PAVEMENT DESIGN SUMMARY TANGERINE ROAD CORRIDOR PROJECT INTERSTATE 10 TO LA CANADA DRIVE PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA

Transcription

1

2

3

4

5 PAVEMENT DESIGN SUMMARY TANGERINE ROAD CORRIDOR PROJECT INTETATE 10 TO LA CANADA DRIVE PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA Terracon Project No , Revision INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our pavement design services performed for the Tangerine Road Corridor Project, extending from Interstate 10 to La Canada Drive, in Pima County, Arizona. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: pavement subgrade soil conditions recommended pavement sections The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and experience with similar geotechnical conditions, pavement structures and our understanding of the proposed project. 1.1 Project Location and Limits We understand the project will consist of improvements to Tangerine Road. The project alignment extends from the approximate location of the eastern limits of a proposed traffic interchange on the east side of Interstate 10 to the west side of the La Canada Drive intersection (approximately 9.9 miles). The project also incorporates roadway sections 1,500 feet north and south of each of the intersections of Tangerine Road with La Cholla Boulevard and Thornydale Road. We understand the improvements will include reconstructing and widening the existing -lane road to a total of lanes, construction of new CMP and RCB culvert crossings, the extension of existing drainage structures at wash crossings, and the possible construction of new multi-purpose culvert or bridge structures for pedestrian and wildlife crossing/access. New traffic signal lights will be installed at intersections. We also understand that no large retaining walls (greater then -feet tall) are anticipated as part of the design and construction. At this time we expect that final grades will be within 1 to 5 feet from the existing surface elevations. A combination of cut and fill is expected along the project alignment. The new pavement surface will generally follow the existing roadway alignment. Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 1

6 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No Scope of Work The scope of work for the pavement engineering services in the project consist of analyzing the boring and laboratory data of our subsurface explorations, and determining pavement design sections for the project. The pavement thickness designs for the project have been based on utilizing the geotechnical data from the Terracon Geotechnical Engineering Report, traffic data (as provided by others), and American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 1, design procedures, as modified by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT) 3..0 TEST DATA A total of 119 borings, designated as boring numbers B-001 through B-119, were drilled between October 5, 010 and January 5, 011 for the specific purpose of pavement thickness design. The borings were drilled to approximate depths between feet to 31½ feet at the locations shown on the Site Plan and boring locations diagram (Appendix A, Exhibits A-1 to A- 7). Borings were advanced with a truck-mounted drilling rig, utilizing 8-inch diameter hollowstem auger. Continuous lithologic logs of each boring were recorded by our geotechnical engineer during the drilling operations. Logs of the borings have been provided in the appendix of the Roadway Geotechnical Engineering Report dated September 1, At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken by driving split-spoon or ring-barrel samplers. Bulk samples of subsurface materials were obtained from borings in pavement areas. Penetration resistance measurements were obtained by driving the split-spoon and ring-barrel into the subsurface materials with a 10-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The penetration resistance value is a useful index in estimating the consistency, relative density or hardness of the materials encountered. Groundwater conditions were evaluated in each boring at the time of site exploration. 1 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C. (1993) Materials Preliminary Engineering and Design Manual, Third Edition, State of Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona, (199) 3 Pima County Roadway Design Manual, Third Edition, Pima County Department of Transportation, Pima County, Arizona, (010) Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative

7 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No For pavement evaluation, the following laboratory tests were performed on subgrade samples obtained from our borings: Percent Fines R-Values Plasticity Index Sieve analysis of soil samples tested indicates the fines (material passing the No. 00 sieve) range from 7.7 to 8 percent. Atterberg Limits tests show the plasticity indices of the soils tested range from non-plastic to 0. Results of the laboratory R-value tests range from 5 to 8. The previous discussion of test data is intended to be a summary of the exploration and laboratory testing relevant to the pavement thickness design. Please refer to our Roadway Geotechnical Engineering Report (Terracon Project No dated August 1, 011) for further details on exploration procedures, detailed boring logs and other geotechnical data. 3.0 PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN 3.1 General The subgrade soils along the project alignment at pavement subgrade elevation generally consist of silty sand. Overall, the site soils are considered to have good pavement subgrade support characteristics. Because the soils encountered and projected traffic volumes vary along the alignment we have provided separate pavement sections for the project. The design analysis for each of these sections is discussed in the following paragraphs: 3. Pavement Subgrade Parameters The resilient modulus for pavement design was determined by analysis of the correlated and laboratory tested R-value data in accordance with the procedures according to Pima County. The resilient modulus analysis was based on the data contained in Appendix A; summarized in the table Laboratory Test Data Summary, Exhibits A-8 through A-30. Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 3

8 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No Based on our analysis the following table summarizes the design subgrade values for each section of the roadway: Project Section Tangerine Soil Section 1 (B-001 to B-010) Tangerine Soil Section (B-011 to B-05) Tangerine Soil Section 3 (B-053 to B-095) Tangerine Soil Section (B-09 to B-10) Correlated R-Values Laboratory R-Values Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation Mean 70.. Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation Mean R-Value Calculated Resilient Modulus* (M r ) 3 15,5 7,000 7,000 19,77 La Cholla Mean (Borings B-107 to Standard 53, B-113) Deviation Thornydale Mean (Borings B-11 to Standard, B-119) Deviation *ADOT recommends the Design Resilient Modulus be limited to no more than,000 Based on our understanding of the anticipated traffic patterns, the soil in the middle section of Tangerine Road described in Section 3.0 was analyzed as two sections, divided by Dove Mountain Road in the table above, they are identified as Tangerine Soil Section and Tangerine Soil Section 3. In addition to the design R-value for each roadway section, a construction control R-value was also calculated. The construction control R-value is used to determine the lower bounds of the resilient modulus that existing on-site soils need to meet in order to provide adequate subgrade support for the proposed pavement sections. On-site soils that have a correlated R-value below the construction control R-value should be removed from the roadway prism and replaced with material that meets or exceeds the design R-value. ADOT recommends limiting the construction control R-value to 5 below the design R-value, this is to reduce future maintenance and increase pavement reliability in poor subgrade locations. However, in order to reduce the Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative

9 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No amount of earthwork required, we recommend lowering both the construction control R-value and the design R-value so all existing on-site soils can remain in place. We have used the lowered R-values for this pavement design, but have also provided alternative pavement design sections for the removal and replacement, or treatment of subgrade soils, along the portions of the project where subgrade soils do not meet the construction control R-value. Lowering the design R-value will generally increase the total designed pavement section thickness, however for most of the project this increase is minimal, and along some Sections there is no change to the design pavement thickness. The exception is along Tangerine Road within Section 1 and Section. Within Section 1; of the 10 boring locations, 3 borings encountered soils with a correlated R-value less than the calculated construction control R-value. Within Section ; of the 11 boring locations, borings encountered soils with a correlated R-value less than the calculated construction control R-value. The soils with correlated R-values less than the construction control R-value would need to be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the pavement surface and replaced with materials meeting the equation provided for imported soil material for each of the respective section on pages 17 and 18 of this report. As an alternative to removal and replacement we have provided a pavement section that includes using -inches of cement treated subgrade in the areas where soils along Tangerine Section 1 and Section do not meet the calculated construction control R-value. The locations where treatment will be required are summarized in the following tables: Estimated Area of Subgrade Soils Outside the Construction Control R-Value For Tangerine Road Section 1 Correlated R-Value Boring Location Approximate Station Range B to B to 3+95 B-00 7 Estimated Area of Subgrade Soils Outside the Construction Control R-Value For Tangerine Road Section Correlated R-Value Boring Location Approximate Station Range B to B to B B to Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 5

10 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No The following table provides the recommended design and construction control R-values for each section of the roadway: Soil Section 1 Tangerine Soil Section 1 (B-001 to B-010) (Sta +00 to 9+00) Tangerine Soil Section (B-011 to B-05) (Sta 9+00 to ) Tangerine Soil Section 3 (B-053 to B-095) (Sta to ) Tangerine Soil Section (B-09 to B-10) (Sta to 90+00) La Cholla Soil Section 5 (Borings B-107 to B-113) Recommended Design R-Value Construction Control R-Value Recommended Design Resilient Modulus (M r ) , ,1 5 7, , , Thornydale Soil Section (Borings B-11 to B-119) 5 7,50 Note 1: Stationing is approximate. No stationing was provided for La Cholla Boulevard or Thornydale Road 3.3 Traffic Analysis We were provided 0-year design equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) for Tangerine Road, La Cholla Boulevard south of Tangerine Road, and Thornydale Road south of Tangerine Road. The information provided by Psomas is provided in Appendix B (Exhibits B-1 to B-3). The design lane ESALs provided are summarized as follows: Location Design Lane ESALs Tangerine West (Interstate 10 to Dove Mountain) 9,31,1 Tangerine East (Dove Mountain to La Canada) 8,113,113 La Cholla Boulevard (south of Tangerine Road),13,711 La Cholla Boulevard (north of Tangerine Road)*,13,711 Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative

11 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No Location Design Lane ESALs Thornydale Road (south of Tangerine Road),890,11 Thornydale Road (north of Tangerine Road)*,890,11 *No design ESALs were provided for these sections. The values provided are assumed based on the values for the sections that extend south of Tangerine Road. 3. Pavement Design Parameters The following is a summary of all parameters utilized for pavement thickness design for each section on this project: Tangerine Road Pavement Section 1 Station 5+00 to 9+00 Parameter Value Design ESAL s Tangerine West (Interstate 10 to Dove Mountain) 9,31,1 Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi) 13,001 1 Tangerine Soil Section 1 (B-001 to B-010) 15,5 Seasonal Variation Factor 1.7 Level of Reliability 95% Combined Standard Error (S o ) 0.35 Initial PSI. Terminal PSI.8 Pavement Layer Coefficient Asphalt Rubber Asphaltic Concrete (ARAC) 0.55 Asphalt Concrete (AC) 0. Aggregate Base Course (AB) 0.1 Cement Treated Subgrade (CTS) Drainage Coefficient 0.9 Note 1: Subgrade Modulus if the Design R-value and Construction Control R-value are lowered so that all on-site soils can remain in place without improvement Note : Subgrade Modulus if the calculated Design R-value is used and soils that do not meet the Construction Control R-value are removed and replaced, or the on-site soils are improved as cement treated subgrade. Locations where soils do not meet the construction control value are presented on Page 5 of this report. Note 3: Pavement Layer Coefficient prescribed by Pima County reference (Table 3.15). CTS must have a 7-day unconfined compressive strength of 800psi in order to provide this Pavement Layer Coefficient (Per Figure.0.0- of the ADOT reference). Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 7

12 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No Tangerine Road Pavement Section Station 9+00 to Parameter Value Design ESAL s Tangerine West (Interstate 10 to Dove Mountain) 9,31,1 Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi) Tangerine Soil Section (B-011 to B-05) 5,1 Seasonal Variation Factor 1.7 Level of Reliability 95% Combined Standard Error (S o ) 0.35 Initial PSI. Terminal PSI.8 Pavement Layer Coefficient Asphalt Rubber Asphaltic Concrete (ARAC) 0.55 Asphalt Concrete (AC) 0. Aggregate Base Course (AB) 0.1 Drainage Coefficient 0.9 Tangerine Road Pavement Section 3 Station to Parameter Value Design ESAL s Tangerine East (Dove Mountain to La Canada) 8,113,113 Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi) Tangerine Soil Section 3 (B-053 to B-095),50 Seasonal Variation Factor 1.7 Level of Reliability 95% Combined Standard Error (S o ) 0.35 Initial PSI. Terminal PSI.8 Pavement Layer Coefficient Asphalt Rubber Asphaltic Concrete (ARAC) 0.55 Asphalt Concrete (AC) 0. Aggregate Base Course (AB) 0.1 Drainage Coefficient 0.9 Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 8

13 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No Tangerine Road Pavement Section Station to Parameter Value Design ESAL s Tangerine East (Dove Mountain to La Canada) 8,113,113 Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi) 13,907 1 Tangerine Soil Section (B-09 to B-010) 19,83 Seasonal Variation Factor 1.7 Level of Reliability 95% Combined Standard Error (S o ) 0.35 Initial PSI. Terminal PSI.8 Pavement Layer Coefficient Asphalt Rubber Asphaltic Concrete (ARAC) 0.55 Asphalt Concrete (AC) 0. Aggregate Base Course (AB) 0.1 Cement Treated Subgrade (CTS) Drainage Coefficient 0.9 Note 1: Subgrade Modulus if the Design R-value and Construction Control R-value are lowered so that all on-site soils can remain in place without improvement Note : Subgrade Modulus if the calculated Design R-value is used and soils that do not meet the Construction Control R-value are removed and replaced, or the on-site soils are improved as cement treated subgrade. Locations where soils do not meet the construction control value are presented on Page 5 of this report. Note 3: Pavement Layer Coefficient prescribed by Pima County reference (Table 3.15). CTS must have a 7-day unconfined compressive strength of 800psi in order to provide this Pavement Layer Coefficient (Per Figure.0.0- of the ADOT reference). Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 9

14 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No La Cholla Boulevard Pavement Section 5 Parameter Value Design ESAL s,13,711 Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi) La Cholla Soil Section 5 (B-107 to B-113) 17, Seasonal Variation Factor 1.7 Level of Reliability 95% Combined Standard Error (S o ) 0.35 Initial PSI. Terminal PSI.8 Pavement Layer Coefficient Asphalt Rubber Asphaltic Concrete (ARAC) 0.55 Asphalt Concrete (AC) 0. Aggregate Base Course (AB) 0.1 Drainage Coefficient 0.9 Thornydale Road Pavement Section Parameter Value Design ESAL s,890,11 Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi) Thornydale Soil Section (B-11 to B-119),50 Seasonal Variation Factor 1.7 Level of Reliability 95% Combined Standard Error (S o ) 0.35 Initial PSI. Terminal PSI.8 Pavement Layer Coefficient Asphalt Rubber Asphaltic Concrete (ARAC) 0.55 Asphalt Concrete (AC) 0. Aggregate Base Course (AB) 0.1 Drainage Coefficient Design Thickness Calculations and Recommended Pavement Sections Flexible pavement thickness designs for the project have been performed in accordance with the AASHTO procedures, as modified by ADOT and PCDOT. Design calculations incorporating Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 10

15 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No the parameters outlined above, are shown on the Flexible Pavement Design Worksheets included in Appendix B (Exhibits B- to B-10). Results of the design calculations to determine the minimum required structural number (SN) for each roadway section are summarized below: Pavement Area Calculated SN 1 Recommended Minimum Required SN SN Tangerine Section Tangerine Section 1 with CTS Tangerine Section Tangerine Section Tangerine Section Tangerine Section with CTS La Cholla Section Thornydale Section Note 1: SN if removal and replacement, or cement treatment, of the subgrade soils is performed at areas within the Section where the on-site soils do not meet the Construction Control R-value. Note : Based on using a lowered design R-value to allow all on-site soils to remain in place. Note 3: Although the minimum structural number for pavements supported by CTS is not specifically prescribed in the Pima County Roadway Design Manual this is the implied minimum required structural based on the minimum requirements of the Arterial Roadway Section using AC, or ARAC, as a surface course, and a minimum of -inches of CTS. Pima County recommends a minimum structural number of. and minimum asphalt pavement section of 5-inches for Arterial Roads. The controlling structural number that governs the pavement thickness design for each section is the larger of the Recommended SN or Minimum Required SN from the previous table, except where noted. Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 11

16 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No Based upon the determination of the required minimum structural number and other considerations previously discussed in this report, the following alternative pavement sections should be considered for design: Pavement Area Alternative ARAC (in) AC (in) ABC (in) CTS (in) SN Control SN Tangerine Section 1 Tangerine Section Tangerine Section 3 Tangerine Section La Cholla Section 5 A B C D E F G H I J A B C D A B C D A B C D E F G H I J A B Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 1

17 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No Pavement Area Alternative ARAC (in) AC (in) ABC (in) CTS (in) SN Control SN Thornydale Section C D A B C Note 1: Alternatives A, B, C, and D for Tangerine Section 1 have been provided to generally allow all on-site soils to remain in place, and support the proposed pavement section. These four alternatives include a thicker pavement section reflecting the fact that subgrade soils with relatively poor subgrade support will remain in place. Note : Alternatives E through J for Tangerine Road Section 1 provide thinner pavement section alternatives with understanding that Cement Treated Subgrade (CTS) will be required at locations within Tangerine Road Section 1 where the on-site subgrade soils do not meet the construction control value provided on page 15 for Alternatives E through J. At locations where the on-site soils exceed the construction control value the CTS may be omitted and alternatives H, I, and J should be used. Note 3: Alternatives A, B, C, and D for Tangerine Section have been provided to generally allow all on-site soils to remain in place, and support the proposed pavement section. These four alternatives include a thicker pavement section reflecting the fact that subgrade soils with relatively poor subgrade support will remain in place. Note : Alternatives E through J for Tangerine Road Section provide thinner pavement section alternatives with understanding that Cement Treated Subgrade (CTS) will be required at locations within Tangerine Road Section 1 where the on-site subgrade soils do not meet the construction control value provided on page 17 for Alternatives E through J. At locations where the on-site soils exceed the construction control value the CTS may be omitted and alternatives H, I, and J should be used..70 Additional pavement section alternatives may be provided if requested..0 PAVEMENT MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION Earthwork and roadway grading shall be performed in conformance with the requirements of Sections 03 and 05 of the standards and specifications of the City of Tucson/Pima County (PAG) unless provided otherwise on the Plans or in the Special Provisions. A ground compaction factor of 0. feet is estimated for existing subgrade soils. A shrinkage factor of 10% is estimated for most on-site soils on the alignment compacted to a minimum of Pima County/City of Tucson, 003, Standard Specifications for Public Improvements, Tucson, Arizona. Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 13

18 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No % of the material s maximum Standard Proctor dry density. The soils in Section 1 of Tangerine Road are estimated have a maximum shrinkage factor of 0% when compacted to a minimum of 95% of the material s maximum Standard Proctor dry density. These estimates do not include any material lost in transit or oversized material or material unsuitable for use, or compaction greater than 95%. The following on-site subgrade acceptance charts are provided to assist in determining the acceptably of existing on-site soils use as subgrade material within 3-feet of finished pavement subgrade. Each chart is based upon using the construction control R-values for each section as provided in this report: 0 On-Site Materials Subgrade Acceptance Chart Tangerine Road - Section 1 For use with Pavement Design Alternatives A, B, C, and D Plasticity Index Unacceptable Acceptable % Passing No. 00 Sieve Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 1

19 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No On-Site Materials Subgrade Acceptance Chart Tangerine Road - Section 1 For use with Pavement Design Alternatives E, through J Plasticity Index Acceptable Unacceptable: Remove and replace subgrade or place CTS % Passing No. 00 Sieve Plasticity Index On-Site Materials Subgrade Acceptance Chart Tangerine Road - Section Acceptable % Passing No. 00 Sieve Unacceptable Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 15

20 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No On-Site Materials Subgrade Acceptance Chart Tangerine Road - Section 3 0 Unacceptable Plasticity Index Acceptable % Passing No. 00 Sieve On-Site Materials Subgrade Acceptance Chart Tangerine Road - Section For use with Pavement Design Alternatives A, B, C, and D Plasticity Index Unacceptable Acceptable % Passing No. 00 Sieve Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 1

21 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No On-Site Materials Subgrade Acceptance Chart Tangerine Road - Section For use with Pavement Design Alternatives E through J Plasticity Index Acceptable Unacceptable: Remove and replace subgrade or place CTS % Passing No. 00 Sieve On-Site Materials Subgrade Acceptance Chart La Cholla Boulevard- Section 5 30 Plasticity Index Acceptable Unacceptable % Passing No. 00 Sieve Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 17

22 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No On-Site Materials Subgrade Acceptance Chart Thornydale Road - Section 0 Unacceptable Plasticity Index Acceptable % Passing No. 00 Sieve If the existing subgrade soils do not meet these criteria, the unsuitable soils should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet below finished pavement subgrade and be replaced with suitable fill meeting the criteria outlined below. Close observation will be required during construction to identify areas of unsuitable existing subgrade soils. All off-site, or imported fill materials placed for pavement support should meet the following minimum requirements to satisfy the recommended design resilient modulus: Tangerine Road - Section 1 The Plasticity Index (PI) and the percent passing the No. 00 sieve when used in the equation below, shall give a value of X that does not exceed 87 for all imported materials placed within 3-feet of finished pavement subgrade. X = (Minus No. 00 Sieve) +.83 (PI) Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 18

23 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No Tangerine Road - Section 1 if CTS is used The Plasticity Index (PI) and the percent passing the No. 00 sieve when used in the equation below, shall give a value of X that does not exceed 7 for all imported materials placed within 3-feet of finished pavement subgrade. Tangerine Road - Section X = (Minus No. 00 Sieve) +.83 (PI) The Plasticity Index (PI) and the percent passing the No. 00 sieve when used in the equation below, shall give a value of X that does not exceed 5 for all imported materials placed within 3-feet of finished pavement subgrade. Tangerine Road - Section 3 X = (Minus No. 00 Sieve) +.83 (PI) The Plasticity Index (PI) and the percent passing the No. 00 sieve when used in the equation below, shall give a value of X that does not exceed 7 for all imported materials placed within 3-feet of finished pavement subgrade. Tangerine Road - Section X = (Minus No. 00 Sieve) +.83 (PI) The Plasticity Index (PI) and the percent passing the No. 00 sieve when used in the equation below, shall give a value of X that does not exceed 8 for all imported materials placed within 3-feet of finished pavement subgrade. X = (Minus No. 00 Sieve) +.83 (PI) Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 19

24 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No Tangerine Road - Section if CTS is used The Plasticity Index (PI) and the percent passing the No. 00 sieve when used in the equation below, shall give a value of X that does not exceed 59 for all imported materials placed within 3-feet of finished pavement subgrade. La Cholla Boulevard X = (Minus No. 00 Sieve) +.83 (PI) The Plasticity Index (PI) and the percent passing the No. 00 sieve when used in the equation below, shall give a value of X that does not exceed 8 for all imported materials placed within 3-feet of finished pavement subgrade. Thornydale Road X = (Minus No. 00 Sieve) +.83 (PI) The Plasticity Index (PI) and the percent passing the No. 00 sieve when used in the equation below, shall give a value of X that does not exceed 7 for all imported materials placed within 3-feet of finished pavement subgrade. X = (Minus No. 00 Sieve) +.83 (PI) Aggregate base course (ABC) should consist of a blend of sand and gravel which meets strict specifications for quality and gradation. Aggregate base course should meet the specifications outlined in Section 303 (PAG). The asphalt concrete should meet the specification outlined in Section 0 (PAG). Asphalt concrete used in the upper to 3.5 inches of the design section should consist of a Mix No., as outlined in Table 0- of the Standard Specifications (PAG). The lower lifts of the asphalt pavement section should meet the requirements of a Mix No. 1 asphaltic concrete mixture. Minimum and maximum recommended AC lift thicknesses are and 3.5 inches, respectively. Tack coat should be applied to the asphalt surface between successive lifts. Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 0

25 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE Future performance of pavements constructed on the site will be dependent upon several factors, including: maintaining stable moisture content of the subgrade soils; and providing for a planned program of preventative maintenance. The performance of all pavements can be enhanced by minimizing excess moisture which can reach the subgrade soils. The following recommendations should be considered at minimum: Site grading at a minimum % grade away from pavements; Compaction of any utility trenches for landscaped areas to the same criteria as the pavement subgrade; Sealing all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to minimize or prevent moisture migration to subgrade soils; Placing compacted backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter; and, Placing curb, gutter and/or sidewalk directly on subgrade soils without the use of base course materials Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided as an on-going pavement management program in order to enhance future pavement performance. Preventative maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and preserve the pavement investment. Preventative maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventative maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provided the highest return on investment for pavements..0 GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 1

26 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No testing services during grading, excavation, pavement construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical and pavement engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative

27 APPENDIX A Field Exploration

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No Sample ID Approximate Station and Offset Laboratory Test Data Summary PI #00 Correlated R-Value B-001 Sta. 7+0, 0'L Laboratory R-Value B-00 Sta , 15'R B-003 Sta. 5+90, 35'L B-00 Sta. 1+50, 30'R B-005 Sta. +0, 10'L B-00 Sta , 0R B-007 Sta. 7+50, 10'L B-008 Sta , 0'R 9 B-009 Sta. 8+0, 0'L B-010 Sta. 90+0, 30'R 0 70 B-011 Sta , 0'L 0 5 B-01 Sta , 0'R B-013 Sta , 15'L B-01 Sta , 0'L B-015 Sta , 15'L B-01 Sta , 15'R 0 7 B-017 Sta , 30'L B-018 Sta , 30'R 0 30 B-019 Sta , 0'L B-00 Sta , 30'R B-01 Sta , 50'L B-0 Sta , 30'R B-03 Sta , 5'L B-0 Sta , 0'R B-05 Sta. 5+80, 30'L B-0 Sta , 0'R B-07 Sta , 0'L B-08 Sta , 0'R B-09 Sta , 5'L B-030 Sta , 30'R B-031 Sta , 30'L B-03 Sta. 0+05, 5'R B-033 Sta , 30'L B-03 Sta , 30'L B-035 Sta , 30'R B-03 Sta. +10, 5'R B-037 Sta. 8+50, 5'L B-038 Sta. 3+50, 5'R B-039 Sta. 3+0, 0'L B-00 Sta. +15, 5'R B-01 Sta. 5+90, 30'L B-0 Sta. 5+0, 35'R Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative A-8

56 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No Sample ID Approximate Station and Offset Laboratory Test Data Summary PI #00 Correlated R-Value B-03 Sta , 35'L B-0 Sta. 1+85, 30'R Laboratory R-Value B-05 Sta. 7+5, 0'L B-0 Sta. 7+75, 0'L B-07 Sta , 5'L B-08 Sta , 30'R B-09 Sta , 0'L B-050 Sta. 91+0, 30'R 0 7 B-051 Sta. 9+5, 5'L B-05 Sta. 97+0, 35'L B-053 Sta , 0'L 3 1. B-05 Sta , 0'R B-055 Sta , 55'L B-05 Sta. 71+0, 5'R B-057 Sta. 7+05, 0'L B-058 Sta. 7+80, 0'R B-059 Sta , 0'L B-00 Sta , 0'R B-01 Sta , 5'L B-0 Sta , 0'R B-03 Sta. 75+0, 10'L B-0 Sta , 50'R B-05 Sta ,10'L B-0 Sta , 30'R B-07 Sta , 30'L B-08 Sta , 30'R B-09 Sta , 0'L B-070 Sta , 0'R B-071 Sta. 79+0, 0'L B-07 Sta , 5'R B-073 Sta , 75'L B-07 Sta , 0'R 0 7 B-075 Sta , 30'L B-07 Sta , 55'L B-077 Sta. 85+0, 30'R B-078 Sta , 0'L B-079 Sta , 5'R B-080 Sta , 0'L B-081 Sta , 30'R. 3 B-08 Sta , 0'L B-083 Sta , 0'R B-08 Sta , 5'L Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative A-9

57 Pavement Design Summary Tangerine Road Corridor Project Pima County, Arizona Terracon Project No Sample ID Approximate Station and Offset Laboratory Test Data Summary PI #00 Correlated R-Value B-085 Sta , 5'R B-08 Sta. 80+0, 5'R B-087 Sta. 8+50, 30'R Laboratory R-Value B-088 Sta , 5'L B-089 Sta , 0'R B-090 Sta , 30'R 3 B-091 Sta , 5'L B-09 Sta , 0'R B-093 Sta , 30'L B-09 Sta , 0'R B-095 Sta , 0'L B-09 Sta , 0'R B-097 Sta , 5'L B-098 Sta , 0'R B-099 Sta. 9+5, 0'L B-100 Sta , 0'R B-101 Sta , 5'L B-10 Sta , 15'R B-103 Sta , 5'L B-10 Sta. 9+00, 5'R B-105 Sta , 30'L B-10 Sta , 50'R B-107 La Cholla 175' N of Tangerine B-108 La Cholla 100' N of Tangerine B-109 La Cholla 775' N of Tangerine B-110 La Cholla 75' N of Tangerine B-111 La Cholla 50' S of Tangerine B-11 La Cholla 750' S of Tangerine B-113 La Cholla150' S of Tangerine B-11 Thornydale 175' N of Tangerine B-115 Thornydale 750' N of Tangerine B-11 Thornydale 50' N of Tangerine B-117 Thornydale50' S of Tangerine B-118 Thornydale 85' S of Tangerine B-119 Thornydale 100' S of Tangerine Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative A-30

58 APPENDIX B Flexible Pavement Design

59 Tangerine, I-10 to Dove Mountain YEARLY ESALs % of TRAFFIC.5% 19.9% 8.3% 0.7%.1%.% 0.1% Total ESALs Year ADT Auto LT MT Bus TS TT TST Auto LT MT Bus TS TT TST 01 10,57 7,0, ,051 7,91 18,79,50 10,5,0 19,3 59, ,13 7,0, ,1 8,10 135,159,891 1,83 3,13 0,87 8, ,731 7,799, ,77 8,538 1,08 7,0 33,73,80 1,79,95 0 1,30 8,18,5 1, ,00 8,99 150,0 7,50,70 59,911,95 98, ,03 8,59,597 1, ,58 9,79 158,09 8,00 59,78 73,851, ,8 0 13,7 9,13,73 1, , 9,987 1,573 8,9 73,395 88,538 5,95 775,1 07 1,58 9,1,883 1, ,807 10,53 175,507 8,98 88,058 30,01,8 81, ,33 10,18 3,038 1, ,957 11,087 18,90 9,8 303,508 30,319 8,303 80, ,050 10,71 3,01 1, ,11 11,8 19,838 9,93 319,78 337,99 9,81 90, ,911 11,3 3,37 1, ,83 1,308 05,87 10, 33, ,00 31,0 955, ,818 11,8 3,553 1, ,59 1,99 1,98 11,08 355,008 37,7 33,105 1,00, ,773 1,8 3,7 1, ,5 13, 7,899 11,19 37,09 39,77 3,881 1,00, ,780 13,151 3,9 1, ,80 1,397 0,1 1, 39,110 15,90 3,751 1,117,0 03 0,81 13,85,15 1, ,0 15,19 53,000 1,899 15,8 38,8 38,73 1,177, ,959 1,00,379 1, ,3 15,983,59 13,591 37,519 1,753 0,799 1,0, ,137 15,383,1 1, ,9 1,80 80,8 1,30 0,985 8,518,988 1,307, ,378 1,08,81, ,733 17,73 95,930 15,088 85,709 51,1 5,93 1,377, ,85 17,077 5,1, ,98 18,95 311,80 15, ,759 50,105 7,7 1,50, ,03 17,993 5,397, ,5 19,97 38,55 1,79 539,07 59,073 50,8 1,58, ,51 18,958 5,8, ,53 0,75 3,15 17,8 58,1 599,595 5,979 1,10,78 Total ESALs 0,513,808 % Veh in Design Lane 5% Design ESALs 9,31,1 Tangerine, Dove Mountain to La Cañada YEARLY ESALs % of TRAFFIC 8.9% 19.9% 8.% 0.% 1.1% 1.5% 0.0% Total ESALs Year ADT Auto LT MT Bus TS TT TST Auto LT MT Bus TS TT TST ,8 1,1 3,53 1, ,553 1,859 11,318 5,8 178,759,3 5,387, ,9 1,580 3,3 1, ,73 13,97 18,505,00 18,838 3,01 5,570 5, ,890 13,008 3,77 1, ,798 13,79 5,935,5 191,1,01 5,70 88, ,533 13,50 3,895 1, ,97 1,1 33,19,37 197,3 50,5 5,955 71, ,197 13,908,07 1, ,01 1,700 1,53,5 0,3 58,7,158 73, 00 0,88 1,381,1 1, ,199 15,00 9,778,88 11,93 7,5,37 71, ,59 1,870,30 1, ,3 15,717 58,7 7,11 18,78 7,0,58 787,170 0,38 15,375,5 1, ,90 1,51 7,055 7,358 5,908 8,09, , ,088 15,898,0 1, , 1,80 7,137 7,08 33,591 95,797 7,039 81,19 0 3,873 1,39,70 1, ,800 17,375 85,58 7,87 1,53 305,85 7,79 870,39 05,85 1,998,9, ,93 17,9 95,38 8,135 9,78 31,57 7,5 899,83 0 5,5 17,57 5,090, ,13 18, ,78 8,11 58,1 37,01 7,78 930,3 07,39 18,17 5,3, ,307 19,09 315,59 8,97 7,03 338,133 8,07 9, ,89 18,79 5,, ,87 19,8 3,39 8,993 7,10 39,3 8,30 99, ,18 19,31 5,7, ,7 0, ,9 9,99 85,93 31,5 8,03 1,08, 030 9,177 0,09 5,818, ,87 1,3 38,971 9,15 95,0 373,81 8,89 1,03, ,19 0,775,01, ,0 1,958 30,838 9,9 305,1 38,58 9,199 1,099, ,195 1,81,0, ,73, ,109 10,80 315,1 399,73 9,511 1,137, ,5,1,3, ,8 3,77 385,797 10,30 3,355 13,5 9,835 1,175, ,353,97,51, ,70,75 398,917 10, ,53 7,319 10,19 1,15,831 Total ESALs 18,09,10 % Veh in Design Lane 5% Design ESALs 8,113,113 B-1

60 Thornydale Rd South of Tangerine YEARLY ESALs % of TRAFFIC 73.8% 18.5% 5.9% 0.7% 0.% 0.9% 0.0% Total ESALs Year ADT Auto LT MT Bus TS TT TST Auto LT MT Bus TS TT TST ,705 7,90 1, ,308 7,17 9,317,59 1,378 81,5-10, ,15 8,39, ,0 7,51 9,10,731,80 8,9-19, ,7 8,58, ,507 7, , 7,015 3,19 88,19-9, ,117 8,98, ,13 8,18 10,9 7,311,198 91,938-38, ,8 9,3, ,73 8, ,899 7,19 5,18 95,81-8, ,10 9,719, ,838 8,87 113,91 7,90,8 99,85-59, ,715 10,19, ,958 9, 118,7 8,75 7,390 10,0-70,08 0 1,93 10,55, ,08 9,3 13,3 8, 8,55 108,5-81, ,89 11,001, ,1 10,0 18,0 8,987 9,78 113,0-93,7 0 15,5 11,5, ,38 10,5 133,87 9,3 31,00 117, , ,179 11,98, ,89 10, ,50 9,71 3,310 1,75-318,73 0 1,81 1,5 3, ,3 11,3 15,03 10,173 33,7 17,93-33, ,57 1,977 3,5 1, ,789 11,8 151,53 10,0 35, ,3-3, ,313 13,5 3,38 1, ,99 1,35 157,93 11,09 3, ,97-30, ,085 1,09 3,55 1, ,115 1,8 1,581 11,515 38,113 1,80-375, ,889 1,88 3,73 1, ,89 13,08 171,50 1,000 39,70 150, , ,78 15,308 3,88 1, ,70 13, ,75 1,50 1, ,7-08, ,0 15,953 3,990 1, ,58 1,5 18,88 13,033 3,10 13,905-5, ,513 1,,158 1, ,855 15,17 19,13 13,583, ,815-3, , 17,37,333 1, ,059 15,81 0,38 1,155,85 178,017 -,31 Total ESALs,3,13 % Veh in Design Lane 5% Design ESALs,890,11 B-

61 La Cholla, South of Tangerine YEARLY ESALs % of TRAFFIC 7.3% 17.9%.% 0.% 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% Total ESALs Year ADT Auto LT MT Bus TS TT TST Auto LT MT Bus TS TT TST 015 9,113,77 1, ,97 5,950 85,75,88 7,377 5,871 3,08 1, ,3 7,07 1, ,05,179 89,05 5,070 7,1 5,98 3, , ,88 7,98 1, ,131,17 9,8 5,5 7,95 59,17 3,59 17, ,0 7,579 1, ,13,3 9,01 5,8 8, 1,53 3,59 183, ,599 7,870 1, ,98,90 99,738 5,78 8,580 3,819 3, , ,007 8,173 1, ,387 7,18 103,577 5,897 8,910,75 3,87 198, ,30 8,88, ,78 7,3 107,53,1 9,53 8,8,03 05, ,870 8,81, ,57 7, ,703,359 9,10 71,75,178 13,9 03 1,37 9,15, ,73 8,08 11,003,0 9,979 7,,339 1, ,80 9,50, ,77 8,358 10,8,858 10,33 77,083,50 30, ,9 9,87, ,883 8,80 15,10 7,1 10,7 80,050,80 39, ,80 10,5, ,99 9,01 19,90 7,39 11,177 83,131,80 8, ,337 10,, ,109 9,31 13,90 7,81 11,07 8,330 5,07 58, ,889 11,05, ,8 9,71 10,113 7,977 1,053 89,53 5,1 7, , 11,8, ,353 10,095 15,50 8,8 1,517 93,10 5,3 78, ,057 11,9,87 1, ,8 10,8 151,10 8,03 1,999 9,87 5,5 89, ,7 1,383,983 1, ,1 10,887 15,9 8,93 13, ,09 5, , ,317 1,859 3,098 1, ,755 11,307 1,9 9,78 1,019 10,73,09 311, ,98 13,35 3,17 1, ,899 11,7 19,35 9,35 1, ,87,330 33, ,7 13,88 3,31 1, ,050 1,19 175,78 10,005 15,119 11,55,57 33,15 Total ESALs,808,7 % Veh in Design Lane 5% Design ESALs,13,711 B-3

62 Flexible Pavement Design Analysis Design Criteria Project Name Tangerine - Section 1 Project Number PROJECT DATA Design Life (years) 0 Equivalent Axle Loads/Day ** Total EAL's 9,31,1, Seasonal Variation Factor Reliability 95% Overall Standard Deviation SUBGRADE CONDITIONS AASHTO Classification ** % Passing #00 Sieve ** Plasticity Index ** Correlated R-Value 30 Resilient Modulus MR (psi) 13,001 Design Modulus (psi) 13,001 SERVICEABILITY Present (.5 to 5.0). Terminal(15to1) (1.5.1) 8.8 LAYER COEFFICIENTS Structural Drainage Asphalt Rubber Asphaltic Concrete e N/A Asphalt Concrete Surface Course 0 0. N/A Aggregate Base Course Cement Treated Subgrade Design Calculations Target Structural t Number SN: 7.7 Recommended Pavement Section Thickness Inches Total Alternative Asphalt Asphalt Aggregate Cement Structural Rubber Concrete Base Treated Total Number Concrete Surface Course Subgrade A B C Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. 11/10/011 B-

63 Flexible Pavement Design Analysis Design Criteria Project Name Tangerine - Section 1 Project Number PROJECT DATA Design Life (years) 0 Equivalent Axle Loads/Day ** Total EAL's 9,31,1, Seasonal Variation Factor Reliability 95% Overall Standard Deviation SUBGRADE CONDITIONS AASHTO Classification ** % Passing #00 Sieve ** Plasticity Index ** Correlated R-Value 30 Resilient Modulus MR (psi) 13,001 Design Modulus (psi) 13,001 SERVICEABILITY Present (.5 to 5.0). Terminal(15to1) (1.5.1) 8.8 LAYER COEFFICIENTS Structural Drainage Asphalt Rubber Asphaltic Concrete e N/A Asphalt Concrete Surface Course 0 0. N/A Aggregate Base Course Cement Treated Subgrade Design Calculations Target Structural t Number SN: 7.7 Recommended Pavement Section Thickness Inches Total Alternative Asphalt Asphalt Aggregate Cement Structural Rubber Concrete Base Treated Total Number Concrete Surface Course Subgrade D Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. 11/10/011 B-5

64 Flexible Pavement Design Analysis Design Criteria Project Name Tangerine - Section 1 Project Number PROJECT DATA Design Life (years) 0 Equivalent Axle Loads/Day ** Total EAL's 9,31,1, Seasonal Variation Factor Reliability 95% Overall Standard Deviation SUBGRADE CONDITIONS AASHTO Classification ** % Passing #00 Sieve ** Plasticity Index ** Correlated R-Value 3 Resilient Modulus MR (psi) 15,790 Design Modulus (psi) 15,790 SERVICEABILITY Present (.5 to 5.0). Terminal(15to1) (1.5.1) 8.8 LAYER COEFFICIENTS Structural Drainage Asphalt Rubber Asphaltic Concrete e N/A Asphalt Concrete Surface Course 0 0. N/A Aggregate Base Course Cement Treated Subgrade Design Calculations Target Structural t Number SN: Recommended Pavement Section Thickness Inches Total Alternative Asphalt Asphalt Aggregate Cement Structural Rubber Concrete Base Treated Total Number Concrete Surface Course Subgrade E F G Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. 1/9/011 B-

65 Flexible Pavement Design Analysis Design Criteria Project Name Tangerine - Section 1 Project Number PROJECT DATA Design Life (years) 0 Equivalent Axle Loads/Day ** Total EAL's 9,31,1, Seasonal Variation Factor Reliability 95% Overall Standard Deviation SUBGRADE CONDITIONS AASHTO Classification ** % Passing #00 Sieve ** Plasticity Index ** Correlated R-Value 3 Resilient Modulus MR (psi) 15,790 Design Modulus (psi) 15,790 SERVICEABILITY Present (.5 to 5.0). Terminal(15to1) (1.5.1) 8.8 LAYER COEFFICIENTS Structural Drainage Asphalt Rubber Asphaltic Concrete e N/A Asphalt Concrete Surface Course 0 0. N/A Aggregate Base Course Cement Treated Subgrade Design Calculations Target Structural t Number SN: Recommended Pavement Section Thickness Inches Total Alternative Asphalt Asphalt Aggregate Cement Structural Rubber Concrete Base Treated Total Number Concrete Surface Course Subgrade H I J Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. 1/9/011 B-7

66 Flexible Pavement Design Analysis Design Criteria Project Name Tangerine - Section Project Number PROJECT DATA Design Life (years) 0 Equivalent Axle Loads/Day ** Total EAL's 9,31,1, Seasonal Variation Factor Reliability 95% Overall Standard Deviation SUBGRADE CONDITIONS AASHTO Classification ** % Passing #00 Sieve ** Plasticity Index ** Correlated R-Value 5 Resilient Modulus MR (psi) 5,1 Design Modulus (psi) 5,1 SERVICEABILITY Present (.5 to 5.0). Terminal(15to1) (1.5.1) 8.8 LAYER COEFFICIENTS Structural Drainage Asphalt Rubber Asphaltic Concrete e N/A Asphalt Concrete Surface Course 0 0. N/A Aggregate Base Course Cement Treated Subgrade Design Calculations Target Structural t Number SN: 3 3. Recommended Pavement Section Thickness Inches Total Alternative Asphalt Asphalt Aggregate Cement Structural Rubber Concrete Base Treated Total Number Concrete Surface Course Subgrade A B C Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. 9/19/011 B-8