Prestressed Pavement Rehabilitation

Transcription

1 Prestressed Pavement Rehabilitation FINAL REPORT June 23, 2009 By Shelley M. Stoffels, Andrea J. Schokker, Hao Yin, Vishal Singh, Lin Yeh and Maria Lopez de Murphy The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT No PROJECT No. PSU-015

2

3 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient s Catalog No. FHWA-PA PSU Title and Subtitle Prestressed Pavement Rehabilitation 5. Report Date June 23, Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) Shelley M. Stoffels, Andrea J. Schokker, Hao Yin, Vishal Singh, Lin Yeh and Maria Lopez de Murphy 8. Performing Organization Report No. PTI Performing Organization Name and Address The Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute The Pennsylvania State University 201 Transportation Research Building University Park, PA Sponsoring Agency Name and Address The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bureau of Planning and Research Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, 6 th Floor Harrisburg, PA Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 11. Contract or Grant No , PSU Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report 1/7/20 11/7/ Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes COTR: Ed Stoltz, Abstract In 1989, a landmark pavement project was opened to traffic in Blair County, Pennsylvania, that received national attention. The pavement was a two-mile section of prestressed concrete pavement that was constructed on the northbound lanes of what is now Interstate 99. The pavement has now started to show signs of distress, including transverse cracks, longitudinal cracks, spalling, and seal failure at the armored contraction joints. In addition, there are signs of shoulder separation and some localized subgrade failure. However, the ride quality of the pavement is still very good. Due to the uniqueness of this pavement section, and the lack nationally of any other similar sections in terms of design and age, traditional rehabilitation and overlay options are not necessarily directly applicable. The objective of this project was to develop recommendations for feasible rehabilitation strategies for the prestressed concrete pavement on I-99 in Blair County. As part of the work, the expected design lives and cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated. 17. Key Words Pavement, prestressed concrete, distress, rehabilitation, design life 18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 240 Form DOT F (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

4 This work was sponsored by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of either the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at the time of publication. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION FIELD DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES AND SOURCES CONSULTED...50 APPENDIX A: DISTRESS MAPS APPENDIX B: CONDITION SURVEY TABULATIONS APPENDIX C: VISUAL CONDITION PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX D: BACKCALCULATED MODULUS VALUES APPENDIX E: LOAD TRANSFER RESULTS APPENDIX F: PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT THICKNESS CALCULATIONS APPENDIX G: LCCA PRINTOUTS APPENDIX H: ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN DETAILS v

6

7 1. INTRODUCTION Scope In 1989, a landmark pavement project was opened to traffic in Blair County, Pennsylvania, that received national attention. The pavement was a two-mile section of prestressed concrete pavement that was constructed on the northbound lanes of what is now Interstate 99. The pavement has now started to show signs of distress, including transverse cracks, longitudinal cracks, spalling, and seal failure at the armored contraction joints. In addition, there are signs of shoulder separation and some localized subgrade failure. However, the ride quality of the pavement is still very good. Due to the uniqueness of this pavement section, and the lack nationally of any other similar sections in terms of design and age, traditional rehabilitation and overlay options are not necessarily directly applicable. The objective of this project was to develop recommendations for feasible rehabilitation strategies for the prestressed concrete pavement on I-99 in Blair County. As part of the work, the expected design lives and costeffectiveness of the strategies were evaluated. Pavement History and Characteristics Design Features The two-mile section of prestressed pavement was constructed in November 1988 along a section of U.S. 220 in Blair County in Pennsylvania. That pavement section is now part of I-99 and is in the northbound lanes of a four-lane divided highway. The 31,411-sq-yd prestressed pavement is 24 ft wide and 7 inches thick. Active joints are spaced at 400 ft, with 396 ft of main slab and 4 ft of gap slab. Details about the design and construction were obtained from the project design documents as well as from a research report resulting from extensive testing and instrumentation done near the time of construction (Okamoto, 19). 1

8 The outside tied concrete shoulder is 7 inches thick and 10 ft wide. The inside tied concrete shoulder is 7 inches thick and 4 ft wide. The cross section of the prestressed pavement consists of the following (from top down): 7-in-thick prestressed pavement 2 layers of 6-mil polyethylene sheets 5-in-thick lean concrete base (LCB) course 3-in-thick open-graded subbase 3-in-thick dense-graded subbase Natural compacted subgrade The minimum compressive strength for class AA concrete for the prestressed pavement was specified to be 3,000 psi at 7 days and 3,750 psi at 28 days. The following prestressing details for the encased tendons were used: 7-wire strand, grade 270 ksi (stress relieved or low-relaxation steel) Strand diameter: 0.6 inch Strand spacing: 18 inch No of tendons: 15 Ultimate strength of strand: 58.6 kip Stressing load (80% of ultimate): 46.9 kip Tendon placement: 0.5 inch below mid-depth To guard against corrosion, the tendons were made with a special extrusion coating process. Each seven-wire steel tendon was encased in grease and then coated with seamless polypropylene sheath 0.06 inch thick. To accommodate large horizontal movements, steel channels were used to protect the slab ends, with stainless steel dowels crossing the joints to transfer vertical loads. To avoid early shrinkage cracks, each main slab was stressed in three stages. One-third of the design stress was applied when test cylinders showed compressive strength of 1,000 psi. Two-thirds stress was applied when the concrete reached 2,500 psi, and full stress was applied at 3,750 psi. 2

9 Problems During Construction As might be anticipated during such a unique project, several problems developed during construction. The polyethylene sheets developed wrinkles as concrete was spread across them. One of the 480 tendons failed during stressing, possibly because of misaligned wedges at the tendon anchor. Stress was transferred smoothly to the gap slabs at most tendons, but some of the permanent anchors failed to hold. This may have been because of concrete leaking into anchors. The problem was compounded when workers burned away several anchors in an attempt to relieve stress at the temporary face. The anchors were repaired by cutting away part of the gap slab. Broken tendons were replaced with 5/8-inch tendons pulled through the existing sheathing with the old tendon. Dowel expansion caps were damaged, and the ends were drilled after concrete placement to allow for the expansion. Early Condition Assessments and Observations Falling Weight Deflectometer Test Results Falling weight deflectometer (FWD) data were used to calculate deflection load transfer efficiency and estimate modulus of subgrade reaction. The joint efficiency was calculated at each joint at the center of the truck lane. The effective modulus of subgrade reaction was backcalculated for each slab at stations 2+00 and The full results are listed in the 19 research report (Okamoto, 19). A brief summary from that report is provided in Table 1. Condition Surveys Condition surveys were performed in April and August 1989, and again in 1990 and 19. The 1989 and 1990 surveys were summarized by Okamoto (19). The 19 survey was provided 3

10 by PennDOT District 9. The 19 survey was used as a reference to observe subsequent changes in condition, as discussed in a later section and shown in Appendices A and B. The predominant observed distresses were longitudinal cracks, generally over prestressing tendons. Some transverse cracks were also recorded. Table 1. Summary of falling weight deflectometer testing in September 1989 (Okamoto, 19). Subgrade Support (pci) Joint Efficiency (%) Minimum Maximum Range Average Standard Deviation 50 9 Effective Prestress at One Year Analysis of instrumentation data at 8 months indicated a long-term creep and drying shrinkage prestress loss of 27 psi. This produces an effective midslab prestress loss of 27 psi, resulting in an effective midslab prestress of 74 and 202 psi for slab 1 and slab 2, respectively. This assumes that no loss due to steel relaxation had yet taken place. Joint Width Measurements indicated that for the prestressed pavement the joint width changes were approximately 83 percent of those calculated. The measured change in width (movement) between August 1989 and March 1990 measurements averaged approximately 1.2 inches. 4

11 2. FIELD DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The field data collection included a visual distress survey, falling weight deflectometer testing, and Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer (PSPA) testing. All three activities were conducted in April 20. Field Investigation Location Referencing The prestressed pavement section is on the northbound lanes of I-99. For convenience, the inspection and testing procedures were conducted from south to north. The slabs were also numbered from south to north, and designated as slab 1 to slab 26. To assist in identification of testing and analysis locations within each slab, testing was referenced by distance from south to north, from 0 ft at the south joint to 400 ft at the north joint. Testing was also referenced by transverse position in the slab, such as corner or wheelpath positions. Distress Survey The distress survey included the preparation of a detailed map of cracks and other distresses. Measurements of width and faulting were taken at cracks and joints, as appropriate. The detailed distress maps are included in Appendix A, Figure A (key) and Figures A-1 through A-26. These figures include the distresses shown on the maps from the 19 distress survey, as well as the additional/different distresses observed in 20. Appendix B provides tabulated details of the distress and faulting measurements. The distresses in Appendix B were referenced to the original construction stationing, in order to correspond to the distress surveys conducted soon after construction. The starting and ending stations for each slab are cross-referenced with the distances used for other testing. Appendix C presents additional photographs from the visual survey. While some new cracks have appeared and propagated, the majority of the cracking has simply experienced some spalling and deterioration since the early surveys. The photographs in Figures 5

12 1 and 2 illustrate fairly typical high-severity longitudinal cracking. Although the tendon coating is visible, and the sealant out in some locations, the tendons appear to be undamaged. Localized subsidence near slab 17 had been previously observed and repaired by PennDOT District 9 engineers. Subsealing has improved the ride, but subsidence is still evident. In any rehabilitation alternative, special repairs and attention would be needed for this section of the prestressed pavement. Figure 1. Longitudinal cracking that extends across a number of slabs. This crack was present at the time of the early distress surveys. 6

13 Figure 2. Deteriorated longitudinal crack, with tendon coating visible. Also observed during the distress survey were significant amounts of vertical displacement of the transverse shoulder joints. The lane-shoulder joints at and near the mainline transverse joints were principally affected. It is inferred that the cause of the vertical displacement is not the typical faulting mechanism, but rather an interaction between the plain shoulder slabs and the prestressed mainline slabs, resulting in the apparent faulting or heaving. There is also separation of the lane-shoulder joints near the transverse joints. Figure 3 shows an occurrence of such vertical displacement on the shoulder joint between slabs 8 and 9. 7

14 Figure 3. Severe vertical displacement of the shoulder joint between mainline slabs 8 and 9. Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing The FWD testing was conducted by the PennDOT Bureau of Maintenance and Operations, with project staff on site. The Dynatest falling weight deflectometer was utilized for the testing, and time history data were collected. Temperature measurements were also recorded during the course of the testing. The following approximate load sequence was performed for each test position, for a total of nine drops at each test position: 8

15 Seating load 15,000 lb 1 drop First load level 6,000 lb 2 drops Second load level 9,000 lb 2 drops Third load level 12,000 lb 2 drops Fourth load level 15,000 lb 2 drops Testing was conducted at three interior locations per slab, at 100 ft and 300 ft from the slab approach joint, and at two transverse positions, as illustrated in Figure 4. Load transfer testing was performed at all transverse joints, and on the longitudinal lane/shoulder joints. Testing at the slab corners was also performed. Travel Direction 400 ft Both joints Wheel Path CL Travel Lane FWD test for backcalculation FWD test for load transfer Figure 4. FWD test layout for each prestressed slab. FWD Data Examination For each FWD test, the data were plotted and examined, as shown in Figure 5. By examining the full history of the load pulse and the deflection responses, anomalies can be detected. This can 9

16 prevent erroneous data from being included in the analysis. The slight buffering during the increase of the load application is typical of the Dynatest FWD and was observed for most locations. In general, the data from this site were well behaved. The few drops with problems were not used in the subsequent analysis D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Load Figure 5. Example of time series graph, showing load pulse and deflection sensor responses, slab 1. Backcalculation of Layer Moduli Backcalculation was performed for all center slab and wheel path locations, considering five pavement layers. Several potential layer configurations were tested to achieve the best consistent convergence and modulus stability. The layers assumed for the reported backcalculated moduli were: Prestressed concrete layer 7 inches 10

17 Lean concrete base 5 inches Subbase 6 inches (two subbase layers were combined together) Upper subgrade layer 6 inches (The top 6 inches of the subgrade was taken as a separate layer.) Subgrade layer The program used for backcalculation was BAKFAA, developed and distributed by the Federal Aviation Administration. The program is based upon layered elastic analysis and is designed to work effectively for both flexible and rigid pavements. The user interface for the program is shown in Figure 6. The program allows for seven sensors to be used in the backcalculation. Backcalculated results from all layered-elastic programs can be sensitive to the number and spacing of sensors, depending upon the thickness and stiffness of the pavement layers. Therefore, various combinations of the available sensors were utilized to determine the most consistent assumptions for backcalculation. In addition, the interface friction parameter between layers was varied, again to find the values that provided the best convergence. Figure 6. BAKFAA user interface and typical inputs. 11

18 The results were evaluated on the basis of the backcalculated modulus values of the prestressed concrete, upper subgrade and subgrade layers. Backcalculated values were categorized on the basis of minimum modulus values across all load levels for the test location. Potential areas of concern included the following: Backcalculated values for the prestressed concrete were less than 4 million psi for four test locations in slab 3, slab 8, slab 15, and slab 17. Of these test locations, those in slabs 3 and 15 had backcalculated values of approximately 2.5 million psi. These locations should be noted for localized investigation. Slab 4, slab 14, slab 16, slab 18, and slab 24 had locations with subgrade backcalculated values less than 20,000 psi. Slab 2, slab 4, slab 15, slab 22, and slab 26 had locations with upper subgrade backcalculated values less than 10,000 psi. Upper subgrade backcalculated values for other locations were typically between 20,000 psi and 40,000 psi. Slab 4 had low modulus values for both the subgrade and upper subgrade. Areas with the highest backcalculated modulus values were as follows: Slab 8, slab 9, slab 10, slab 11, slab 12, slab 13, slab 20, and slab 21 had locations with subgrade backcalculated values more than 50,000 psi. Slab 21 had a subgrade backcalculated value of more than 70,000 psi. Slab 1, slab 4, slab 5, slab 21, slab 22, slab 23, and slab 25 had prestressed concrete backcalculated moduli of more than 8 million psi. Observational correlation with the distress survey showed that these test locations were not in highly cracked areas. Overall, it was found that the backcalculated moduli provided a general indication that substantial tendon prestress remained in most tested locations. Locations with lower moduli 12

19 corresponded with observed distresses. With the exception of only 10 tested locations, the upper subgrade backcalculated moduli exceeded 20,000 psi, and should provide good support for rehabilitation. More detailed summary tabulations of the backcalculated moduli are included in Appendix D. Load Transfer Calculations The falling weight deflectometer data were also utilized to examine the load transfer across joints. The load transfer value is very important to the consideration of the deterioration of the pavement and to the progression of roughness. Load transfer was calculated using the deflection from the sensor on the unloaded side of the joint divided by the deflection at the sensor on the loaded side of the joint. In addition, corrected load transfer was calculated, considering the deflection sensor further away from the joint on the loaded side, but equidistant from the load. Corrected load transfer values are higher, and on some pavements with very stiff joints may exceed 100 percent. Brief summaries of the load transfer values are included here. Further tabulations are provided in Appendix E. Load Transfer at Mainline Transverse Joint Corners Load transfer calculations were performed for the corner FWD drops, for the transverse mainline joints. Corner load transfer calculations often produce the lowest values, as slab corners typically are the most subject to curling, warping, sealant damage, erosion, etc. The corner load transfer values were categorized on the basis of average normal load transfer values of all load levels, with key summarized observations as follows. (Joint 2 3 means that LT is being calculated from slab 2 to slab 3, for example. The first slab number represents the location of the load plate.) 13

20 Only the test locations at slab 1 (joint 1 0), slab 2 (joint 2 3), slab 17 (joint 17 18), slab 21 (joint 21 22), slab 22 (joint 22 21), and slab 24 (joint 24 25) had calculated deflection load transfer values greater than 70 percent. The load transfer values for slab 1 (joint 1 2), slab 2 (joint 2 1), slab 3 (joint 3 4), slab 4 (joint 4 3), slab 7 (joint 7 8), and slab 11 (joint 11 10) were less than 20 percent. The low load transfer values were not anticipated on the mainline transverse joints. The transfer through the lean concrete base was expected to provide a significant level of load transfer. However, no differential performance problems or faulting were observed at the transverse joints with poor load transfer. Lane/Shoulder Joint Load Transfer Load transfer testing and calculations were performed for a number of lane/shoulder joint locations, sometimes exceeding the number of locations shown in Figure 3. The results are summarized as follows. Slab 3, slab 4, slab 18, slab 20, slab 21, slab 22, slab 23, slab 25, and slab 26 had tested locations with lane/shoulder load transfer values greater than 80 percent. Slab 2, slab 4, slab 7, slab 8, slab 9, slab 10, slab 11, slab 12, and slab 13 had tested locations with lane/shoulder load transfer values less than 20 percent. The remainder of the tested locations had lane/shoulder load transfer values between 20 and 80 percent. The locations of poor load transfer do indicate a greater potential for initiation of reflection cracking for overlay rehabilitation options. However, no surface distress correlations were currently observed. 14

21 Void Detection Calculations When a slab is fully supported, with no curling, warping or erosion, the magnitude of deflection typically increases linearly with load, from a load of zero. If gaps are present between the slab and underlying layer, a regression line through different load levels will indicate a positive intercept at zero load. This indicates that much less load is needed to cause deflection under such poorly supported circumstances. Examination of the load-deflection plots can also show nonlinear behavior of the pavement structure. The results for all corner tests are provided in Table 2. With the possible exception of the initial terminal joint, no voids were detected. Table 2. Analysis of corner deflections for possible voids. Slab Intercept (mils) Joint Void/ Potential Stress Softening Behavior Possible Void Stress Softening Stress Softening

22 Slab Intercept (mils) Joint Void/ Potential Stress Softening Behavior Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer Testing Within the last decade, nondestructive test (NDT) methods have become popular for the assessment of existing pavement conditions. Because of the effects of temperature, moisture, and traffic on pavement materials, knowledge of the in-situ material properties of pavement layers is essential for evaluating the effective structural capacity of the pavement and selecting an appropriate rehabilitation strategy. The Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer, as shown in Figure 7, is a device designed to determine the modulus of the top pavement layer in real-time. The PSPA consists of two receivers (accelerometers) and source packaged into a hand-portable system that can perform high-frequency seismic tests. Figure 7. Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer (PSPA). 16

23 The analysis method implemented in the PSPA is called the ultrasonic surface waves (USW) method. As surface waves contain most of the seismic energy, the USW method utilizes the surface wave energy to determine the variation in modulus with wavelength. At wavelengths less than or equal to the thickness of the uppermost layer, the velocity of propagation is independent of wavelength. The relationship amongst velocity, V R, travel time, Δt, and receiver spacing, ΔX, can be written in the following form: V R ΔX = (1) Δt Therefore, if one simply generates high-frequency (short-wavelength) waves, and if one assumes that the properties of the uppermost layer are uniform, the shear wave velocity of the upper layer, V S, can be calculated from surface wave velocity, V R, and Poisson's ratio, υ. Then the elastic modulus of the top layer, E, can be determined from mass density, ρ. V S = V R ( υ ) E [( υ ) V ] 2 2ρ(1 + υ) s (2) = (3) To collect data with a PSPA, the operator initiates the testing sequence through the computer. The high-frequency source is activated four to six times. The outputs of the two receivers from the last three impacts are saved and averaged (stacked). The other (pre-recording) impacts are used to adjust the gains of the amplifiers. The gains are set in a manner that optimizes the dynamic range. The PSPA testing was conducted by the Penn State research team at the same time that FWD measurements were conducted. A prior study found that the variation of PSPA data collected within a small area (3 ft 2 ) can be up to 10 percent. Therefore, it was desirable to perform PSPA tests at three locations that were within a reasonable range (less than 1 ft) from each FWD testing location. The PSPA measurements were repeated at least three times for each PSPA testing location. 17

24 The PSPA results were analyzed to obtain the effective seismic moduli at all testing locations. An overall modulus was determined for each specific location. Those moduli are shown in Tables 3 through 5, for the lane-shoulder testing locations, the wheelpath testing locations, and the center slab locations, respectively. Table 3. PSPA results from lane-shoulder testing locations. Slab No Testing Location (ft) Seismic Modulus of Prestressed Concrete (MPa) 18

25 Slab No Testing Location (ft) Seismic Modulus of Prestressed Concrete (MPa)

26 Slab No Testing Location (ft) Seismic Modulus of Prestressed Concrete (MPa) Table 4. PSPA results from wheelpath testing locations. Slab No Testing Location (ft) Seismic Modulus of Prestressed Concrete (MPa)

27 Slab No Testing Location (ft) Seismic Modulus of Prestressed Concrete (MPa) Table 5. PSPA Results from Center Slab Testing Locations Slab No Testing Location (ft) Seismic Modulus of Prestressed Concrete (MPa)

28 Slab No Testing Location (ft) Seismic Modulus of Prestressed Concrete (MPa) The seismic modulus values obtained along the length of the prestressed pavement section are shown in Figure 8. The PSPA modulus values are given in MPa, as those are the output units of the device s output software. The values of the FWD backcalculated moduli and the seismic moduli have not been converted to compatible units, as the underlying assumptions under each are different. The seismic moduli do provide an independent means of assessing the variability of the concrete condition. Examination of Figure 8 shows that when lower values of seismic modulus occurred, the occurrences were in the wheelpath and center positions. The lower moduli may correlate to damage, but also may correlate to interference from the tendon channels. Figures 9 through 11 show the variation of seismic modulus with depth in the pavement. The interface between the prestressed slab and the underlying concrete is clearly discernible in all three plots. In Figure 9, the results of testing near the lane-shoulder joint on slabs 1 and 4 are illustrated. The seismic modulus profile for the prestressed slab is similar for both locations. There is a greater variation in the modulus of the lean concrete. Similarly, in Figure 10, greater variation is apparent for the lean concrete base. In Figure 11, the results are plotted for a center slab location in slab

29 32000 Seismic Modulus, MPa Lane- Shoulder Wheelpath Center Distance, ft Figure 8. Comparison of seismic moduli from testing locations. Seismic Modulus, MPa Prestressed-Lean Interface Depth, mm Slab 1, 397 ft Slab 4, 75 ft 300 Figure 9. Lane-shoulder seismic modulus profiles. 23

30 50 Seismic Modulus, MPa Prestressed-Lean Interface Depth, mm Slab 17, 200 ft Slab 18, 200 ft 300 Figure 10. Wheelpath seismic modulus profiles. 50 Seismic Modulus, MPa Prestressed-Lean Interface Depth, mm Slab 25, 300 ft 300 Figure 11. Center slab seismic modulus profile. 24

31 Mapping of Areas of Concern from the Field Investigations and Analyses The detailed observations from the field investigations and analyses are included in the appendices, and were briefly summarized in the preceding sections. The distress quantities were directly used in estimating quantities for the subsequent life-cycle cost analysis. To further identify potential areas of concern, a schematic map was prepared, as shown in figures 12 and 13. Below the representation of each slab, a summary of the most severe distresses is shown, including the number of moderate- and high-severity cracks, and the number of locations with faulting greater than or equal to 0.5 inch. The map revealed no concentrated areas of problems, but rather a spread of the different potential concerns across the pavement sections. BM C BM S LT SC LT L/S V SM Low Backcalculated Concrete Modulus Low Backcalculated Subgrade Modulus Low Load Transfer at Slab Corner Low Load Transfer at Slab/Shoulder Joint Potential Void Low Concrete Seismic Modulus Figure 12. Key to schematic map of field investigation potential problem findings. 25

32 Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Joint 0/1 Joint 1/2 Slab 1 Slab 2 Slab 3 Joint 2/3 BM C Joint 3/4 V Outside Shoulder LT SC LT SC LT SC LT L/S Outside Shoulder Outside Shoulder No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 0 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 1 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 0 Locations of Faulting: 0 Locations of Faulting: 0 Locations of Faulting: 0 Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Joint 3/4 BM S Joint 4/5 Slab 4 Slab 5 Slab 6 Joint 5/6 Joint 6/7 LT SC LT L/S Outside Shoulder Outside Shoulder Outside Shoulder No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 0 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 0 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 0 Locations of Faulting: 0 Locations of Faulting: 0 Locations of Faulting: 0 Figure 13. Schematic map of field investigation potential problem findings. 26

33 Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Joint 6/7 Joint 7/8 BM C Slab 7 Slab 8 Slab 9 Joint 8/9 Joint 9/10 LT SC Outside Shoulder Outside Shoulder LT L/S LT L/S LT L/S Outside Shoulder No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 1 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 0 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 0 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 0 Locations of Faulting: 0 Locations of Faulting: 0 Locations of Faulting: 0 Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Joint 9/10 Joint 10/11 Slab 10 Slab 11 Slab 12 Joint 11/12 Joint 12/13 LT SC Outside Shoulder Outside Shoulder LT L/S LT L/S LT L/S Outside Shoulder No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 1 No. High Severity Cracks: 1 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 5 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 7 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 2 Locations of Faulting: 0 Locations of Faulting: 2 Locations of Faulting: 3 Figure 13. Schematic map of field investigation findings (continued). 27

34 Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Joint 12/13 Joint 13/14 BM S Slab 13 Slab 14 Slab 15 Joint 14/15 BM C Joint 15/16 LT L/S Outside Shoulder Outside Shoulder Outside Shoulder No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 1 No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 4 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 2 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 2 Locations of Faulting: 0 Locations of Faulting: 1 Locations of Faulting: 0 Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Joint 15/16 BM S Joint 16/17 BM C Slab 16 Slab 17 Slab 18 Subsurface Support Joint 17/18 BM S Joint 18/19 Outside Shoulder Outside Shoulder Outside Shoulder No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 1 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 2 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 3 Locations of Faulting: 0 Locations of Faulting: 1 Locations of Faulting: 2 Figure 13. Schematic map of field investigation findings (continued). 28

35 Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Joint 18/19 Joint 19/20 SM Slab 19 Slab 20 Slab 21 Joint 20/21 SM Joint 21/22 Outside Shoulder Outside Shoulder Outside Shoulder No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 2 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 1 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 1 Locations of Faulting: 2 Locations of Faulting: 4 Locations of Faulting: 2 Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Joint 21/22 Joint 22/23 Slab 22 Slab 23 Slab 24 Joint 23/24 BM S Joint 24/25 Outside Shoulder Outside Shoulder Outside Shoulder No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 1 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 1 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 1 Locations of Faulting: 1 Locations of Faulting: 0 Locations of Faulting: 1 Figure 13. Schematic map of field investigation findings (continued). 29

36 Inside Shoulder Inside Shoulder Joint 24/25 Joint 25/26 SM Slab 25 Slab 26 Outside Shoulder Outside Shoulder No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. High Severity Cracks: 0 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 2 No. Moderate Severity Cracks: 3 Locations of Faulting: 2 Locations of Faulting: 1 Figure 13. Schematic map of field investigation findings (continued). 30

37 3. FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives were considered for potential performance considerations and costeffectiveness. The potential alternatives were finalized in communication with PennDOT to ensure feasibility in terms of the overall project location. For all rehabilitation alternatives, slab 17 must be repaired as described under Alternative A. The shoulders must also be repaired at the joints for the rehabilitation alternatives. Alternative Scenarios Alternative A: Rehabilitation of Prestressed Pavement and Shoulders This alternative includes localized repairs, including repair or reconstruction recommendations for the area with underlying/subgrade problems. It also includes replacing Neoprene seals in the armoured joints, resealing/filling of cracks, resealing longitudinal and shoulder transverse joints, and grinding and routing of joints and roughness as appropriate. In the area of slab 17, some settlement and depression had occurred due to underlying subgrade subsidence/drainage problems. Previous repairs have included slab jacking with high-density foam. More extensive repairs are recommended for longer-term stability of the section, and full-width pavement removal is anticipated in a limited area. In order to repair this area, full-depth removal is recommended for approximately 100 ft. A schematic plan and cross-section of the repair area is shown in figure 14. In order to safely accomplish this excavation, the tension must first be released from the tendons in that 100-ft area, while maintaining tension in the remaining extent of the slab. After concrete removal, the underlying subgrade area should be evaluated and tested in order to determine the cause of the local subsidence. After the underlying problem is corrected, the concrete must be replaced with a fulldepth repair, and the tendons must be spliced and retensioned. The old tendons should be left in place in the remaining portion of the slab, and extended with new tendons with a splice (this 31

38 includes splicing hardware for the steel strand with a protective coating and sheath) in the area of the repair. The repair area would then be cast as usual with the tendon in place, re-establishing the transverse joint and using the same construction techniques as for the original construction (as shown in Appendix H), except using threaded anchors at the temporary jacking face instead of the jacking bridge detail shown in the original plans. This would include recasting the gap slab (jacking) area as part of the repair. The spliced length will provide the new anchor and needed length to re-stress the spliced tendon. Care should be taken during the jacking procedure since the present capacity and condition of the old tendon are not fully known. The jacking force should be restricted to the minimum needed to satisfy the compression needed in the slab, to reduce the chance of wire fracture or a full break of the existing length of tendon. The gap slab and gap slab joint should be replaced using construction details from the plan for LR 1061, Section B01, found in Appendix H. A schematic of the prestress transfer to the gap slab is shown in figure 15. a. Plan view. b. Cross-section. Figure 14. Schematic plan view and cross-section for recommended repair of slab

39 Figure 15. Threaded anchor for transfer of prestress from temporary jacking face to gap slab joint. A summary description of tendon detensioning and splicing of tendons is included here. Detensioning of tendons should be done by an experienced team in a safe and controlled manner with adequate safety precautions. An experienced team may take additional safety precautions beyond those mentioned here. The following steps should be followed to transfer the post-tensioning to the 300-ft section. First, excavate concrete carefully to expose the tendon to be detensioned. Then, a lock-off device (figure 16) should be installed with a bearing plate to bear against the non-disturbed vertical concrete surface at the edge of the excavation (figure 17). As a result, post-tensioning forces remain within the concrete side of the device; whereas the exposed side can be detensioned. 33

40 Figure 16. Lockoff device (photo courtesy of the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI)). Figure 17. Positioning of the lockoff device (diagram courtesy of PTI). There are several methods to detension tendons in the access opening: saw cutting the strand, flame cutting the strand, or heating the wedge cavity at anchorage of the tendon end to be detensioned. (a) Individual wires/strands are saw cut until failure (release of force) is achieved. Once an individual wire or wires have been cut, the remaining wires will become overloaded and fail in tension. 34

41 (b) A flame (torch) is used to heat and cut the tendon. This method may be preferable where controlled release of tendon forces is desired. The application of flame heat, properly applied, will cause the strand to elongate and gradually release the tension in the tendon. (c) When detensioning at the anchorage or the wedge seat using a torch, the force release will be sudden and wedges may dislodge with force. After the 100-ft section is replaced, the tendons can be spliced with the existing ones with splice couplers or splice chucks. They typically consist of a steel cylinder with each end containing springloaded wedges. Splice couplers can be encased in a greased PVC sleeve or similar material (figure 18) of sufficient inside diameter to hold the coupler and of sufficient length to allow for subsequent elongation movement during stressing. The tendon couplers location within the sleeve must permit the coupler to move the required elongation amount in the direction of the stressing. Figure 18. Positioning of couplers within sleeves (diagram courtesy of PTI). 35

42 Cost may vary widely depending on current cost of steel and the familiarity of the contractor with tendon splicing and retensioning. A rough estimate is $5,500 per tendon, not including the concrete work. Extensive restressing of other tendons is not recommended. The results from the backcalculation also show that significant prestress is apparently still in effect over most of the pavement area. Extensively restressing would require a specialty contractor (although no one has much experience with such an operation for pavements) and considerable expense. This alternative will also require repairs to the sections of the outside shoulder with significant vertical displacement of the shoulder joints, and with lane-shoulder separation. These areas contribute to poor ride, and may have a detrimental effect on safety and on performance of the mainline pavement. This alternative is not anticipated to produce adequate performance over the entire analysis period, requiring consideration of a future overlay or reconstruction for the life-cycle cost analysis. While no reliable data for the performance period of the repairs were available, based upon similar intensity of treatment for restoration of traditional jointed concrete pavements, a life of 10 years before subsequent rehabilitation was assumed. Alternative B: Asphalt Concrete Overlay 1. Repair the prestressed pavement and overlay This alternative includes many of the repairs from Alternative A, but the repairs are immediately followed by an asphalt concrete overlay. Key considerations for this alternative include: mitigation of reflective cracking from the longitudinal cracking in the prestressed slabs, spacing and depth of sawed and sealed joints in the overlay to prevent thermal cracking and reflective cracking from the shoulder joints, and appropriate treatment for the joints at 400-ft spacing. 36

43 There are mixed findings regarding the benefit-cost ratio for the use of geotextiles and other geosynthetic-based interlayers. While they have been demonstrated to delay reflective cracking, that benefit has not always justified the added cost, which is relatively significant. The added service life of an overlay with a geosynthetic-based interlayer is a function of the existing conditions of the pavement, type of geosynthetic used, construction, climate, and other considerations. Surveys have shown that bituminous coated geosynthetics and geomebrane products such Petromat and Trupave have led to an improvement in the overlay s functionality in mitigating reflective cracking. While an increase of 150 percent of overlay service life has been reported in some projects, lack of effectiveness has also been reported. In short, although geosynthetic membranes and other commonly used interlayers can lead to increased service life of the overlay, the 50 to 100 percent increase in cost might not be justified. For this project, however, with the longitudinal cracks of high severity, but long-term stability, the additional investment is recommended. An asphalt concrete overlay cannot accommodate the movements that are experienced at the ends of a 400-ft slab, and no available geosynthetic treatment can bridge such a joint. Therefore, the joints must be sawed in the asphalt concrete overlay, and maintained. It would be recommended that a compression seal be used because of the width of the joint, although a compression seal in asphalt concrete is atypical. The project team was not able to find an appropriate alternative in the literature, and roughness progression at the transverse joints would be expected. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended, and is not included in the life-cycle cost analysis and comparisons. 2. Release the prestress, saw slabs, and overlay This alternative will include some of the repairs from Alternative A, but will be followed by an immediate asphalt concrete overlay. The degree of repairs required is slightly less extensive, due to the destruction of the slab action. The tendon splicing and retensioning procedure in the area of slab 17 will not be required, although full-depth repairs will be needed. Key considerations for this alternative include: safety considerations and procedures for releasing the prestress, pulling the tendons or leaving them in place, spacing and depth of the saw cuts of the 37

44 400-ft slabs, mitigation of reflective cracking from the longitudinal cracking, and appropriate treatment for the joints at 400-ft spacing. Release of the prestress in the pavement can be achieved in several ways. The most straightforward way is to access the strand in one or more locations along its length. An access point is drilled through the pavement to the sheathing of the tendon. The sheathing is cut away in this area and the strand is cut. Release of a fully prestressed unbounded strand requires full knowledge of the safety issues that are involved in the process. The strand can potentially have sudden release causing it to blow through the pavement suddenly. Depending on the integrity of the concrete and strand in a given area, this is of some concern during drilling of the access area (particularly when drilling near the sheathing) and of more concern during the de-stressing (cutting of the strand). Using multiple access points with more gradual heat/torch cutting simultaneously (or alternating) can limit the amount of stress released suddenly. The anchor regions are more accessible and can also be used as access points for the strand, but sudden release is also a concern in this area. It is recommended that the tendons be left in place. However, if during construction (for example, in the area of full-depth patching), a strand must be fully removed (rather than left in place in a de-stressed state), then release at the anchors is advantageous so that the full strand can be pulled (via hydraulic ram) from one end for removal. Building contractors that work in the area of demolishing existing posttensioned slabs will be familiar with this procedure. The cost of de-stressing can vary depending on the methods used (and expertise of the contractor). Equipment requirements are relatively minor, with the main cost being labor (estimated as a team of two minimum at ½ hour per tendon). Minimal overall change in length would be expected in the de-tensioned pavement. An approximation of the movement can be found by a rough calculation of the basic change in length expected from the initial stressing. Taking the full tendon force and ignoring friction, the initial shortening calculation would be as follows: Δ = PL AE (4) 38

45 where P = total force from tendons = (46.9 k) (15) = k L = length = 400 A = slab cross-sectional area = (24 ) (7 ) (1 /12 ) = 14 ft 2 E = 57 f ' c = 2850 ksi (based on a conservative concrete initial strength of 2500 psi) So Δ= 0.6 inch In actuality, the tendon force will have experienced losses and will be below the assumed force. Friction will also restrict movement and the concrete strength used for the calculations is the lowest of the concrete strengths used during actual stressing. Therefore, the 0.6 inch provides an upper bound of the movement from initial stressing over the 400-ft length. The considerable amount of area of concrete compared to a relatively low amount of total tendon stress accounts for this small number. During release, the actual movement back (length increase) is expected to be negligible compared to the space at the joint. After release of the prestress, the slabs would be sawed at the interval of the transverse shoulder joints. The sawing should be performed shortly after release of the prestress to avoid the development of transverse cracks. As the tendons will be left in place in at least most locations, the depth of cut would be limited, but should still be adequate to create a weakened plane to control subsequent cracking development. Although this alternative would reduce the horizontal movement at the current transverse joints, the final joint width cannot be accurately predicted with analytical methods. 3. Release the prestress, crack and seat, and overlay 4. Release the prestress, rubblize, and overlay These alternatives will only include a few of the repairs from Alternative A, including the full-depth repair in the area of slab 17, and full-depth patching of the severely displaced shoulder sections. 39

46 Key considerations for these alternatives include: safety considerations and procedures for releasing the prestress, pulling the tendons or leaving them in place, and impacts of the lean concrete base on cracking or rubblizing. For both alternatives, it was assumed that the prestressing tendons would be left in place. If the tendon coatings are damaged, this does allow the potential for future corrosion. As the tendons will no longer be a functioning part of the pavement structure, however, the degree of corrosion would have to be great to result in performance problems. On the other hand, removal of the tendons would leave a substantial void in the concrete, creating a structural discontinuity. For all but the rubblized option, this void would have to be filled. For the rubblization option as well, the tendon channels might create difficulty in reaching stable compaction. The lean concrete base is not anticipated to significantly affect the cost or performance of either the crack and seat or rubblization. The PSPA (seismic) testing clearly showed that the polyethylene sheeting is still providing an effective bond breaker. However, there is limited information on the construction or performance of rubblization over a lean concrete base, with a polyethylene sheet as a bond breaker. Hypothetically, the slip of the rubblized concrete over the reduced friction interface might pose a long-term problem, if lateral confinement is not maintained. Such a cross-section was rubblized and asphalt overlaid on the Dang Jin Area of the West Sea Highway in South Korea in July The annual traffic on the pavement section is estimated to be about 4 million equivalent single axles, which is almost ten times the current traffic on the subject section of I-99. This pavement was a plain jointed concrete pavement, over a polyethylene sheet between the slab and the lean concrete base. Although a localized drainage problem was corrected soon after construction, it was repaired, and no distress has developed as of March 2009 (Lee 2006; verified by personal correspondence March 2009). 40

47 Alternative C: Removal and Reconstruction While it is not anticipated that removal and reconstruction will be the most cost-effective alternative in the immediate future, it is an important long-term consideration when considering the other alternatives. It also provides a basis for considering comparable cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation strategies. For removal, appropriate handling of the prestressing tendons will be required, and it has been assumed that a similar careful destressing procedure, as already discussed, will be employed. Preliminary Thickness Design For each of the alternative scenarios, preliminary designs for the overlay and reconstruction thicknesses were needed. Thickness designs were conducted according to the 1992 AASHTO Pavement Design Procedure (Huang, 2003). A summary of the input parameters used is provided in Table 6. Traffic input data assumptions were finalized in consultation with District 9, and are discussed briefly in Chapter 4. Table 6. Input parameters for thickness design calculations. Parameter Value/ Definition Annual Daily Traffic 1428 (PennDot RMS) Truck Percentage (T) 19% (PennDot RMS) Directional Factor (D) 0.5 Lane Distribution Factor (L) 0.8 Yearly Traffic Growth Rate 2% Design Year (Y) 20 Reliability, R (%) 95% (Table 6.4, Publication 242) 3.5 (rigid pavement design), 0.4 (flexible pavement over rigid Overall Standard Deviation pavement), 0.45(Flexible pavement) (Section 6.5, Publication 242) Initial Serviceability 4.2 (for flexible pavement), 4.5 (for rigid pavement) (Table 6.3, Publication 242) Terminal Serviceability 2.5 (Table 6.3, Publication 242) SN xeff-rp Effective structural capacity of all the remaining pavement layers above the subgrade except for the existing PCC layer D xeff Effective thickness of in situ PCC layer reflecting its reduced value 41

48 Parameter Value/ Definition SN y Total structural number required to support the overlay traffic over the existing subgrade conditions Remaining life factor accounting for damage of the existing F RL pavement as well as the desired degree of damage to the overlay at the end of overlay traffic. C yx Condition of existing pavement after overlay has been applied Cx Condition factor for the existing pavement prior to overlay Cy Condition factor for entire overlaid pavement R LX Remaining life of existing pavement prior to overlay R LY Remaining life of overlaid pavement after overlay traffic has been reached Thickness of prestressed pavement (D 0 ) 7 in. Thickness of lean concrete (D 1 ) 5 in. Thickness of subbase layer (D 2 ) 6 in (3 in. of granular subbase and 3 in. of 2A layer) Layer coefficient of lean concrete (a 1 ) 0.25 (Table 9.3, Pub 242) Layer coefficient of subbase (a 2 ) 0.11 (Table 9.3, Pub 242) Layer coefficient of HMA binder and wearing course 0.44 (Table 9.3, Pub 242) Drainage coefficient of layers (m 1, m 2 ) 1 K Effective modulus of subgrade reaction Concrete Elastic Modulus, Ec 4 x 106 psi (Sec 8.5, Publication 242) Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture, Sc 631 psi (Sec 8.4, publication 242) Load Transfer Coefficient, J 3 (Table 8.2, Publication 242) Drainage Coefficient, Cd 1 (Section 8.10, Publication 242) The resulting preliminary pavement thicknesses are briefly summarized in Table 7. The details of the assumptions and calculation procedures for the thickness designs are provided in Appendix F. The preliminary thicknesses in Table 7 are those for the initial construction. Thicknesses for subsequent treatments were taken from the typical life-cycle scenarios in PennDOT Publication 242 (PennDOT, 2007). 42

49 Table 7. Preliminary thickness designs for use in life-cycle cost analysis. Alternative B2: Release prestress, saw, and overlay B3: Release prestress, crack and seat, and overlay B4: Release prestress, rubblize, and overlay C-PCC: PCC Reconstruction C-AC: AC Reconstruction Preliminary Thickness Design for LCCA 1.5 in. Superpave 9.5 mm HMA wearing course 5.5 in Superpave 19 mm HMA binder course 1.0 in. Superpave 9 leveling course 1.5 in. Superpave 9.5 mm HMA wearing course 6.0 in Superpave 19 mm HMA binder course 1.0 in. Superpave leveling course 1.5 in. Superpave 9.5 mm HMA wearing course 7.0 in Superpave 19 mm HMA binder course 1.0 in. Superpave leveling course 13.0 in. PCC 4.0 in. ATPB (asphalt-treated permeable base) 3 in. 2A subbase 1.5 in. Superpave 9.5 mm HMA wearing course 2.5 in Superpave 19 mm HMA binder course 10.0 in. Superpave 25 mm HMA 7.5 in. 2A subbase 43

50 4. LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS PennDOT s life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) spreadsheet, version 2.2, was used for this analysis. Significant modifications and additions to the default treatments and years of application were needed to account for the prestressed pavement. Key inputs are described in the following sections. The detailed printouts of the LCCA for each alternative are included in Appendix G. LCCA Assumptions Version 2 of the PennDOT LCCA spreadsheet uses a default interest rate of 6 percent, and the factors for the discounting of future costs are based on that rate. A 3 to 4 percent discount rate is typically considered more appropriate for long-term public works projects, but the 6 percent rate is a matter of policy and is applied uniformly across all alternatives. To assess the impact of this assumption, interest rates of 2 and 4 percent were also utilized. The 6 percent rate is embedded in the equations in the LCCA spreadsheet, so the appropriate fields were updated as needed. The results are presented in Chapter 5. The prestressed pavement section is located on a highway that has recently been redesignated as an Interstate highway, I-99. A rate of traffic growth of 2 percent per year was utilized for both the preliminary thickness designs and the user delay cost calculations. There was a significant increase in the traffic volume (especially for trucks) after I-99 was opened. However, there are apparent discrepancies in recent truck counts on the northbound lanes. Therefore, the RMS truck and ESAL data for the corresponding southbound lanes were utilized for the pavement designs and percentage of trucks. Traffic pattern group 2, rural interstate, was utilized for the user delay cost calculations. An analysis period of 40 years was utilized for all alternatives. Use of an equal analysis period is necessary to make meaningful engineering economic comparisons. Potential salvage values or demolition costs at the end of the 40-year analysis period were not considered. 44

51 Unit Costs Costs were obtained from a number of sources, including past PennDOT LCCA analysis. A table of those costs was provided to a District 9 representative, Mr. Gerald Stoltz, P.E., who provided updated costs consistent with the District s past experiences and cost coding procedures. When available, those costs were used in the LCCA analysis; otherwise, other sources were utilized. The unit cost information is summarized in Table 8. Costs were scaled for different layer thicknesses and quantities, as needed. Initial Construction Costs Initial construction costs for each alternative are detailed in Step 5 of the LCCA printouts in Appendix G. The layer thicknesses in Table 7 were included, as well as estimated repair quantities considered appropriate. The quantities needed for initial treatments were determined from the current pavement condition assessment. The details of quantities vary between treatment activities, but all are based upon the project dimensions, recommended PennDOT assumptions from Publication 242, and upon the summarized distress quantities in Tables 9 through 11. The resulting treatment quantities are included in the LCCA printouts in Appendix G. The initial construction quantities are provided in Step 5. 45

52 Table 8. Unit costs for life-cycle cost analysis. Cost Items Source Unit Concrete pavement full depth patching Concrete pavement full depth patching (adjusted for prestressed considerations) Excavate and replace 6 lean concrete base and subbase Cleaning and sealing of longitudinal joint and crack Pavement/shoulder joint sealing with rubberized/asphalt Cleaning and sealing transverse joint and crack Concrete pavement spall repair with AA paving concrete (partial depth patching) Leveling course of Superpave 9.5 mm to provide a uniform working platform Sawing concrete Superpave HMA Binder 19MM, 2.5" Depth Superpave 9.5 mm Wearing Course, 1" Depth Sawing and sealing the overlay over existing transverse and patch joints Unit Cost ($) PennDOT District 9 SY 155 PennDOT District 9 SY 310 PennDOT District 9 SY 160 PennDOT LF 1.60 PennDOT LF 1.60 PennDOT LF 1.60 PennDOT District 9 SF 100 PennDOT District 9 TON 70 Data sheet, Monroe County Division of Purchasing LF 7 PennDOT District 9 SY 9 PennDOT District 9 SY 7 PennDOT District 9 LF 1.50 Diamond grinding PennDOT District 9 SY 5 Slab subsealing/jacking: Deflection tests Holes drilled Cement grout PennDOT District 9 EA EA BAGS Crack and seat PennDOT District 9 SY " or 2" cold milling PennDOT SY 2.50 Rubblize LA DOT SY 5 Sawing concrete pavement PennDOT District 9 LF

53 Table 9. Summary of longitudinal cracking quantities and locations for LCCA. Length of Longitudinal Cracks (ft) Slabs Mainline Shoulder Mainline Shoulder Spalled ,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11,12,13,14,15,16 6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 13,14,15,16 Unspalled ,2,3,5,6,7,8,10,11, 12,13,14,15,16,17, 19,20,21,22,23,24, 25,26 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11,12,13,14,15,16, 17,18,19,20,21,22, 23,24,25,26 Total Table 10. Summary of transverse cracking quantities and locations for LCCA. Length of Transverse Cracks (ft) Slabs Mainline Shoulder Mainline Shoulder Spalled ,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 10,22 Unspalled ,2,4-26 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12,13,14,15, 16,17,18,19,20, 21,22,23,24,25 Total

54 Table 11. Summary of joint faulting for LCCA. Length of Faulted Joints (ft) Mainline Shoulder Joints Mainline Slabs Shoulder Joints (identified by mainline slab number) >=0.1" and <0.2" ,25 12,13,20,21,23,24,26 >=0.2" and <0.5" ,20 >=0.5" Total ,10,13,17,18,19, 24,25,26 11,12,13,14,15,16, 17,18,19,20,21,22, 23,24,25 Future Rehabilitation A number of significant departures from the prescribed default assumptions about initial and future treatments were considered appropriate for this unique project. A brief summary of the future activity years is provided in Table 12. Significant assumptions included: For Alternative A, Repair, the rehabilitation was assumed to have an effective life of 10 years. Therefore, a significant activity was assumed in year 10. Any of the more intense treatments in other alternatives could have been utilized here. For purposes of the cost analysis, it was assumed that Alternative B4 Rubblize and AC Overlay would be exercised in year 10. Subsequent maintenance and rehabilitation activities in years 20 through 40 were determined from those appropriate for the AC-overlaid, rubblized pavement. Application of this alternative in year 10 may indicate that some residual or salvage value would be retained at the end of the 40-year analysis period. This potential value was not included in the analysis. For Alternative B2, Release Prestress, Saw and Overlay, the exercise of Alternative B4 was also assumed in year 20. However, the cost would be reduced by the cost to release the prestress. 48

55 Table 12. Summary of potential activities in future years for life-cycle cost analysis. Alternative Future Year Activity Summary A: Rehabilitate 5 Seal Joints Prestressed Pavement 10 Rubblize and Reconstruct and Shoulders 20 Patch; Mill and Overlay 30 Patch; Overlay 10 Patch; Mill and Overlay; Seal Sawed Joints 20 Mill; Rubblize and Reconstruct B2: Release Prestress, Saw Slabs, and Overlay 30 Patch; Mill and Overlay B3: Release 10 Patch; Mill and Overlay; Seal Remaining Joints Prestress, Crack and 20 Patch; Overlay; Saw & Seal Remaining Joints Seat, and Overlay 30 Patch; Mill and Overlay; Seal Remaining Joints B4: Release 10 Patch; Mill and Overlay Prestress, Rubblize, 20 Patch; Overlay and Overlay 30 Patch; Mill and Overlay C-AC: Removal and 10 Patch; Mill and Overlay Flexible 20 Patch; Overlay Reconstruction 30 Patch; Mill and Overlay C-PCC: Removal 10 Reseal Joints and Rigid 20 Patch; Grind; Reseal Joints Reconstruction 30 Patch; Reseal Joints; Overlay; Saw and Seal 49

56 5. RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The estimated net present costs for each alternative are shown in Table 13, for three interest/discount rates. While these costs are the result of a significant number of assumptions and uncertainties, as previously discussed, a number of significant conclusions can be reached. The costs for reconstruction, with either pavement type, are substantially greater than for any of the other rehabilitation alternatives that make use of the current substantial pavement structure. Of the initial overlay options, the crack-and-seat and rubblization options have the lower life-cycle costs. Although crack-and-seat has a slightly lower cost due to less breaking effort, and due to a slightly thinner design overlay due to greater retained structural capacity, the rubblization option is recommended. This recommendation is made from the point of view of minimizing the risk of future maintenance and repair costs being substantially greater than anticipated. After the prestress has been released, the long-term stability of the existing cracks is not known. Their migration may result in significant reflection cracking. Almost equal in life-cycle cost to the crack-and-seat option is the alternative of repairing the pavement and delaying the rubblization and overlay to year 10. This option has the lowest cost if crack-and-seat is assumed in year 10 rather than rubblization. Since the prestressed pavement section is still providing adequate ride, in terms of longitudinal profile, this delay of overlay may be reasonable. Past performance data of rubblized pavements over a lean concrete base, with a polyethylene sheeting bond breaker, are limited. However, one section was located with no observed distresses since No notations of poor performance were found in the literature. This prestressed pavement section is of significant pavement engineering historical value. While the initial longitudinal cracks have progressed in severity, and additional cracks have propagated, the pavement is still providing adequate serviceability after 20 years. In the absence of those cracks, many of which are considered to be construction-related, the pavement section would be in 50

57 excellent condition, requiring only localized repairs and ride restoration. Unfortunately, those cracks make the placement of an asphalt concrete overlay over the intact prestressed pavement a relatively risky alternative in terms of the potential for reflective cracking. Table 13. Estimated present worth costs from life-cycle cost analysis. Alternative Estimated 40-year Present Cost from LCCA 2% 4% 6% A: Repair and exercise B4 in year 10 $6,722,269 $5,677,395 $4,6,162 B2: Release prestress, saw, and overlay $6,935,921 $6,031,096 $5,438,036 B3: Release prestress, crack and seat, and $6,043,484 $5,550,300 $5,149,998 overlay B4: Release prestress, rubblize, and overlay $6,170,903 $5,656,199 $5,324,534 C-PCC: PCC Reconstruction $7,594,272 $7,096,568 $6,804,700 C-AC: AC Reconstruction $7,454,272 $6,939,568 $6,607,903 Note: The default discount rate in the PennDOT LCCA procedure has typically varied from 4 to 6 percent. The current LCCA spreadsheet has an embedded interest rate of 6 percent. The analyses results at 2 and 4 percent are presented for comparison. The overall recommendation, based upon both costs and technical considerations, is to implement Alternative A. As previously described, Alternative A includes the repair and restoration of the prestressed concrete pavement. Only when additional deterioration has occurred that cannot be similarly repaired, or when the ride quality has substantially deteriorated, should more extensive rehabilitation be conducted. For the purposes of cost estimation, release of prestress, rubblization, and asphalt concrete overlay was assumed to occur at 10 years after the initial restoration. However, the timing of the more intensive future rehabilitation should be made considering the actual future observed condition, growth in traffic, and the timing and nature of treatments on the adjacent pavement sections. 51

58 6. REFERENCES AND SOURCES CONSULTED Bureau of Planning and Research Transportation Planning Information Division (2007), 2006 Pennsylvania Traffic Data. Canadian Strategic Highway Research Program (2001), PCC Pavements: Some Findings from US-LTPP and Canadian Case Studies, C-SHRP Technical Brief # 22. Chou, Chia-pei, Cheng, Hsiasng-Jen, and Lin, Shyh-tai (2004), Analysis of Concrete Movements and Seasonal Thermal Stresses at the Chiang Kai-Shek Internantional Airport, 2004 FAA Worldwide Airport Technology Transfer Conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA. Erdman Anthony Associates (1990), One Year Monitoring Report, U. S. Route 220, L. R. 1061, Blair County, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Huang, Yang (2003), Pavement Design and Analysis, 2 nd edition, Prentice Hall. Lee, Seung Woo, Jeong, Jin-Hoon, and Chon, Beom-Jun (2007), Development of a Probabilistic Joint Opening Model Using LTPP Data, Presentation at Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board. Lee, Seung Woo, Seung Hwan Han, Suck Bum Ko, and Ji Won Kim (2006), Rubblization of Thick Concrete Pavement, Journal of the Korean Society of Road Engineers, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp Lee, Seung Woo (2000), Horizontal Joint Movements in Rigid Pavements, Doctoral Thesis, Pennsylvania State University. Okamoto, P.A., Tayabji, S. D. and Barenberg, E. J. (19), Instrumentation and Behavior for Sections of Prestressed Pavement Along U.S. 220, Blair County, Pennsylvania, Construction Technologies Laboratories, Final Report for PennDOT Research Project No , Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. 52

59 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Maintenance and Operations (2007), Pavement Policy Manual, Publication 242. Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Maintenance and Operations (2001), Manual for Upgrading from LCCA 2.1 to LCCA 2.2. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Maintenance and Operations (1998), Performing a Life Cycle Cost Analysis Using MicroSoft Excel 97. Smith, Tim, Tighe, Susan, and Fung, Rico (2001), Concrete Pavements in Canada: A Review of Their Usage and Performance, Pavement Technology Advancements Session of the Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (2006), Control of Cracking in Concrete: State of the Art. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (2003), Evaluation of Joint and Crack Load Transfer Final Report. 53

60 APPENDIX A: DISTRESS MAPS Key to maps of observed distresses from visual survey.

61 Figure A-1. Map of observed distresses, slab 1, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 1

62 Figure A-2. Map of observed distresses, slab 2, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 2

63 Figure A-3. Map of observed distresses, slab 3, from visual survey conducted in April, 20). A- 3

64 Figure A-4. Map of observed distresses, slab 4, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 4

65 Figure A-5. Map of observed distresses, slab 5, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 5

66 Figure A-6. Map of distresses, slab 6, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 6

67 Figure A-7. Map of observed distresses, slab 7, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 7

68 Figure A-8. Map of observed distresses, slab 8, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 8

69 Figure A-9. Map of observed distresses, slab 9, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 9

70 Figure A-10. Map of observed distresses, slab 10, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 10

71 Figure A-11. Map of observed distresses, slab 11, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 11

72 Figure A-12. Map of observed distresses, slab 12, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 12

73 Figure A-13. Map of observed distresses, slab 13, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 13

74 Figure A-14. Map of observed distresses, slab 14, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 14

75 Figure A-15. Map of observed distresses, slab 15, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 15

76 Figure A-16. Map of observed distress, slab 16, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 16

77 Figure A-17. Map of observed distresses, slab 17, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 17

78 Figure A-18. Map of observed distresses, slab 18, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 18

79 Figure A-19. Map of observed distresses, slab 19, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 19

80 Figure A-20. Map of observed distresses, slab 20, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 20

81 Figure A-21. Map of observed distresses, slab 21, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 21

82 Figure A-22. Map of distresses observed, slab 22, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 22

83 Figure A-23. Map of observed distresses, slab 23, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 23

84 Figure A-24. Map of observed distresses, slab 24, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 24

85 Figure A-25. Map of observed distresses, slab 25, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 25

86 Figure A-26. Map of observed distresses, slab 26, from visual survey conducted in April, 20. A- 26

87 APPENDIX B: CONDITION SURVEY TABULATIONS Table B-1. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 1 Construction Station Slab begins at 0 ft = to to to to Crack Type Lane LT/ RT L/S LT/ RT May - Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) L LT None L LT None L LT None Opening (in) Shoulder LT/RT Faulting (in) Temperature (F) Remarks to L RT 38 None None None None to to L RT None None None None to to L RT None None None None to L RT T LT None T RT 0.01 Sealed None None None None T LT 0.01 Sealed T RT Sealed None None None None T LT Sealed T RT Sealed T RT to to L RT Seale d None None Sketch No 1 B-1

88 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT L/S LT/ RT May - Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Opening (in) to L RT to 53+9 L RT to L RT T RT 0.01 Sealed None None None L LT Sealed 12 None None None Shoulder LT/RT Faulting (in) Temperature (F) Remarks to to L RT None None None None Sketch No 1 and to to Slab ends at 400 ft = L RT L RT 45 Sketch No 2 B-2

89 Table B-2. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 2 Construction Station Crack Type Faulting Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT May - Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Opening (in) Slab begins at 0 ft = T RT 2.00 Temper -ature (F) Remarks to L RT to56+19 L RT T RT 12 sealed T LT 12 sealed T RT 12 sealed T RT T LT to L RT to L RT to L RT to L RT T RT 12 Slab ends at 400 ft = Sketch 2 Sketch 3 B-3

90 Table B-3. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 3 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting Opening (in) Temper -ature (F) Remarks Slab begins at 0 ft = to to to to Slab ends at 400 ft = May - L RT L RT L RT L RT 88 Sketch No 3 B-4

91 Table B-4. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 4 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting Opening (in) Temper -ature (F) Remarks Slab begins at 0 ft = to May - RT T RT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT RT T RT T RT T RT T LT to L RT 59.5 B-5

92 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting Opening (in) Temper -ature (F) Remarks May RT Slab ends at 400 ft = B-6

93 Table B-5. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 5 Construction Station Slab begins at 0 ft = to to to to to Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) L LT L RT 9 L RT 10 L RT T RT 12 Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks T LT to L RT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T LT T RT T RT T LT T RT Sketch No 6 B-7

94 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) T RT to L RT to L LT to L RT T RT Slab ends at 400 ft = Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks Sketch No 6 and 7 Sketch No 7 B-8

95 Table B-6. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 6 Construction Station Crack Type Slab begins at 0 ft = to to to Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) L RT L RT Faulting (in) L RT T RT T RT T RT Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks to L RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT Sketch No 7 B-9

96 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T RT to L RT Slab ends at 400 ft = Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks Sketch No 8 B-10

97 Table B-7. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab7 Construction Station Crack Type Slab begins at 0 ft = to to Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) L RT 8 L RT T RT T RT T RT T LT T RT T RT T LT to to to L RT 37 L RT 11 L RT 6 Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks sketch T RT T LT to L RT T LT sketch 9 B-11

98 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) T RT to L LT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT to to L RT 27 L RT T LT T RT to Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks L RT T LT T RT T RT to Slab ends at 400 ft = L RT 66 B-12

99 Table B-8. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 8 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks Slab begins at 0 ft = to May - L RT 6 May T LT T RT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT to L RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT B-13

100 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) T RT to Max Spall (ft) L LT T RT to Slab ends at 400 ft = L RT 92 May - Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks higher severity B-14

101 Table B-9. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 9 Construction Station Crack Type Slab begins at 0 ft = to to Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) L 42 L T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T RT T LT T RT Max Spall (ft) T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT May - Fault -ing (in) May - Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks B-15

102 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Fault -ing (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks May - May - May T RT T LT T RT T LT to L RT T RT 6 10 Slab ends at 400 ft = B-16

103 Table B-10. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 10 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks Slab begins at 0 ft = May RT to L RT T RT T RT T RT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T RT 9 severe T LT T RT T LT T RT T RT B-17

104 Construction Station Crack Type to to to +00 Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) L RT 11 L RT 22 L RT T RT T RT Slab ends at 400 ft = +00 Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks B-18

105 Table B-11. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 11 Construction Station Crack Type Slab begins at 0 ft = to to to to +60 Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) L 25 L 2 L 24 L 160 Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks T RT T RT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT opening measured every 20 ft severe faulting B-19

106 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks May T RT to L RT T RT T RT T RT T RT to to to Slab ends at 400 ft = L RT 20 1 L RT 90 L RT medium to severe crack opening measured every 20 ft B-20

107 Table B-12. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 12 Construction Station Crack Type Slab begins at 0 ft = to to to Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) L RT 100 L LT 53 Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks opening measured every 20 ft L RT 97 severe T LT T RT T RT T LT T RT T RT T RT T LT T RT T RT to L RT 14 B-21

108 Construction Station Crack Type to to to Slab ends at 400 ft = Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) L RT 50 Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks mediumsevere crack L RT spalling L RT opening measured every 20 ft B-22

109 Table B-13. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 13 Construction Station Slab begins at 0 ft = Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) T RT to to to May - L RT 80 Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks L RT opening measured every 20 ft opening and spalling L RT 37 severe T LT T RT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT pothole present pothole present B-23

110 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) T RT T LT T RT T RT T RT to Slab ends at 400 ft = Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks T RT L RT B-24

111 Table B-14. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 14 Construction Station Slab begins at 0 ft = to Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) May - Faulting (in) L RT T RT to to to Opening (in) L RT L RT 72 L RT T RT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT to Temperature (F) Remarks L RT T LT T RT T LT opening measured every 20 ft opening and spalling B-25

112 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) T RT T LT T RT to to L RT 4 L RT T RT to to to to L RT 27 L RT 63 Max Spall (ft) May - Faulting (in) L RT 35 1 L RT T RT T RT Slab ends at 400 ft = Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks opening and spalling B-26

113 Table B-15. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 15 Construction Station Slab begins at 0 ft = to to Crack Type Lane LT/ RT May - Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT May - Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) L LT T RT to to to L RT Max Spall (ft) L RT to 1+40 L RT T RT to to 1+60 L RT 18 L RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT to Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) 82 Remarks very severe spalling with opening severe spalling L RT 92 severe B-27

114 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT May - Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT May - Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT T RT to L RT T RT to L RT T RT to to to to to Slab ends at 400 ft = L RT 32 Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) L RT Remarks L RT Spalling L RT Spalling L LT 16 B-28

115 Table B-16. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 16 Construction Station Slab begins at 0 ft = to to to to to Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT May - Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) L RT L RT L LT 50 L RT 60 1 L RT T RT T LT T RT to L RT T LT T RT to to to to to L RT L LT 10 L RT 14 L RT 6 Temperature (F) Remarks B-29

116 Construction Station to Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT May - Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) L RT T RT to L RT T LT T RT T LT T RT to L RT T RT T RT to to to to to Slab ends at 400 ft = Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) L RT L RT 15 L RT 10 Temperature (F) Remarks L RT spalling L RT 10 Cracked up heavy spalling B-30

117 Table B-17. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 17 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Fault -ing (in) Opening (in) Temper -ature (F) Remarks Slab begins at 0 ft = May - May T LT May T RT to to to to L RT 38 L RT 30 L RT 27 L LT T RT T RT T RT T LT T RT T RT T RT to to to to L LT L LT 22 L RT to L RT 34 B-31

118 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Fault -ing (in) Opening (in) Temper -ature (F) Remarks May - May - May to L RT T RT to Slab ends at 400 ft = L RT B-32

119 Table B-18. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 18 Construction Station Slab begins at 0 ft = Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT May - Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) T RT to to to L RT 0.17 L RT 13 L RT T RT to to L RT 5 L RT T RT T RT T RT T RT T LT T RT T RT to T RT 27 1 to to Opening (in) Temper -ature (F) Remarks spalling B-33

120 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temper -ature (F) Remarks May - May T RT T RT to to to Slab ends at 400 ft = L RT 17 L RT 8 L RT 60 0 to B-34

121 Table B-19. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 19 Construction Station Slab begins at 0 ft = to Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT May - Crack Width (inches) RT Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) RT severe crack Temper -ature (F) RT to to to RT 15 RT 8 RT T RT T RT T RT T LT T RT T RT T LT to L RT T RT T LT to L RT 27 Remarks B-35

122 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temper -ature (F) Remarks to to to to May - L RT 6 L RT 21 L RT 32 L RT T RT to Slab ends at 400 ft = L RT to B-36

123 Table B-20. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 20 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temper -ature (F) Remarks Slab begins at 0 ft = May T RT to L RT T RT to to to L RT 5 L RT 10 L RT T RT T RT T RT T RT T LT T RT T RT T LT T RT T LT 12 bar can be seen B-37

124 Construction Station to Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT May - Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) L RT T RT T RT to to to to Slab ends at 400 ft = L RT 26 L RT 41 Max Spall (ft) T RT T RT 10 Faulting (in).125 to.25 Opening (in) L RT L RT Temper -ature (F) 86 Remarks B-38

125 Table B-21. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 21 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temper -ature (F) Remarks Slab begins at 0 ft = to T RT to to to to L RT 20 L RT 77 L RT 19 L RT T RT to T LT T RT T RT to L RT T RT T LT T RT T RT T RT T LT T RT B-39

126 Construction Station Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) T RT to Slab ends at 400 ft = Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) L RT Temper -ature (F) Remarks B-40

127 Table B-22. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 22 Construction Station Slab begins at 0 ft = to Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT May - Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) L RT T RT T RT to L RT to L RT to L RT T RT 12 Dec - Max Spall (ft) severe spall Faulting (in) to to T LT to to L LT to to L LT to to L RT to L RT 20 1 Slab ends at 400 ft = Opening (in) Temper -ature (F) Remarks two retrofits B-41

128 Table B-23 Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 23 Construction Station Slab begins at 0 ft = to Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) Opening (in) L RT T RT T RT to T RT T LT to L RT T RT T LT to L RT T RT T RT T LT T LT to to to to L RT 10 L RT 152 L RT 14 L RT Temper -ature (F) Remarks B-42

129 Construction Station to Slab ends at 400 ft = Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) Faulting (in) L RT Opening (in) Temper -ature (F) Remarks B-43

130 Table B-24. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 24 Construction Station Slab begins at 0 ft = Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) Max Spall (ft) May - Faulting (in) T RT to to to L RT L RT 37 L RT T RT T LT T RT T LT T RT to to L RT 14 L RT T RT T RT to L RT T RT T RT 10 Opening (in) Temper -ature (F) Remarks to to B-44

131 Construction Station to to Slab ends at 400 ft = Crack Type Lane LT/ RT Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) T RT 10 L RT Max Spall (ft) May - Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temper -ature (F) Remarks B-45

132 Table B-25. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 25 Construction Station Slab begins at 0 ft = to to Crack Type Lane LT/ RT May - Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT May - Crack Width (inches) May - Crack Length (ft) L RT 116 L RT 60 Max Spall (ft) May - Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks 1 to to to T RT 10 3 to T LT T LT to to to to Slab ends at 400 ft = T RT T LT T RT 12 L RT 5 L RT 171 L LT L RT B-46

133 Table B-26. Distress Survey Summaries from 19 and 20, Slab 26 Construction Station Slab begins at 0 ft = to to to to Crack Type Lane LT/ RT May - Shoulder LT/RT L/S LT/ RT May - Crack Width (inches) Crack Length (ft) L RT 20 L LT 29 L LT 15 L RT T RT T LT to to to L RT 0.5, 0.75 L LT 36 L RT 60 2 Max Spall (ft) May - Faulting (in) Opening (in) Temperature (F) Remarks to T RT Slab ends at 400 ft = B-47

134 APPENDIX C: VISUAL CONDITION PHOTOGRAPHS C

135 Figure C-1. Longitudinal crack of low severity on slab 14 C-1

136 Figure C-2. Longitudinal crack of medium_severity, slab 9 C-2

137 Figure C-3. Transverse crack of low severity, slab 1 C-3

138 Figure C-4. Joint between slab 1 and slab 2 C-4

139 Figure C-5. Slab 16 C-5

140 Figure C-6. Slab 16 to Slab 17 C-6

141 Figure C-7. Slab 19 shoulder C-7

142 Figure C-8. Slab 17 and 18 shoulder joint C-8

143 Figure C-9. Slab 10 lane-shoulder joint C-9

144 Figure C-10. Slabs 2 and 3 joint and lane-ahoulder joint C-10

145 APPENDIX D: BACKCALCULATED MODULUS VALUES Backcalculated Prestressed Concrete Moduli (psi) Table D-1. Prestressed Concrete Modulus Less than 4000 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 3 WP ,646,889 3,442,755 Longitudinal 8 WP ,978,736 4,300,051 Transverse 15 WP ,802,296 3,312,530 No crack 17 WP ,624,141 4,153,129 Table D-2. Prestressed Concrete Modulus 4000 ksi to 5000 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 1 Center ,967,341 5,898,620 No Crack 6 Center ,9,557 4,662,5 Transverse 7 Center ,676,498 6,844,630 Transverse and Longitudinal 8 Center 100 4,300,051 6,246,900 Transverse 10 Center ,469,233 4,747,506 Transverse 11 WP 100 4,603,413 5,105,869 No Crack 11 Center ,907,606 5,536,969 Transverse 12 Center ,577,011 4,935,811 Longitudinal 12 Center 200 4,395,1 4,852,641 Transverse 13 Center ,123,792 5,473,1 Transverse 13 Center ,748,519 5,777,280 Transverse 20 Center 100 4,541,220 5,518,410 Longitudinal 21 Center 100 4,829,820 5,662,331 Transverse and Longitudinal 24 WP ,009,844 4,625,124 No Crack D-1

146 Table D-3. Prestressed Concrete Modulus 5000 ksi to 6000 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 1 Center 1 5,997,077 6,200,4 Transverse and Longitudinal 2 Center 100 5,959,450 7,294,090 No Crack 2 Center ,3,364 6,229,627 Transverse 3 Center ,057,064 5,209,496 Longitudinal 3 Center ,971,803 6,654,193 5 WP ,062,786 5,895,681 No Crack 5 Center ,529,279 5,859,025 Transverse 5 Center ,533,562 6,431,967 Transverse and Longitudinal 6 WP ,594,795 6,478,714 Transverse and Longitudinal 6 Center ,735,120 6,261,941 Transverse and Longitudinal 7 Center ,878,123 6,114,637 Transverse 8 Center ,634,984 6,126,614 Transverse and Longitudinal 9 Center ,940,116 6,160,414 Transverse 9 Center ,540,655 6,220,739 No Crack 10 WP 100 5,993,750 6,612,453 Transverse 11 Center 105 5,668,7 5,0,969 No Crack 11 Center ,122,402 5,800,814 Transverse 12 Center ,841,309 5,968,872 Transverse and Longitudinal 13 WP 100 5,629,4 5,865,675 No Crack 14 WP ,025,483 5,488,675 Transverse and Longitudinal 14 Center ,336,886 7,580,545 Transverse and Longitudinal 14 Center ,980,5 6,477,1 Transverse and Longitudinal 15 Center ,259,957 6,056,505 Transverse and Longitudinal 16 WP 100 5,907,275 6,621,241 No Crack 16 Center ,670,071 7,6,430 Transverse 18 WP ,5,898 5,867,515 No Crack 18 Center ,264,0 6,454,295 Transverse 19 WP ,238,525 6,464,968 No Crack 20 WP ,766,763 7,079,546 Transverse 20 Center ,242,949 5,756,074 Transverse and Longitudinal 21 WP 100 5,410,571 6,744,370 Transverse and Longitudinal 23 WP ,363,732 6,439,071 No Crack 25 WP 100 5,669,033 6,420,356 Longitudinal 26 Center ,837,330 7,400,818 Longitudinal D-2

147 Table D-4. Prestressed Concrete Modulus 6000 ksi to 7000 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 1 WP ,441,239 7,134,042 Longitudinal 2 WP 100 6,260,868 6,523,343 No Crack 2 Center ,440,178 6,880,853 Longitudinal 4 WP 100 6,494,361 6,803,537 Transverse 4 Center ,836,873 7,518,283 Transverse 6 Center ,135,350 6,433,427 Transverse and Longitudinal 7 WP 100 6,682,205 7,172,724 Transverse 7 Center ,524,420 7,307,211 Transverse and Longitudinal 8 Center ,180,545 8,376,796 Transverse 9 Center ,487,398 6,955,629 Transverse 10 Center ,000,500 6,436,103 Transverse 12 WP ,384,677 6,635,501 Longitudinal 14 Center ,137,762 7,493,731 No Crack 15 Center ,702,957 7,111,117 Longitudinal 15 Center ,942,553 7,209,920 Transverse 16 Center ,765,302 10,604,304 Transverse 17 Center ,695,921 7,787,0 Longitudinal 17 Center ,145,638 7,6,156 Longitudinal 18 Center 100 6,131,854 6,775,814 No Crack 18 Center ,753,418 7,303,880 Transverse 19 Center 100 6,839,431 7,261,062 No Crack 20 Center ,858,502 7,4,652 No Crack 22 WP ,757,769 8,349,033 No Crack 22 Center ,610,382 7,546,958 No Crack 23 Center 200 6,168,312 6,621,263 Transverse 24 Center 100 6,721,504 7,147,200 No Crack 25 Center ,420,356 7,575,956 Longitudinal 25 Center ,647,125 7,073,458 Longitudinal 26 WP 100 6,018,464 6,161,220 No Crack 26 Center 100 6,406,173 7,378,993 No Crack D-3

148 Table D-5. Prestressed Concrete Modulus 7000 ksi to 8000 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 3 Center ,051,125 7,188,118 4 Center ,162,692 7,416,579 No Crack 9 WP 100 7,597,898 8,658,784 Transverse 10 Center ,453,859 8,118,674 No Crack 13 Center ,269,8 7,451,480 No Crack 16 Center 100 7,182,212 8,314,822 No Crack 17 Center ,150,414 9,593,237 Transverse 19 Center ,106,890 7,660,645 Transverse 19 Center ,864,131 8,136,309 Longitudinal 21 Center ,944,831 8,611,123 Transverse and Longitudinal 22 Center ,371,290 8,443,065 Transverse 23 Center ,595,539 7,943,314 No Crack 24 Center ,3,749 8,260,727 Longitudinal 24 Center ,109,379 7,4,8 No Crack 26 Center ,685,921 8,551,140 Longitudinal Table D-6. Prestressed Concrete Modulus Greater than 8000 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 1 Center ,484,030 9,116,159 Longitudinal 4 Center 100 8,056,189 8,887,650 Transverse 5 Center 100 8,1,999 8,204,499 No Crack 21 Center ,349,011 9,797,350 No Crack 22 Center ,681,148 9,704,433 No Crack 23 Center ,112,368 9,793,350 Longitudinal 25 Center ,0,059 10,597,803 No Crack D-4

149 Backcalculated Moduli for Upper Layer of Subgrade (psi) for All Load Levels Table D-7. Upper Subgrade Modulus Less than 10 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 2 Center ,509 24,212 Longitudinal 4 WP 100 4,373 37,782 Transverse 15 Center ,805 26,1 Longitudinal and Transverse 22 Center ,374 26,513 Transverse 26 Center ,102 Longitudinal Table D-8. Upper Subgrade Modulus 10 ksi to 20 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 2 Center ,300 37,281 Transverse 3 WP ,554 29,875 Longitudinal 3 Center ,930 27,434 Longitudinal 5 Center ,903 30,052 Transverse 5 Center ,447 41,335 Longitudinal and Transverse 6 WP ,363 28,447 Longitudinal and Transverse 6 Center ,570 31,093 Longitudinal and Transverse 8 Center , ,218 Transverse 9 WP ,284 34,512 Transverse 9 Center ,852 27,437 No Crack 14 WP ,4 22,632 Longitudinal and Transverse 14 Center ,899 27,542 Longitudinal and Transverse 14 Center ,348 33,506 Longitudinal and Transverse 15 WP ,171 22,209 Longitudinal and Transverse 16 WP ,713 48,937 No Crack 16 Center ,292 26,303 No Crack 16 Center ,355 35,062 Longitudinal and Transverse 16 Center , ,447 Transverse 17 Center ,124 27,130 Longitudinal 17 Center ,410 37,176 Transverse 18 WP ,392 19,545 No Crack 18 Center ,184 28,963 No Crack 19 WP ,776 55,604 No Crack 20 Center ,9 25,942 Longitudinal and Transverse 22 Center ,812 33,186 No Crack D-5

150 Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 22 Center ,379 52,482 No Crack 23 Center ,359 28,622 No Crack 23 Center ,354 23,561 Longitudinal 24 WP ,749 19,2 No Crack 24 Center ,079 26,169 No Crack 25 Center ,751 37,066 No Crack Table D-9. Upper Subgrade Modulus 20 ksi to 30 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 2 Center ,250 33,366 No Crack 3 Center ,695 32,1 4 Center ,414 36,310 Transverse 4 Center ,267 74,969 Transverse 4 Center ,826 42,427 No Crack 5 WP ,186 35,511 No Crack 5 Center ,443 43,826 No Crack 6 Center ,506 38,336 Longitudinal and Transverse 7 WP ,979 43,304 Transverse 7 Center ,728 34,543 Transverse 7 Center ,164 44,187 Longitudinal and Transverse 7 Center ,495 30,561 Longitudinal and Transverse 8 WP ,157 27,538 Transverse 8 Center ,538 35,455 Transverse 9 Center ,598 35,158 Transverse 9 Center ,037 35,058 Transverse 10 Center ,348 42,010 Transverse 10 Center ,027 30,224 Transverse 10 Center ,338 38,469 No Crack 11 Center ,167 36,581 Transverse 11 Center ,624 27,569 Transverse 12 Center ,747 33,469 Longitudinal 12 Center ,678 28,653 Transverse 12 Center ,8 37,194 Transverse 13 Center ,472 38,038 Transverse 13 Center ,226 32,680 Transverse 17 WP ,559 33,575 Longitudinal D-6

151 Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 17 Center ,647 35,449 Longitudinal 18 Center ,173 45,681 Transverse 18 Center ,611 35,456 Transverse 19 Center ,387 34,696 No Crack 19 Center ,798 41,421 Transverse 19 Center ,804 35,802 Longitudinal 20 WP ,0 41,495 Transverse 20 Center ,061 24,857 Transverse 20 Center ,577 27,129 No Crack 21 Center ,264 31,694 Longitudinal and Transverse 21 Center ,152 41,079 Longitudinal and Transverse 21 Center ,986 44,804 No Crack 22 WP ,509 32,463 No Crack 23 WP ,001 43,490 No Crack 23 Center ,177 37,267 Transverse 24 Center ,609 32,345 Longitudinal 24 Center ,127 31,743 No Crack 25 WP ,315 37,336 Longitudinal 25 Center ,810 33,769 Longitudinal 26 Center ,850 29,642 No Crack 26 Center ,758 37,210 Longitudinal Table D-10. Upper Subgrade Modulus Greater than 30 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 1 WP ,053 38,546 Longitudinal 1 Center ,729 47,726 Longitudinal 1 Center ,656 32,381 Longitudinal and Transverse 1 Center ,867 37,956 No Crack 2 WP ,1 32,387 No Crack 3 Center ,992 34,797 6 Center ,274 37,300 Longitudinal and Transverse 8 Center ,123 37,666 Longitudinal and Transverse 10 WP ,396 44,269 Transverse 11 WP ,107 35,526 No Crack 11 Center ,562 37,515 No Crack 12 WP ,711 49,187 Longitudinal D-7

152 Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 13 WP ,785 42,830 No Crack 13 Center ,586 39,983 No Crack 14 Center ,333 36,898 No Crack 15 Center ,749 35,721 Longitudinal 15 Center ,826 39,300 Transverse 21 WP ,938 50,148 Longitudinal and Transverse 25 Center ,619 38,340 Longitudinal 26 WP ,752 33,930 No Crack D-8

153 Backcalculated Moduli for In-Situ Subgrade (psi) for All Load Levels Table D-11. In-Situ Subgrade Modulus Less than 10 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 4 WP ,9 27,053 Transverse 14 WP ,036 25,609 Longitudinal and Transverse 16 Center ,469 23,6 Transverse 18 WP ,133 20,534 No Crack 24 Center ,196 19,512 No Crack Table D-12. In-Situ Subgrade Modulus 20 ksi to 30 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 1 Center ,547 34,270 Longitudinal 2 Center ,590 72,097 No Crack 2 Center ,529 40,550 Longitudinal 3 WP ,931 33,119 Longitudinal 4 Center ,525 26,758 Transverse 5 Center ,604 27,993 Transverse 8 Center , ,584 Transverse 9 Center ,473 39,155 No Crack 14 Center ,645 36,530 Longitudinal and Transverse 15 WP ,758 33,353 Longitudinal and Transverse 15 Center ,817 30,779 Transverse 16 WP ,407 24,842 No Crack 16 Center ,462 29,821 No Crack 16 Center , ,438 Transverse 17 Center ,107 58,079 Longitudinal 17 Center ,962 41,255 Transverse 18 Center ,900 38,066 No Crack 19 WP , ,148 No Crack 19 Center ,853 27,727 No Crack 19 Center ,4 32,964 Transverse 20 Center ,546 31,581 Transverse 20 Center ,469 29,200 No Crack 20 Center ,947 36,102 Longitudinal and Transverse 21 Center ,667 24,545 Longitudinal and Transverse D-9

154 Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 21 Center ,277 30,938 No Crack 22 Center ,143 25,406 No Crack 22 Center ,807 31,469 Transverse 22 Center ,670 23,793 No Crack 23 Center ,553 27,024 No Crack 23 Center ,893 31,900 Longitudinal 24 WP ,277 33,419 No Crack 24 Center ,466 25,781 No Crack 26 Center , ,530 Longitudinal Table D-13. In-Situ Subgrade Modulus 30 ksi to 40 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 2 Center ,155 42,775 Transverse 3 Center ,8 34,628 Longitudinal 3 Center ,940 34,600 4 Center ,600 40,017 Transverse 4 Center ,030 33,477 No Crack 6 WP ,305 33,528 Longitudinal and Transverse 6 Center ,432 33,747 Longitudinal and Transverse 7 WP ,959 35,286 Transverse 7 Center ,784 39,713 Transverse 7 Center ,462 46,784 Longitudinal and Transverse 8 WP ,710 40,814 Transverse 8 Center ,799 40,814 Transverse 9 Center ,578 36,658 Transverse 11 Center ,973 38,774 Transverse 12 Center ,962 41,328 Transverse 12 Center ,843 38,322 Longitudinal and Transverse 13 Center ,150 39,075 No Crack 13 Center ,480 84,992 Transverse 14 Center ,254 41,4 Longitudinal and Transverse 14 Center ,839 36,768 No Crack 15 Center ,418 73,318 Longitudinal and Transverse 17 WP ,335 33,410 Longitudinal 17 Center ,386 41,136 Longitudinal 18 Center ,074 43,546 Transverse D-10

155 Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 19 Center ,535 39,019 Longitudinal 23 WP ,877 37,067 No Crack 23 Center ,899 38,396 Longitudinal and Transverse 24 Center ,618 40,893 Longitudinal 25 WP ,549 39,152 Longitudinal 25 Center ,549 39,747 Longitudinal 25 Center ,439 44,015 No Crack 26 Center ,299 33,219 No Crack 26 Center ,119 36,397 Longitudinal Table D-14. In-Situ Subgrade Modulus 40 ksi to 50 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 1 WP ,589 51,720 Longitudinal 1 Center ,379 43,652 Longitudinal and Transverse 1 Center ,5 50,379 No Crack 2 WP ,361 43,209 No Crack 3 Center ,359 41,860 5 WP ,188 43,372 No Crack 5 Center ,711 44,174 No Crack 5 Center ,318 48,227 Longitudinal and Transverse 6 Center ,589 51,143 Longitudinal and Transverse 6 Center ,732 49,893 Longitudinal and Transverse 7 Center ,394 46,784 Longitudinal and Transverse 9 Center ,573 41,615 Transverse 10 Center ,968 45,444 Transverse 10 Center ,415 59,053 Transverse 10 Center ,869 48,097 No Crack 11 Center ,943 45,955 No Crack 11 Center ,659 53,293 Transverse 12 Center ,587 46,501 Longitudinal 13 Center ,337 48,858 Transverse 15 Center ,499 46,402 Longitudinal 18 Center ,7 53,034 Transverse 21 Center ,0 43,211 Longitudinal and Transverse 22 WP ,311 43,322 No Crack D-11

156 Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack 25 Center ,860 45,341 Longitudinal 26 WP ,726 42,402 No Crack Table D-15. In-Situ Subgrade Modulus Greater than 50 ksi Slab No WP/Center Slab Testing Location (ft) Minimum Maximum Type of Crack Longitudinal and Transverse 8 Center ,155 55,844 9 WP ,962 75,872 Longitudinal 10 WP ,793 66,471 Longitudinal 11 WP ,499 53,228 No Crack 12 WP ,557 69,721 Longitudinal 13 WP ,966 64,342 No Crack 20 WP ,274 62,593 Transverse 21 WP ,731 88,017 Transverse D-12

157 APPENDIX E: LOAD TRANSFER RESULTS Table E-1. Mainline Joints with Wheelpath LT< 20% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Joint Avg LT Stdev (LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev (corrlt) % 4.62% 19.05% 5.72% % 0.10% 24.38% 0.34% % 8.00% 24.04% 10.55% % 0.19% 20.05% 0.42% % 0.16% 25.19% 0.35% % 4.55% 26.09% 5.86% Table E-2. Mainline Joints with Wheelpath 20% < LT< 30% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Joint Avg LT Stdev (LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev (corrlt) % 0.55% 33.63% 0.44% % 1.06% 32.61% 1.07% % 3.50% 30.07% 4.30% % 7.35% 28.67% 9.62% % 2.12% 29.25% 2.72% % 4.59% 39.42% 6.51% % 5.57% 38.57% 7.25% Table E-3. Mainline Joints with Wheelpath 30%< LT< 40% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Joint Avg LT Stdev (LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev (corrlt) % 5.68% 48.76% 7.% % 5.72% 50.64% 7.22% % 1.49% 50.20% 1.57% % 3.10% 43.94% 4.39% % 2.79% 43.51% 2.63% % 0.84% 53.56% 0.52% % 6.35% 43.96% 7.56% % 3.% 52.01% 4.19% % 4.52% 45.00% 3.68% % 1.87% 51.56% 2.71% % 1.33% 51.12% 0.59% E-1

158 Table E-4. Mainline Joints with Wheelpath 40%<LT<50% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Joint Avg LT Stdev (LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev (corrlt) % 0.42% 64.24% 0.46% % 5.86% 52.06% 7.96% % 1.42% 53.07% 1.22% % 7.96% 53.35% 10.39% % 3.63% 56.04% 3.% % 5.14% 57.49% 5.94% % 1.40% 57.06% 1.79% % 2.% 53.02% 2.49% % 3.20% 52.72% 2.98% % 3.61% 52.01% 3.39% % 0.97% 62.02% 0.66% % 4.94% 64.28% 6.87% % 2.59% 64.64% 3.43% % 5.03% 53.28% 6.41% % 4.52% 68.17% 6.60% % 1.12% 63.37% 0.58% Table E-5. Mainline Joints with Wheelpath 50%<LT<70% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Joint Avg LT Stdev (LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev (corrlt) % 0.78% 78.81% 0.12% % 0.71% 68.07% 0.80% % 1.09% 64.32% 1.19% % 0.63% 62.50% 0.24% % 1.38% 67.15% 1.18% % 4.34% 69.09% 5.63% Table E-6. Mainline Joints with Wheelpath LT>70% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Joint Avg LT Stdev (LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev (corrlt) % 0.81% % 1.16% % 1.54% 86.56% 1.31% % 0.70% 94.64% 0.46% % 0.55% 72.24% 0.29% % 0.84% 73.19% 0.25% % 1.04%.78% 0.58% E-2

159 Table E-7. Mainline Joints with Corner LT< 20% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Joint Avg Lt Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 0.60% 20.60% 0.60% % 5.00% 26.70% 6.40% % 0.70% 17.30% 0.90% % 6.50% 24.10% 7.50% % 1.00% 22.50% 1.70% % 5.60% 29.20% 7.20% Table E-8. Mainline Joints with Corner 20%< LT< 30% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Joint Avg Lt Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 4.40% 34.50% 5.70% % 1.00% 25.60% 1.40% % 7.40% 29.70% 9.20% % 3.50% 38.00% 4.40% % 4.30% 32.80% 5.50% % 3.60% 37.30% 4.60% Table E-9. Mainline Joints with Corner 30%< LT< 40% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Joint Avg Lt Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 5.80% 38.70% 7.80% % 6.90% 47.20% 8.20% % 2.80% 55.50% 3.30% % 2.50% 41.90% 0.90% % 1.20% 50.10% 1.60% % 4.40% 48.40% 6.40% % 1.20% 46.20% 1.40% % 4.90% 44.50% 6.30% % 5.10% 45.60% 6.60% % 1.10% 41.20% 1.20% % 4.90% 45.00% 6.60% E-3

160 Table E-10. Mainline Joints with Corner 40%< LT< 50% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Joint Avg Lt Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 3.50% 63.10% 5.30% % 1.30% 63.00% 1.80% % 2.30% 61.00% 2.50% % 3.90% 53.30% 4.80% % 1.20% 61.40% 1.60% % 3.50% 58.60% 5.00% % 2.00% 62.00% 2.80% Table E-11. Mainline Joints with Corner 50%< LT< 60% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Joint Avg Lt Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 3.50% 66.40% 4.70% % 2.30% 65.20% 2.50% % 1.50% 75.90% 1.70% % 1.20% 74.10% 0.20% % 1.20% 65.30% 1.30% % 2.10% 65.20% 0.60% % 2.30% 80.30% 0.70% % 4.40% 79.20% 2.90% % 4.10% 71.50% 1.70% % 5.40% 68.90% 4.20% Table E-12. Mainline Joints with Corner 60%< LT< 70% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Joint Avg Lt Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 4.00% 76.80% 4.60% % 1.40% 78.20% 2.60% % 1.20% 74.00% 0.20% % 1.30% 89.20% 0.50% % 1.50% 75.00% 0.90% % 0.80% 75.80% 0.40% E-4

161 Table E-13. Mainline Joints with Corner LT>70% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Joint Avg Lt Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 1.50% % 3.50% % 2.60% % 4.10% % 1.30% 81.60% 2.50% % 2.30% 88.50% 2.60% % 1.30% 89.50% 0.40% % 2.30% 75.70% 3.00% Table E-14. Shoulder Joints with LT< 20% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Avg LT Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 2.70% 18.70% 3.00% % 0.50% 16.70% 0.50% % 1.10% 20.30% 1.50% % 2.00% 20.70% 2.80% % 0.30% 16.20% 0.50% % 0.20% 18.90% 0.20% % 0.70% 27.10% 1.00% % 2.10% 14.20% 2.40% % 0.30% 17.50% 0.40% % 3.90% 19.20% 4.40% % 3.00% 22.20% 3.70% % 1.30% 25.80% 1.90% Table E-15. Shoulder Joints with 20%<LT<30% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Avg LT Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 1.90% 31.90% 2.10% % 3.30% 24.60% 3.80% % 1.30% 26.90% 1.80% % 1.30% 28.00% 1.70% % 0.90% 37.20% 1.30% % 3.40% 30.30% 4.60% % 4.30% 35.80% 5.60% % 2.60% 31.70% 3.50% E-5

162 Table E-16. Shoulder Joints with 30% < LT< 40% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Avg LT Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 5.00% 40.20% 6.00% % 3.70% 55.70% 5.00% % 0.60% 51.60% 0.70% % 4.30% 39.00% 4.70% % 2.80% 39.40% 3.60% % 1.60% 44.80% 1.10% % 3.90% 48.20% 3.80% % 1.40% 44.30% 2.10% % 1.50% 44.20% 1.30% % 1.30% 46.60% 1.60% % 1.60% 53.00% 2.10% % 1.60% 44.40% 2.10% % 1.70% 38.70% 0.60% % 3.30% 39.60% 4.30% Table E-17. Shoulder Joints with 40% < LT< 50% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Avg LT Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 4.30% 55.30% 5.60% % 2.70% 47.60% 2.80% % 2.40% 55.30% 3.20% % 0.70% 57.30% 0.60% % 1.70% 53.80% 1.90% % 2.40% 63.40% 2.90% % 3.40% 58.80% 3.80% % 1.50% 56.10% 2.60% % 4.40% 60.00% 4.10% % 2.50% 57.10% 3.10% % 10.60% 55.10% 11.70% % 0.70% 55.90% 0.70% % 1.30% 50.30% 2.70% % 4.70% 54.70% 5.40% % 1.30% 55.10% 0.90% % 1.30% 51.50% 0.50% % 1.20% 59.10% 0.40% % 0.50% 52.20% 0.90% E-6

163 % 2.00% 58.20% 0.20% % 1.10% 59.10% 0.90% % 1.30% 53.90% 0.80% Table E-18. Shoulder Joints with 50% < LT< 60% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Avg LT Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 0.60% 68.20% 0.80% % 3.40% 67.20% 4.10% % 4.90% 78.50% 5.20% % 0.90% 66.60% 0.60% % 2.80% 61.60% 3.00% % 0.70% 61.90% 1.10% % 2.50% 73.40% 2.10% % 0.50% 70.00% 1.40% % 1.80% 74.50% 1.30% % 0.80% 72.00% 0.30% % 1.10% 68.50% 1.10% % 1.20% 70.40% 1.50% % 2.20% 70.10% 0.40% % 3.60% 69.70% 4.30% % 0.40% 59.90% 0.30% % 1.30% 56.00% 0.90% % 5.30% 68.00% 1.00% % 1.00% 70.90% 0.80% Table E-19. Shoulder Joints with 60%<LT<70% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Avg LT Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 0.60% 76.50% 1.00% % 1.40% 76.30% 1.90% % 2.90% 81.60% 3.40% % 3.20% 88.30% 3.50% % 1.90% 81.70% 2.00% % 4.50% 88.40% 5.10% % 1.00% 86.50% 2.70% % 2.50% 70.00% 3.10% % 1.00% 83.50% 0.40% E-7

164 % 1.10% 68.70% 1.70% % 1.20% 72.70% 2.30% Table E-20. Shoulder Joints with 70% < LT< 80% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Avg LT Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 1.70% 81.40% 1.80% % 2.20% 95.40% 1.80% % 1.80% 96.00% 1.70% % 3.60%.20% 2.90% % 3.00% 90.00% 3.10% % 2.30% % 1.90% % 2.30% 84.40% 2.80% % 7.80% 94.00% 2.70% % 2.30% % 3.50% % 0.70% 97.90% 0.80% % 2.50% 94.70% 3.30% % 3.30% 90.70% 4.00% % 4.00%.00% 4.50% % 0.40% 77.40% 1.90% % 0.80% 76.20% 1.80% % 1.80% 81.10% 0.40% % 0.80% 76.70% 1.50% % 0.80% 92.20% 1.60% % 1.40% 78.30% 1.50% % 0.20% 78.60% 0.40% % 2.30% 71.60% 1.50% % 0.80% 79.50% 1.30% % 1.40% 77.50% 0.40% % 1.80% 88.50% 2.30% % 2.70% 88.80% 3.00% % 3.50% 78.40% 4.10% % 2.50% % 2.10% % 5.40% 89.50% 2.60% % 4.10% 84.40% 0.60% % 0.20% 85.10% 0.60% E-8

165 Table E-21. Shoulder Joints with LT> 80% Slab No Slab Testing Location (ft) Avg LT Stdev(LT) Avg LT (corrected) Stdev(corrLT) % 0.50% 97.10% 1.40% % 1.00% % 1.90% % 1.30% % 2.20% % 1.00% % 2.50% % 0.60% % 1.70% % 1.50% 83.30% 0.90% % 4.80% 80.10% 1.00% % 0.60% 99.30% 0.30% % 2.40% 97.40% 1.80% % 0.60% % 1.30% % 0.30% % 0.70% % 4.70% 96.70% 3.10% % 0.60% 95.30% 1.10% % 0.80% 97.50% 1.00% % 1.90%.00% 1.80% % 1.60% 88.10% 1.80% % 0.90% 93.50% 1.40% % 1.70% 96.00% 2.20% % 1.70% 90.80% 1.70% % 0.80% 90.90% 0.80% E-9

166 APPENDIX F: PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT THICKNESS CALCULATIONS Alternative B2: Release the Prestress, Saw Slabs, and Overlay Step 1: Calculation of ESALs ESAL = (ADT) o T T f G D L 365 Y = Step 2: Calculation of Structural Number for Future Traffic From fig (Pavement Analysis and Design by Huang), SN is calculated for future traffic. Resilient Modulus is backcalculated from using FWD data. From backcalculated data, Average modulus of upper subgrade is psi Average modulus of lower subgrade is psi Thus, taking the average, resilient modulus = psi As suggested in section of Publication 242, When M r is back calculated using FWD data, it must be multiplied by a correction factor, C = 0.25, so that the results are consistent with laboratory values. M r (Effective roadbed resilient modulus) = 30000* 0.25 = 7500 psi Design Serviceability loss ( PSI) = Initial Serviceability Terminal Serviceability = 1.7 From the referenced figure 11.25, we have, Design Structural Number = 6.9 Step 3: Calculation of SN xeff-rp SN xeff-rp = D 1 *a 1 *m 1 +D 2 *a 2 *m 2 = 5*0.25*1+6*0.11*1 = 1. Step 4: Calculation of D xeff From equation (Huang), assuming 0.7 for C x for Alternative B2, D xeff = C x D o = 0.7*7 in = 4.90 in Step 5: Calculation of Structural Number of F RL From table 13.9, C x = 0.85 and C y = 0.6 From equation 13.20, R LX = 7%. R LY = 0.11 = 11% F-1

167 Therefore from figure 13.22, F RL = Step 6: Calculation of Structural Number of Overlay From equation (Huang), SN OL = SN y F RL (0.8 D xeff + SN xeff-rp ) = * (0.8 * ) = Step 7: Calculation of Thickness of Overlay Thickness of overlay = SN OL / a OL = 3.402/0.44 = 7.73 in ~ 7.8 in For LCCA analysis, the following thickness is recommended: 1.5 in. of Superpave 9.5 mm HMA wearing course 5.5 in. of Superpave 19 mm HMA binder course 1.0 in. of Superpave HMA leveling course Total dimension of HMA layers is 8.0 in (which satisfies Publication 242 : A 4-in. overlay (minimum) plus leveling course, if on concrete ) F-2

168 Alternative B3: Release the Prestress, Crack and Seat, and Overlay Step 1: Calculation of ESALs ESAL = (ADT) o T T f G D L 365 Y = Step 2: Calculation of Structural Number for Future Traffic From figure (Pavement Analysis and Design by Huang), SN is calculated for future traffic Resilient Modulus is backcalculated from using FWD data. From backcalculated data, Average modulus of upper subgrade is psi Average modulus of lower subgrade is psi Thus, taking the average, resilient modulus = psi As suggested in section of Publication 242, When M r is back calculated using FWD data, it must be multiplied by a correction factor, C = 0.25, so that the results are consistent with laboratory values. M r (Effective roadbed resilient modulus) = 30000* 0.25 = 7500 psi Design Serviceability loss ( PSI) = Initial Serviceability Terminal Serviceability = 1.7 From the referenced figure 11.25, we have, Design Structural Number = 6.9 Step 3: Calculation of SN xeff-rp SN xeff-rp = D 1 *a 1 *m 1 +D 2 *a 2 *m 2 = 5*0.25*1+6*0.11*1 = 1. Step 4: Calculation of Structural Number of Overlay From equation (Huang) SN OL = SN y 0.7 (0.4D 0 + SN xeff-rp ) = (0.4 * ) = Step 5: Calculation of Thickness of Overlay Thickness of overlay = SN OL / a OL = 3.603/0.44 = 8.19 in. ~ 8.2 in. F-3

169 For LCCA analysis, the recommended thickness is: 1.5 in. of Superpave 9.5 mm HMA wearing course 6.0 in. of Superpave 19 mm HMA binder course 1.0 in. of Superpave HMA leveling course Total dimension of HMA layers is 8.5 in (which satisfies Publication 242, A 4-in. overlay (minimum) plus leveling course, if on concrete. ) F-4

170 Alternative B4: Release the Prestress, Rubblize, and Overlay Step 1: Calculation of ESALs ESAL = (ADT) o T T f G D L 365 Y = Step 2: Calculation of Structural Number for Future Traffic From fig (Pavement Analysis and Design by Huang), SN is calculated for future traffic. Resilient Modulus is backcalculated using FWD data. From backcalculated data, Average modulus of upper subgrade is psi Average modulus of lower subgrade is psi Thus, taking the average, resilient modulus = psi As suggested in section of publication 242: When M r is back calculated using FWD data, it must be multiplied by a correction factor, C = 0.25, so that the results are consistent with laboratory values. M r (Effective roadbed resilient modulus) = 30000* 0.25 = 7500 psi Design Serviceability loss ( PSI) = Initial Serviceability Terminal Serviceability = 1.7 From the referenced figure 11.25, we have, Design Structural Number = 6.9 Step 3: Calculation of SN xeff-rp SN xeff-rp = D 1 *a 1 *m 1 +D 2 *a 2 *m 2 = 5*0.14*1+6*0.11*1 = 1.36 Step 4: Calculation of Structural Number of Overlay From equation (Huang) SN OL = SN y 0.7 (0.4D 0 + SN xeff-rp ) = (0.4 * ) = Step 5: Calculation of Thickness of Overlay Thickness of overlay = SN OL / a OL = 3.988/0.44 = 9.06 in. ~ 9.1 in. F-5

171 For LCCA, the recommended thicknesses are: 1.5 in. of Superpave 9.5 mm HMA wearing course 7.0 in. of Superpave 19 mm HMA binder course 1.0 in. of Superpave HMA leveling course Total dimension of HMA layers is 9.5 in (which satisfies Publication 242, A 4-in. overlay (minimum) plus leveling course, if on concrete. ) F-6

172 Alternative C-PCC: PCC Reconstruction Step 1: Calculation of ESALs ESAL = (ADT) o T T f G D L 365 Y = Step 2: Calculation of Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k (pci) Resilient Modulus is backcalculated from using FWD data. From backcalculated data, Average modulus of upper subgrade is psi Average modulus of subgrade is psi Thus, taking the average, resilient modulus = psi As suggested in section of publication 242, When M r is back calculated using FWD data, it must be multiplied by a correction factor, C = 0.25, so that the results are consistent with laboratory values. M r (Effective roadbed resilient modulus) = 30000* 0.25 = 7500 psi Composite modulus of subgrade reaction is calculated from fig (Huang) From FWD backcalculated data, average subbase elastic modulus. E sb = psi From Fig 12.18, Composite modulus of subgrade reaction is 550 pci. Step 3: Calculation of Design Serviceability Loss Design Serviceability loss ( PSI) = Initial Serviceability Terminal Serviceability = 2.0 Step 4: Design Slab Thickness D From fig (Huang), all data are plotted, giving Design Thickness of the slab = 13.0 in. In Table 8.3, Publication 242 gives the minimum thickness to be 9 in and maximum thickness to be 20 in. The design slab thickness satisfies both criteria. A subbase thickness of 6 inches is assumed. The recommended thickness for LCCA is distributed as: 13.0 in. of PCC 4.0 in. of Asphalt Treated Permeable Base Course 2.0 in. of Subbase F-7

173 Alternative C-AC: AC Reconstruction Calculation of design layer thickness of flexible pavement is done according to Section (Huang). While the design was performed, lean concrete was considered as removed as base for the AC, as figure has the maximum limit for effective roadbed soil modulus as psi and modulus of the lean concrete found by backcalculated FWD value is more than psi. Step 1: Calculation of ESALs ESAL = (ADT) o T T f G D L 365 Y = Step 2: Calculation of Design Serviceability Loss Design Serviceability loss ( PSI) = Initial Serviceability Terminal Serviceability = 1.7 Step 3: Calculation of Minimum Thickness for Asphalt Concrete (D 1 ) Taking resilient modulus of subbase as M r (Effective roadbed soil resilient modulus), M r = (from backcalculated FWD data) Thus, from fig 11.25(Huang), Design Structural number for the layer (SN 1 ) = 6.1 D 1 > SN 1 / a 1 a 1 = layer coefficient of the layer 1 = 0.44 Therefore, D 1 >13.86 Step 4: Calculation of Minimum Thickness for Subbase (D 2 ) Average modulus of upper subgrade is psi Average modulus of subgrade is psi Thus, taking the average, resilient modulus = psi As suggested in section of publication 242, When M r is back calculated using FWD data, it must be multiplied by a correction factor, C = 0.25, so that the results are consistent with laboratory values. M r (Effective roadbed resilient modulus) = 30000* 0.25 = 7500 psi Taking resilient modulus of subgrade as M r (Effective roadbed soil resilient modulus), M r = 7500 (from backcalculated FWD data) Thus from fig 11.25(Huang), Design Structural number for the layer (SN 2 ) = 7.0 D 2 > (SN 2 - a 1 D 1 )/ a 2 a 2 = layer coefficient of the layer 2 = 0.11 Taking D 1 as 13.86, D 2 > 8.18 The recommended thickness for LCCA is distributed as: F-8

174 1.5 in. of Superpave 9.5 mm HMA wearing course 2.5 in. of Superpave 19 mm HMA binder course 10.0 in. of Superpave 25 mm HMA Subbase thickness = 8.5 in. F-9

175 APPENDIX G: LCCA PRINTOUTS Version 2 of the PennDOT LCCA spreadsheet was utilized as the starting basis for the life-cycle cost analyses. The assumed discount rate and the user delay costs were utilized as provided in the spreadsheet. However, substantial changes were made in the assumed activities for the life-cycle scenarios for each alternative. An analysis period of 40 years was utilized for all alternatives. The total present-worth, life-cycle costs include both agency costs and user delay costs during construction. This appendix contains partial printouts of the spreadsheets from each of the seven analysis alternatives considered. These spreadsheets contain the details of the input assumptions, and of the output summary costs. These printouts do not include the intermediate calculations sheets and tables, in order to reduce the appendix to a more reasonable size while providing the critical information. G-1

176 PAVEMENT ALTERNATES COMPARED IN LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS: (Version 2.2) ALTERNATE # PAVEMENT TYPE TREATMENT 1 Bituminous A New Construction or Reconstruction 2 Concrete B Reconstruction on Rubblized Concrete C Bituminous Overlay D Bonded Concrete Overlay E Concrete Pavement Restoration F Unbonded Concrete Overlay PAVEMENT DESCRIPTION A: Rehabilitate Prestressed Pavement and Shoulders : 2 E Concrete Concrete Pavement Restoration STEP 1: QUANTITY CALCULATIONS 1.1. Length in One Direction = FT 1.2. Is Roadway Divided? (Y/N) n 1.3. Length of Construction = 10,400 FT 1.4. # of Lanes in Both Directions = Lane Width = 12.0 FT 1.6. Total Pavement Width = 24.0 FT 1.7. Left Shoulder Width = 10.0 FT 1.8. Right Shoulder Width = 4.0 FT 1.9. Total Shoulder Width = 14.0 FT For Bituminous Construction, Shoulder Type? For Bituminous Overlay, Shoulder Type? 6SP For Bituminous Reconstruction, is the Proposed Base Concrete? For Bituminous Overlay, is the Existing Pavement Concrete? y Existing Transverse Joint Spacing = FT Proposed Transverse Joint Spacing = 20.0 FT Are Neoprene Joints proposed? (Y/N) N # of Proposed Longitudinal Joints in Both Directions = QUANTITIES (a) Pavement Area = 27,733 SY (b) Shoulder Area = 16,178 SY (c) Length of Guiderail = 2.0 MI (d) Number of Proposed Transverse Joints = 520 (e) Length of Proposed Transverse Joints = 19,760 FT (f) Length of Proposed Longitudinal Joints = 31,200 FT (g) Slab Stabilization, # of Holes = 5,200 (h) Length of Existing Transverse Joints = 624 FT G-2

177 STEP 2: USER DELAY COSTS, PART I 2.1. Traffic Information: (a) Initial ADT = 11,786 veh/day (b) Design Year ADT = 17,500 veh/day (c) Percent Cars (of Total ADT) = % (d) Percent Trucks (of Total ADT) = % (1) % S.U. Trucks (of Total Trucks) = % (2) % Comb. Trucks (of Total Trucks) = % (e) Design Life = 20 yrs (f) Directional Factor = 0.50 (g) Traffic Pattern Group (TPG) Category: 2 (h) HOUR %VEH 1: Urban Interstate : Rural Interstate : Urban Primary Arterial : Rural Primary Arterial : Urban Minor Arterial or Collector : North Rural Minor Arterial : Central Rural Colector : North Rural Collector : Central Rural Collector : Special Recreational Vehicles Traffic Growth Factor = Current Construction Cost Index = Inflation Factor = G-3

178 STEP 3: USER DELAY COSTS, PART II (Detour) 3.1. Restricted Flow Length = 8.00 mi 3.2. Detour Length = 8.00 mi 3.3. (a) Initial Speed = 65 mph (b) Reduced Speed = 35 mph 3.4. Restricted Flow Time = hr 3.5. Overall Increased Travel Time = hr 3.6. Number of Lanes in One Direction: (a) Normal = 2 lanes (b) Maintained During Construction = 2 lanes (c) Roadway Capacity per Lane (0 if not available) = 1,980 vphpl (d) Roadway Capacity in One Direction = 3,960 veh/hr 3.7. Idling Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $ $ /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $ $ /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $ $ /veh*hr 3.8. Time Value Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $3.00 $14.63 /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr 3.9. Added Cost Per 1000 Stops: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $28.63 $ /veh (b) Single Unit Trucks $51.43 $ /veh (c) Combination Trucks $ $1, /veh Added Time Per 1000 Stops: (a) Cars 6.78 hr (b) Single Unit Trucks 9.53 hr (c) Combination Trucks hr G-4

179 STEP 4: USER DELAY COSTS, PART III (Detour) 4.1. Percent Time Factor Cost per unit Cost/ Veh/Day Number of Vehicles of Traffic (hr) (1000 (a) CARS stops) Idling 81.00% x x 1 x $0.89 = x Delayed Time/Idle 81.00% x x 1 x $14.63 = x Delayed Stopping 81.00% x 1 x x $ = x Stopped Time/Stop 81.00% x 6.78 x x $14.63 =0.03 x Stopped (b) SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS Idling 3.61% x x 1 x $0.98 =0.01 x Delayed Time/Idle 3.61% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 3.61% x 1 x x $ =0.00 x Stopped Time/Stop 3.61% x 9.53 x x $24.39 =0.04 x Stopped (c) COMBINATION TRUCKS Idling 15.39% x x 1 x $1.06 = x Delayed Time/Idle 15.39% x x 1 x $24.39 =0.396 x Delayed Stopping 15.39% x 1 x x $1, = x Stopped Time/Stop 15.39% x x x $24.39 = x Stopped 4.2. (a) Direction 1 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (b) Direction 2 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , , BIT , , , BIT , , , BIT , , G-5

180 STEP 3: USER DELAY COSTS, PART II (Single Lane) 3.1. Restricted Flow Length = 2.00 mi 3.2. Detour Length = 0.00 mi 3.3. (a) Initial Speed = 65 mph (b) Reduced Speed = 40 mph 3.4. Restricted Flow Time = hr 3.5. Overall Increased Travel Time = hr 3.6. Number of Lanes in One Direction: (a) Normal = 2 lanes (b) Maintained During Construction = 1 lanes (c) Roadway Capacity per Lane (0 if not available) = 1,260 vphpl (d) Roadway Capacity in One Direction = 1,260 veh/hr 3.7. Idling Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $ $ /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $ $ /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $ $ /veh*hr 3.8. Time Value Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $3.00 $14.63 /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr 3.9. Added Cost Per 1000 Stops: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $28.63 $ /veh (b) Single Unit Trucks $51.43 $ /veh (c) Combination Trucks $ $1, /veh Added Time Per 1000 Stops: (a) Cars 6.78 hr (b) Single Unit Trucks 9.53 hr (c) Combination Trucks hr G-6

181 STEP 4: USER DELAY COSTS, PART III (Single Lane) 4.1. Percent Time Factor Cost per unit Cost/ Veh/Day Number of Vehicles of Traffic (hr) (1000 (a) CARS stops) Idling 81.00% x 0.05 x 1 x $0.89 = x Delayed Time/Idle 81.00% x x 1 x $14.63 = x Delayed Stopping 81.00% x 1 x x $ = x Stopped Time/Stop 81.00% x 6.78 x x $14.63 =0.03 x Stopped (b) SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS Idling 3.61% x 0.05 x 1 x $0.98 = x Delayed Time/Idle 3.61% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 3.61% x 1 x x $ =0.00 x Stopped Time/Stop 3.61% x 9.53 x x $24.39 =0.04 x Stopped (c) COMBINATION TRUCKS Idling 15.39% x 0.05 x 1 x $1.06 =0.01 x Delayed Time/Idle 15.39% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 15.39% x 1 x x $1, = x Stopped Time/Stop 15.39% x x x $24.39 = x Stopped 4.2. (a) Direction 1 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (b) Direction 2 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , , BIT , , , BIT , , , BIT , , G-7

182 STEP 5: INITIAL CONSTRUCTION, ALTERNATE # Concrete Concrete Pavement Restoration A: Rehabilitate Prestressed Pavement and Shoulders Unit Item Description Quantity Units Cost COST Cleaning and sealing of pavement/shoulder joints 20, / LF = 33,280 Cleaning and sealing of shoulder joints Cleaning and sealing of mainline joints Longitudinal and transverse crack sealing with rubberized asphalt Concrete patching (full depth on slab) Concrete patching (tendon repair/retensioning) Concrete spall repair Full depth repair shoulders Lean base and subbase--excavating and replacing for slab 17 repair 6, / LF = 10, / EA = 5,200 11, / LF = 36, / SY = 155, / EA = 88, / SF = 59, / SY = 139, / SY = / / SUBTOTAL = 575,998 Mobilization: 3.5 % of Subtotal = 20,160 M & P of Traffic: 5.0 % of Subtotal = 28,800 TOTAL = 624,958 G-8

183 STEP 6: MAINTENANCE STRATEGY CONCRETE PAVEMENT RESTORATION 5th Year Clean & Seal 25% of Longitudinal Joints 31,200 LF x $1.60 / LF x 25% = 12,480 Clean & Seal 100% of Transverse Joints 26 EA x $ / EA x 100% = 10,400 22,880 10th Year Rubblize and Reconstruct--Exercise Alternative B4 1EA x $2,095, / EA x 100% = 2,095,786 = 0 2,095,786 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 104,789 2,200,575 20th Year Full Depth Patching: 2% of total area 27,733 SY x $ / SY x 2% = 85, or 2" Cold Milling 27,733 SY x $2.50 / SY x 100 = 69,333 Superpave 9.5 mm 2.0 " WEARING: 1.5" 27,733 x $7.00 / = 194,131 = 0 349,436 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 17, ,9 30th Year Full Depth Patching: 2% of total area 27,733 SY x $ / SY x 2% = 85, PSY Leveling Course 27,733 SY x $70.00 / TON x 60 PSY x TON/2000 lb = 58,239 Superpave 9.5 mm 2.0 " WEARING: 1.5" 27,733 SY x $7.00 / SY = 194,131 = 0 338,343 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 16,7 355,260 G-9

184 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # A 2 Concrete E Concrete Pavement Restoration 2% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 624, Maintenance Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 22,880 x = 20, ,820,188 x = 1,493, x = x = x = ,9 x = 246, x = x = ,260 x = 196, x = x = 0 1,956, Annual Maintenance Cost: 825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 29,193 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 132, , User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 120 = 1,378,039 x = 1,378, ,357 x x 0 = 23,570 x = 21, ,999 x x 180 = 2,519,896 x = 2,067, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 3,979, Total Present Worth 6,722,269 G-10

185 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # A 2 Concrete E Concrete Pavement Restoration 4% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 624, Maintenance Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 22,880 x = 18, ,820,188 x = 1,229, x = x = x = ,9 x = 167, x = x = ,260 x 0.33 = 109, x = x = 0 1,525, Annual Maintenance Cost: 825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 26,360 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 83, , User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 120 = 1,378,039 x = 1,378, ,357 x x 0 = 23,570 x = 19, ,999 x x 180 = 2,519,896 x = 1,702, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 173, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x 0.33 = 143, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 3,416, Total Present Worth 5,677,395 G-11

186 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # A 2 Concrete E Concrete Pavement Restoration 6% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 624, Maintenance Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 22,880 x = 17, ,820,188 x = 1,016, x = x = x = ,9 x = 114, x = x = ,260 x = 61, x = x = 0 1,209, Annual Maintenance Cost: 825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 23,920 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 55,259 79, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 120 = 1,378,039 x = 1,378, ,357 x x 0 = 23,570 x = 17, ,999 x x 180 = 2,519,896 x = 1,407, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 118, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x = 80, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 3,002, Total Present Worth 4,6,162 G-12

187 PAVEMENT ALTERNATES COMPARED IN LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS: (Version 2.2) PAVEMENT TYPE TREATMENT 1 Bituminous A New Construction or Reconstruction 2 Concrete B Reconstruction on Rubblized Concrete C Bituminous Overlay D Bonded Concrete Overlay E Concrete Pavement Restoration F Unbonded Concrete Overlay ALTERNATE # PAVEMENT DESCRIPTION B2: Release Prestress, Saw Slabs, and Overlay : 1 C Bituminous Bituminous Overlay STEP 1: QUANTITY CALCULATIONS 1.1. Length in One Direction = FT 1.2. Is Roadway Divided? (Y/N) n 1.3. Length of Construction = 10,400 FT 1.4. # of Lanes in Both Directions = Lane Width = 12.0 FT 1.6. Total Pavement Width = 24.0 FT 1.7. Left Shoulder Width = 10.0 FT 1.8. Right Shoulder Width = 4.0 FT 1.9. Total Shoulder Width = 14.0 FT For Bituminous Construction, Shoulder Type? For Bituminous Overlay, Shoulder Type? 6SP For Bituminous Reconstruction, is the Proposed Base Concrete? For Bituminous Overlay, is the Existing Pavement Concrete? y Existing Transverse Joint Spacing = FT Proposed Transverse Joint Spacing = 20.0 FT Are Neoprene Joints proposed? (Y/N) N # of Proposed Longitudinal Joints in Both Directions = QUANTITIES (a) Pavement Area = 27,733 SY (b) Shoulder Area = 16,178 SY (c) Length of Guiderail = 2.0 MI (d) Number of Proposed Transverse Joints = 520 (e) Length of Proposed Transverse Joints = 19,760 FT (f) Length of Proposed Longitudinal Joints = 31,200 FT (g) Slab Stabilization, # of Holes = 5,200 (h) Length of Existing Transverse Joints = 624 FT G-13

188 STEP 2: USER DELAY COSTS, PART I 2.1. Traffic Information: (a) Initial ADT = 11,786 veh/day (b) Design Year ADT = 17,500 veh/day (c) Percent Cars (of Total ADT) = % (d) Percent Trucks (of Total ADT) = % (1) % S.U. Trucks (of Total Trucks) = % (2) % Comb. Trucks (of Total Trucks) = % (e) Design Life = 20 yrs (f) Directional Factor = 0.50 (g) Traffic Pattern Group (TPG) Category: 2 (h) HOUR %VEH 1: Urban Interstate : Rural Interstate : Urban Primary Arterial : Rural Primary Arterial : Urban Minor Arterial or Collector : North Rural Minor Arterial : Central Rural Colector : North Rural Collector : Central Rural Collector : Special Recreational Vehicles Traffic Growth Factor = Current Construction Cost Index = Inflation Factor = G-14

189 STEP 3: USER DELAY COSTS, PART II (Detour) 3.1. Restricted Flow Length = 8.00 mi 3.2. Detour Length = 8.00 mi 3.3. (a) Initial Speed = 65 mph (b) Reduced Speed = 35 mph 3.4. Restricted Flow Time = hr 3.5. Overall Increased Travel Time = hr 3.6. Number of Lanes in One Direction: (a) Normal = 2 lanes (b) Maintained During Construction = 2 lanes (c) Roadway Capacity per Lane (0 if not available) = 1,980 vphpl (d) Roadway Capacity in One Direction = 3,960 veh/hr 3.7. Idling Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $ $ /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $ $ /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $ $ /veh*hr 3.8. Time Value Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $3.00 $14.63 /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr 3.9. Added Cost Per 1000 Stops: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $28.63 $ /veh (b) Single Unit Trucks $51.43 $ /veh (c) Combination Trucks $ $1, /veh Added Time Per 1000 Stops: (a) Cars 6.78 hr (b) Single Unit Trucks 9.53 hr (c) Combination Trucks hr G-15

190 STEP 4: USER DELAY COSTS, PART III (Detour) 4.1. of Traffic (hr) (1000 (a) CARS stops) Idling 81.00% x x 1 x $0.89 = x Delayed Time/Idle 81.00% x x 1 x $14.63 = x Delayed Stopping 81.00% x 1 x x $ = x Stopped Time/Stop 81.00% x 6.78 x x $14.63 =0.03 x Stopped (b) (c) Percent Time Factor Cost per unit Cost/ Veh/Day Number of Vehicles SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS Idling 3.61% x x 1 x $0.98 =0.01 x Delayed Time/Idle 3.61% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 3.61% x 1 x x $ =0.00 x Stopped Time/Stop 3.61% x 9.53 x x $24.39 =0.04 x Stopped COMBINATION TRUCKS Idling 15.39% x x 1 x $1.06 = x Delayed Time/Idle 15.39% x x 1 x $24.39 =0.396 x Delayed Stopping 15.39% x 1 x x $1, = x Stopped Time/Stop 15.39% x x x $24.39 = x Stopped 4.2. (a) Direction 1 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day ,893 #REF! #REF! 0 #REF! CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , (b) Direction 2 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , G-16

191 STEP 3: USER DELAY COSTS, PART II (Single Lane) 3.1. Restricted Flow Length = 2.00 mi 3.2. Detour Length = 0.00 mi 3.3. (a) Initial Speed = 65 mph (b) Reduced Speed = 40 mph 3.4. Restricted Flow Time = hr 3.5. Overall Increased Travel Time = hr 3.6. Number of Lanes in One Direction: (a) Normal = 2 lanes (b) Maintained During Construction = 1 lanes (c) Roadway Capacity per Lane (0 if not available) = 1,260 vphpl (d) Roadway Capacity in One Direction = 1,260 veh/hr 3.7. Idling Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $ $ /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $ $ /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $ $ /veh*hr 3.8. Time Value Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $3.00 $14.63 /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr 3.9. Added Cost Per 1000 Stops: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $28.63 $ /veh (b) Single Unit Trucks $51.43 $ /veh (c) Combination Trucks $ $1, /veh Added Time Per 1000 Stops: (a) Cars 6.78 hr (b) Single Unit Trucks 9.53 hr (c) Combination Trucks hr G-17

192 STEP 4: USER DELAY COSTS, PART III (Single Lane) 4.1. of Traffic (hr) (1000 (a) CARS stops) Idling 81.00% x 0.05 x 1 x $0.89 = x Delayed Time/Idle 81.00% x x 1 x $14.63 = x Delayed Stopping 81.00% x 1 x x $ = x Stopped Time/Stop 81.00% x 6.78 x x $14.63 =0.03 x Stopped (b) (c) Percent Time Factor Cost per unit Cost/ Veh/Day Number of Vehicles SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS Idling 3.61% x 0.05 x 1 x $0.98 = x Delayed Time/Idle 3.61% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 3.61% x 1 x x $ =0.00 x Stopped Time/Stop 3.61% x 9.53 x x $24.39 =0.04 x Stopped COMBINATION TRUCKS Idling 15.39% x 0.05 x 1 x $1.06 =0.01 x Delayed Time/Idle 15.39% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 15.39% x 1 x x $1, = x Stopped Time/Stop 15.39% x x x $24.39 = x Stopped 4.2. (a) Direction 1 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , BIT , , , , CONC , BIT , , , , CONC , BIT , , , , (b) Direction 2 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , G-18

193 STEP 5: INITIAL CONSTRUCTION, ALTERNATE # Bituminous Bituminous Overlay B2: Release Prestress, Saw Slabs, and Overlay Unit Item Description Quantity Units Cost COST Cleaning and sealing of mainline joints Longitudinal and transverse crack sealing with rubberized asphalt Concrete patching (full depth on slabs) Release prestress Saw mainline concrete Superpave 9.5 mm wearing course Superpave 19.0 mm binder course Superpave leveling course Saw and seal overlay Lean base and subbase--excavating and replacing for slab 17 repair Concrete patching (full depth on shoulders) / EA = 5,200 11, / LF = 36, / SY = 155, / EA = 39,000 16, / FT = 48,600 43, / SY = 307,384 43, / SY = 878,240 43, / SY = 87,824 22, / FT = 34, / SY = 48, / SY = 139, / = 0.00 / = 0.00 / = 0.00 / = 0.00 / = SUBTOTAL = 1,779,855 Mobilization: 3.5 % of Subtotal = 62,295 M & P of Traffic: 5.0 % of Subtotal = 88,993 TOTAL = 1,931,142 G-19

194 STEP 6: MAINTENANCE STRATEGY BITUMINOUS CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, OR OVERLAY 10th Year 2% Full Depth Patching: 2% of total area 27,733 SY x $ / SY x 2% = 85, " or 2" Cold Milling 1.5 " 27,733 SY x $2.50 / SY = 69,333 Superpave 9.5 mm 1.5 " WEARING: 27,733 SY x $7.00 / SY = 194,131 Saw & Seal Joints, if necessary 22,950 FT x $1.50 / FT = 34,425 Compression Seal Transverse Joints--Clean and Replace 26 SY x $ / SY = 10, ,261 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 19, ,974 20th Year Mill off AC 43,2 SY x $7.50 / SY x 100% = 329,340 Rubblize and Reconstruct--Exercise Alternative B4, except prestress release 1EA x $1,694, / EA x 100% = 1,694,512 2,023,852 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 101,193 2,125,045 30th Year 2% Full Depth Patching: 2% of total area 27,733 SY x $ / SY x 2% = 85, " or 2" Cold Milling 1.5 " 27,733 SY x $2.50 / SY = 69,333 Superpave 9.5 mm 1.5 " WEARING: 27,733 SY x $7.00 / SY = 194, ,436 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 17, ,9 G-20

195 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # B2: Release prestress, saw, overlay 1 Bituminous C Bituminous Overlay 2% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 1,931, Maintenance Activities Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,974 x = 339, x = x = x = ,125,045 x = 1,430, x = x = ,9 x = 202, x = x = 0 1,972, Annual Maintenance Cost: 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 196,669 0 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 0 196, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 0 = 2,067,120 x = 2,067, ,603 x x 0 = 312,360 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,835, Total Present Worth 6,935,921 G-21

196 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # B2: Release prestress, saw, overlay 1 Bituminous C Bituminous Overlay 4% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 1,931, Maintenance Activities Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,974 x = 279, x = x = x = ,125,045 x = 969, x = x = ,9 x 0.33 = 113, x = x = 0 1,362, Annual Maintenance Cost: 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 142,298 0 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 0 142, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 0 = 2,067,120 x = 2,067, ,603 x x 0 = 312,360 x = 211, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 173, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x 0.33 = 143, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,595, Total Present Worth 6,031,096 G-22

197 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # B2: Release prestress, saw, overlay 1 Bituminous C Bituminous Overlay 6% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 1,931, Maintenance Activities Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,974 x = 231, x = x = x = ,125,045 x = 662, x = x = ,9 x = 63, x = x = 0 957, Annual Maintenance Cost: 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 1,174 0 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 0 1, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 0 = 2,067,120 x = 2,067, ,603 x x 0 = 312,360 x = 174, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 118, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x = 80, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,441, Total Present Worth 5,438,036 G-23

198 PAVEMENT ALTERNATES COMPARED IN LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS: (Version 2.2) ALTERNATE # PAVEMENT TYPE TREATMENT 1 Bituminous A New Construction or Reconstruction 2 Concrete B Reconstruction on Rubblized Concrete C Bituminous Overlay D Bonded Concrete Overlay E Concrete Pavement Restoration F Unbonded Concrete Overlay PAVEMENT DESCRIPTION B3: Release Prestress, Crack and Seat, and Overlay : 1 C Bituminous Bituminous Overlay STEP 1: QUANTITY CALCULATIONS 1.1. Length in One Direction = FT 1.2. Is Roadway Divided? (Y/N) n 1.3. Length of Construction = 10,400 FT 1.4. # of Lanes in Both Directions = Lane Width = 12.0 FT 1.6. Total Pavement Width = 24.0 FT 1.7. Left Shoulder Width = 10.0 FT 1.8. Right Shoulder Width = 4.0 FT 1.9. Total Shoulder Width = 14.0 FT For Bituminous Construction, Shoulder Type? For Bituminous Overlay, Shoulder Type? 6SP For Bituminous Reconstruction, is the Proposed Base Concrete? For Bituminous Overlay, is the Existing Pavement Concrete? y Existing Transverse Joint Spacing = FT Proposed Transverse Joint Spacing = 20.0 FT Are Neoprene Joints proposed? (Y/N) N # of Proposed Longitudinal Joints in Both Directions = QUANTITIES (a) Pavement Area = 27,733 SY (b) Shoulder Area = 16,178 SY (c) Length of Guiderail = 2.0 MI (d) Number of Proposed Transverse Joints = 520 (e) Length of Proposed Transverse Joints = 19,760 FT (f) Length of Proposed Longitudinal Joints = 31,200 FT (g) Slab Stabilization, # of Holes = 5,200 (h) Length of Existing Transverse Joints = 624 FT G-24

199 STEP 2: USER DELAY COSTS, PART I 2.1. Traffic Information: (a) Initial ADT = 11,786 veh/day (b) Design Year ADT = 17,500 veh/day (c) Percent Cars (of Total ADT) = % (d) Percent Trucks (of Total ADT) = % (1) % S.U. Trucks (of Total Trucks) = % (2) % Comb. Trucks (of Total Trucks) = % (e) Design Life = 20 yrs (f) Directional Factor = 0.50 (g) Traffic Pattern Group (TPG) Category: 2 (h) HOUR %VEH 1: Urban Interstate : Rural Interstate : Urban Primary Arterial : Rural Primary Arterial : Urban Minor Arterial or Collector : North Rural Minor Arterial : Central Rural Colector : North Rural Collector : Central Rural Collector : Special Recreational Vehicles Traffic Growth Factor = Current Construction Cost Index = Inflation Factor = G-25

200 STEP 3: USER DELAY COSTS, PART II (Detour) 3.1. Restricted Flow Length = 8.00 mi 3.2. Detour Length = 8.00 mi 3.3. (a) Initial Speed = 65 mph (b) Reduced Speed = 35 mph 3.4. Restricted Flow Time = hr 3.5. Overall Increased Travel Time = hr 3.6. Number of Lanes in One Direction: (a) Normal = 2 lanes (b) Maintained During Construction = 2 lanes (c) Roadway Capacity per Lane (0 if not available) = 1,980 vphpl (d) Roadway Capacity in One Direction = 3,960 veh/hr 3.7. Idling Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $ $ /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $ $ /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $ $ /veh*hr 3.8. Time Value Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $3.00 $14.63 /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr 3.9. Added Cost Per 1000 Stops: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $28.63 $ /veh (b) Single Unit Trucks $51.43 $ /veh (c) Combination Trucks $ $1, /veh Added Time Per 1000 Stops: (a) Cars 6.78 hr (b) Single Unit Trucks 9.53 hr (c) Combination Trucks hr G-26

201 STEP 4: USER DELAY COSTS, PART III (Detour) 4.1. of Traffic (hr) (1000 (a) CARS stops) Idling 81.00% x x 1 x $0.89 = x Delayed Time/Idle 81.00% x x 1 x $14.63 = x Delayed Stopping 81.00% x 1 x x $ = x Stopped Time/Stop 81.00% x 6.78 x x $14.63 =0.03 x Stopped (b) (c) Percent Time Factor Cost per unit Cost/ Veh/Day Number of Vehicles SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS Idling 3.61% x x 1 x $0.98 =0.01 x Delayed Time/Idle 3.61% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 3.61% x 1 x x $ =0.00 x Stopped Time/Stop 3.61% x 9.53 x x $24.39 =0.04 x Stopped COMBINATION TRUCKS Idling 15.39% x x 1 x $1.06 = x Delayed Time/Idle 15.39% x x 1 x $24.39 =0.396 x Delayed Stopping 15.39% x 1 x x $1, = x Stopped Time/Stop 15.39% x x x $24.39 = x Stopped 4.2. (a) Direction 1 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , , ,484 CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , (b) Direction 2 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , G-27

202 STEP 3: USER DELAY COSTS, PART II (Single Lane) 3.1. Restricted Flow Length = 2.00 mi 3.2. Detour Length = 0.00 mi 3.3. (a) Initial Speed = 65 mph (b) Reduced Speed = 40 mph 3.4. Restricted Flow Time = hr 3.5. Overall Increased Travel Time = hr 3.6. Number of Lanes in One Direction: (a) Normal = 2 lanes (b) Maintained During Construction = 1 lanes (c) Roadway Capacity per Lane (0 if not available) = 1,260 vphpl (d) Roadway Capacity in One Direction = 1,260 veh/hr 3.7. Idling Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $ $ /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $ $ /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $ $ /veh*hr 3.8. Time Value Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $3.00 $14.63 /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr 3.9. Added Cost Per 1000 Stops: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $28.63 $ /veh (b) Single Unit Trucks $51.43 $ /veh (c) Combination Trucks $ $1, /veh Added Time Per 1000 Stops: (a) Cars 6.78 hr (b) Single Unit Trucks 9.53 hr (c) Combination Trucks hr G-28

203 STEP 4: USER DELAY COSTS, PART III (Single Lane) 4.1. of Traffic (hr) (1000 (a) CARS stops) Idling 81.00% x 0.05 x 1 x $0.89 = x Delayed Time/Idle 81.00% x x 1 x $14.63 = x Delayed Stopping 81.00% x 1 x x $ = x Stopped Time/Stop 81.00% x 6.78 x x $14.63 =0.03 x Stopped (b) (c) Percent Time Factor Cost per unit Cost/ Veh/Day Number of Vehicles SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS Idling 3.61% x 0.05 x 1 x $0.98 = x Delayed Time/Idle 3.61% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 3.61% x 1 x x $ =0.00 x Stopped Time/Stop 3.61% x 9.53 x x $24.39 =0.04 x Stopped COMBINATION TRUCKS Idling 15.39% x 0.05 x 1 x $1.06 =0.01 x Delayed Time/Idle 15.39% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 15.39% x 1 x x $1, = x Stopped Time/Stop 15.39% x x x $24.39 = x Stopped 4.2. (a) Direction 1 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , BIT , , , , CONC , BIT , , , , CONC , BIT , , , , (b) Direction 2 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , G-29

204 STEP 5: INITIAL CONSTRUCTION, ALTERNATE # Bituminous B3: Release Prestress, Crack and Seat, and Overlay Unit Item Description Quantity Units Cost COST Crack and Seat 43, / SY = 109,780 Full-depth patching / SY = 155,000 Release prestress / EA = 39,000 Superpave 9.5 mm wearing course 43, / SY = 307,384 Superpave 19.0 mm binder course 43, / SY = 1,009,976 Geotextile 43, / SY = 65,868 Superpave leveling course 43, / SY = 87,824 Saw and seal 22, / FT = 34,425 Seal existing transverse joints / EA = 5,200 Lean base and subbase--excavating and replacing for sl / SY = 48,000 Concrete patching (full depth on shoulders) / SY = 139,500 SUBTOTAL = 2,001,957 Mobilization: 3.5 % of Subtotal = 70,068 M & P of Traffic: 5.0 % of Subtotal = 100,098 TOTAL = 2,172,123 G-30

205 STEP 6: MAINTENANCE STRATEGY BITUMINOUS CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, OR OVERLAY 10th Year 2% Full Depth Patching: 2% of total area 27,733 SY x $ / SY x 2% = 85, " or 2" Cold Milling 1.5 " 27,733 SY x $2.50 / SY = 69,333 Superpave 9.5 mm 1.5 " WEARING: 27,733 SY x $7.00 / SY = 194,131 Saw & Seal Joints, if necessary 22,950 FT x $1.50 / FT = 34,425 Compression Seal Transverse Joints--Clean and Replace 26 EA x $ / EA = 10, ,261 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 19, ,974 20th Year 2% Full Depth Patching: 2% of total area 27,733 SY x $ / SY x 2% = 85, PSY Leveling Course 27,733 SY x $70.00 / TON x 60 PSY x TON/2000 lb = 58,239 Superpave 9.5 mm 1.5 " WEARING: 27,733 SY x $7.00 / SY = 194,131 Saw & Seal Joints, if necessary 22,950 FT x $1.50 / FT = 34,425 Compression Seal Transverse Joints--Clean and Replace 26 EA x $ / EA = 10, ,168 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 19, ,326 30th Year 2% Full Depth Patching: 2% of total area 27,733 SY x $ / SY x 2% = 85, " or 2" Cold Milling 1.5 " 27,733 SY x $2.50 / SY = 69,333 Superpave 9.5 mm 1.5 " WEARING: 27,733 SY x $7.00 / SY = 194,131 Saw & Seal Joints, if necessary 22,950 FT x $1.50 / FT = 34,425 Compression Seal Transverse Joints--Clean and Replace 26 EA x $ / EA = 10, ,261 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 19,713 G ,974

206 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # B3: Crack and seat, AC Overlay 1 Bituminous C Bituminous Overlay 2% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 2,172, Maintenance Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,974 x = 339, x = x = x = ,326 x = 270, x = x = ,974 x = 228, x = x = 0 838, Annual Maintenance Cost: 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 196,669 0 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 0 196, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 60 = 2,067,058 x = 2,067, ,603 x x 0 = 312,360 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,835, Total Present Worth 6,043,484 G-32

207 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # B3: Crack and seat, AC Overlay 1 Bituminous C Bituminous Overlay 4% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 2,172, Maintenance Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,974 x = 279, x = x = x = ,326 x = 183, x = x = ,974 x 0.33 = 127, x = x = 0 590, Annual Maintenance Cost: 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 142,298 0 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 0 142, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 60 = 2,067,058 x = 2,067, ,603 x x 0 = 312,360 x = 211, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 173, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x 0.33 = 143, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,594, Total Present Worth 5,500,300 G-33

208 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # B3: Crack and seat, AC Overlay 1 Bituminous C Bituminous Overlay 6% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 2,172, Maintenance Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,974 x = 231, x = x = x = ,326 x = 125, x = x = ,974 x = 72, x = x = 0 428, Annual Maintenance Cost: 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 1,174 0 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 0 1, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 60 = 2,067,058 x = 2,067, ,603 x x 0 = 312,360 x = 174, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 118, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x = 80, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,441, Total Present Worth 5,149,998 G-34

209 PAVEMENT ALTERNATES COMPARED IN LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS: (Version 2.2) ALTERNATE # PAVEMENT TYPE TREATMENT 1 Bituminous A New Construction or Reconstruction 2 Concrete B Reconstruction on Rubblized Concrete C Bituminous Overlay D Bonded Concrete Overlay E Concrete Pavement Restoration F Unbonded Concrete Overlay PAVEMENT DESCRIPTION B4: Release Prestress, Rubblize, and Overlay : 1 C Bituminous Bituminous Overlay STEP 1: QUANTITY CALCULATIONS 1.1. Length in One Direction = FT 1.2. Is Roadway Divided? (Y/N) n 1.3. Length of Construction = 10,400 FT 1.4. # of Lanes in Both Directions = Lane Width = 12.0 FT 1.6. Total Pavement Width = 24.0 FT 1.7. Left Shoulder Width = 10.0 FT 1.8. Right Shoulder Width = 4.0 FT 1.9. Total Shoulder Width = 14.0 FT For Bituminous Construction, Shoulder Type? For Bituminous Overlay, Shoulder Type? 6SP For Bituminous Reconstruction, is the Proposed Base Concrete? For Bituminous Overlay, is the Existing Pavement Concrete? y Existing Transverse Joint Spacing = FT Proposed Transverse Joint Spacing = 20.0 FT Are Neoprene Joints proposed? (Y/N) N # of Proposed Longitudinal Joints in Both Directions = QUANTITIES (a) Pavement Area = 27,733 SY (b) Shoulder Area = 16,178 SY (c) Length of Guiderail = 2.0 MI (d) Number of Proposed Transverse Joints = 520 (e) Length of Proposed Transverse Joints = 19,760 FT (f) Length of Proposed Longitudinal Joints = 31,200 FT (g) Slab Stabilization, # of Holes = 5,200 (h) Length of Existing Transverse Joints = 624 FT G-35

210 STEP 2: USER DELAY COSTS, PART I 2.1. Traffic Information: (a) Initial ADT = 11,786 veh/day (b) Design Year ADT = 17,500 veh/day (c) Percent Cars (of Total ADT) = % (d) Percent Trucks (of Total ADT) = % (1) % S.U. Trucks (of Total Trucks) = % (2) % Comb. Trucks (of Total Trucks) = % (e) Design Life = 20 yrs (f) Directional Factor = 0.50 (g) Traffic Pattern Group (TPG) Category: 2 (h) HOUR %VEH 1: Urban Interstate : Rural Interstate : Urban Primary Arterial : Rural Primary Arterial : Urban Minor Arterial or Collector : North Rural Minor Arterial : Central Rural Colector : North Rural Collector : Central Rural Collector : Special Recreational Vehicles Traffic Growth Factor = Current Construction Cost Index = Inflation Factor = G-36

211 STEP 3: USER DELAY COSTS, PART II (Detour) 3.1. Restricted Flow Length = 8.00 mi 3.2. Detour Length = 8.00 mi 3.3. (a) Initial Speed = 65 mph (b) Reduced Speed = 35 mph 3.4. Restricted Flow Time = hr 3.5. Overall Increased Travel Time = hr 3.6. Number of Lanes in One Direction: (a) Normal = 2 lanes (b) Maintained During Construction = 2 lanes (c) Roadway Capacity per Lane (0 if not available) = 1,980 vphpl (d) Roadway Capacity in One Direction = 3,960 veh/hr 3.7. Idling Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $ $ /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $ $ /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $ $ /veh*hr 3.8. Time Value Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $3.00 $14.63 /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr 3.9. Added Cost Per 1000 Stops: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $28.63 $ /veh (b) Single Unit Trucks $51.43 $ /veh (c) Combination Trucks $ $1, /veh Added Time Per 1000 Stops: (a) Cars 6.78 hr (b) Single Unit Trucks 9.53 hr (c) Combination Trucks hr G-37

212 STEP 4: USER DELAY COSTS, PART III (Detour) 4.1. of Traffic (hr) (1000 (a) CARS stops) Idling 81.00% x x 1 x $0.89 = x Delayed Time/Idle 81.00% x x 1 x $14.63 = x Delayed Stopping 81.00% x 1 x x $ = x Stopped Time/Stop 81.00% x 6.78 x x $14.63 =0.03 x Stopped (b) (c) Percent Time Factor Cost per unit Cost/ Veh/Day Number of Vehicles SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS Idling 3.61% x x 1 x $0.98 =0.01 x Delayed Time/Idle 3.61% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 3.61% x 1 x x $ =0.00 x Stopped Time/Stop 3.61% x 9.53 x x $24.39 =0.04 x Stopped COMBINATION TRUCKS Idling 15.39% x x 1 x $1.06 = x Delayed Time/Idle 15.39% x x 1 x $24.39 =0.396 x Delayed Stopping 15.39% x 1 x x $1, = x Stopped Time/Stop 15.39% x x x $24.39 = x Stopped 4.2. (a) Direction 1 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , , ,484 CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , (b) Direction 2 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , G-38

213 STEP 3: USER DELAY COSTS, PART II (Single Lane) 3.1. Restricted Flow Length = 2.00 mi 3.2. Detour Length = 0.00 mi 3.3. (a) Initial Speed = 65 mph (b) Reduced Speed = 40 mph 3.4. Restricted Flow Time = hr 3.5. Overall Increased Travel Time = hr 3.6. Number of Lanes in One Direction: (a) Normal = 2 lanes (b) Maintained During Construction = 1 lanes (c) Roadway Capacity per Lane (0 if not available) = 1,260 vphpl (d) Roadway Capacity in One Direction = 1,260 veh/hr 3.7. Idling Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $ $ /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $ $ /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $ $ /veh*hr 3.8. Time Value Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $3.00 $14.63 /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr 3.9. Added Cost Per 1000 Stops: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $28.63 $ /veh (b) Single Unit Trucks $51.43 $ /veh (c) Combination Trucks $ $1, /veh Added Time Per 1000 Stops: (a) Cars 6.78 hr (b) Single Unit Trucks 9.53 hr (c) Combination Trucks hr G-39

214 STEP 4: USER DELAY COSTS, PART III (Single Lane) 4.1. of Traffic (hr) (1000 (a) CARS stops) Idling 81.00% x 0.05 x 1 x $0.89 = x Delayed Time/Idle 81.00% x x 1 x $14.63 = x Delayed Stopping 81.00% x 1 x x $ = x Stopped Time/Stop 81.00% x 6.78 x x $14.63 =0.03 x Stopped (b) (c) Percent Time Factor Cost per unit Cost/ Veh/Day Number of Vehicles SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS Idling 3.61% x 0.05 x 1 x $0.98 = x Delayed Time/Idle 3.61% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 3.61% x 1 x x $ =0.00 x Stopped Time/Stop 3.61% x 9.53 x x $24.39 =0.04 x Stopped COMBINATION TRUCKS Idling 15.39% x 0.05 x 1 x $1.06 =0.01 x Delayed Time/Idle 15.39% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 15.39% x 1 x x $1, = x Stopped Time/Stop 15.39% x x x $24.39 = x Stopped 4.2. (a) Direction 1 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , BIT , , , , CONC , BIT , , , , CONC , BIT , , , , (b) Direction 2 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , G-40

215 STEP 5: INITIAL CONSTRUCTION, ALTERNATE # B4: Release Prestress, Rubblize, and Overlay Bituminous Bituminous Overlay Unit Item Description Quantity Units Cost COST Rubblize 43, / SY = 219,560 Superpave 9.5 mm wearing course 43, / SY = 307,384 Superpave 19.0 mm binder course 43, / SY = 1,185,624 Superpave leveling course 43, / SY = 87,824 Geotextile 43, / SY = 65,868 Release prestress / EA = 39,000 Lean base and subbase--excavating and replacin / SY = 48,000 Concrete Patching (full depth on slab) / SY = 155,000 Concrete patching (full depth on shoulders) / SY = 69,750 SUBTOTAL = 2,178,010 Mobilization: 5.0 % of Subtotal = 1,901 M & P of Traffic: 5.0 % of Subtotal = 1,901 TOTAL = 2,395,811 G-41

216 STEP 6: MAINTENANCE STRATEGY BITUMINOUS CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, OR OVERLAY 10th Year 2% Full Depth Patching: 2% of total area 27,733 SY x $ / SY x 2% = 85, " or 2" Cold Milling 1.5 " 27,733 SY x $2.50 / SY = 69,333 Superpave 9.5 mm 1.5 " WEARING: 27,733 SY x $7.00 / SY = 194, ,436 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 17, ,9 20th Year 2% Full Depth Patching: 2% of total area 27,733 SY x $ / SY x 2% = 85, PSY Leveling Course 27,733 SY x $70.00 / TON x 60 PSY x TON/2000 lb = 58,239 Superpave 9.5 mm 1.5 " WEARING: 27,733 SY x $7.00 / SY = 194, ,343 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 16,7 355,260 30th Year 2% Full Depth Patching: 2% of total area 27,733 SY x $ / SY x 2% = 85, " or 2" Cold Milling 1.5 " 27,733 SY x $2.50 / SY = 69,333 Superpave 9.5 mm 1.5 " WEARING: 27,733 SY x $7.00 / SY = 194, ,436 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 17, ,9 G-42

217 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # B4--Rubblize and Bituminous Overlay 1 Bituminous C Bituminous Overlay 2% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 2,395, Maintenance Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,9 x = 300, x = x = x = ,260 x = 239, x = x = ,9 x = 202, x = x = 0 742, Annual Maintenance Cost: 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 196,669 0 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 0 196, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 0 = 2,067,058 x = 2,067, ,603 x x 0 = 312,360 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,835, Total Present Worth 6,170,903 G-43

218 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # B4--Rubblize and Bituminous Overlay 1 Bituminous C Bituminous Overlay 4% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 2,395, Maintenance Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,9 x = 247, x = x = x = ,260 x = 162, x = x = ,9 x 0.33 = 113, x = x = 0 523, Annual Maintenance Cost: 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 142,298 0 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 0 142, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 0 = 2,067,058 x = 2,067, ,603 x x 0 = 312,360 x = 211, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 173, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x 0.33 = 143, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,594, Total Present Worth 5,656,199 G-44

219 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # B4--Rubblize and Bituminous Overlay 1 Bituminous C Bituminous Overlay 6% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 2,395, Maintenance Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,9 x = 204, x = x = x = ,260 x = 110, x = x = ,9 x = 63, x = x = 0 379, Annual Maintenance Cost: 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 1,174 0 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 0 1, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 0 = 2,067,058 x = 2,067, ,603 x x 0 = 312,360 x = 174, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 118, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x = 80, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,441, Total Present Worth 5,324,534 G-45

220 PAVEMENT ALTERNATES COMPARED IN LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS: (Version 2.2) ALTERNATE # PAVEMENT TYPE TREATMENT 1 Bituminous A New Construction or Reconstruction 2 Concrete B Reconstruction on Rubblized Concrete C Bituminous Overlay D Bonded Concrete Overlay E Concrete Pavement Restoration F Unbonded Concrete Overlay PAVEMENT DESCRIPTION C-PCC: Removal and Rigid Reconstruction : 2 A Concrete New Construction or Reconstruction STEP 1: QUANTITY CALCULATIONS 1.1. Length in One Direction = FT 1.2. Is Roadway Divided? (Y/N) n 1.3. Length of Construction = 10,400 FT 1.4. # of Lanes in Both Directions = Lane Width = 12.0 FT 1.6. Total Pavement Width = 24.0 FT 1.7. Left Shoulder Width = 10.0 FT 1.8. Right Shoulder Width = 4.0 FT 1.9. Total Shoulder Width = 14.0 FT For Bituminous Construction, Shoulder Type? For Bituminous Overlay, Shoulder Type? 6SP For Bituminous Reconstruction, is the Proposed Base Concrete? For Bituminous Overlay, is the Existing Pavement Concrete? y Existing Transverse Joint Spacing = FT Proposed Transverse Joint Spacing = 20.0 FT Are Neoprene Joints proposed? (Y/N) N # of Proposed Longitudinal Joints in Both Directions = QUANTITIES (a) Pavement Area = 27,733 SY (b) Shoulder Area = 16,178 SY (c) Length of Guiderail = 2.0 MI (d) Number of Proposed Transverse Joints = 520 (e) Length of Proposed Transverse Joints = 19,760 FT (f) Length of Proposed Longitudinal Joints = 31,200 FT (g) Slab Stabilization, # of Holes = 5,200 (h) Length of Existing Transverse Joints = 624 FT G-46

221 STEP 2: USER DELAY COSTS, PART I 2.1. Traffic Information: (a) Initial ADT = 11,786 veh/day (b) Design Year ADT = 17,500 veh/day (c) Percent Cars (of Total ADT) = % (d) Percent Trucks (of Total ADT) = % (1) % S.U. Trucks (of Total Trucks) = % (2) % Comb. Trucks (of Total Trucks) = % (e) Design Life = 20 yrs (f) Directional Factor = 0.50 (g) Traffic Pattern Group (TPG) Category: 2 (h) HOUR %VEH 1: Urban Interstate : Rural Interstate : Urban Primary Arterial : Rural Primary Arterial : Urban Minor Arterial or Collector : North Rural Minor Arterial : Central Rural Colector : North Rural Collector : Central Rural Collector : Special Recreational Vehicles Traffic Growth Factor = Current Construction Cost Index = Inflation Factor = G-47

222 STEP 3: USER DELAY COSTS, PART II (Detour) 3.1. Restricted Flow Length = 8.00 mi 3.2. Detour Length = 8.00 mi 3.3. (a) Initial Speed = 65 mph (b) Reduced Speed = 35 mph 3.4. Restricted Flow Time = hr 3.5. Overall Increased Travel Time = hr 3.6. Number of Lanes in One Direction: (a) Normal = 2 lanes (b) Maintained During Construction = 2 lanes (c) Roadway Capacity per Lane (0 if not available) = 1,980 vphpl (d) Roadway Capacity in One Direction = 3,960 veh/hr 3.7. Idling Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $ $ /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $ $ /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $ $ /veh*hr 3.8. Time Value Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $3.00 $14.63 /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr 3.9. Added Cost Per 1000 Stops: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $28.63 $ /veh (b) Single Unit Trucks $51.43 $ /veh (c) Combination Trucks $ $1, /veh Added Time Per 1000 Stops: (a) Cars 6.78 hr (b) Single Unit Trucks 9.53 hr (c) Combination Trucks hr G-48

223 STEP 4: USER DELAY COSTS, PART III (Detour) 4.1. of Traffic (hr) (1000 (a) CARS stops) Idling 81.00% x x 1 x $0.89 = x Delayed Time/Idle 81.00% x x 1 x $14.63 = x Delayed Stopping 81.00% x 1 x x $ = x Stopped Time/Stop 81.00% x 6.78 x x $14.63 =0.03 x Stopped (b) (c) Percent Time Factor Cost per unit Cost/ Veh/Day Number of Vehicles SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS Idling 3.61% x x 1 x $0.98 =0.01 x Delayed Time/Idle 3.61% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 3.61% x 1 x x $ =0.00 x Stopped Time/Stop 3.61% x 9.53 x x $24.39 =0.04 x Stopped COMBINATION TRUCKS Idling 15.39% x x 1 x $1.06 = x Delayed Time/Idle 15.39% x x 1 x $24.39 =0.396 x Delayed Stopping 15.39% x 1 x x $1, = x Stopped Time/Stop 15.39% x x x $24.39 = x Stopped 4.2. (a) Direction 1 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , , ,484 CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , (b) Direction 2 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , G-49

224 STEP 3: USER DELAY COSTS, PART II (Single Lane) 3.1. Restricted Flow Length = 2.00 mi 3.2. Detour Length = 0.00 mi 3.3. (a) Initial Speed = 65 mph (b) Reduced Speed = 40 mph 3.4. Restricted Flow Time = hr 3.5. Overall Increased Travel Time = hr 3.6. Number of Lanes in One Direction: (a) Normal = 2 lanes (b) Maintained During Construction = 1 lanes (c) Roadway Capacity per Lane (0 if not available) = 1,260 vphpl (d) Roadway Capacity in One Direction = 1,260 veh/hr 3.7. Idling Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $ $ /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $ $ /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $ $ /veh*hr 3.8. Time Value Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $3.00 $14.63 /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr 3.9. Added Cost Per 1000 Stops: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $28.63 $ /veh (b) Single Unit Trucks $51.43 $ /veh (c) Combination Trucks $ $1, /veh Added Time Per 1000 Stops: (a) Cars 6.78 hr (b) Single Unit Trucks 9.53 hr (c) Combination Trucks hr G-50

225 STEP 4: USER DELAY COSTS, PART III (Single Lane) 4.1. of Traffic (hr) (1000 (a) CARS stops) Idling 81.00% x 0.05 x 1 x $0.89 = x Delayed Time/Idle 81.00% x x 1 x $14.63 = x Delayed Stopping 81.00% x 1 x x $ = x Stopped Time/Stop 81.00% x 6.78 x x $14.63 =0.03 x Stopped (b) (c) Percent Time Factor Cost per unit Cost/ Veh/Day Number of Vehicles SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS Idling 3.61% x 0.05 x 1 x $0.98 = x Delayed Time/Idle 3.61% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 3.61% x 1 x x $ =0.00 x Stopped Time/Stop 3.61% x 9.53 x x $24.39 =0.04 x Stopped COMBINATION TRUCKS Idling 15.39% x 0.05 x 1 x $1.06 =0.01 x Delayed Time/Idle 15.39% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 15.39% x 1 x x $1, = x Stopped Time/Stop 15.39% x x x $24.39 = x Stopped 4.2. (a) Direction 1 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , BIT , , CONC , , ,173 BIT , , CONC , , ,868 BIT , , (b) Direction 2 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , G-51

226 STEP 5: INITIAL CONSTRUCTION, ALTERNATE # C-PCC Concrete New Construction or Reconstruction Unit Item Description Quantity Units Cost COST Pavement Removal and Disposal 43, / SY = 658,680 Subgrade Preparation 43, / SY = 658,680 Concrete Slab 43, / SY = 2,109,685 Asphalt treated permeable base 43, / SY = 241,516 2A subbase 43, / SY = 153,692 Release prestress / EA = / / / / = SUBTOTAL = 3,861,253 Mobilization: 5.0 % of Subtotal = 193,063 M & P of Traffic: 5.0 % of Subtotal = 193,063 TOTAL = 4,247,379 G-52

227 STEP 6: MAINTENANCE STRATEGY CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, OR UNBONDED OVERLAY 10th Year Clean & Seal 25% of Longitudinal Joints including Shoulders 31,200 LF x $1.60 / LF x 25% = 12,480 Clean & Seal 5% of Transverse Joints 19,760 LF x $1.60 / LF x 5% = 1,581 14,061 20th Year Concrete Patching: 2% of total area 27,733 SY x $ / SY x 2% = 85,972 Diamond Grinding: 50% of total area 27,733 SY x $5.00 / SY x 50% = 69,333 Clean & Seal 100% of Longitudinal Joints 31,200 LF x $1.60 / LF x 100% = 49,920 Clean & Seal 100% of Transverse Joints 19,760 LF x $1.60 / LF x 100% = 31, ,841 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 11, ,683 30th Year Concrete Patching: 5% of total area 27,733 SY x $ / SY x 5% = 214,931 Clean & Seal 100% of Longitudinal Joints 31,200 LF x $1.60 / LF x 100% = 49,920 Clean & Seal 100% of Transverse Joints 19,760 LF x $1.60 / LF x 100% = 31, PSY Leveling Course 27,733 SY x $70.00 / TON x 60 PSY x TON/2000 lb = 58, " Bituminous Overlay: 27,733 SY x $9.00 / SY 2.0 " BINDER = 249,597 27,733 SY x $7.00 / SY 1.5 " WEARING = 194,131 Saw & Seal Joints in Overlay 19,760 LF x $1.50 / LF = 29, ,074 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 41, ,478 G-53

228 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # C-PCC 2 Concrete A New Construction or Reconstruction 2% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 4,247, Maintenance Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,061 x = 11, x = x = x = ,683 x = 167, x = x = ,478 x = 480, x = x = 0 658, Annual Maintenance Cost: 825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 72,788 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 35,652 1, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 0 = 2,067,058 x = 2,067, x x 0 = 0 x = x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,579, Total Present Worth 7,594,272 G-54

229 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # C-PCC 2 Concrete A New Construction or Reconstruction 4% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 4,247, Maintenance Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,061 x = 9, x = x = x = ,683 x = 113, x = x = ,478 x 0.33 = 268, x = x = 0 3, Annual Maintenance Cost: 825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 56,199 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 17,979 74, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 0 = 2,067,058 x = 2,067, x x 0 = 0 x = x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 173, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x 0.33 = 143, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,383, Total Present Worth 7,096,568 G-55

230 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # C-PCC 2 Concrete A New Construction or Reconstruction 6% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 4,247, Maintenance Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,061 x = 7, x = x = x = ,683 x = 77, x = x = ,478 x = 151, x = x = 0 236, Annual Maintenance Cost: 825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 44,736 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 9,213 53, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 0 = 2,067,058 x = 2,067, x x 0 = 0 x = x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 118, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x = 80, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,266, Total Present Worth 6,804,700 G-56

231 PAVEMENT ALTERNATES COMPARED IN LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS: (Version 2.2) PAVEMENT TYPE TREATMENT 1 Bituminous A New Construction or Reconstruction 2 Concrete B Reconstruction on Rubblized Concrete C Bituminous Overlay D Bonded Concrete Overlay E Concrete Pavement Restoration F Unbonded Concrete Overlay ALTERNATE # PAVEMENT DESCRIPTION C-AC: Removal and Flexible Reconstruction : 1 A Bituminous New Construction or Reconstruction : : : : : STEP 1: QUANTITY CALCULATIONS 1.1. Length in One Direction = FT 1.2. Is Roadway Divided? (Y/N) N 1.3. Length of Construction = 10,400 FT 1.4. # of Lanes in Both Directions = Lane Width = 12.0 FT 1.6. Total Pavement Width = 24.0 FT 1.7. Left Shoulder Width = 10.0 FT 1.8. Right Shoulder Width = 4.0 FT 1.9. Total Shoulder Width = 14.0 FT For Bituminous Construction, Shoulder Type? For Bituminous Overlay, Shoulder Type? 6SP For Bituminous Reconstruction, is the Proposed Base Concrete? For Bituminous Overlay, is the Existing Pavement Concrete? y Existing Transverse Joint Spacing = FT Proposed Transverse Joint Spacing = 20.0 FT Are Neoprene Joints proposed? (Y/N) N # of Proposed Longitudinal Joints in Both Directions = QUANTITIES (a) Pavement Area = 27,733 SY (b) Shoulder Area = 16,178 SY (c) Length of Guiderail = 2.0 MI (d) Number of Proposed Transverse Joints = 520 (e) Length of Proposed Transverse Joints = 19,760 FT (f) Length of Proposed Longitudinal Joints = 31,200 FT (g) Slab Stabilization, # of Holes = 5,200 (h) Length of Existing Transverse Joints = 624 FT G-57

232 STEP 2: USER DELAY COSTS, PART I 2.1. Traffic Information: (a) Initial ADT = 11,786 veh/day (b) Design Year ADT = 17,500 veh/day (c) Percent Cars (of Total ADT) = % (d) Percent Trucks (of Total ADT) = % (1) % S.U. Trucks (of Total Trucks) = % (2) % Comb. Trucks (of Total Trucks) = % (e) Design Life = 20 yrs (f) Directional Factor = 0.50 (g) Traffic Pattern Group (TPG) Category: 2 (h) HOUR %VEH 1: Urban Interstate : Rural Interstate : Urban Primary Arterial : Rural Primary Arterial : Urban Minor Arterial or Collector : North Rural Minor Arterial : Central Rural Colector : North Rural Collector : Central Rural Collector : Special Recreational Vehicles Traffic Growth Factor = Current Construction Cost Index = Inflation Factor = G-58

233 STEP 3: USER DELAY COSTS, PART II (Detour) 3.1. Restricted Flow Length = 8.00 mi 3.2. Detour Length = 8.00 mi 3.3. (a) Initial Speed = 65 mph (b) Reduced Speed = 35 mph 3.4. Restricted Flow Time = hr 3.5. Overall Increased Travel Time = hr 3.6. Number of Lanes in One Direction: (a) Normal = 2 lanes (b) Maintained During Construction = 2 lanes (c) Roadway Capacity per Lane (0 if not available) = 1,980 vphpl (d) Roadway Capacity in One Direction = 3,960 veh/hr 3.7. Idling Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $ $ /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $ $ /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $ $ /veh*hr 3.8. Time Value Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $3.00 $14.63 /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr 3.9. Added Cost Per 1000 Stops: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $28.63 $ /veh (b) Single Unit Trucks $51.43 $ /veh (c) Combination Trucks $ $1, /veh Added Time Per 1000 Stops: (a) Cars 6.78 hr (b) Single Unit Trucks 9.53 hr (c) Combination Trucks hr G-59

234 STEP 4: USER DELAY COSTS, PART III (Detour) 4.1. of Traffic (hr) (1000 (a) CARS stops) Idling 81.00% x x 1 x $0.89 = x Delayed Time/Idle 81.00% x x 1 x $14.63 = x Delayed Stopping 81.00% x 1 x x $ = x Stopped Time/Stop 81.00% x 6.78 x x $14.63 =0.03 x Stopped (b) (c) Percent Time Factor Cost per unit Cost/ Veh/Day Number of Vehicles SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS Idling 3.61% x x 1 x $0.98 =0.01 x Delayed Time/Idle 3.61% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 3.61% x 1 x x $ =0.00 x Stopped Time/Stop 3.61% x 9.53 x x $24.39 =0.04 x Stopped COMBINATION TRUCKS Idling 15.39% x x 1 x $1.06 = x Delayed Time/Idle 15.39% x x 1 x $24.39 =0.396 x Delayed Stopping 15.39% x 1 x x $1, = x Stopped Time/Stop 15.39% x x x $24.39 = x Stopped 4.2. (a) Direction 1 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , , ,484 CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , (b) Direction 2 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , G-60

235 STEP 3: USER DELAY COSTS, PART II (Single Lane) 3.1. Restricted Flow Length = 2.00 mi 3.2. Detour Length = 0.00 mi 3.3. (a) Initial Speed = 65 mph (b) Reduced Speed = 40 mph 3.4. Restricted Flow Time = hr 3.5. Overall Increased Travel Time = hr 3.6. Number of Lanes in One Direction: (a) Normal = 2 lanes (b) Maintained During Construction = 1 lanes (c) Roadway Capacity per Lane (0 if not available) = 1,260 vphpl (d) Roadway Capacity in One Direction = 1,260 veh/hr 3.7. Idling Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $ $ /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $ $ /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $ $ /veh*hr 3.8. Time Value Cost: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $3.00 $14.63 /veh*hr (b) Single Unit Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr (c) Combination Trucks $5.00 $24.39 /veh*hr 3.9. Added Cost Per 1000 Stops: 1972 Value Current Value (a) Cars $28.63 $ /veh (b) Single Unit Trucks $51.43 $ /veh (c) Combination Trucks $ $1, /veh Added Time Per 1000 Stops: (a) Cars 6.78 hr (b) Single Unit Trucks 9.53 hr (c) Combination Trucks hr G-61

236 STEP 4: USER DELAY COSTS, PART III (Single Lane) 4.1. of Traffic (hr) (1000 (a) CARS stops) Idling 81.00% x 0.05 x 1 x $0.89 = x Delayed Time/Idle 81.00% x x 1 x $14.63 = x Delayed Stopping 81.00% x 1 x x $ = x Stopped Time/Stop 81.00% x 6.78 x x $14.63 =0.03 x Stopped (b) (c) Percent Time Factor Cost per unit Cost/ Veh/Day Number of Vehicles SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS Idling 3.61% x 0.05 x 1 x $0.98 = x Delayed Time/Idle 3.61% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 3.61% x 1 x x $ =0.00 x Stopped Time/Stop 3.61% x 9.53 x x $24.39 =0.04 x Stopped COMBINATION TRUCKS Idling 15.39% x 0.05 x 1 x $1.06 =0.01 x Delayed Time/Idle 15.39% x x 1 x $24.39 = x Delayed Stopping 15.39% x 1 x x $1, = x Stopped Time/Stop 15.39% x x x $24.39 = x Stopped 4.2. (a) Direction 1 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , , ,603 BIT , , CONC , , ,173 BIT , , CONC , , ,868 BIT , , (b) Direction 2 Hours of M&PT Total Delayed Stopped User Delay Year Begin End ADT % ADT ADT Cost / Day , CPR , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , CONC , BIT , , G-62

237 STEP 5: INITIAL CONSTRUCTION, ALTERNATE # Bituminous C-AC: Removal and Flexible Reconstruction New Construction or Reconstruction Unit Item Description Quantity Units Cost COST Pavement Removal and Disposal 43, / SY = 658,680 Subgrade Preparation 43, / SY = 219,560 Superpave 9.5 mm wearing course, 1.5 in 43, / SY = 307,384 Superpave 19.0 mm binder course, 2.5 in 43, / SY = 395,2 Superpave 25 mm base course, 10.0 in 43, / SY = 1,463,733 2A Subbase, 7.5 in 43, / SY = 307,384 Release prestress / EA = / = / / / / / / / / / / / / = SUBTOTAL = 3,390,949 Mobilization: 3.5 % of Subtotal = 118,683 M & P of Traffic: 5.0 % of Subtotal = 169,547 TOTAL = 3,679,180 G-63

238 STEP 6: MAINTENANCE STRATEGY BITUMINOUS CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, OR OVERLAY 10th Year 2% Full Depth Patching: 2% of total area 27,733 SY x $ / SY x 2% = 85, " or 2" Cold Milling 1.5 " 27,733 SY x $2.50 / SY = 69,333 Superpave 9.5 mm 1.5 " WEARING: 27,733 SY x $7.00 / SY = 194, ,436 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 17, ,9 20th Year 2% Full Depth Patching: 2% of total area 27,733 SY x $ / SY x 2% = 85, PSY Leveling Course 27,733 SY x $70.00 / TON x 60 PSY x TON/2000 lb = 58,239 Superpave 9.5 mm 1.5 " WEARING: 27,733 SY x $7.00 / SY = 194, ,343 M & P of Traffic: 5.0% of Subtotal = 16,7 355,260 G-64

239 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # C-AC 1 Bituminous A New Construction or Reconstruction 2% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 3,679, Maintenance Activities Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,9 x = 300, x = x = x = ,260 x = 239, x = x = ,9 x = 202, x = x = 0 742, Annual Maintenance Cost: 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 196,669 0 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 0 196, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 0 = 2,067,058 x = 2,067, ,603 x x 0 = 312,360 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x = 256, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,835, Total Present Worth 7,454,272 G-65

240 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # C-AC 1 Bituminous A New Construction or Reconstruction 4% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 3,679, Maintenance Activities Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,9 x = 247, x = x = x = ,260 x = 162, x = x = ,9 x 0.33 = 113, x = x = 0 523, Annual Maintenance Cost: 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 142,298 0 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 0 142, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 0 = 2,067,058 x = 2,067, ,603 x x 0 = 312,360 x = 211, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 173, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x 0.33 = 143, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,594, Total Present Worth 6,939,568 G-66

241 STEP 7: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS, ALTERNATE # C-AC 1 Bituminous A New Construction or Reconstruction 6% Interest Rate 7.1. Initial Construction Cost = 3,679, Maintenance Activities Present Worth Costs: Present Maintenance Maintenance Worth Present Year Cost Factor Worth 5 0 x = ,9 x = 204, x = x = x = ,260 x = 110, x = x = ,9 x = 63, x = x = 0 379, Annual Maintenance Cost: 1,825 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 1,174 0 / LANE MILE x 2 LANES x 2.0 MI x = 0 1, User Delay Costs: DIR 1 DIR 2 Present User Delay User Delay # of User Delay # of User Delay Worth Present Year Cost / Day Days Cost / Day Days Cost Factor Worth 0 11,484 x x 0 = 2,067,058 x = 2,067, ,603 x x 0 = 312,360 x = 174, x x 0 = 0 x = ,173 x x 0 = 380,760 x = 118, x x 0 = 0 x = ,868 x x 0 = 464,160 x = 80, x x 0 = 0 x = 0 2,441, Total Present Worth 6,607,903 G-67

242 APPENDIX H H-1

243 H-2