The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.d. Receive Feasibility Report / Order Public Hearing, Pine Bend Trail Improvements � �� • � �r***,r***�r*�*�r***�**��*�****�*�****�i�tEi�tO�*�*****��r*��*,r**�,r**�*��,x��**�**#**�***,t DATE: JULY 26, 1989 T0: PiAYQR & COUNCILAIEI�iBERS CIO ADriINISTRATOR J�LK ` _ FROM: GITY ENGINEER/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR HE�' � , RE: ITEM FOR THE AUGUST l, 19$9 COUNCIL PIEETING CONS�NT AGENDA Receive Fc�asibili.t� Re�orL/Orcler Puhlic }i�ari:n_� fo� Pinc Rc�nc1 Trr�il Str�et improvements, City I'ro�ect 199 '�TM - This item consist of receiving the attached feasibility report and ordering a public hearing to consider the street improvements to Pine Bend Trai1. 0ur Consulting Engineers have eompleted the feasibility report on this project and £ind it to be feasible from an engineering standpoint, We woald request that Council set a public hearing date of September 19, I989 to cansider. these impravements. Recommended action for Council to consider is to adopt the attached resolutian receiving the feasibility report for Projeet 199, Fine Bend Trail ImprovemQnts, and set a public hearing date and time of September 19, 1989 at 8:00 p.m. ,, .,�_�.., ... , , �, ,. .,�_�.., .. � . . � CITY OF ROSEMOUNT - _ „ r ' .;.._.. R�SOLUTION 19$9 - A RESOLUTIqN RECEZVING 'THE FEASIBILITX R�PORT QF CITY PI�OJECT �1Q9, PINE BEND TRAIL STREET IMFRQVEMENTS, AND CALLING FOR FUBLIC HEARINGS TQ GONSIDER THE PRQJECT � WHEREAS, the Gity Council deemed it necessary and expedient that the City of Rosemount, Minnesota, construct certain improvements, ta-wit: Git Pr ' y o�ect #199, Pine Bend Trai1 Street Improvements, in the City as described in and in accordance with the feasibility report prepared by Shart-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. , Consulting Engineers; and WHEREAS, the City Council has be�n advised by the Gonsulting �ngineers that said street improvements, City Project �'i199, is feasible,, and should best be made as proposed, and the Consulting Engineers' repart to this effecL has heretofore been received by Counci]., and filed with the Admi.nistratar/Clerk an August }., 19$9; and WHEREAS, the statute provided that no such improvements sha11 be made until the Councii has held a public hearing on such improvements following mailed natice and two puhlications thereof in the official newspaper stating time and place of the hearing, the general nature of the imprpvement, the estimated costs thereof, and the area proposed to be assessed, in accordance with the iaw, NOW THE1tEFORE BE Ix RESOLVED, the City Cc�uncil of the Cfty of E�osemouc�t acc�pte � the £easibility rapart �or City Froject 199 and placee it on file; and ' N4W THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Gity GounciX of the City of � Rosemou�t t�l��^ � pu�1ic hearing be scheduled �.o consider City Frojeet �]:99, Pine Bend Trail Street Improvements to be held on Tuesday, September 19, 19$9 at �;00 o'clock p.m. , or as soon thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers of City Hall. ADOPTED this lst day of August, 1989. Rollan Hoke, i�i�yar ATTEST: Stephan Jilk, Administrator/Clerk � � _ � ,/ ' �, � ' FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR PINE BEND TRAIL � STREET RECONSTRUCTION ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA CITY PROJSCT NO. 199 � AUGUST l, 1989 SEH FILE NO: 89273 � � � � I hereby certify that this repor� was prepared by me or under my direct �supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of 'nnesota. �� DATE: Au,qust 1, 1989 REG. NO. 19699 REVIrsWED BY: Rosemount Public Works Dept. � ,� . � � ' � � � . _ TABLE OF CONTENTS � TITLE PAGE CERTIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS �� TRANSMITTAL LETTER � EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PART 1 - INTRODUCTION � 1.1 AUTHORIZATION 1.2 SCOPE � 1.3 DATA AVAILABLE PART 2 - GENERAL BACKGROUND � 2.1 LOCATION 2.2 FUNCTION ' � 2.3 EXISTING .CONDITIONS 2.3.1 ALIGNMENT 2.3.2 GRADE 2.3.3 CROSS SECTION � 2.3.4 DRAINAGE 2.3.5 TRAFFIC � _ PART 3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT$ � 3.1 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 3.2 DESIGN CRITERIA 3.2.1 PAVEMENT TESTS � 3.2.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC 3.3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 3.3.1 PAVEMENT 3.3.2 DRIVEWAYS � 3.3.3 SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENT , 3.3.4 RAILROAD CROSSINGS , PART 4 - FINANCIN � G 4.1 COST ESTIMATE � 4.2 RSSESSMENT AREA � 4.3 COST RECOVERY 4.3.1 CITY SHARE � 4.3.2 ASSESSMENTS 4.3.3 SUMMARY � � � �` PART 5 - PROJECT SCHEDULE � APPENDIX { � ESTIMATE OF COST PAVEMENT $TRENGTH EVALUATION FOR CITY OF ROSEMOUNT (JULY, 1989) � DRAWINGS 1-3 � �� ` � � ,� � � . � � � - ,I � � - - �' ENGINEERS/ARCNITECT5IPLANNERS 222EASTLITTLECANADAROAD,ST PAUL,MINNESOTA55117 672 484-0272 � � � July 28, 1989 REi ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA PINE BEND TRAIL STREET RECONSTRUCTION CITY PROJECT NO. 199 � SEH FILE NO: 89273 � Cit of Rosemount Y 2875 145th Street West � Rosemount, MN 55068 . ATTN: Mr. Rich Hefti, Director of Public Works � In accordance with our authorization we have re ared the Y P P attached feasibility report for the reconstruction of Pine Bend � Trail from S.T.H. 55 to C.F. Industries. This report includes a general discussion of the pro�ect as well as drawings and a cost estimate. � We find these improvements to be feasible and recommend that they be constructed in general compliance with the provisions of this report. �' Sincerely, _ SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON, INC. � � Steve Campbell, P.E. SDC/cmb � Enclosure � � i SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, CHIPPEWA FALLS, HENDRICKSON INC MINNESOTA WISCONSW � � � �. EXECUTIVI3 SUNIlKARY Pro�ect 199 provides for subgrade correctian and a bituminous � overlay on a 1.5 mile segment of Pine Bend Trail, from S.T.H. 55 to the railroad crossing adjacent to ' C.F. Industries. The � project is located in the south half of Section l8 and also in the north halves of Sections 19 and 20. � The project includes approximately 3000 ton of bituminous mixture. The total estimated project cost is $220,000.00. Of � this total, $181,000 will be recovered through special assessments and $39,000 will be recovered from City funds. The � pro�ect is scheduled for construction in the Spring of 1990. � � � :� , � � � i _ �' � � � � :� PART 1 INTRODUCTION � . 1.1 AUTHORIZATION , On May 30, 1989, the Rosemount City Council initiated this � project by authorizing the preparation of an Engineering Feasibility Report for the reconstruction of a 1.5 - mile segment of Pine Bend Trail from S.T.H. 55 to the railroad �` crossing ad�acent to C.F. Industries. This ro ect has been P � designated as City Pro�ect No. 199. � 1.2 SCOPE � The purpose of this report is to determine the engineering feasibility of this project based upon a review of the data � available, and to make recommendations and provide a cost � estimate for the recanstruction of Pine Bend Trail. � 1.3 DATA AVAILAHLE The resources used in the preparation of this report � include: 1. Pavement Strength Evaluation €or City of Rosemount � (July, 1989) . 2. Mn/DOT Construction Plans �or Grading and Paving (May, � 1962) . 3. Conversations with representatives of ad,jacent � industries. � � � � - 1 - � � • � _ � PART 2 GENERAL BACKGROUND � 2.1 LOCATION The pro�ect location is shown in Drawing No. 1. This � segment of Pine Bend Trail is located in the south half of Section 18 and also in the north halves of Sections 19 and 20. The westerly pro�ect terminus is located at the � intersection of Pine Bend Trail and S.T.H. 55 in the southW,est quarter of Section 18. From this point, the � pro,ject extends approximately 1.5 miles easterly and terminates at the Chicago and North Western Railroad � � crossing located ad�acent to C.F. Industries in the north half of Section 20. � 2.2 FUNCTION � The pro�ect is located within an industrial area which , generates a significant volume of truck traffic. The northerly side of the roadway is zoned General Industrial � and the southerly side is zoned Industrial Park. The main function of this segment of Pine Bend Trail is' to provide � the industries with an access to and from S.T.H. 55. Pine Bend Trail exists as a paved roadway within the project � limits. The surfacing transitions from bituminous into gravel at the easterly pro,ject terminus. From this point � the gravel roadway continues approximately 2 miles easter2y until it re,�oins S.T.H. 55. This easterly segment of Pine � Bend Trail serves as a local road for a rural residential area. � 2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS � 2.3.1 ALIGNMENT The existing alignment is shown in Drawing No. 2. The roadway was designed for a speed of 50 mph, � _ 1 _ � � � which is the posted speed limit. Excessive tree and brush growth within the right-of-way restricts � sight distance at one of the horizontal curves. At this same location, C.F. Industries has a � driveway to their Ammonia Terminal. � There are two railroad crossings within the pro�ect limits. They are constructed of � bituminous with timbers along the rails. The crossings were rebuilt in 1987 and are in good condition. These crossings are spur lines which ,� belong to the Chicago and North Western Railroad. The main spur line lies to the south of Pine Bend � Trail where it parallels the road throughout the pro�ect. � 2.3.2 RA G DE The existing roadway centerline grades range from � 0.30 percent to 4.80 percent. The vertical alignment was aiso designed for a speed of 50 mph. � 2.3.3 CROSS SECTION � The existing typical section is shown in Drawing No. 3. This rural section consists of a 24 foot � wide bituminous mat with 3 foot wide gravel shoulders and 4:1 side siopes. Most of the gravel shouldering is covered with vegetation. Variable �" width ditahes with an average depth of 2.5 feet have been constructed in the cut areas. The � existing 66 foot right-of-way width for Pine Bend Trail is considered adequate. � The existing pavement was placed in 1962 and has been seal coated several times. Deficiencies that � can be observed in the pavement include alligator cracking, block cracking, edge cracking, rutting, ', � longitudinal cracking, and transverse cracking. - 2 - � . � � __ � The existing pavement section was proposed to consist of a 2" bituminous wearing course, a 1° bituminous base course, 3" of Ciass 5 aggregate � base, and 8" of Class 4 aggregate subbase. However, according to the five borings taken in � the roadway on June 30, 1989, the actual bituminous thickness ranges between 2.5 and 3.5 inches, and the actual aggregate base thickness � ranges from 12.0 to 18.0 inches. The subgrade soil varies between a sandy lean clay to a poorly � graded sand. � 2.3.4 DRAINAGE The direction of storm drainage in this area is � generally from south to north and from the west to the east. The surrounding terrain slopes toward the Mississippi backwaters to the :northeast: � Storm water is collected in ditches on the south side of the road and is transported to the north � ditch via centerline culverts. Culv�rts have aiso been installed under driveways. � 2.3.5 TRAFFIC � Traffic within the pro�ect area is appraximateiy 90 percent heavy commercial truck traffic. The remaining 10 percent is made up of passengers cars � and light trucks. Approximately 50 percent of the truck traffic consists of tankers hauling � chemicals such as ammonia, chlorine, and bituminous road oil. The remaining truek traffic � consists of semitrailer units hauling fertilizer products and food stuffs. Most o� the trucks � using Pine Bend Trail are 5 axle units. � - 3 - � . � � _ Traffic volumes on Pine Hend Trail vary with � location and the time of year. Volumes are highest on the westerly end of the project near S.T.H. 55. Volumes generally peak during the � summer months. � Existing truck traffic on the westerly end of the project varies from approximately 90 to 220 trucks � per lane per day. The average annual daily truck traffic is approximately 150 trucks per lane per day. � Existing truck traffic on the easteriy end of the � pro�ect varies from approximately 10 to 130 trucks per lane per day. The average annual daily truck �' traffic is approximately 60 trucks per lane per day. � Estimated traffic volumes were enerated from 9 actual field counts and from records which were � received from each industry along Pine Bend Trail. � � � � � � � - 4 - _� � � � PART 3 PROPOSED IMPROVBMENTS � 3. 1 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS . • Several of the factors which have influenced the design of �. this improvement include structural adequacy and cost effectiveness of the pavement, driveway width, sight distance, and tra£fic control. � A structurally adequate yet cost effective pavement design � is an important consideration. Deficiencies in the existing pavement and subgrade must be corrected before additional � surfacing in order to minimize the pro�ect cost. Driveway entrances of adequate width are also an important � consideration. Wider entrances will improve truck turning movements and reduce tracking a�ross the centerline. The ,� recommended width for industrial drives is 36 feet with 25 foot radii. The recommended width for residential drives is � 24 feet. � The ability to see ahead is essential for the safe and . efficient operation of a vehicle on any highway. Therefore, adequate sight distance should be maintained through the � horizontal curves in order to reduce the potential for accidents at driveways as trucks enter the roadway. � A final design consideration is traffic control. Since � construction will be during the peak trafftc season, one lane should remain open at all times. A cost for traffic � control has- been included in the cost estimate. � � , - 1 - � � ' � 3.2 DES�GN CRITERIA 3.2.1 PAVEMENT TESTS � Pavement deflection tests were done on June 22, 1989 by Braun Pavement Technologies, Inc. The � results of these tests have been published in a subsequent report which is included in the � Appendix. Testing was conducted in the outer wheel path at 200 foot intervals in ' both � directions. As a result, a net spacing of 100 feet was achieved. The purpase of the testing was to determine the average structural strength of � the existing roadway. The soil boring results were used to determine the effective strength of � � the subgrade soil and to explain any weak .subgrade ` soil areas. � 3.2.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC Future traffic volumes has been estimated by � applying a growth factor for the design period to the existing volumes. The design period for this � pro�ect is 20 years. The pro�ected growth factor � of 2.5 percent is the estimated yearly traffic � growth rate for the design period. Using the 2.5 percent growth factor, the pro�ected traffic for � the design year (2010) is approximately 245 trucks per lane per day. � The pro�ected traffic and the effeative strength of the subgrade soil are used to determine the � required pavement strength. The additional overlay required is calculated by comparing the � required strangth to the existing strength determined from the deflection tests. � � - 2 - � � � 3.3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION � 3.3. 1 PAVEMENT The proposed construction is shown in Drawing No. 3. Deficiencies in the existing pav�ment will � first be corrected by removing and replacing existing bituminous and base materials in kind. � Other proposed construction includes crack sealing, a tack coat, and a 2 inch bituminous � wearing course. The existing 3 foot shoulders will also be removed � and replaoed with 5 inches of Class 2 aggregate shouldering. Alternate "A" provides for ,removal � of 2 inches of the inplace shouldering material � and placement of a 2 inch bituminous shoulder. � The extra cost for this alternative is approximately 510,000. � 3.3.2 DRIVEWAYS Driveway entrances will be reconstructed to the � � right-of-w�y line. Industriai entrances will be constructed 36 feet wide and residential entrances � will be constructed 24 feet wide. � Culverts under reconstructed driveways will require extension or replacement. Culvert end sections will also be placed on all driveway � cu7.verts. � 3.3.3 SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENT A plan view of the pro�ect area is shown in � Drawing No. 2. A sight easement shauld :be obtained in the location shown on the drawing. � The area within the easement should be cleared of all trees and shrubs that currentiy restrict sight distance. : � _ g _ � � � � 3.3.4 RAILROAD CROSSINGS Due to the pra�ected volume of heavy traffic over the next 20 years, rubberized railroad crossings � were initially considered for this pro�ect. However, these crossings were not considered � further at this time because the estimated cost for two crossings is $50,OOQ and the existing � bituminous crossings are in good condition. � An abandoned railroad crossing located on the westerly end of the pro�ect will be removed as a part of this project. This work will require � coordination with the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad. � � � � . � � � � � � � - 4 - � � PART 4 FINANCING � 4.1 COST ESTIMATE � A detailed cost estimate for all improvements proposed herein is included in the Appendix of this report. This � estimate is based on pro�ected 1990 unit costs and includes allowances for contingencies (10�) and anticipated overhead � costs (20$) . The estimate does not include railroad crossing costs, or costs to acquire a sight easement as � discussed in Section 3. The total estimated proj�ct base c.ost is $220,000.00. The cost of Alternate "A" with paved shoulders is an additional $10,000. � 4.2 ASSESSMENT AREA �', � Most of the pro�ect cost is proposed to be recovered through assessments to ad�acent properties on a frontage basis. � Assessable parcels are shown in Drawing No. 2. The total assessable frontage is approximately 14, 540 linear feet. Approximately 1,400 linear feet of frontage along the � Hollenback and Nelson First Addition is not included because this addition does not have potential for an access to Pine � Bend Trail. � The following parcels of land have frontage along the pro�ect and are sub�ect to assessments to recover the � pro�ect costs: TAX PRRCEL NUMBER: � 34-01900-010-04 34-01800-010-50 34-01800-010-87 34-019D0-010-07 34-01800-OIO-57 34-01800-014-88 �, 34-02000-010-28 34-02000-010-70 34-01$00-015-88 34-02000-010-32 34-01800-010-80 34-01800-020-87 � 34-02000-010-39 34-01800-010-81 34-02000-030-32 34-01700-010--62 34-01800-010-83 34-01800-010-77 � 34-01800-010-63 34-02800-010-70 - 1 - � � � � _ _ � 4.3 COST RECOVERY 4.3.1 CITY SHARE The e�timated costs for crack repair and pavement , • patching are considered to be City costs because they are related to maintenance tasks. This � amounts to $39,000 and is based on the following estimated unit costs: � ITEM UNIT NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICS AMOUNT � 2231.501 BIT. PATCHING MIX FOR CRACKS TON 20 $45.00 $ 900 � 0231. 606 BIT. SURFACE JOINT & CRACK REFAIR L.F. -10,000 $ 2.00 20;OOD , � 2341. 518 BIT. MIXTURE FOR PATCH TON 180 45.00 $,325 � SUBTOTAL $29,225 +10$ CONTINGENCIES 2,775 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST S32,OD0 +20$ OVERHEAD & ENGINEERING 7,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED C � osT sss,000 4.3.2 ASSESSMENTS � Subtracting the City's share from the total estimated base cost of the pro�ect leaves a � remaining assessable amount of $181,000. � Spreading this amount over the 14, 540 linear feet of assessable front frontage yields an assessment � rate of $12.45 per front foot. 4.3.3 S.UMMARY � Assessments = 5181,000 City Share = 39.000 � Total 5220,000 � � - 2 - � . - � � PART 5 PROJECT SCHEDULB � The proposed schedule for these improvements is listed below. It is based on the provisions of Chapter 429 of the Minnesota � Statutes. The schedule assumes that all elements of the improvements are completed in a timely manner. � Recei ve Feasibility Report August 1, 1989 Hold Pubiic Hearing September 19, 1989 � Approve Plans and Specifications March 20, 1990 Receive Bids May 3, 1990 I, � � Award Contract May 8, 1990 Begin Construction May, 1990 � Compiete Canstruction June, 1990 Hold Assessment Hearing Fall, 1990 � First Payment Due with Taxes May, 1991 � � � � .� � � � � � _ 1 _ � � � ESTIMATE 'OF COST , PINS BEND TRAIL STREET IMPRQVEMEI�i'I'S CITY PROJECT NO. 199 ROSEMOUNT, MINNfiSOTA � ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT � UNIT QTY. PRICB AMOUNT 0563. 601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. 1 $5000.00 2101.501 CLEARING ACRE 2 S 5000.00 � 2101. 506 GRUBHING 51500.00 $ 3000.00 2104. 509 REMOVE RAILROAD ACH i $1500.00 $ 3000,00 CROSSING 51500.00 $ 1500.00 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION C.Y. 700 � 2105.521 GRANULAR HORROW C.y� $ 3.00 $ 2100.00 2112.501 SUBGRADE 500 $ 3.00 $ 1500.00 S.Y. 1000 $ 7.00 $ 7000.00 CORRECTION � 2211.503 AGG. HASE PLACED C.,Y. 700 CLASS 5 S 10.00 $ 7000.00 � 2221. 503 AGG. SHOULDERING C.Y. PLACED, CLASS 2 $�� $ 15.00 $ 12000.00 � 2341.504 BITUMINOUS MAT. TON 160 $ 200.00 $ 32000.00 FOR MIXTURE 2341.508 WEARING COURSE MIX TON 2700 � 2231.501 BIT PATCHING MIX. TON $ l�•00 $ 45900.00 FOR CRACKS 20 $ 45.00 $ 900.00 0231. 606 BIT. SURFACE JOINT L.F. 10000 $ 2.00 $ 20000.00 � & CRACK REPAIR 2341.518 BIT MIX. FOR PATCH TON 180 2357. 502 BIT. MATERIAL S 45.00 $ 8325.00 FOR TACK COAT GAL 1100 $ 1.50 $ 1650.00 � 2501.511 CMP CULVERT L.F. 300 $ 20.00 $ 6000.00 2501.515 CMP APRONS EACH 28 $ 300.00 $ 8400.00 � SUBTOTAL +10$ CONTINGENCIES $165,275.00 ESTIMRTED CONSTRUCTION COST 19,725.Q0 +20$ OVERHEAD & ENGINEERING 518�,000.00 , TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 35,OOO.QO $220,000.00 � � � � � 2 .. , . . � � . . � � � � � . . �i. � � ' � . . . . . � . .�. ..� � . . . . . � .. .. . . �. . � . � . . . . - . � . . . . � �. . , . . � . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . � . .. , . . � . . . . . . . � ' . . � . . � . . . � .. . . . .. , . . . � � .. .. . . . . . . � . � . � . . �.� . . . .. � . � . � � � . � � . � ��. PAVEMENT STRENGTH EVALOATION FOR � CITY OF ROSEMOUNT � i 1 - July, 1989 � � � Commission No. 89-485 � � � � An expansion of • MIDWEST PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT, INC. Quality Services Since 1957 � 1404 Concordia Avenue,St. Paul, MN 55104—612/644-2996 PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES c.G.K��Se.P e..P�es�ve�r FAX—612/644-1045 ��«o«•� Eugene L.Skok.J�,Ph.D. .� . � � � Director o�Researc6 . . � � � � � � � Erlantl Lukanen.P.E. � � . . . . DirectoroFEngineering � . Robert L.Orthmeyer.P.E. Generel Manager ' July 7, 1989 SHORT ELLIOT HENDRICKSON ' Mr. Steve Campbell 222 E. Little Canada Rd. St, Paul, MN 55117 � � Dear Mr. Campbell; . Enclosed please find a copy of our report entitled ' PAVEMENT STRENGTH EVALUATION FOR CITY OF ROSEMOUNT � we sincere�.y appreciate the opportunit to be of service to ou Y y and to the City of Rosemount. Should there be any questions � regarding the contents of the report or any of our other services, please do not hesitate to call. � I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesata. � �Ca'tf� GC� - � � David W. Janisch, P.E. Registration Number: 18562 Date: � � � Erland O. Lukanen, P.E. Registration Number: 11932 Date: � � � ` � Pavement Management•Testing•Research Also serving thru offices in Minneapolis,Hibbinq,SL Cloud,and Rochester,MN/Bismarck.Minot.and Williston.ND/Billings and Bozeman.MT 7 Chicago.IL � � INTRODUCTION The City of Rosemount contacted Braun Pavement Technalogies, Inc. � to conduct deflection testing on Pine Bend Trail from Trunk Highway 55 to the Railroad Crossing approximately 1.5 miles east: The deflection testing was done on June 22, 1989 using a Made1 2000 � Road Rater. Testing was conducted in the outer wheelpath at 200 foot intervals in both directions. As a result, a net spacing of 100 feet was achieved. iThe purpose of this report is to identify an effective granular equivalency (E.G.E. ) for this section of roadway. Five auger borings were also taken at selected locations based on the � deflection results. These borings were used to explain any weak subgrade soil areas as well as to provide a comparison between the actual expected granular equivalency and the calculated effective � granular equivalency. The locations of the above mentioned borings are indicated in the � comment portion of the data tabulation. � � � � - � � � � � � � , � . .. . . . . ." . �^ fi .° Sh�3,- ,', ,r�: � .. .�.: . - � , . .�. '., � ... £` ' .,.v� �ry�`. � . � ... � . . � �� '�". �' `�_ ?, =:e�§. , r ' : j. � � . . . � . . . .. . . . ... � . � :. . � . . . � . . . , . � � � ' . . � .i:: . � . . . . . . . � . . .. . .. . . ' . . . � . . . � � . � .. . � . � � . � , � . . � . � . � . . � � .. . � . . . . . � ' � � . . . .. � . � . . �. � � � � . . �. . � � � . . . . . . . . . .. � • � . �I � � � . � . . � . . . � � � . � . . . � . .. . . . . �. � .. . . �. � � � � . . � . . � . � . � � . . . . i � � i � . _ 1 ROAD RATER DATA Design Analysis Sections 1 � � - � t � , � PINE BEND TRAIL FROM T. H. 55 TO RAILROAD CROSSING APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MILES EAST � ANALYSIS According to the five borings which were taken, the roadway surface thickness ranges between 2 . 5 and 3 . 5 inches. The aggregate base � thickness ranges from 12 . 0 to 18.0 inches. The subgrade soil varies between a sandy lean clay to a poorly graded sand. ' The recommended desiqn EGE for this section is 24.0 inches. Based on a surface thickness of 3 . 0 inches and an aggregate base thickness of 12 . 0 inches, the expected GE, according to the , Minnesota Department of Transportation Road Design Manual, would be as follows: (2.25 x 3 inches) + (1 x 12 inches) = 18.75 inches � As can be seen, the design EGE is higher than the expected GE. ' One factor that may explain this difference is the variability in both the surface thickness and aggregat8 base thickness. Since only five borings were taken, it is difficult to determine if they represent the average layer thicknesses for the section. Baring � B-1, for example, has 18. 0 inches of aggregate base. The calculated GE based on this in-place material thicknesses is 24 .75 which is nearly identical to the design value. , DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS , It is recommended that the desic}n EGE of 24.0 inches be used for this section. The EGE is very consistent throughout the section with very few locations having an EGE lower than the design value. There are, however, three locations where the EGE is considerably � lower than the design value. These occur at locations 140, 806, and 1403 . It is likely that the low EGE is attributable to the fact that the surface has alligator cracking present. Typically, if the � alligator cracking is advanced to a point wHere the pavement does not spread the load out efficiently, the calculated effective EGE will be lower than expected. As can be seen from the data � tabulations, these three locations exhibited larger deflections under the #1 sensor than the locations around it. This is a good indication of surface fatigue as evidenced by the alligator cracking. Also, if these areas are lacated where surface moisture , can penetrate into the base layer, the effective EGE will tend ta be lower due to the effects of the moisture on the aggregate base. , The subgrade soil, as evidenced by the borings, is fairly consistent with no weak areas located other than at test location 98. It is suspected that more clay is present at this location than at the remaining ones. ' � � � ' Bra� Pavement Technologies, inc. - Comnission Nunber 89-485 ' Date of Test: 06/22/89 ctient: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT . Dai ty ESALs: 5o.a Roadway: PINE BEND ROAD Temperature Range: 81 - 85 ' Asphalt Thickness: 3.0o From: TRUNK HIGHWAY 55 surface condition rtatiny: 2.0 70: RAILROAD CROSSING (1.5 MILES EAST) Seasonal Correction Factor: 1.54 ' Cam�ent: Surface thickness varies fran 2.5 to 3.5 inches. (See borings) 1 Test Effective 9-Ton Max�mum Location --Sensor Readings (mils)-- Grarnrlar Effective Overlay Atlowable (feet > Force Freq Defl Defl Defl Defl Equivale�cy Subgrade Thickness Axle load � Left Right <kips) (hz) 0�� 12" 24° 36° (inches) R-Value (inches) (ton/axle) Camients 0 ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- - --- --- C/L TH55 � 98 2.67 22.5 3.68 3.13 2.76 2.48 39.T - -- --- 140 3.38 25.1 5.48 3.04 1.83 1.61 14.3� L-ALLIG.CR 152 ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- - --- --- RR-XING , 201 3.29 27.2 3,76 2.89 1.88 1.48 27.3 - •-- --- L-BLOCK CR ' 299 2.79 23.8 4.04 3.16 2.12 1.56 2b.1 M-ALLIG.CR 408 3.U 25.8 4.82 3.8T 2.37 1.77 24.8 - --• --- L-ALIIG.CR 501 3.02 24.1 3.85 2.84 2.09 1.56 27.5 - -•- --- L-AIIIG.CR ' 608 3.12 25.7 4.16 3.11 1.98 1 J1 26.0 - -- --- L-ALU G.CR/RUTTING 704 3.09 23.9 3.92 2.78 1.72 1.58 24.8 H-TRANS.CR 806 2.92 24.2 4.39 2.63 1.68 1,46 17.9` � - --- --- M-ALLIG.CR � 893 3.30 25.5 4.07 3.14 1.72 1.43 24.5 � �� --� M-ALLIG.CR 1003 2.96 23.9 4.22 3.66 2.32 1.71 27.7 M-ALIIG.CR 7106 2.93 23.7 3.49 2.74 1.72 1.45 27.7 - --- --- M•TRANS.CR/DEPRESS. 1202 2.90 22.8 5.00 4.34 2.98 2.02 26.9 - --- --- BORING #t tB-1) � 1299 3.19 24.7 4.64 3.64 2.30 1.91 26.2 - --- --- L-H-SUPER 1403 3.03 23.8 6.13 4.40 2.58 1.92 19.3 )� L-ALLIG.CR 1503 3.04 23.7 4.64 3.45 2.35 1.81 26.1 - -•- --- M-ALLIG.CR ' . 1618 2.76 23.6 4.31 3.67 2.35 1.71 26.7 - --- -•i H-ALLIG.CR 1702 2.86 23.5 4.91 3.90 2.41 1.81 23.9 BORING #2 t6-2) 1847 2.94 '23.9 5.01 4.14 2.56 1.94 25.1 - -- --- M-ALLIG.CR � 1905 2.T7 23.G 3.73 2.96 2.02 1.55 27.9 � -'� --i M-TRANS.CR 2000 2.90 24.3 4.39 3.13 1.93 1.61 22.7 M-AILIG.CR 2105 2.90 26.8 3.22 2.52 1.59 1.30 27.8 - --- --- M-AIIiG.CR 2202 2.99 24.5 3.67 2.72 1.70 1.28 24 J - --- --- M-ALLIG.CR , 2299 3.36 29.0 3.11 2.39 1.36 1.07 26.3 � --- --- L-EDGE CR. 2402 3.03 24.5 3.6T 3.04 1.b7 1.40 'J26.5 M-ALLIG.CR 2506 3.16 25.7 3.65 2.9Z 1.57 1.19 25.0 - - -^ M•RUT7ING , � 2607 3.06 25.3 4.19 2.84 1.59 1.43 21.0 - --- --- M-AILIG.CR 2699 2.85 23.6 3.34 2.84 1.76 1.38 28.8 L•TRANS.CR 2803 3.07 25.2 4.15 3.05 1.98 1.58 25.0 - --- --- N-AILIG.CR 2848 2.73 23.5 4.15 3.04 2.04 1.60 24.5 - - •-- L-EOGE CR. � 2990 3.24 28.0 4.61 3.17 1.83 1.35 20.6 - --- --- H-ALLIG.CR 3095 2.95 24.7 4.39 3.33 2.20 1.60 24.6 •-- --- L-AIIIG.CR 3206 3.02 25.9 3.76 2.T8 1.98 1.50 27.1 - --- • --- M-AlIiG.CR , 3299 3.14 25.3 3.62 2.78 1.89 1.68 30.1 - --- --- H-TRANS.CR 3409 2.95 24.3 3.88 2.92 1.80 1.33 24 3 M-ALU G.CR 3493 2.88 23.T 4.16 3.11 2.07 1.68 25.7 - --- --- M-AILIG.CR � 3536 -•-- --- ---- ---. ..-- ---- "' • --- --- TOP Of HIII 3603 2.85 24.4 4.00 3.13 2.01 1.63 26.5 M-AIIIG.CR 3703 2.71 23.4 3.08 2.55 t.81 1.64 35.3 - --- - BORING #3 (B-3) 3802 2.74 24.2 3.59 2.74 1.80 1.40 26.3 - --- - l-ALLIG.CR ' 3897 3.05 26.4 3.25 2.37 1.54 1.35 27.7 �=� �� l-AlIiG.CR/RUTTING 4006 2.T1 24.3 3.11 2.52 1.63 1.32 29.0 - M-AILIG.CR � ' Braun Pavement Technologies, Inc. - Commission Nunber 89-485 � oate of 7est: 06/22/89 Ctient: CITY OF R03EMOIINT Daily ESALs: SO.Q Rosdway: PINE BEND ROAD Temperature Range: 81 - 85 ' Asphatt Thickness: 3.00 Fraa: TRIINK HIGHWAY 55 surface condition 2atiny: 2.0 70: ItAILROAD CROSSING (1.5 MILES EAST) Seasonal Correction Facto�: 1.54 <continued) ' Cam�ent: Surface thickness varies fran 2.5 to 3.5 inches. (See borings) _ Test Effective 9 Tort Maximum Location --Sensor Readings (mils)-- Grarwtar Effective Overtay Attowable ' (feet ) force Freq Defl Defl Defl Deft Equivalency Subgrade Thickness Axle load Left Right (kips) (hz) 0�� 12" 24° 36" (inches) R-Value tinches) (ton/axCe> Camrents 4100 3.28 26.6 3.17 2.45 1.44 1.40 28.9 - --- --- M-ALLIG.CR/EDGE CR. � 4208 2.87 24.4 3.79 2.99 1.68 1.30 24.5 - --- _-- L-AILIG.CR 4293 3.33 27.1 2.93 2.13 1.42 1.17 28.4 M-ALIIG.GR/EDGE CR. 4410 3.02 24.0 3.55 2.66 1.78 1.38 26.8 - --- -- M-ALLIG.CR 4501 3.0T 26.7 3.16 2.25 1.42 1.40 27.7 - •-- --- L-ALU G.CR � 4606 2.98 24.3 3.31 2.45 1.59 1.54 Z8.8 - --- --� M-ALU G.CR 4700 3.13 26.8 3.04 2.34 1.4T 1.22 28.3 - N-EDGE CR. 4808 2.88 24.0 3.25 2.51 1.70 1.50 30.2 - - - --- M-ALLIG.CR � 4900 3.26 27.6 3.77 3.20 1.81 1.37 27.0 � �-- �-- M-TRANS.CR : 5008 2.91 24.3 3.01 2.46 1.6T 1.53 33.4 M-ALLIG.CR 5092 3.17 26.9 2.85 2.05 1.39 1.07 27.5 - --- -•- L-UP-Hill � 5206 2.85 24.0 3.44 2.49 1.80 1.56 28.5 - •-- --- L-ALU 6.CR 5290 3.23 27.7 2.58 1.75 1.29 1.24 32.1 L-UP-HILL 5398 3.00 24.6 4.44 3.20 2.02 1.68 23.6 - --- --- L-AlU G.CR 5500 3.05 27.6 2.79 2.05 1.29 1.20 28.T -•- -- L-UP-NIII ' S557 ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- - --- --- �IL RO-NORTH 5617 2.99 24.4 3.52 3.04 1.88 1.55 29.7 L-AIUG.CR 5700 3.20 2T.2 3.29 2.36 1.36 1.12 24.6 - --- --- M-TRANS.CR � 5804 2.93 24.3 4.58 3.87 2.64 2.00 28.2 - --- --- BORING #4 (B-4) 5898 3.34 27.T 3.01 2.08 1:16 0.99 24.0 M-RUTTING 6001 2.98 24.4 3.52 2.99 1.70 1.35 2T.4 - --- ••- H-ALU G.CR b103 3.15 27.0 5.19 4.30 2.T4 1.8T 24.9 - --- ••- M-EOGE CR. , 6205 2.78 24.3 3.94 3.13 2.04 1.61 26.8 - --- --- L-LONG.CR. 6298 3.06 27.0 3.55 2.69 1.63 1.25 25.4 L-TRANS.CR 63T8 ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- - --- --- C/L RD-NORTN , 6416 2.93 24.4 3.85 2.95 1.85 1.50 25.9 - --- --- L-AlU G.CR 6502 3.06 24.6 3.26 2.42 1.46 t.25 26.2 L-7RI4NS.CR 6600 3.26 27.2 2.86 2.10 1.21 1.02 26.2 - --- --- M-TRANS.GR/LOttG.CR. ' 6618 3�40 26.4 3.46 2-39 1-52 1-19 24�5 - --- --- M-TRANS.CR 6708 --- RR-XING 6803 2.83 24.4 3.04 2.34 1.54 1.37 29.7 --- - H-TRANS.CR 6903 3.18 24.2 3.67 2.66 1.76 1.50 26.8 - - -•- L•TRANS,CR � 7003 2.88 26.2 3.32 2.75 1.76 1.43 29.4 - --- --- L-uEAR 7100 2.98 24.T 3.49 2.61 1.70 1.61 28.9 M-TRANS.CR 7200 2.8T 23.8 3.94 2.98 2.09 1.71 27.9 - -- --- t-LONG.CR. , 7283 2.70 24.0 3.49 2.60 2.09 2.00 36.0 - --- --- BORING #5 (B-S) 7400 3.03 27.1 3.80 3.24 1.85 1.42 2b.8 l-LONG.CR. 7500 2.83 24.0 3.43 2.33 1.54 1.24 23.7 - --- --- N-EDGE CR. , 7607 3.21 28.0 2.35 1.89 1.57 1.22 37.6 - --- -- l-LONG.CR. 7696 3.01 ` 24.2 4.00 3.08 1.68 1.40 23.9 M-TRANS.CR 7802 3.20 27.1 4.88 3.57 2.01 1.42 21.1 - --- --- H-TRANS.CR 7900 2.94 24.1 4.67 3.31 1.68 1.22 19.2 - --- --- L-LONG.CR. ' 7993 ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- --• - --- --- RR-XING � , B�aw� Pavemenf Technologies, Iru. - Commission Nunber 89-485 � oate of Test: O6/22/89 client: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT oai iy esa�s: 50.o Roadway: PINE BEND ROAD Temperature Range: 81 - 85 ' Asphalt Thickness; 3.00 From: TRTJNR HIGHWAY 55 surface condition Ratin9: 2.0 70: RAZLROAD CROSSING (1.5 MILE3 EAST) Seasonat Correction Factor: 1.54 Camient: Surface thickness varies fran 2.5 to 3.5 inches. (See borings) ' ' S0 Effective Gra�ular Equivalency (inches) 50 45 45 � 40 40 35 35 , 30 30 25 25 ' 20 ZO 15 �5 10 10 � 5 5 0 � ' � 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 (feet) � ' , � ' , , t ' ' � _ � � ' �� ' _ , � ' ' , � � . � _ - ' ' , . ' '� ' � BORING INFORMATION � � � 1 � : � FROM � O G O F B R �THU)07.06. '89 18= 17 N0. 10 PAGE 2 O i N G �� ' ENGENEERING IESTING � PRdJECT: 89-485- BORING: B—�, PAVEMENT EVALUATION LOCA'Y'10N: ' Pine Bend Road See Attachecf Sketch. T.H, 56 to 1.S miles eaat RoaQmount, �tN � I}ATE: 6/3Q/89 SCALE: �" � 4' ASTM Tests or Notes ': Elev. Depth p2487 Description of Materials BPF WL ' 0.0 Symbol A5TM D2488) g �ITYJMIT�'OUS � ;•8 . 18" AG�RECATE BAt,� I � SP � , Fine w � medium-gr��ned, trace of Gravet, brown, � � SA moist. �L � END OF BpRING. ' � Boring immecliately backfillad. A ' � .7� ; , � � ' � .��i Q , L � ' � � � ' m � y v , . ' , , 89-4 •1 ps�s 1 0 ' FROM <THU)07.0b. '89 18� 18 N0. 19 — PAGE 3 LOG OF BQRING �� u�n � ENCiNEERiNG TESTING P�tOJEC?: 89-485 - B012YNG: B-�Z PAVEMENT EVALUATYpN LOCATION: ' Pine Bead Road $ee Attached Sketch. T,�I. 56 to I.S miles east Rosemouat, 1�iN ' - DATE: 6/30/89 SCALE: 1" = 4' A�STM Yests or Notes ': Elev. Depth D2487 Description of Materials BPF WL 0.0 Symbot (ASTM D2488) ' �+ . �.S" BITUMtNOUS g �.3 � 12" AGGRECA"j'E BASE � � CL -- �, , brown, moist. � .� SA �ANDY L'�AN CLaY, with fine to medium POORLY GRADED SAND lenses, � br4wn, moist. � � � END pF BdRINt3: � Boring immediately backfslted. ' � � � �` � � � � �-�i a � ! ' � .� $ � r � � .. � . � � ' a�-s -4 ps�e 1 of 1 ' FROM (THU)07.06. '89 18� 18 N0. 10 PAGE 4 � o � o � B � R � N � B�un � EN6INEERiNG TESfiNG PROJ�CT: 89-48� BORING; B-3 PAYEMENT �YALUATION LOCATTO�': � Pine Bend Road See Attaclicd Sk�tch, T.H. 56 to 1.5 milcs east Roaernoant, MN � DAT�: 6/30/$9 SCALE: 1" i 4' ASTM Tests or Notes ': Elev. Dcpth D2487 Description af Materials BPF WL � 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D2488� � Z..�"__BITUMTNOCJS � • ~� 12"��'`GREGAYE BASE � +�' Sp » , d � StLTY SAND, fine to medium-�rained, .� black, moist. , � SA � , fine to medium-grained, trace of Gravei. brown, � � moist. � � END 4F BGR�N4. � � � Boring immediately backfilled. � � � � w � � . � Q � � � � � t� - • ' � N V � � � .. . � ' �. . � � a -4a _ s pa�e l a � FROM CTHU)07.06. '89 18� 18 N0. f0 PAGE 5 � o � oF � oR � N � s�un � ENCINEQRtNG TlSTIN6 PRQJEC'�': $9-485- BORIA'G: B—� PAVEMTNT EYALUATION LQCATIOtic � � Pine Bcnd Road See Attuched Sketch. T.H. 56 to �.S miles east � Rosemount, MN DATE: 6/3Q/$9 SCALE; 1" = 4' ASTM Tests or Notes ': EIev, Depth D2487 Description af Materials BPF WL � OA Symbol (ASTM D2488) 0 3" BITUMtNO(j,�, � 1. � � :' 12" AGGREdATE SASE e� ��''� fine-Srained, � with g trace af Gr<tvel and 5�LT, dark brawn, � S.0 f wet. � �L „r�. N � � Errp oF aoRnsG. � Borin� imraediate�y backfilled. � � i � ., � � � � � � � s w d � � � � � A � � � c� � v � - � � � 8 -! -4 p:gR oi 1 ..r^ . . . . . � � � � FROM CTHU)07.06. ' 89 18� 19 N0. 10 PA�E 6 � a � oF � � R � N � ert�un � ENCINEERIFIG TEST'ING : PROJECT: 89-483_ BORING: �-5 PAVEMENT EVALUATiOx LOCw'�TON: � Pinc Bend Road ?.H. S6 to 1.5 milas east See Atta�hcd Sketch. � Rosemount, MN DATE: d/30/89 $CA�,E: 1" = 4' ASTM Tests or Notes ': Etev. l7epth D24$7 Description of Materials BPF WL � OA Symbol (ASTM D2488) a ' N .� 1. � � l2" AGt3RFGAT'�� BAS�' � � �� , fin� to ' ..r : medium-gralned, wii� a trace of SILT and � S.0 �� ravel, datrk brown, moist. .., L � kND OF BORING. � � Boriag immediately backfilled. � •x � � � � o . w � � � a � � � � � _ � � � � t' � � � � , �! � $-6 pa�e 1 0 �- • � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � PINE BEND TRAIL ; From : T,H. 55 ; To : Railroaci Crassing (1.5 Miles East) ; ,._ B_� `�'�---�._ � 17 0 2 F E E T N ;.- 0 FEET g-1 ; ; 1202FEET PINE BEND TRAIL ; � B_5 � B-3 - ----- --- . -� "------ _ 7 2 8 3 T ' 3703 FEET B-4 ' S804 FEET . : ; T.H. 55 ; , ; � R.R. . i . � � ;� , _ ... X� . ,, . . . . . �. . . � _ " � ' � � �.,.. .' . . .. . . .. . � . . . . . . . " _ � � . . �, � . . � . � . . - . . � . � . . . . . . . . . . . � � � '' � .. � � � � � � � � . � � �. . � � . � �.� .� . . . � . . . � � � . . . . . � �� I'�,�� . . � � . � . . . . .� � . . . .. � � � . ' . � � I�� . . � � � : �. � . . . . .. . �� I .. . . . . . . . �� . � .. , . . � �. I� . . . � � � . . . � . . . . . . . . �� I�i . .. . � . . � . . � . . �. �� . ',., . . . � � . . � . . � � � . . � � � � . � . , . � � .. . � . � � . . . . . . . � ��I�� .. . . . � . . . . �� . � . .�� . . � . �'�. . . � . . . . � '. . � . . . . . . . . . . �� . . I�'; . . � � �� . .. � � � . � . . . � � I�� .. .. . �. . . �. .. . . � . . . . . � . . . � � � , ROAD RATER INFQRII�ATION � � � , � � I EU Q IPMENT USED � A Model 2000 Road Rater (Figure t) was used for the nondestructive testing (NDT) . The Road Rater is an electro- hydraulically activated device that super-imposes a dynamic sinusoidal load onto a static load. The amplitude and frequency � of the load are adjusted by the operator of the Road Rater for each test paint. The static load is mechanically adjusted and is normally set on a daily basis. For this project, the static load � was set at approximately 3500 pounds. The dynamic load was set at 3000 pounds. This resulted in a continued series of pulses applied to the pavement over a constant static load as shown in � Figure 2. . An 18-inch diameter steel contact plate was used to apply the load to the pavement. The deflections were measured at the � center of the load area and at l2, 24, and 36 inches behind the center of the load plate. A diagram of the deflection basin and deflection measurement locations is shown in Figure 3. � � � , � .. . , �o� . � - . � -= -_�----=-- �, _ � � r _ � � Figure 1. Model 2000 Road Rater � � � � � � � DYNAM►C LOAD � � fPeslt to O�akJ � � J � STAT/C LOAD � � INCREASING TiME � � Figure 2. Diagram of Road Rater Loading � a z z a� , W 1: F. � 1-t � ' e J .Wj J .W1� m .7 O C O O� � 1 : � l l ------- A ------- ' ' . . . , _ . . .. ' ------ .: - . .a . -.: - _----- : . .-.. . .-. -. . •. . . • 'e , � .° . . . . .��, _ .. • • -• • . • •.. . SA�SE• .. � . . :; . .' . .�. . ,�'. •' ' , � • , . • ' . . . . , '.�- . ' ; ' : •�• . ; • ' Q ' - • �i�. .. , a; �� ' � /. � DEFLECTION BASIN SHAPE IS A FUNCTION OF - 1) THICKNESS OF THE LAYERS � � 2) ELASTIC MODUWS OF THE LAYERS �+ COMPRESSJON �• TENSION � � Figure 3. Deflection Basin as measured by the Model 2000 Road Rater � ' � � DATA TABULATIONS AND PLOTS I � The data tabulations consist of a heading section which contains ', infonaation relevant to the section tested. The name of the section tested and information regarding its location is in the , upper right of each page. The left part of the heading contains the date tested, the estimated Daily Equivalent 18, 000 pound single axle loadings (ESALs) that are applied to the pavement, temperature of the asphalt mat at approximately one inch below � the surface at the time of test, thickness of all the bound asghalt layers, a Structural Rating Number, A Seasonal Correction Factor, and a line for comments relevant to the section or the � analysis. The Structural Rating Number is determined by the Road Rater operator and is based on the following scale: 5 new pavement (no cracks) � 4 unconnected linear cracking 3 large block pattern c=acking 2 alligator cracking � 1 potholes and loss of surfacing The Seasonal Correction Factor is used to calculate the deflection that is expected to occur during the spring thaw , period. The tabulations contain eleven numeric columns and one comment � column. These are described as follows: TEST LOCATIONS: A reference used to locate the position of � the test point, usually in� distance from the beginning of the section. ' FORCE: The amount of dynamic load applied to the pavement. � It is listed in kips. One kip equals 1000 pounds. FREQ: The number of load _gulses applied eac,k� second. � DLFL �1. .�4: These four columns contain the measured deflection at each test point in mils. One mil is equal to � 0.001 inch. EFFECTIVE GRANULAR EQUIVALENT (EGE) : This is the granular equivalent thickness that is needed to match the overall � pavement deflection. EFFECTIVE SUBGRADE R-VALUE: The effective strength of the ; � subgrade soil as calculated from the resilient modulus which is based on the deflections. It is expressed as an Effective R-value based on the back calculated resilient � modulus of the subgrade soil. � � i � REQUIRED OVERLAY: This column contains the overlay required . to increase the structural capacity of the pavement to � carry the number of ESALs expected in 20 years. A 2.5$ growth rate is used in calculating the 20 year traffic � loadings. The thickness design from the "AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures-1986" is used to calculate the � structural requirement of the section. The design is based , on an 85 percent confidence level using the factors recommended in the Guide. Also, for sections with a � Structural Rating Number of less than 3.0, additional overlay is based on the following formula: � � Additional 4verlay (inches) = 3.0-SR AXLE LOAD RESTRICTION: This column contains the recommended axle load restriction that would result in a spring � deflection equal to the deflection that would result from the design section. The design section is determined from the design procedure described in the "AASHTO Guide for � Design of Pavement Structures-1986". � COMMENTS: This column contains the Road Rater operator's comments regarding the pavement in the vicinity of each test � point or location information. The location, force, frequency, deflections, and comments are � always listed in the printouts. In addition, the EGE, R-value, overlay thickness and tonnage are listed as requested by the client. � Plots are also included following the data tabula�idns. The plots are proportionally scaled for both the horizontal and vertical axis. This makes it possible to easily visualize where � changes occur throughout the section. A plot is made for one or more of the following depending on what is requested by the client: Effective Granular Equivalent, Effective Subqrade R- � value, 9-ton Overlay Thickness and Allowable Axle Load. �_. � � : � _ � � � _� . _ , DEFLECTION TESTING USING THE ROAD RATER The Model 2000 Road Rater is a trailer mounted device which uses an � electrohydraulic force generating mechanism that is capable of applying a vibratory load of variable force and frequency to the pavement. , The Road Rater generates the load force by hydraulically oscillating a 2000 pound lead mass up and down. The force generated is proportional to the amplitude of the oscillation. This applied � force is measured electronically by three load cells attached to the load plate. The dynamic load generated follows a sinusoidal wave form and its amplitude and frequency are varied to suit the pavement � and analysis procedure. During the loading, the pavement deflections are measured at four � locations on the pavement by seismic geophones. One geophone is located at the center of the load area, and the other three geophones are located at 12, 24 and 36 inches from the center of the load plate. The four geophones measure the deflections � simultaneously, resulting in a measurement of the shape of the deflection basin. , With the use of elastic layer analysis� the strength of the individual layers of a pavement can be determined from the deflection basin shape characteristics. The weaker a pavement structure is with respect to the subgrade, the steeper the � deflection basin will be. The deflection values inversely represent the strength of the 1 specific area tested. This testing method is sensitive to the pavement temperature and to the time of year. However, factors_ have been developed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation to � adjust the deflections to represent a springtime deflection of a pavement with a mat temperature of 80 degrees F. The testing is performed at a selected spacing to form a statistical � sample of the pavement strength. Variation in pavement strength does occur between test points. Traffic volume, pavement thickness and subgrade soil type informatian also is required to determine the � allowable spring axle 1 oads for the pavement segment. If at any time they are found to be different, the allowable spring axle load should be recalculated. � The deflection tests provide ex�.remely valuable information for setting spring axle load limits and for design purposes. The magnitude of the deflections will remain relatively constant � throughout the life of a pavement and will begin increasing only when pavement distress develops. There are indications, however, that the shape of the deflection basin wi11 change within the normal � life of a pavement. Favement condition, during its normal life, should be rated by its roughness or rideability and the surface condition. The surface condition of the pavement in the vicinity of each test point is recorded at the time of the test, but the � roughness must be measured separately. � —_ ' � An expansion of MIDWEST PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT, INC. Ouality Services Since 1957 � 1404 Cancordia Avenue,St. Paul, MN 55104—612/644-29J6 PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES cG.K��se.Pe.P.eSiee�r FAX—612 /644-1045 ��«r� Eugene L Skok.Jr.Ph D. Direcror ol Research � � � . . � � � . � Erland Wkanen.P.E � . . � � � � � -. Direcror o�Engineering � � . � � � � � �Robert L.Orthmeyer.P.E . . General Manager . � � � � i. ♦ � � . � _ July 20, 1989 SHGR�L�On HE�+�RICKSON, iNC. � Mr. David simons ��L N 1 �Q89 Short Elliot Hendrichson ' 222 E. Little Canada Rd. St. Paul, MN 55117 S't'� p�� RE: Deflection testing on Pine Bend Trail in the City of Rosemount 89-485 � Dear Mr Simons; , As you instructed on July 19, 1989� we have re-analyzed the Road Rater data collected on June 22, 1989 on the above mentioned roadway. The data was analyzed originally to determine the effective granular equivalency of the section. We have re- � analyzed the data to calculate the effective subgrade R-value for the section. � Based on the deflection data, the effective R-value of the section for desiqn purposes is 15. There are, however, three locations where the effective subgrade R-value is far enough , below the design value to be concerned. Test location 98, 1202, and 7283 have an effective subgrade R-value of 7, 11, and 10 respectively. If the roadway is rehabilitated using the design R-value of 15, it is recommended that either some type of � subgrade correction be made at these three locations, or the overlay thickness be increased in these areas to account for the low subgrade soil strength. If left untreated, it is anticipated , that the pavement will fail prematurely at these three locations. The design R-vaiue is based on the 85th percentile of the section. In other words 85� of the locations tested have an R- value greater than or equal to the design value. � As can be seen from the lots the sub rade soil stren th varies P , g 5 throughout the section. The subgrade soil strength ranges from a � minimum of 7 at location 98 to a maximum of 40 at location 5898. The design R-value of 15 is typical of the sandy subgrade material which was identified through the five borings which were � taken previously. � � Pavement Management•Testing•Research Also serving thru olfices in Minneapolis.Hibbing.St.Cloud.and Rochester,MN/Bismarck,Minot.and Wiliiston,ND/Billings and Bozeman,MT/Chicago.IL ' � s � � If you have any questions concerning any of this report or the original report which was dated July 7, 1989, please do not hesitate to call. � Sincerely, BRAUN PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. , • ��i�z� � - ' David W. Janisch, P.E. Senior Project Engineer , DWJ/bw � � � � , ' � ' . � � TM � B� un , Braun Pavement Technotogies, inc. - Commission NuN�er 89-485 oate of 7est: 06/22/89 ctient: CITY (yF ROSLMOIINT ' Dai ly ESALs: 50.0 ttoadway: PINl� BEND ROAD Temperature Range: 81 - 85 Asphalt Thickness: 3.00 Fran: TRIINR HIGBWAY 55 � surface condition katin,q: 2.o To: RAILROAD CROSSING (1.5 MILES LAST) Seasonal Correction Factor: 1.68 Comnent: Surface thickness varies from 2.5 to 3.5 inches. (See borings> ! Test Effective 9-Ton Maxim�m Location -�Sensor Readings (mils)-- Granular Effective Overlay Allowable (feet ) Force Freq Defl Defl Defl Defl Equivalency Subgrade Thickness Axle Load ' Left Right (kips> (hz) 0° 12" 24�� 36�� (inches) R-Value (inches) (ton/axle) Comnents 0 ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- - --- --- C/L TH55 98 2.67 22.5 3.68 3.13 2.76 2.48 38.3 7 --- --- , 140 3-38 25-1 5-48 3�04 1�83 1-61 12-9 28 --_ --- L-ALLIG.CR 152 RR-XIN6 201 3.29 27.2 3.76 2.89 1.88 T.48 26.0 22 --- --- L-BLOCK CR , 299 2.79 23.8 4.04 3.16 2.12 1.56 24.7 16 --- --- M-ALLIG.CR 408 3.11 25.8 4.82 3.8T 2.37 1.77 23.4 15 L-ALLIG.CR 501 3.02 24.1 3.85 2.84 2.09 1.56 26.2 18 --- L-ALLIG.CR 608 3.72 25.7 4.1b 3.11 1.98 1.71 24.7 18 - --- L-ALLIG.CR/RUTTING � 704 3.09 23.9 3.92 2.78 1.72 1.58 23.4 22 �-- --� H-TRANS.CR 806 2.92 24.2 4.39 2.63 1.68 1.46 16.5 25 M-AILIG.CR 893 3.30 25.5 4.07 3.14 1.72 1.43 23.2 23 --- - - M-ALLIG.CR ' 7003 2.96 23.9 4.22 3.66 2.32 1.71 26.3 15 --- --- M-ALIIG.CR 7106 2.93 23.7 3.49 2.74 7.72 1.45 26.3 20 M-TRANS.CR/DEPRESS. 1202 2.90 22.8 5.00 4.34 2.98 2.02 25.6 11 --- --- BORING #1 (6-7) 1294 3.19 24.7 4.64 3.64 2.30 1.91 24.9 16 --- L-N-SUPER � 1403 3.03 23.8 6.13 4.40 2.58 1.92 17.9 14 --- L-ALLIG.CR 7503 3.04 23.7 4.64 3.95 2.35 1.81 24.T 14 --- -- M•ALLIG.CR 1618 2.76 23.6 4.31 3.b7 2.35 1.71 25.3 13 --- --- H-ALLIG.CR � 1702 2.86 23.5 4.91 3.90 2.41 1.81 22.5 14 --- --� BORING #2 (B-2> 1847 2.94 23.9 5.01 4.14 2.56 1.94 23.7 13 M-ALLIG.CR 7905 2.77 23.6 3.73 2.% 2.02 1.55 26.5 16 --- -- M-7RANS.CR , 2000 2.90 24.3 4.39 3.13 1.93 1.61 21.4 18 --- --� M-ALLIG.CR 2105 2.90 26.8 3.22 2.52 1.59 1.30 26.5 22 M-AILIG.CR 2202 2.99 24.5 3.67 2.72 1.70 1.28 23.4 23 --- --- M-ALLIG.CR 2249 3.36 29.0 3.11 2.39 1.34 1.07 25.0 33 --- --- L-EDGE CR. ' 2402 3.03 24.5 3.67 3.04 1.6T 1.40 25.2 21 --- �-- M-ALU G.CR 2506 3.16 25.7 3.65 2.92 1.57 1.19 23.b 25 --- - M-RUTTING 2607 3.06 25.3 4.19 2.84 1.59 1.43 19.7 24 --- --- M-ALLIG.CR ' 2699 2.85 23.6 3.34 2.84 7.Tfi 1.38 27.5 19 --' �-- L-TRANS.CR 2803 3.07 25.2 4.15 3.05 1.98 1.58 23.6 19 H-ALLIG.CR 2898 2.73 23.5 4.15 3.04 2.04 1.60 23.T 16 --- --- l-EDGE CR. � 2990 3.24 28.0 4.61 3.17 1.83 1.35 19.2 23 �-- --� H-ALLIG.CR 3095 2.95 24.7 4.39 3.33 2.20 1.60 23.3 17 t-ALLIG.CR 3206 3.02 25.9 3.76 2.78 1.98 1.50 25.8 19 - --- M-AICIG.CR 3299 3.14 25.3 3.62 2.78 1.89 1.68 28.7 18 --- - - H-TRANS.CR , 3409 2.95 24.3 3.88 2.92 1.80 1.33 22.9 21 --� �� M-ALLIG.CR 3493 2.88 23.7 4.16 3.11 2.07 1.68 24.4 16 M-ALLIG.CR 3536 ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- - --- --- TOP OF HILL � 3603 2.85 24.4 4.00 3.13 2.01 1.63 25.1 16 �-- �-- M-AILIG.CR 3703 2.71 23.4 3.08 2.55 7.81 1.64 33.9 13 BORING #3 (B-3) 3802 2.74 24.2 3.59 2.74 1.80 1.40 24.9 18 --- --- L-ALIIG.CR � 3897 3.05 26.4 3.25 2.�T 1.54 1.38 26.4 24 --- ��= L-ALLIG.CR/RUTTING 4006 2.71 24.3 3.11 2.52 1.63 1.32 27.7 19 M-ALLIG.CR � ' Braun Pavement Technologies, inc. - Comnission Nunber 89-485 � Date of Test: 06/22/89 ctient: CITY OF ROSEMOONT Dai ty ESALs: 50.4 Roadway: PINE BEND ROAD Temperature Range: 81 - 85 ' Asphalt Thickness: 3.00 From: TRUNR 8IG8WAY 55 surface condition ttating: 2.0 To: RAILROAD CROSSING (1.5 MILES EAST) Seasonal Correction Factor: 1.68 <continued) 1 Cormient: Surface thickness varies from 2.5 to 3.5 inches. (See borings> �est Effective 9-Ton Maximim Location --Sensor Readings (mils>-- Granular Effective Overlay Altowable 1 (feet ) Force Freq Defl Deft Defl Defl Equivalency Subgrade Thickness Axte Loed Left Right (kips) (hz) 0° ' 12" 24" 36° (inches) R-Vaiue <inches) (ton/axte) Camients 4100 3.28 26.6 3.1T 2.45 1.44 1.40 27.6 26 --- - M-ALLIG.CR/EDGE CR. ' 4208 2.87 24.4 3.79 2.99 7.68 1.30 23.1 21 --- --- l-ALLIG.CR 4293 3.33 27.1 2.93 2.13 1.42 7.17 2T.0 31 M-ALLIG.CR/EDGE CR. 4410 3.02 24.0 3.55 2.G6 1.78 1.38 25.5 21 --- --- M-ALLIG.CR 4501 3.07 26.7 3.16 2.25 1.42 7.40 26.3 25 --- --- l-AILIG.CR ' 4606 2.98 24.3 3.31 2.45 1.59 1.51 2�.4 21 --- --- M-AILIG.CR 4700 3.13 26.8 3.04 2.34 1.4T 1.22 27.0 27 H-EDGE CR. 4808 2.88 24.0 3.25 2.51 1.70 7.50 28.8 18 -- --- M-AILiG.CR ' 4900 3.26 27.6 3.77 3.20 1.81 1.37 25.7 22 �-- �-_ M-TRANS.CR 5008 2.91 24.3 3.01 2.46 1.67 1.53 32.0 17 M-ALLIG.CR 5092 3.17 26.9 2.85 2.05 1.39 1.07 26.2 32 --- --- i.-UP-HILL ' S206 2.85 24.0 3.49 2.49 1.80 1.56 27.1 18 i�- -_- L-ALLIG.CR 5290 3.23 27.7 2.58 1.75 1.29 1.24 30.8 29 l-UP-NiII 5398 3.00 24.6 4.44 3.20 2.02 1.68 22.2 18 --- --- l-ALLIG.CR 5500 3.05 27.6 2.79 2.05 1.24 1.20 27.3 29 --- - L-UP-HiII � 5557 ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- - --- --- C/L RD-NORTH 5617 2.99 24.4 3.52 3.04 1.88 1.55 28.4 78 L-ALLIG.GR 5700 3.20 27.2 3.29 2.36 1.36 1.12 23.1 31 --- --- M-TRANS.CR , 5804 2.93 24.3 4.58 3.87 2.64 2.00 26.9 12 �-- �-- BORtNG #4 (B-4) 5898 3.34 27.7 3.01 2.08 1.16 0.99 22.6 40 M-RUTTtNG 6001 2.98 24.4 3.52 2.99 1.70 1.35 26.0 20 --- --- H-ALLIG.CR 6103 3.15 27.0 5.19 4.30 2.74 1.87 23.6 14 --- --- -M-EDGE CR. � 6205 2.78 24 3 3.94 3.13 2.04 1.61 25.5 16 • --- --- L-LONG.CR. 6298 3.06 27.0 3.55 2.69 1.63 1.25 24.0 24 --- --- L-TRANS.CR 6378 ---- --- ---- ---- ---- --^ --- - --- --- C/L RD-NORTH ' 6416 2�.93 24.4 3.85 2.95 1.85 1.50 24.5 19 �-- �-- L-ALLIG.CR 6502 3.06 24.6 3.26 2.42 1.46 1.25 24.8 26 l-TRANS.CR 6600 3.26 27.2 2.86 2.10 1.21 1.02 24.9 36 --- --- M-TRANS.CR/LONG.CR. � 6618 3.40 26.4 3.46 2.39 1.52 7.19 23.2 32 --- --- M-TRANS.CR 6708 ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- - --- --- RR-XING 6803 2.83 24.4 3.04 2.34 1.54 1.37 28.3 21 --- --- H-TRANS.CR 6903 3.18 24.2 3.67 2.66 1.76 1.50 25.4 22 --- --- L-TRANS.CR � 7003 2.88 26.2 3.3Z 2.75 1.76 1.43 28.0 19 -- --- L-WEAR 7100 2.98 24.7 3.49 2.61 1.70 1.61 27.5 19 M-TRANS.CR 7200 2.87 23.8 3.44 2.98 2.04 1.71 26.5 15 - - L-LONG.CR. ' T283 2.70 24.0 3.49 2.60 2.09 2.00 34.6 10 �-- --� BORtNG #5 t6•5) 7400 3.03 27.1 3.80 3.24 1.85 1.42 25.5 19 L-LONG.CR. ' 7500 2.83 24.0 3.43 2.33 1.54 1.24 22.3 25 - - --- H-EDGE CR. i � 7607 3.21 28.0 2.35 1.89 1.57 1.22 36.2 23 --- --- L-LONG CR. 7696 3.01 24.2 4.00 3.08 1.68 1.40 22.5 21 M-TRANS.CR 7802 3.20 2T.1 4.88 3.57 2.01 1.42 19.8 20 --- --- H-TRANS.CR 7900 2.94 24.1 4.67 3.31 1.68 t.22 17.9 21 --- -- L-LONG.CR. � 7993 ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- - --- --- RR-XING � , • Braun Pavement Technologies, Inc. - Comnission Nunber 89-485 ' ' Date of Test; 06/22/89 Client: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT Dai ly ESALs: 50.0 Roadway: PINE BEND ROAD Temperature Range: 81 - 85 ' Asphalt Thickness: 3.00 From: TRIINR HIGHI�AY 55 surface condition Ratirtiy: 2.0 70: RAILROAD CROSSING (1.5 MILES EAST) Seasonal Correction Factor: 1.68 Comnent: Surface thickness varies from 2.5 to 3.5 inches. (See borings) ' � 50 Effective Granular Equivalency (inches) SQ 45 45 � 40 40 35 35 � 30 30 25 25 20 20 � 75 15 10 10 , 5 5 0 0 � 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 b000 7000 (feet) ' , ' S0 Effective Subgrade R-Yalue 50 45 45 ' 40 40 35 35 ' 30 30 25 25 , 20 20 15 15 � 10 10 5 5 , 0 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 (feet> �