TABLE OF CONTENTS. Background of Existing Facility 3. Proposed Work 4

Similar documents
JOINTED PCC PAVEMENTS

This study was undertaken to provide the LA DOTD with an implementation package to facilitate adoption of the new AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement

IH 635 (LBJ Freeway) Corridor Study Implementation Approach. Initial meeting held in June Updated August 2002.

APPENDIX A Drainage Design Report for Farmers and Cooks Branches APPENDIX B Drainage Design Report for Jackson and Audelia Branches

EMC SQUARED SYSTEM SUPERIOR IN HEAD TO HEAD COMPARISON WITH ASPHALT, CEMENT, FLY ASH AND LIME STABILIZER PRODUCTS 17 YEAR UPDATE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION: MATERIALS REPORT COVER SHEET. Revised Soil Survey Report November 24, 2015 Matthew G. Moore, P.E.

Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide

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

SPECIAL PROVISION Description of Project, Scope of Contract, and Sequence of Work

EMC SQUARED System YEAR SUBGRADE STABILIZATION TEXAS HIGHWAY PROJECTS SH-190 U P D A T E ADVANCED STABILIZATION TECHNOLOGY IN SERVICE

CHAPTER 10 PAVEMENT DESIGN AND REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

ATTACHMENT 50-1: PERFORMANCE AND MEASUREMENT TABLE

I-64 Corridor Study Phase II Pavement Rehabilitation Report December 2002 Materials Division Pavement Design and Evaluation Section TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION: MATERIALS REPORT COVER SHEET. Soil Survey Report March 29, 2015 Matthew G. Moore, P.E.

100 Pavement Requirements Pavement Design Concepts 200-1

Lecture 12 TxDOT Flexible Pavement Design Method Texas ME (FPS21)

Construction and Materials Tips

A Simplified Pavement Design Tool

SUDAS Revision Submittal Form

DRAFT. Draft Carbon Monoxide (CO) Traffic Air Quality Analysis

SUDAS Revision Submittal Form

SUDAS Revision Submittal Form

INTERSTATE HIGHWAY (IH) 635

Tarbutton Road Interchange and I-20 Frontage Roads. Estimating and Planning Group

7.1 Flexible Pavement Design. 7.2 Rigid Pavement Design TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ENGINEERING 1, 61360

SHRP2 Renewal Project R23 PAVEMENT RENEWAL SOLUTIONS

ST. TAMMANY PARISH COUNCIL ORDINANCE

Pavement Design Webinar

Life Cycle Cost Analysis Pavement Options May 2002 Materials Division / Virginia Transportation Research Council TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTERSTATE 40 FREEWAY

SR-25 Roller Compacted Concrete Pavement Evaluation

SPECIAL PROVISION Detours, Barricades, Warning Signs, Sequence of Work, etc.

ROADWAY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

USER RESPONSIBILITY.1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.3 CHAPTER 2: PAVEMENT DESIGN PROCEDURES.5 CHAPTER 3: PROJECT SCOPE.7 CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION.

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION WEST MARJORY AVENUE TAMPA, FLORIDA

AUGUST 25, Copyright 2016 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved

21 PAVEMENTS General Administrative Requirements Standards Personnel Certification

UNDERSTANDING PMIS: RIDE, PATCHING, AND OTHER FACTORS. Darlene C. Goehl, P.E. Dist. Pavement-Materials Engr. TxDOT - BRY

IH 30/IH 35E Reconstruction Project Pegasus Final Technical Memorandum - Evaluation of Conceptual Alternatives Task 7.5

A Simplified Pavement Design Tool TxAPA Annual Meeting Danny Gierhart, P.E. Senior Regional Engineer Asphalt Institute.

AED Design Requirements: CERP Road - Geometric Requirements and Flexible Pavement Section Design

FY 2002 RMC 1 PAVEMENTS. Construction

SPECIAL SPECIFICATION Description of Project, Scope of Contract, and Sequence of Work

SPECIFICATION FOR STREET PROJECTS

CHAPTER 7 PAVEMENT DESIGN. 1. Gradation (sieve and hydrometer analysis) 3. Moisture density relationships and curves

Geotechnical Engineering Report

MNDOT PAVEMENT DESIGN MANUAL

RECLAIMED GLASS AGGREGATE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

(Revised) BID BREAKDOWN SHEET SAM RANKIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS PORT OF CORPUS CHRISTI AUTHORITY BREAKDOWN OF BID PRICES

SECTION 6. ROAD CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

ARTICLE 500 PAVEMENT DESIGN

LTRC QUALITY CONTROL OF TRENCH BACKFILL AT HIGHWAY CROSS-DRAIN PIPES. Zhongjie Doc Zhang, PhD, P.E. October 2004

Introduction to Asphalt Pavement Design and Specifications

2012 Purdue Road School Chemical Use for Subgrade Modification of Soils

GEOTECHNICAL STUDY PROPOSED CONCRETE ROADWAY TIKI ISLAND COMMUNITY GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS PROJECT NO E

SECTION EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT. B. Subbase Grading A samples for gradation analysis.

Fundamental to economic growth and quality of life Pavement design is critical for long lasting and economical pavements. Chris Wagner, P.E.

Florida Department of Transportation District 4. To Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Maintain. The I-595 Corridor Roadway Improvements Project

North Central Texas Council of Governments. Workshop TxDOT Dallas

F. Provide at least 2 feet of vertical separation between a water line and any utility or stormdrain crossing it.

Geotechnical Engineering Construction Services Construction Materials Engineering Testing 3228 Halifax Street - Dallas, TX Ph FX.

NORTH HARRIS COUNTY REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY. Section CEMENT STABILIZED BASE COURSE. 1. Foundation course of cement stabilized crushed stone.

CHAPTER 3 SCOPE SUMMARY

2016 Louisiana Transportation Conference Danny Gierhart, P.E. Regional Engineer Asphalt Institute

PUBLIC HEARING LOOP 9

FLEX BASE PROPERTIES. Richard Izzo, P.E. Geotechnical, Soils & Aggregates Section Materials & Tests Division Transportation Short Course

Geotechnical Exploration and Evaluation Report

Chapter Forty-four PAVEMENT DESIGN BUREAU OF LOCAL ROADS AND STREETS MANUAL

VDOT MECHANSTIC EMPIRICAL PAVEMENT DESIGN (MEPDG) IMPLEMENTATION

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED OUTFALL LOCATION CITY OF MORGAN S POINT DRAINAGE HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS REPORT NO

CHAPTER 4 GRADE SEPARATIONS AND INTERCHANGES

Pavement Design & Rehabilitation Manual October 19, 2007 Update

SECTION SOILS REPORT

LADOTD Construction Specifications: Parts II, III & IV MARK MORVANT, P.E. ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, RESEARCH

Micro-Surface Premature Distress SH 19 Hopkins County, Paris District

CHAPTER 2. Restricted Residential ½ Street** Design Speed 25 MPH 25 MPH 25 MPH 25 MPH 40 MPH 50 MPH 55 MPH

Pavement Management Data Proves SMA Mixes Last Longer

Implementation of the AASHTO Pavement Design Procedures into MULTI-PAVE

SECTION PAVEMENT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

ITEM 481 MONOLITHIC REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX SEWERS

Rehabilitation Recommendations for FM 97 in Gonzales County

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

Overview and Implementation Issues

Analysis of Paved Shoulder Width Requirements

Concrete Overlays in Texas

WILLMER ENGINEERING INC. Willmer Project No Prepared for. Clark Patterson Lee Suwanee, Georgia. Prepared by

May 2, Mr. Tim Kurmaskie, AIA ARCHITECT KURMASKIE ASSOCIATES, INC Washington Street Raleigh, NC

TxDOT Chip Seal Over Geotextile Fabric. Research Project

Pavement Design Catalogue Development for Pavements in Energy Affected Areas of Texas

Oklahoma Department of Transportation Environmental Programs Division Office Fax

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM. Rater s Manual FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 APR. 2009

SEAUPG ANNUAL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2013

Comparison of Three Methods of Pavement Design for Lexington-Fayette County

PART II. - SPECIFICATIONS AND DESIGN STANDARDS TO CITY OF HEWITT, TEXAS SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION [TEXT]

Pavement Design Overview. Rebecca S. McDaniel March 10, 2011

REPORT AECOM. December 24, Submitted to: AECOM 300 Water Street Whitby, ON L1N 9B6

EXISTING PAVEMENT EVALUATION

2015 North Dakota Asphalt Conference

WINPRES USER MANUAL. Version 1.0. Robert Lytton Professor Texas A&M University. Charles Aubeny Associate Professor Texas A&M University

PRE-REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) MEETING GENERAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT (GEC) FOR I-2/I-69C INTERCHANGE PHARR DISTRICT

Transcription:

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Background of Existing Facility 3 Proposed Work 4 Objective of this Report 4 Required Data 4 Pavement Design Procedure 5 Other Data Requirements 7 Pavement Structures 8 Pavement Drainage Analysis 10 Conclusion 10 Appendix A: Project Location Map 11 Appendix B: Existing Pavement Structure Typical Sections 13 Appendix C: TxDOT Rigid Pavement Policy 14 Appendix D: Annual Precipitation by Climatic Divisions 15 Appendix E: Pavement Management Information System Report and Base Maps 16 Appendix F: Traffic Analyses, from TP&P 17 Appendix G: The Existing Configuration of IH-635 18 Appendix H-1: Subgrade Soils Report for Pavement Design 19 Appendix H-2: Results of the Additional Subgrade Soils Investigation on the Extent of the Soluble sulfate Content 20 Appendix I: Dallas District Policy on Subgrade Potential Vertical Rise and On Required Minimum of 4 of HMAC base for Rigid Pavement 21 Appendix J: Results of DARWin Computations 22 Appendix K: Proposed Pavement Structure Typical Sections 23 2

Background of Existing Facility The reconstruction of IH-635 (LBJ Freeway) is approximately a twenty-mile roadway project that consists of two sections called the East section and the West Section. The overall location of the project is shown in Appendix A. The West section which is the subject of this report is approximately 8.81 miles, located in the cities of Dallas and Farmers Branch and consists of four CSJ s. This segment of LBJ Freeway was constructed in the late 1960 s to early 1970 s to serve as an outer loop freeway and provide mobility for the rapidly growing North Dallas and Farmers Branch areas. The existing facility within the limits of the West section consists of eight 12-foot mainlanes, two HOV lanes, two 10-ft outside shoulders as well as non-continuous frontage roads and a few auxiliary lanes. Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the existing pavement structures of the freeway. MAIN LANES FRONTAGE ROADS From Luna Rd To IH-35 Interchange Travel Lanes Pavement structure from top to bottom: - 10 Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) - 4 Asphalt Stabilized Base - 8 Lime Treated Subgrade Travel Lanes Pavement structure from top to bottom: - 9 Asphalt Concrete Pavement - 8 Lime Treated Subgrade Table 1 Pavement Structure of the Existing Facility From IH-35 Interchange To East of U-75 MAIN LANES FRONTAGE ROADS Travel Lanes Pavement structure from top to bottom: - 8 Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) - 6 Lime Treated Flexible Base - 6 Lime Treated Subgrade Travel Lanes Pavement structure from top to bottom: - 8 Uniform Concrete Pavement - 6 Lime Treated Flexible Base - 6 Lime Treated Subgrade Table 2 - Pavement Structure of the Existing Facility The existing typical sections of pavement structures for above segments are included in Appendix B. 3

Proposed Work The proposed roadway work for the West section of IH-635 that extends from West of Luna Rd to East of Park Central Drive (a segment of approximately 9 miles) consists of complete reconstruction of the existing facility. The proposed improvements include: Mainlane improvement; Addition of multiple HOV lanes in both directions from 0.5 miles East of Luna Rd to East of Josey Lane and from Hughes Lane to West of Coit Rd. Addition of two- and three-lane frontage roads to link the existing noncontinuous frontage roads in each direction; Reconstruction of the existing frontage roads to accommodate other corridor improvements; Removal of old ramps and construction of new ramps. Addition of two bored and cut-and-cover tunnels for managed HOV lanes from Midway Rd to Preston Rd. The pavement structure for use in these tunnels is beyond the scope of this study. The project generally follows the existing horizontal alignment of IH-635. The proposed vertical alignment will almost be completely modified in order to provide for current vertical curve design standards and vertical clearance standards. Objective of This Report The objective of this report is to present the rigid pavement design analysis used in developing the proposed pavement structure for the reconstruction of the West section of the LBJ freeway including its mainlanes, managed HOV lanes, frontage roads and ramps. Required Data The following inputs are required to determine the Design Thickness of the concrete pavement in inches: Effective Modules of Subgrade Reaction, k (pci) Concrete Elastic Modulus, E c (psi) Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture, S'c (psi) Load Transfer Coefficient, J Drainage Coefficient, C d Initial Serviceability Index Terminal Serviceability Index Reliability, (%) Overall Standard Deviation, S o Estimated Future Traffic, Total 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) Applications for the Performance Period Pavement Design Procedure 4

The required thicknesses of the concrete pavement for carrying the proposed traffic loads were determined by the use of DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System. This program is the automated version of the design procedure that is outlined in the AASHTO Guide for Design of Rigid Pavement Structures, 1993. The procedure is described in Part II, Chapter 3, Section 3.2 of the Guide. Selections of the pavement design parameters, required as input data for the DARWin program, were based on TxDOT Pavement Design Manual recommendations and rigid pavement policy. This information is shown in Appendix C. The following sections describe how various parameters were chosen: 1. Effective Modules of Subgrade Reaction, k (pci) A Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k of 300 pci is selected for this project per TxDOT Pavement Design Manual recommendation. 2. Concrete Elastic Modulus, E c (psi) It is anticipated that the coarse aggregate used in the concrete for this project will be crushed limestone. The resulting concrete Elastic Modulus will be 4,000,000 psi. This is in accordance with the Pavement Design Manual for rigid pavement provided by Construction Division of TxDOT, March 2001. Although the actual Elastic Modulus concrete could be different from this value, however, the end result will not have a significant effect on the slab thickness. 3. Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture, S'c (psi) The Modulus of Rupture is a measure of flexural strength of concrete as determined by breaking concrete beam specimens. Per TxDOT Pavement Design Manual a value of 650 psi is to be used with the current statewide specification for concrete pavement and standard detail drawings. 4. Load Transfer Coefficient, J This project will utilize load transfer devices at joints and will have more than two lanes in one direction; therefore based on Table 3-1, page 3-10 of TxDOT Pavement Design Manual the value of J will be 2.9. The table is included in Appendix C. 5. Drainage Coefficient, C d The guidelines suggested on Table 3-2, page 3-11 of the Pavement Design Manual are used to determine C d. Texas Almanac chart (presented in Appendix D) shows an annual rainfall of 36 inches in the project area. Therefore, the Drainage Coefficient, C d chosen is 1.02. 6. Serviceability Indices, SI Based on TxDOT Manual recommendation, an initial serviceability index of 4.5 and a terminal serviceability index of 2.5 is selected for this project. 7. Reliability, (%) 5

The reliability determination is made using Table 3-3, page 3-11 of the Pavement Design Manual. This project involves an urban interstate facility with controlled access and projected average daily traffic (ADT) per lane of more than 20,000. According to the table, a Reliability of 99.9% is recommended. However, considering the satisfactory condition of the existing pavement (Refer to Appendix E) a reliability of 95% would be justified. 8. Overall Standard Deviation A value of 0.39 is used for this project as recommended by TxDOT Pavement Design Manual for this type of roadway. 9. Traffic Analysis Report The traffic loading used to develop the pavement sections, for the mainlanes as well as the frontage roads, is based on the traffic analyses performed by TxDOT Transportation Planning and Programming Division. The traffic projections were determined according to a 30-year design period from 2010 to 2040, and were evaluated for 10-inch and 13-inch thick rigid pavement slabs. The traffic analyses report is presented in Appendix F. As described in the report, due to differences in traffic volumes, the project was divided into three sections namely 4, 5 and 6 for the West section. Table 3 shows the (average) total number of 18K Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) applications expected, in one direction, for each section and in terms of the existing configuration within the limits of LBJ West section. The existing configuration of the West Section is presented in Appendix G. CSJ SECTION LIMITS TOTAL NUMBER OF 18K ESAL APPLICATIONS FROM - TO Mainlanes Frontage Rd s 2374-07-046 6-5/Q Luna Rd E. End of BNSF RR 201,190,000 6,040,000 2374-01-032 5/P E. End of BNSF RR 198,134,000 9,022,000 Webb Chapel Road 2374-01-068 4/N,M,L Webb Chapel Road E. of DNT 255,570,000 20,832,000 Including 2374-01-136 2374-01-068 Including 2374-01-136 4/K E. of DNT E. of Park Central 314,123,000 19,769,000 Table 3 - Total Number of 18K Equivalent Single Axle Load Applications The LBJ Freeway within this section will have more than eight mainlanes and 5-6 frontage road lanes. Therefore, according to Table 3-4 of the TxDOT Pavement Design Manual a Lane Distribution Factor (LDF) of 0.6 and 0.8 is selected for the mainlanes and frontage road lanes respectively. The corresponding adjusted 18K ESAL applications are shown in Table 4. ADJUSTED 18K ESAL CSJ SECTION LIMITS APPLICATIONS 6

FROM - TO Mainlanes Frontage Roads 2374-07-046 6-5/Q Luna Rd E. End of BNSF RR 120,714,000 4,832,000 2374-01-032 5/P E. End of BNSF RR 118,880,400 7,217,600 2374-01-068 Including 2374-01-136 2374-01-068 Including 2374-01-136 Webb Chapel Road 4/N,M,L Webb Chapel Road E. of DNT 153,342,000 16,665,600 4/K E. of DNT E. of Park Central 188,473,800 15,815,200 Table 4 Adjusted Number of 18k Equivalent Single Axle Load Applications In this study no provisions for stage-construction are considered for the design of the proposed rigid pavement. Other Data Requirements In addition to the above data the following reports were also obtained and used for determining the total thickness of the new pavement structure and the condition of the existing concrete pavement: 1. District Laboratory Subgrade Soils Report This report (see Appendix H-1) was prepared by the Dallas District Laboratory. Seventeen soil borings were drilled within the limits of the project and several samples were obtained and tested to determine the in-situ soil properties and estimate the required depth of cover above the subgrade to limit the Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) to one inch. Dallas District policy on restricting subgrade PVR is presented in Appendix I. According to visual description and laboratory tests the District Lab determined that there are two types of subgrade soils within the limits of LBJ West Section, namely Type 1 and Type 2. Table 5 presents the extent of Type 1 and Type 2 soils in terms of the existing configuration within the limits of the LBJ West Section. SUBGRADE SOILS LIMITS TYPE 1 TYPE 2 CSJ FROM - TO CSJ FROM - TO Luna Rd E. End of BNSF RR Luna Rd 2374-07-046 (E.B.) 2374-07- E. End of BNSF E. End of BNSF RR 046 RR 2374-01-032 Webb Chapel Road (W.B.) 2374-01-68 E. of DNT E. of Park Central Table 5 - Extent of Type 1 and Type 2 soils 7

According to the as built plans Type 1 soil, which exists at borings 1 and 3 (westbound between Luna Rd and IH35E interchange) is actually the embankment materials placed underneath the existing pavement and does not represent the in-situ subgrade soil. The soil has a Texas Triaxial Class of 4.75 with a median plasticity index (PI) of 17. Type 2 soils which exist at boring 2 and between borings 4 and 17, have a Texas Triaxial Class of 6 and consist predominantly of brown sandy clay to clay with calcareous nodules (CH). The clays have a median PI of 37. In this report these soils are considered to be the existing natural subgrade for the entire project. Evidence of sulfate materials was visually identified in boring 8 (approximately 600 feet to the east of Webb Chapel Rd), between the depths of 2-3 feet. The results of the laboratory tests on the samples from this boring indicate that the soluble sulfate concentrations at the location of this borehole is more than 10,000 ppm. To determine the extent of the soluble sulfate, further subsurface explorations were conducted by drilling two additional boreholes (about ¼ of a mile in each direction from boring 8, and to a depth of ten feet) and collecting samples for visual inspection. The results of the investigations indicated no significant presence of sulfate materials in either borehole (refer to Appendix H-2). Therefore, based on the information provided by the Dallas district laboratory, it is the opinion of this report that if, within the limits of the West section, sulfate materials do exist it would be only localized and found in small pockets. 2. Pavement Management Information System (PMIS) Data and Base Maps PMIS data and base maps were obtained from the Dallas District Pavement Section to evaluate the condition of the existing pavement. The information is included in Appendix E. The following conclusions have been drawn from the PMIS data and Base Maps: Distress Score- about 25% Very Poor to Fair and about 75% Good to Very Good Ride Score- about 20% Fair and about 80% Good Condition Score- about 25% Poor to Fair and about 75% Good to Very Good Based on the above information and the fact that the freeway was constructed more than 30 years ago, conclusions could be drawn that the condition and the performance of the existing concrete pavement within the West section of the LBJ freeway is satisfactory. Pavement Structures The results of the DARWin software program, using the above required data, are included in Appendix J. The required thickness of concrete slabs for the mainlanes and the frontage roads are summarized in Table 6. 8

CSJ SUBGRADE SOIL TYPE LIMITS FROM - TO CONCRETE THICKNESS (in) Main Frontage Lanes Roads 2374-07-046 (1=Fill), 2 Luna Rd E. End of BNSF RR 14.40 8.61 2374-01-032 2 E. End of BNSF RR Webb Chapel Road 14.36 9.21 2374-01-068 2 Webb Chapel Road E. of DNT 14.93 10.57 2374-01-068 2 E. of DNT E. of Park Central 15.40 10.48 Table 6 Required Thickness of Concrete for the mainlanes and the frontage roads Based on these results and TxDOT rigid pavement policy (Appendix C) requiring the use of a minimum of four inches of hot mix asphalt concrete (HMAC) under concrete pavement the following pavement structures are proposed: Main Lanes, HOV lanes and shoulders A 15-inch CRCP slab with 4 inches of HMAC base is proposed for pavement structures for the mainlanes, managed HOV lanes and shoulder. This project is located within a controlled access facility. The District policy, shown in Appendix I, requires the PVR to be restricted to 1.0 inch on this class of roadways. Based on the PMIS information the overall condition of the pavement structure within the segment that Type 1 soil exists is fair to good. Therefore, it is recommended that the top 6-12 inches of this material be lime stabilized with 4% lime (by weight) for further improving the condition of the soil, and also for providing a firm platform for facilitating construction. For Type 2 soils, according to the District Laboratory soil report, the total depth of cover must be at least 38 inches to restrict the PVR to one inch. Therefore, in the fill sections, whereas most contractors have machines that will mix lime 12 inches deep, a minimum of 7 inches of suitable fill materials must be provided to fulfill the minimum 38-inch cover and the PVR requirements. In the cut sections since, in most cases, stabilizing the existing subgrade with lime is less expensive than bringing in select borrows it is recommended temporarily removing the top 7 inches, lime stabilizing 12 inches of the existing subgrade, and then replacing and lime stabilizing the top 7 inches. As recommended by the soil report Type 2 soils shall be mixed with 6% lime (by weight). Also, although very localized, if any soluble sulfate concentrations of greater than 2000 ppm (the maximum permissible) is encountered during the construction the subgrade at that location must be removed and replaced with suitable fill materials. Ramps The ramps for controlled access facilities are typically designed to have the same sections as the mainlanes. Therefore, the ramps for this project will have the same pavement structure as the mainlanes. 9

Frontage Roads A 9-inch CRCP with 4 inches of HMAC base is proposed for the segment between Luna Road and Webb Chapel Road. For the segment between Webb Chapel Road and E. of Park Central an 11-inch CRCP with 4 inches of HMAC base is recommended. As indicated in the soil report for type 2 soils (that are the existing natural subgrade of the frontage roads) the required depth of better material must be 22 inches to limit the PVR to 1.5 inches. Therefore, a minimum depth of 6 inches of lime stabilization is recommended for fulfilling the minimum 22-inch cover and the PVR requirements. This would also serve as a firm platform for facilitating construction. Again, if any soluble sulfate concentrations of greater than 2000 ppm is encountered the subgrade at that location must be removed and replaced with suitable fill materials. For all embankments, associated with the pavement structures, suitable fill material with plasticity index between 8 and 40 should be specified. As suggested in the District laboratory report the backfill materials for bridge abutments should be restricted to select fill with plasticity index between 10 and 25. All embankments shall be compacted using moisture and density controlled method. To avoid destabilizing the existing subgrade it is recommended that the existing pavement remain in place and be overlaid with fill and pavement materials for the fill sections. This strategy will also contribute to cost benefits as far as removals and subgrade stabilization are concerned. The typical sections of pavement structures for the mainlanes, managed HOV lanes, shoulders, ramps and frontage roads (corresponding to the above cases) are shown in Appendix K. It should be noted that these sections are for pavement structure layers illustration only and they do not represent the proposed roadway typical sections. Pavement Drainage Analysis The pavement will be drained by a network of storm sewer systems, and within a few short stretches, by side ditches. Ramps and connectors will be drained over the sides of the embankments and along the side ditches into the storm sewer systems. Positive drainage, as a whole, is not expected to be a problem because the project will extensively render increased impervious surface, and it will be constructed in a controlled drainage environment. Conclusion This pavement design is based on the available data and the currently accepted practices which indicate that the methods employed are considered to be sound approaches to providing the performance required for the facility. 10

Appendix A PROJECT LOCATION MAP 11

DNT I.H. 635 (LBJ) Corridor Study na Road End at Valley View / SH 161 PGBT I.H. 635 (LBJ) I.H. 35E LUNA WEST SECTION BELT LINE U.S. 75 EAST SECTION S.H. 78 RD BELT LINE LOOP 12 GARLAND I.H. 30 I.H. 35E U.S. 75 / I.H. 635 Interchange (The Dallas High Five) Under Construction CBD I.H.30 I.H. 635 (LBJ) U.S. 80 12

Appendix B EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE TYPICAL SECTIONS 13

Appendix C TxDOT RIGID PAVEMENT POLICY 14

Appendix D ANNUAL PRECIPITATION BY CLIMATIC DIVISIONS 15

Appendix E PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (PMIS) REPORT AND BASE MAPS 16

Appendix F TRAFFIC ANALYSES, FROM TP&P 17

Appendix G THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION OF IH-635 18

Appendix H-1 SUBGRADE SOILS REPORT FOR PAVEMENT DESIGN 19

Appendix H-2 RESULTS OF THE ADDITIONAL SUBGRADE SOILS INVESTIGATION ON THE EXTENT OF THE SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT 20

Appendix I DISTRICT POLICY ON RESTRICTING SOIL POTENTIAL VERTICAL RISE (PVR) AND ON REQUIRED MINIMUM OF 4 OF HMAC BASE FOR RIGID PAVEMENT 21

Appendix J RESULTS OF DARWin COMPUTATIONS 22

Appendix K PROPOSED PAVEMENT STRUCTURE TYPICAL SECTIONS 23