASE MATERIALS TEST REPORT
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
<
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
Lab No Depth, ft. Location—Properties—Station Numbers Type of Materials
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
SOILS AND BASE MATERIALS TEST REPORT
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
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
Lab No
-67-2248r-87-22491-87-225O1-87-22511-87-2P5?
Depth, ft.
1.02.03.05.08.0
Location — Properties — Station Numbers
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
Date Reported 6-9-93
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.
DallasCounty Fed. Project
18Dist. No. Req No.
Identification marksSpecification Item No.
"O6QJob No.
I.H. 635No. Hwy.No.
5-20-93Date Sampled.
Material ' from property ofSubgrade Tx. D.O.T. Ricrht of Way
HOLE NO.
3
DEPTH (FT. )
0.0-9.0*
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
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
Date Reported 6-9-93
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.
Identification marksSpecification Item No.
ofiqJob NO.
I.H. 635/TTNo. Huy.No.
5-20-93Date Sampled.
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
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
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.
DallasCounty Fed. Project
18Dist. No. Req No.
Identification marksSpecification Item No.
069Job No.
a.s. 75No. Hwy.No.
10-14-87Date Sampled.
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
Project Limits: Interchange AreaCounty: Dallas
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
Project Limits: Interchange AreaCounty: Dallas
.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
Project Limits: Interchange AreaCounty: Dallas
-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.
PRELIMINARYSUBJECT TO REVISION
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.
PRELIMINARYSUBJECT TO REVISION
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
PRELIMINARYSUBJECT TO REVISION
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