EXISTING PAVEMENT EVALUATION

Transcription

1 EXISTING PAVEMENT EVALUATION Gwinnett County, Georgia November 18, 2016 Submitted to: Clark Patterson Lee Suwanee, Georgia Submitted by: Willmer Engineering Inc. Project No

2 November 18, 2016 Adolfo Guzman, P.E. Principal Clark Patterson Lee 3011 Sutton Gate Drive, Suite 130 Suwanee, Georgia VIA /U.S. MAIL SUBJECT: Existing Pavement Evaluation Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia Willmer Project No Dear Mr. Guzman: Willmer Engineering Inc. (Willmer) is pleased to provide this Existing Pavement Evaluation report for in Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia. The work was performed based on information provided to us by Clark Patterson Lee (CPL) via correspondence, and in general accordance with our subcontract with CPL dated September 26, 2016 and the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) guidance documents for existing pavement evaluation. The attached summary presents the existing pavement conditions along the project alignment and our recommendations for pavement design. The pavement design is based on traffic data provided to us by CPL. The GDOT Pavement Design Tool Version 2.0 computer program was used for the pavement design. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and look forward to a continuing relationship. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this report or require further assistance. Sincerely, WILLMER ENGINEERING INC. Joseph M. Sura, PE Project Engineer James L. Willmer, PE Executive Vice President/Principal Consultant JMS/TS/JLW P:\4166 Existing Pavement Evaluation\Reports\011 - Pavement Evaluation Report 4166.docx Thomas Scruggs, PE Principal Engineer This original document was signed and sealed by James L. Willmer, PE, Registration No on November 18, THE REPRODUCTION IS NOT A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT

3 Existing Pavement Evaluation Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia Willmer Project No Page 1 Attachments: Tables Table 1 Table 2 Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Appendices Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Summary of Pavement Conditions Summary of Pavement Core and Crack Depth Information Project Location Map Core Location Plan Site Photographs Subgrade Soil Laboratory Testing Results Pavement Core Photographs Asphalt Pavement Design Calculations

4 Existing Pavement Evaluation Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia Willmer Project No Page 2 1. Location / Description This project consists of proposed street resurfacing of within the Chattahoochee Reserve Subdivision, located in the City of Duluth in Gwinnett County, Georgia. The proposed street resurfacing options include mill and inlay/overlay and/or full-depth reclamation. The resurfacing options are discussed and analyzed in further detail later in this report. This existing pavement evaluation involves the portion of north of its intersection with Peachtree Industrial Boulevard (SR 141). The length of the project is approximately one third of a mile. GDOT station numbers for were not available; therefore, locations along are referenced relative to its intersection with other roads or relative to home numbers along. A project location map is presented in Figure 1. The existing is a two-lane road with curb and gutter. For the purpose of this evaluation, the project length was divided into three segments, as listed below: Rating Description of Rating Segment Segment No. From intersection with Peachtree Industrial Boulevard to 1 intersection with Tallapoosa Road From intersection with Tallapoosa Road to house at From 1955 to north end of project. The roadway and pavement core sample locations are presented in Figure Historical Data A historical data search was performed during this study. The GDOT TransPI website was searched for available existing pavement data for this project. No pavement as-built or maintenance data for was found in this search. Based on historic Google Earth aerial photographs, it appears that the Chattahoochee Reserve Subdivision was constructed between 1993 and It is noted that a different color asphalt was observed during our pavement evaluation between 1975 and the north end of the street and the same color is also present in the 1999 aerial photograph; therefore, the color change does not indicate a resurfacing of the roadway. Based on the site visit, there are several short segments (each less than 100 feet) of between the intersection with Peachtree Industrial Boulevard and Tallapoosa Drive which have been patched or resurfaced. Historical Google Earth aerial photographs indicate resurfacing at one segment

5 Existing Pavement Evaluation Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia Willmer Project No Page 3 was performed between 2008 and 2010 and additional resurfacing appears to have been performed between May 2014 and August Traffic Data Design traffic data for was provided to us by CPL. The following traffic data was used for pavement design: Design Period 2016 to 2036 One-Way AADT in ,900 vpd One-Way AADT in ,900 vpd Lane Distribution Factor hour Truck Percentage 0.5% (0.5% S.U. and 0% M.U.) 4. Field Photographs 5. Drainage Survey 6. Nondestructive Field Testing Photographs were taken at the time of our fieldwork to record the existing pavement conditions. These photographs are included in Appendix I. Based on our field reconnaissance, the roadway drainage was in good condition. No standing water or other drainage problems were observed during this survey. No non-destructive tests were performed. 7. Rutting No rutting was observed. 8. Load Cracking 9. Block/ Transverse Cracking 10. Reflection Cracking Load cracking with varying levels of severity was observed along the alignment. The most severe load cracking was observed in the roadway section between Tallapoosa Road to 1955 (i.e., rating segment 2). In the 100-foot representative sample section of this rating segment, Level 1 and Level 2 load cracking were observed. The load cracking percentage for the rating segment is presented in Table 1. Level 1 transverse cracking was observed at approximately 10% of the 100-foot representative sample section of rating segment 2. Transverse cracking was not observed at the other two rating segments. The location and block/transverse cracking percentages are presented in Table 1. No reflection cracking was observed. 11. Raveling Level 1 raveling (50%) was observed in rating segment 2. The level and percentage of raveling are presented in Table 1.

6 Existing Pavement Evaluation Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia Willmer Project No Page Edge Distress Edge distress (10%) was observed in rating segment 2. The level and percentage of edge distress are presented in Table Bleeding or Flushing 14. Corrugation or Pushing 15. Loss of Section 16. Patches, Potholes, and Local Base Failures No bleeding or flushing was observed. No corrugation or pushing was observed. No loss of section was observed. A total of 8 patches/potholes were observed between the intersection of Peachtree Industrial Boulevard to the intersection with Tallapoosa Road (rating segment 1) and a total of four patches/potholes were observed between the intersection of Tallapoosa Road to 1955 (rating segment 2). No patches/potholes were observed north of 1955 (rating segment 3). No local base failures were observed in any of the rating segments. This information is summarized in Table Cores The existing pavement was cored at three locations within the project limits and samples of the subgrade soil were recovered and transported to a laboratory for classification using ASTM D2487. The type and thickness of existing pavement and base materials at each location are summarized in Table 2 and the laboratory results are included in Appendix II. Core sample photographs are included in Appendix III. As shown in Table 2, the pavement thickness ranged from 2.5 to 3.5 inches. No base material was encountered at any of the core locations. 18. Pavement Condition Summary 19. Asphalt Pavement Design The pavement surface condition rating for this project was performed in general accordance with GDOT Pavement Condition Evaluation System (PACES). The PACES-based ratings for are 65, 56, and 76, for rating segments 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Based on the surface condition rating, the existing pavement on Chattahoochee Drive is generally in poor to fair condition. We understand that the city would like to do a full depth reclamation (FDR) to improvement pavement. Based on the results of our evaluation, we assess that FDR can be used on this project. However, since the existing pavement is relatively thin and no base material is presented under the pavement, some GAB will need to be added during the FDR process. The recommended FDR process is described below.

7 Existing Pavement Evaluation Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia Willmer Project No Page 5 Full Depth Reclamation The FDR process consists of pulverizing the existing asphalt pavement, blending it with underlying base and/or subgrade, mixing the blended material with cement or foamed asphalt, and compacting it in place to provide a stabilized base. A new asphalt or concrete pavement layer is then constructed atop the stabilized surface. To provide an adequate pavement section for the design traffic load, the existing asphalt and about 3 inches of underlying soil should be pulverized, blended, and mixed with an appropriate amount of cement or foamed asphalt, and compacted in place to form a 6-inch thick stabilized base. Some GAB may need to be added and blended into the base during the reclamation process to achieve the required strength since no existing base course is present under the pavement. Upon completion of the FDR, a 3.25-inch thick layer of asphalt pavement will be constructed on top of the FDR base. The resulting 9.25-inch thick pavement section will be about 6% underdesigned. It should be noted that the resulting pavement surface will be about 3 inches higher than the existing pavement grade. The pavement surface can be sloped at the edges to match the existing concrete gutter. An output from the GDOT Pavement Design Tool 2.0 is included in Appendix IV. Full-Depth Reclamation: Pay Item Course Material Asphalt Surface Asphalt Intermediate -- Base 9.5 mm Type II Superpave 19 mm Superpave FDR - Stabilized Base Thickness (inches) 1 ¼ Life Cycle Cost Analysis Report By: Reviewed By: No Life Cycle Cost Analysis was performed. Joseph Sura, PE / Thomas Scruggs, PE James L. Willmer, PE

8 TABLES

9 Table 1 Summary of Pavement Conditions Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia Willmer Project No Block/Transverse Rating Segment Load Cracking (%) Representative Cracking (%) Sample Section 1 No. Description Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Reflection Cracking (%) 1 Intersection with Peachtree Industrial Boulevard to Intersection with Tallapoosa Road 2125 to Intersection with Tallapoosa Road to to to North End of Road 1915 to Rating Segment Intersection with Peachtree Industrial Boulevard to Intersection with Tallapoosa Road Intersection with Tallapoosa Road to to North End of Road Raveling (%) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Edge Distress Bleeding & Flushing Corrugation & Pushing Loss of Section Patches & Potholes None None None None None None None None None None None None Note: 1. Stationing was not available for this roadway; therefore, house numbers have been used to describe the approximate location of the sample sections.

10 Table 2 Summary of Pavement Core and Crack Depth Information Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia Willmer Project No Core No. Location House Number on 1 Traffic Direction 2 Asphalt Pavement Thickness (in) Base 2 Thickness (in) Rut Depth (in) Crack Depth (in) Subgrade Soil Classification 3 C NB 3 ½ None <1/8 -- Reddish brown and red sandy SILT C NB 3 ¼ None <1/8 -- Reddish brown and red sandy SILT C SB 2 ½ None <1/8 -- Red sandy SILT Notes: 1. House number nearest to the core location. 2. NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound. 3. Laboratory classification test results are included in Appendix II. Page 1 of 1

11 FIGURES

12 SCALE: 1" = 1200' DATE: 11/1/2016 DRAWN BY: JMS REVIEWED BY: TS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND ENGINEERING 3772 PLEASANTDALE ROAD - SUITE 165 ATLANTA, GA FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP EXISTING PAVEMENT EVALUATION CHATTAHOOCHEE DRIVE DULUTH, GWINNETT COUNTY, GEORGIA WILLMER PROJECT No P:\4166 Existing Pavement Evaluation\CADD\Project Location Map.dwg PROJECT LOCATION

13 C - 3 C - 2 C - 1 NOTES 1. BACKGROUND MAP SOURCE: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY CLARK PATTERSON LEE IN OCTOBER GDOT STATIONING WAS NOT AVAILABLE. LEGEND: C - 1 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE DATE: 11/2/2016 DRAWN BY: SM REVIEWED BY: JS PAVEMENT CORE LOCATION GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND ENGINEERING 3772 PLEASANTDALE ROAD - SUITE 165 ATLANTA, GA FIGURE 2 CORE LOCATION PLAN EXISTING PAVEMENT EVALUATION CHATTAHOOCHEE DRIVE DULUTH, GWINNETT COUNTY, GEORGIA WILLMER PROJECT No P:\4166 Existing Pavement Evaluation\CADD\Core Location Plan.dwg

14 APPENDIX I

15 Site Photographs: Existing Pavement Evaluation Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia Willmer Project No Sheet 1 of 5 C-1 Sample Rating Segment 1; Core Location C-1; Looking North

16 Site Photographs: Existing Pavement Evaluation Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia Willmer Project No Sheet 2 of 5 C-1 Sample Rating Segment 1; Core Location C-1; Looking South

17 Site Photographs: Existing Pavement Evaluation Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia Willmer Project No Sheet 3 of 5 C-2 C-2 Sample Rating Segment 2; Core Location C-2; Looking South

18 Site Photographs: Existing Pavement Evaluation Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia Willmer Project No Sheet 4 of 5 C-3 Sample Rating Segment 3; Core Location C-3; Looking North

19 Site Photographs: Existing Pavement Evaluation Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia Willmer Project No Sheet 5 of 5 C-3 C-3 Sample Rating Segment 3; Core Location C-3; Looking South

20 APPENDIX II

21 TIMELY 1874 Forge Street Tucker, GA ENGINEERING Phone: Tested By EB/NK SOIL Fax: Date 10/18/16 TESTS, LLC Web: Checked By Client Pr. # Lab. PR. # Pr. Name Sample ID Location S. Type 22615/C-1, C-2 Depth/Elev. - - Add. Info - ASTM D 4318/AASHTO T 88, T 89 Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils (Atterberg Limits) Jar LIQUID LIMIT Number of Blows Mass of Wet Sample & Tare, g Oven ID # 15/496/610 Mass of Dry Sample & Tare, g Balance ID # 139/563 Mass of Tare, g Liquid Limit Device ID # 451/569 Moisture Content, % MOISTURE CONTENT % NUMBER OF BLOWS PLASTIC LIMIT Mass of Wet Sample & Tare, g PREPARATION PROCEDURE DRY Mass of Dry Sample & Tare, g Mass of Tare, g NOTE: MATERIAL PASSING NO. 40 SIEVE Moisture Content, % WAS USED FOR TEST NATURAL MOISTURE Mass of Wet Sample & Tare, g LIQUID LIMIT (LL) 37 Mass of Dry Sample & Tare, g PLASTIC LIMIT (PL) 33 Mass of Tare, g PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) 4 Moisture Content, % LIQUIDITY INDEX (LI) 0.70 DESCRIPTION Reddish Brown and Red Sandy Silt USCS (ASTM D2487; D2488) ML AASHTO (M 145) NA

22 TIMELY 1874 Forge Street Tucker, GA ENGINEERING Phone: Tested By SOIL Fax: Date AV 10/17/16 TESTS, LLC Web: Checked By Client Pr. # Lab. PR. # Pr. Name S. Type Jar Sample ID 22615/C-1, C-2 Depth/Elev. - Location - Add. Info - ASTM D 6913 (D 422 old version), D 1140, C 136, C 117 / AASHTO T 88, T 27, T 11, T 311; Particle Size Analysis (Split Sieve) MOISTURE CONTENT of TOTAL SAMPLE MOISTURE CONTENT of FINE MATERIAL Mass of Wet Sample & Tare, g Mass of Wet Sample & Tare, g Mass of Dry Sample & Tare, g Mass of Dry Sample & Tare, g Mass of Tare, g 95.3 Mass of Tare, g Moisture Content, % 35.8 Moisture Content, % 35.8 TOTAL Mass of wet sample Mass of Wet Fine Material & Tare, g before splitting & tare, g Mass of Tare, g 0.0 Mass of Tare, g 0.00 TOTAL Mass of dry sample, g Mass of Dry Fine Material, g % of Total Sample Passing Split Sieve 97.0 COARSE MATERIAL SIEVE ANALYSIS* FINE MATERIAL Mass of Tare, g 0.0 Mass of Tare, g 0.00 Sieve Size Sample & Tare, g % RETAINED % PASSING 12" COBBLES Cumulative % PASSING 3" Sieve Size Mass retained, g (of Total) 2.5" COARSE #10 MEDIUM " GRAVEL #20 SAND " # " #60 FINE SAND " # " FINE GRAVEL #200 FINES " #4 COARSE SAND * - ASTM Definitions of Classification ** - AASHTO Definitions of Classification NOTE: # 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve used for splitting sample on fine and coarse material PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS* Oven ID # 15/496/610 % COBBLES 0.0 % MEDIUM Sand 9.9 Balance ID# 139/142/700 % COARSE Gravel 0.0 % FINE Sand 23.0 Sieve Shaker ID # 555 % FINE Gravel 3.0 % FINES 59.5 % COARSE Sand 4.5 % TOTAL SAMPLE REMARKS PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS** % COBBLES 0.0 % COARSE Sand 9.9 % COARSE Gravel (Stone) 0.0 % FINE Sand 23.0 % MEDIUM Gravel (Stone) 0.8 % FINES (Silt-Clay) 59.5 % FINE Gravel (Stone) 6.7 % TOTAL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Reddish Brown and Red Sandy Silt USCS (ASTM D2487; D2488) ML AASHTO (M 145) NA Page 1 of 2

23 TIMELY 1874 Forge Street Tucker, GA ENGINEERING Phone: Tested By AV SOIL Fax: Date 10/17/16 TESTS, LLC Web: Checked By Client Pr. # Lab. PR. # Pr. Name S. Type Jar Sample ID 22615/C-1, C-2 Depth/Elev. - Location - Add. Info - ASTM D 6913 (D 422 old version), D 1140, C 136, C 117 / AASHTO T 88, T 27, T 11, T 311 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils and Aggregates (Split Sieve) Particle-Size Analysis " 6" 3" 2.5" 2" 1.5" 1".75".5".375".25" #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #60 #100 #140 # % P A S S I N G Grain size in millimeters Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt or Clay Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Fines D 10 NA mm D 30 NA mm D 60 NA mm Page 2 of 2 Cu NA Cc NA Project's Specific % Passing Project's Specific Particle Size, mm NA NA

24 TIMELY 1874 Forge Street Tucker, GA ENGINEERING Phone: Tested By EB/NK SOIL Fax: Date 10/18/16 TESTS, LLC Web: Checked By Client Pr. # Lab. PR. # Pr. Name Sample ID Location S. Type 22616/C-3 Depth/Elev. - - Add. Info - ASTM D 4318/AASHTO T 88, T 89 Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils (Atterberg Limits) Jar LIQUID LIMIT Number of Blows Mass of Wet Sample & Tare, g Oven ID # 15/496/610 Mass of Dry Sample & Tare, g Balance ID # 139/563 Mass of Tare, g Liquid Limit Device ID # 451/569 Moisture Content, % MOISTURE CONTENT % NUMBER OF BLOWS PLASTIC LIMIT Mass of Wet Sample & Tare, g PREPARATION PROCEDURE DRY Mass of Dry Sample & Tare, g Mass of Tare, g NOTE: MATERIAL PASSING NO. 40 SIEVE Moisture Content, % WAS USED FOR TEST NATURAL MOISTURE Mass of Wet Sample & Tare, g LIQUID LIMIT (LL) 39 Mass of Dry Sample & Tare, g PLASTIC LIMIT (PL) 33 Mass of Tare, g PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) 6 Moisture Content, % LIQUIDITY INDEX (LI) 1.17 DESCRIPTION Red Sandy Silt USCS (ASTM D2487; D2488) ML AASHTO (M 145) NA

25 TIMELY 1874 Forge Street Tucker, GA ENGINEERING Phone: Tested By SOIL Fax: Date AV 10/17/16 TESTS, LLC Web: Checked By Client Pr. # Lab. PR. # Pr. Name S. Type Jar Sample ID 22616/C-3 Depth/Elev. - Location - Add. Info - ASTM D 6913 (D 422 old version), D 1140, C 136, C 117 / AASHTO T 88, T 27, T 11, T 311; Particle Size Analysis (Split Sieve) MOISTURE CONTENT of TOTAL SAMPLE MOISTURE CONTENT of FINE MATERIAL Mass of Wet Sample & Tare, g Mass of Wet Sample & Tare, g Mass of Dry Sample & Tare, g Mass of Dry Sample & Tare, g Mass of Tare, g 90.8 Mass of Tare, g Moisture Content, % 40.0 Moisture Content, % 40.0 TOTAL Mass of wet sample Mass of Wet Fine Material & Tare, g before splitting & tare, g Mass of Tare, g 0.0 Mass of Tare, g 0.00 TOTAL Mass of dry sample, g Mass of Dry Fine Material, g % of Total Sample Passing Split Sieve 95.0 COARSE MATERIAL SIEVE ANALYSIS* FINE MATERIAL Mass of Tare, g 0.0 Mass of Tare, g 0.00 Sieve Size Sample & Tare, g % RETAINED % PASSING 12" COBBLES Cumulative % PASSING 3" Sieve Size Mass retained, g (of Total) 2.5" COARSE #10 MEDIUM " GRAVEL #20 SAND " # " #60 FINE SAND " # " FINE GRAVEL #200 FINES " #4 COARSE SAND * - ASTM Definitions of Classification ** - AASHTO Definitions of Classification NOTE: # 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve used for splitting sample on fine and coarse material PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS* Oven ID # 15/496/610 % COBBLES 0.0 % MEDIUM Sand 6.2 Balance ID# 139/142/700 % COARSE Gravel 0.0 % FINE Sand 18.7 Sieve Shaker ID # 555 % FINE Gravel 5.0 % FINES 66.4 % COARSE Sand 3.7 % TOTAL SAMPLE REMARKS PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS** % COBBLES 0.0 % COARSE Sand 6.2 % COARSE Gravel (Stone) 0.0 % FINE Sand 18.7 % MEDIUM Gravel (Stone) 3.7 % FINES (Silt-Clay) 66.4 % FINE Gravel (Stone) 5.0 % TOTAL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Red Sandy Silt USCS (ASTM D2487; D2488) ML AASHTO (M 145) NA Page 1 of 2

26 TIMELY 1874 Forge Street Tucker, GA ENGINEERING Phone: Tested By AV SOIL Fax: Date 10/17/16 TESTS, LLC Web: Checked By Client Pr. # Lab. PR. # Pr. Name S. Type Jar Sample ID 22616/C-3 Depth/Elev. - Location - Add. Info - ASTM D 6913 (D 422 old version), D 1140, C 136, C 117 / AASHTO T 88, T 27, T 11, T 311 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils and Aggregates (Split Sieve) Particle-Size Analysis " 6" 3" 2.5" 2" 1.5" 1".75".5".375".25" #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #60 #100 #140 # % P A S S I N G Grain size in millimeters Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt or Clay Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Fines D 10 NA mm D 30 NA mm D 60 NA mm Page 2 of 2 Cu NA Cc NA Project's Specific % Passing Project's Specific Particle Size, mm NA NA

27 APPENDIX III

28 Pavement Core Photographs: Existing Pavement Evaluation Duluth, Gwinnett County, Georgia Willmer Project No Sheet 1 of 1 C-1 C-2 3½ 3¼ C-3 2½ Core No. House Number on 1 Traffic Direction C Northbound C Northbound C Southbound Note: House number nearest to the core location.

29 APPENDIX IV

30 PACES Ratings Pavement Evaluation - Willmer Project No Segment 1 - Intersection with Peachtree Industrial Boulevard to Intersection with Tallapoosa Road Load Cracking Load Cracking Load Cracking Transverse/Block Cracking Reflective Cracking Rutting Raveling Extent Edge Distress Bleeding/Flushing Corrugations/Pushing Loss of Section Patches/Potholes Segment 2 - Intersection with Tallapoosa Road to 1955 Load Cracking Load Cracking Load Cracking Transverse/Block Cracking Reflective Cracking Rutting Raveling Extent Edge Distress Bleeding/Flushing Corrugations/Pushing Loss of Section Patches/Potholes Segment to North End of Road Load Cracking Load Cracking Load Cracking Transverse/Block Cracking Reflective Cracking Rutting Raveling Extent Edge Distress Bleeding/Flushing Corrugations/Pushing Loss of Section Patches/Potholes Severity Level Extent Deduction 1 20% % Total Deduction PACES Rating Severity Level Extent Deduction 1 50% % % % % Total Deduction PACES Rating Severity Level Extent Deduction 1 40% % Total Deduction PACES Rating Page 1 of 1

31 Flexible Pavement Design Analysis PI Number County(s) Gwinnett Project Number Design Name Project Description Traffic Data (AADTs are one-way) Miscellaneous Data Initial Design Year 2016 Initial AADT, VPD 2, Hour Truck % 0.50 Lanes in one direction 1 Final Design Year 2036 Final AADT, VPD 2,900 SU Truck % 0.50 Curb & Gutter/Barrier Yes Mean AADT, VPD 2,900 MU Truck % 0.00 Non-Standard Value Comment Design Data Lane Distribution Factor (%) Soil Support Value 2.50 Single Unit ESAL 0.40 Terminal Serviceability Index 2.50 Regional Factor 1.80 Multiple Unit ESAL 1.50 User Defined 18-KIP ESAL 0.00 Calculated 18-KIP ESAL 0.40 Design Loading (Calculated 18-KIP ESAL) Mean AADT, VPD LDF (%) Vehicle Type Volume (%) ESAL Factor Daily ESAL 2, Single Unit Truck Multi Unit Truck Total Daily ESALs 6 Total Design Period ESALs 43,800 Course Proposed Flexible Full Depth Pavement Structure Material Thickness (inches) Structural Coefficient Structural Value Course mm Type II Superpave Course 2 19 mm Superpave Course 3 Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) Required SN 2.79 Proposed pavement is 5.78% Underdesigned Proposed SN 2.63 Design Remarks Prepared By Recommended By Approved By Joseph Sura, Willmer Engineering Inc. Consultant Design Phase Leader State Pavement Engineer 11/17/ :49 AM Date Date Date Filename: P:\4166 Existing Pavement Evaluation\Working Data\072 - GDOT Pavement Design - Chattahoochee Dr.xlsm GDOT Pavement Design Tool - Version 2.0