evaluation of asphalt mix permeability · one test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day,...

40
EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY FINAL REPORT FOR MLR-90-2 AUGUST 1992. Highway Division I:'. Iowa Department '" of Transportation

Upload: others

Post on 06-Feb-2020

6 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

EVALUATION OFASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY

FINAL REPORTFOR

MLR-90-2

AUGUST 1992.

Highway Division

I:'. Iowa Department'" of Transportation

Page 2: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Evaluation ofAsphalt Mix Permeability

Final Reportfor

MLR-90-2

ByRoderick W. MonroeBituminous Engineer

515-239-1003

Iowa Department of TransportationHighway Division

Office of MaterialsAmes, Iowa 50010

August 1992

Page 3: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

TECHNICAL REPORT TITLE PAGE

l. REPORT NO. 2. REPORT DATE

MLR-90-2 - April 1992

3. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 4. TYPE OF REPORT &PERIOD COVERED

Evaluation of Asphalt Mix Fi na1 ReportPermeabil ity April 1992

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION ADDRESS

Roderick W. Monroe Iowa Department of TransportationBituminous Engineer Materials Department

800 Lincoln WayAmes, Iowa 50010

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS

8. ABSTRACT

Efforts to eliminate rutting on the Interstate system have resulted in3/4" aggregate mixes, with 75 blow Marshall, 85% crushed aggregate mixdesigns. On a few of these projects paved in 1988-1989, water hasappeared on the surfaces. Some conclusions have been reached by visualon-sight investigations that the water is coming from surface water,rain and melting snow gaining entry into the surface asphalt mixture,then coming back out in selected areas. Cores were taken from severalInterstate projects and tested for permeabil ity to investigate thesurface water theory that supposedly happens with only the 3/4"mixtures. All cores were of asphalt overlays over portland cementconcrete, except for the Clarke County project which is full depth AC.

The testing consisted-of densities, permeabilities, voids by highpressure airmeter (HPAM), extraction, gradations, A.C. content and filmthicknesses. Resilient modulus, indirect tensile and retainedstrengths after freeze/thaw were also done. All of the test resultsare about as expected. Permeabilities, the main reason for testing,ranged from 0.00 to 2.67 ft. per day and averages less than 1/2 ft. perday if the following two tests are disregarded.

One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surfacecourse at 13.78 ft/day but are not out of supposedly problem projects.

9. KEY WORDS

Rutting, Permeability, Voids

10. NO. OF PAGES

36

Page 4: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1

Obj ectiva .,; '. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1

Procedure ' .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2

Results / Observations.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5

Conclusions and Recommendations............................ 9

Acknowledgements.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10

References '. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11

Table Titles

Table I - Core Permeabilities, Densities, and Voids .... 13Table II - Summary of Resilient Modulus, Indirect ...••. 15

Tensile, and Retained Strength AveragesTable III - Extracted Gradations, Asphalt Cement and ••• 16

A.C. FilmsTable IV - Aggregate Types and Percent in Each Mixture. 17

Appendices

Appendix A - Individual Core Test Results ....•••••....• 18Appendix B - Test Formulas and Explanations ....•.•..... 27Appendix C - Additional Project Information........•... 34

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report reflectthe views of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the officialviews of the Iowa Department ofTransportation. This report doesnot constitute any standard, speci­fication or regulation.

Page 5: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Page 1

INTRODUCTION

Efforts to eliminate rutting on heavy traffic asphalt pavements

have resulted in 75 blow Marshall mix designs with 3/4 inch

coarse gradations of 85% crushed materials on Interstate acc

resurfacing projects. On three of these projects paved in 1988

and 1989, water has been observed exiting through the recently

paved surface. on-site investigations consisting of coring,

trenching through the shoulder at the pavement edge, and visual

observation gave some small indication that the water may be

surface water that has penetrated the pavement through voids in

the asphalt mix and has gravitated through the pavement voids

until the right conditions of pressure, permeability, and surface

cracks exist to allow the water to exit through the pavement

surface.

The possibility of any highly permeable asphalt pavement layers

is prompting concern about future performance problems related to

asphalt stripping and/or damage due to freeze/thaw action when

these layers are saturated with water.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability of

cores taken from Interstate paving projects which have eXhibited

surface water as well as investigate several projects which do

not exhibit this action. Evaluation of voids, extractions,'

Page 6: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Page 2

gradations, indirect tensile strength, resilient modulus, and

physical changes from freeze/thaw action will be conducted.

PROCEDURE

Four-inch diameter cores, through the entire thickness of asphalt

paving, were removed from the following projects.

county Project No. Milepost Station Direction Lane

Clarke IR-35-2(216)33--12-20 38.0-43.0 500 . S DRDecatur IR-35-1(54)00--12-27 0.0-7.3 125 S DRHarrison IR-29-5(58)77--12-43 75.7-90.5 1620 N DRMills IR-29-2(32)34--12-65 38.6-43.6 745 N DRPolk IR-35-4(59)92--12-77 92.5-98.7 415 S DRWoodbury IR-29-6(87)126--12-97 128.1-141.4 1200 N DR

Ten cores were taken from each project in the outside wheel path

of the driving lane at 50 ft. intervals.

The cores were divided by sawing to separate surface and binder

layers. The following tests were performed on the specimens

taken from each project.

specimens Tested Per Project

Surface Binder

Density All AllPermeability 3 3Voids (HPAM) 3 3Resilient Modulus (MR) & Indirect Tension (TI) 3 3Condition by Freeze/Thaw 3 3TI & MR After Freeze/Thaw 3 3Extraction & Gradation 1 1

Page 7: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

page 3

Three additional cores were obtained from .the centerline on

Decatur and Clarke County projects to be tested for voids and

density.

Specific procedures for freeze/thaw and permeability testing were

developed.

A falling head permeameter was built by machining parts out of

heavy, clear plastic components. A simple schematic of this

device is shown in Appendix "B". The sides of the cores had to

be sealed to stop any water from escaping and going out the sides

or edges of the cores. Colored water was used. A plastic paint

called "noryde" was used to seal the sides of the cores. The

paint did not penetrate the cores filling any voids.

Experimenting was done on cores other than the ones included in

this research.

Each core was left in the permeability machine for 120 minutes.

The water temperature and testing temperatures were done at 77°F.

The amount of water that permeated the cores was then calculated

according to the formulas found in the procedure in Appendix B.

Resilient modulus testing w~s conducted on six cores from each

layer of each project. Data and test parameters is included in

Appendix "A". A summary of the data is included in Table II.

Three of the cores tested for each mix were also subjected to 50

Page 8: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Page 4

cycles of freeze and thaw and retested. The data also is

included in Table II and Appendix "A".

Indirect tensile testing was done on three cores from each layer

of each project. The formula for indirect tensile strength was

calculated as per the formula shown in Appendix B.

Some cores on which resilient modulus testing was conducted were

also used for indirect tensile. The resilient modulus is

considered a nondestructive test. This is the reason for using

some of the cores for resilient modulus, then also for indirect

tensile testing and then were further used for extraction and

gradation analysis.

The cores tested for indirect tensile were extracted and the

aggregate gradation and asphalt content was determined. The

gradations, AC content and calculated film thicknesses are shown

in Tables I and III.

The aggregate type and percent of each aggregate in each layer

for each project is shown in Table IV.

Table I shows core densities, AC contents, permeabilities and

high pressure air meter voids for specific cores for each

project and layer.

Page 9: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Page 5

RESULTS/OBSERVATIONS

There appears to be no obvious visual correlation of air voids

and permeability. A California study and also a Georgia study

both concluded that permeability of mixes increases drastically

at 8% of voids in the California study and 10% of voids in the

Georgia study. At this void level, the water permeability in the

California voids study allowed 200 MM/min. to 1.3 MM/min. in the

Georgia voids study.

Only in a few cases were high pressure air meter voids measured

on the same cores that were tested for permeability. For Clarke

County, binder Table I showed 15.24 ft/day permeability with 8.7%

voids (core 10). Core 6 had 8.6% voids with a permeability of

only 0.41 ft/day. There is no sound explanation for this except

there may have been some aggregate size segregation in core 10

that is not visible that contained interconnected voids which

allowed more water to pass through. Perhaps this research shows

that asphalt cement concrete, properly mixed and placed, is not

waterproof like most people believe.

The. summary showing resilient modulus and indirect tensile

averages are shown in Table II. Test data for individual cores

is shown in Appendix A.

No obvious visual correlations are evident in respect to the

resilient modulus on anyone mix in respect to being tested at 50

Page 10: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Page 6

or 75 lbs. Even the Harrison county project, the test results,

after 50 cycles of freeze/thaw, were not consistently more or

less than the tests before the freeze/thaw on the same cores.

The resilient modulus was quite high on the Mills County binder

course mixture. In this mix, the high pressure air meter voids

were the lowest of any of the mixtures. This indicates that the

lower the voids the higher the resilient modulus and indirect

tensile, which consistently may not be the case.

The same cores could not be used for indirect tensile testing

before and after the 50 cycles of freeze/thaw due to destruction

of the cores in the indirect tensile test.

The percent of retained strength for each particular mixture

(layer) ranged from 70.1% lowest to 86.1% the highest,

disregarding the Decatur binder which was 40.2%. There seems to

be no explanation for this low retained result which is based on

the tests of three cores in Table II.

Extraction and gradation was done on the cores after the indirect

tensile tests. The gradations, AC contents and the AC film

thicknesses were calculated. Th& results are shown in Tables I

and III. Generally, the film thicknesses calculate lower than

shown in the assurance samples due to the gradation changes.

Page 11: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Page 7

The aggregate in a mix generally breaks down and becomes finer as

it is being handled and mixed. For example, the aggregate will

break down from handling before going through the plant. The

plant mixing will usually further generate more minus #50, #100,

#200 materials. The compaction process also breaks the aggregate

down a small amount more, as shown by research done by Lowell

Zearly in 1982 "Effect of Compaction on the Aggregate Gradation

of Asphalt Concrete." This research studied field roller and

also laboratory compaction effects on gradation. Laboratory

compaction breakdown was again illustrated in MI..R-86-7, "Effect

of Compaction on the Aggregate Fracturing of Asphalt Concrete" by

R. W. Monroe.

The extractions and gradations in this research were done on

cored samples. The results shown in Table III reflect the

gradations from the plant mix breakdown, compaction breakdown,

and cutting of particles in the coring process which all reflect

in finer gradations on the larger aggregate to the #200 material.

All of the breakdown causes more aggregate surface area,

resulting in lower calculated film thicknesses. This must be

kept in mind when using gradations from cored samples for referee

or verification tests.

Filler bitumen ratios on the data here in Table III in Decatur

surface 7.9/4.3 = 1.84 which is quite high and is not indicative

of the project mixture. The filler bitumen for the Woodbury

Page 12: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Page 8

binder, for example, 4.6 + 4.3 = 1.07, which is quite a variance

between these two mixtures. Filler bitumen ratio specifications

are based on cold feed gradations and tank stick A.C.

measurements.

Following are some observations and information as to the source

of water on the surfaces that prompted this investigation. Water

appeared on the surfaces of the Decatur and Clarke County

projects. No explanation is given for the Clarke County project.

The Clarke County project is a full depth asphalt project, but

still has longitudinal centerline and transverse temperature

related cracks which can allow water to come up from the subbase.

The Decatur County project was investigated to a much larger

extent. Originally, cores were drilled when water started

appearing on the new asphalt surface near centerline. A report

of the findings was made at the time the first six cores were

taken by F. E. Neff on September 6, 1989, copy included in

Appendix C. Mr. Neff stated that core #5 taken at a 1/4 point,

station 230+00 southbound lane, was cut through the 8" pcc and

through the 2 1/2" of acc base under the pcc. Water seeped into

the core hole from beneath the pcc. Core #6 was cut at the same

station, but on centerline.

Mr. Neff's observations here which he describes in more detail in

the report in the appendix indicates that in core hole #6 water

Page 13: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Page 9

came in from beneath the pcc and in 10 minutes filled the core

hole to a 12" depth. The core hole was cleaned of water several

times and the water kept coming in. Side shoulder underdrains

were in place, but no water was running out, although the drain

were wet.

This Decatur County project ultimately showed severe longitudinal

segregation in very narrow strips on the bottom of the surface

course. These narrow strips would allow some water to migrate

longitudinally, but not transversely to any degree.

During May of 1990 (approximate time) maintenance forces cut

seven transverse joints in the overlay in an attempt to drain the

trapped water from the mat. The joint configuration used is

similar to Detail "A" on Road Standard RH-50, copy is in

Appendix C. The depth of cut extended through the acc down to

the top of the pcc. The joints were cut from shoulder to

shoulder at stations 220, 225, 230, 235, 240,245, and 250. I

have observed some of these joints from time to time when in the

area, but have not seen any water. There have been no other

reports that I know of that these joints are draining any water

away.

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

This investigation has been worth the effort due to the large

amount of data collected. Data from test results on samples out

Page 14: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Page 10

of constructed projects most often times does not correlate well

with design parameters due to small inherent differences in the

product that develops between design and placement in the

aggregate gradations, voids, A.C. contents and densities.

There is little correlation from one project or layer to the

other in respect to resilient modulus, indirect tensile,

permeability, filler bitumen ratios, calculated film thicknesses,

percent retained strengths after freeze/thaw to draw any absolute

conclusions except that the water is coming up from beneath the

portland cement concrete pavement in the case of the Decatur

county project and from beneath the full depth asphalt pavement

in the case of the Clarke County project.

These projects are all quite successful considering the truck

traffic they are carrying, without rutting. Rutting was a

problem before we went to these coarse, harsh 3/4" mixtures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Appreciation is extended to the efforts put forth by Willard

Oppedal, Mike Coles, Steve Mccauley, Dan Seward and Dennis Walker

of the Central Materials Lab Bituminous section for performing

the largest part of the lab work. Appreciation is also extended

to the District 1 Bituminous Lab personnel for performing the

high pressure air meter voids on the cores. The work of Mike

Lauzon can be commended for the excellent job in machining the

Page 15: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Page 11

permeameter. The work of Kathy Davis is also appreciated for

final preparation of this report.

REFERENCES

1. V. Marks, R. Monroe, and J. Adam. The Effects of Crushed

Particles in Asphalt Mixtures. MLR-88-16 and HR-311.

2. V. Marks, R. Monroe, and J. Adam. Relating Creep Testing

to Rutting of Asphalt Concrete Mixes. HR-311.

3. L. Zearley. Effect of Compaction on the Aggregate Gradation

of Asphalt Concrete. June 1982.

4. R. Monroe. Effect of Compaction on the Aggregate Fracturing

of Asphalt Concrete. MLR-86-7, June 1986.

Page 16: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Table Titles

I. Core permeabilities, Densities, and Voids

II. Summary of Resilient Modulus, Indirect Tensile, andRetained Strength Averages

III. Extracted Gradations, Asphalt Cement and A.C. Films

IV. Aggregate Types and Percent in Each Mixture

Page 12

Page 17: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability
Page 18: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability
Page 19: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Page 15

Table IIsummary of

Resilient Modulus, Indirect Tensile,and Retained Strength Averages

Resilient Modulus

50 lbs. 75 lbs.

Indirect TensilesBefore After %F & T F & T Ret.

Clarke CountyBinderSurface

Decatur CountyBinderSurface

Harrison countyBinderAfter F & T

SurfaceAfter F & T

Mills CountyBinderSurface

Polk CountyBinderSurface

Woodbury countyBinderSurface

240,000280,000

280,000570,000

330,000340,000

350,000360,000

1,160,000510,000

300,000380,000

380,000370,000

220,000270,000

240,000570,000

280,000350,000

370,000340,000

1,070,000530,000

280,000490,000

340,000350,000

107.5125.4

121.8167.8

176.9

159.4

291. 6154.3

120.1157.1

195.2182.6

83.190.7

49.0126.9

139.7

135.6

246.8127.8

103.4110.1

140.0134.3

77.372.3

40.275.6

79.0

85.1

84.682.9

86.170.1

71.773.5

Page 20: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Table IIIExtracted Gradations, Asphalt Cement

and A.C. Films

Page 16

A.C.Film

Percent Passing % Mic.~ 3/4" iza; 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 A.C. Cores

Clarke Co.Binder 100 93 74 43 29 22 17 12 9.0 7.8 4.8 6.8Surface 100 93 78 51 31 23 18 12 9.6 8.1 5.1 7.3

Decatur Co.Binder 100 99 93 75 43 28 21 15 9.9 7.7 7.0 4.3 7.0Surface 100 87 61 41 30 23 18 12 9.4 7.9 4.3 5.7

Harrison Co.Binder 100 95 77 49 35 26 20 12 8.2 6.4 4.3 7.0Surface 100 92 79 54 34 25 19 12 7.7 5.7 4.4 6.2

Mills Co.Binder 100 96 65 51 41 31 18 9.4 6.8 4.4 5.7Surface 100 95 80 61 41 28 20 11 8.0 6.4 4.7 7.3

Pol k Co.Binder 100 95 75 45 30 22 17 11 7.6 6.4 4.4 7.0Surface 100 93 74 44 29 22 16 11 7.5 6.2 3.9 6.8

Woodbury Co.Binder 100 98 93 84 52 33 25 20 13 7.5 4.6 4.3 8.0Surface 100 91 74 58 43 32 24 15 8.6 5.5 4.4 7.2

Page 21: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Table IVAggregate Types and Percent

in Each Mixture

Page 17

Clark Co.BinderSurface

Decatur Co.BinderSurface

Harrison Co.BinderSurface

Mills Co.BinderSurface

15% RAP 76% Limestone 9% Sand85% Limestone 15% Sand

85% Limestone 15% Sand33% Quartzite 52% Limestone 15% Sand

30% RAP 64% Limestone 6% Sand38% RAP 58% Quartzite 4% Sand

85% Limestone 15% Sand25% Granite 60% Limestone 15% Cone. Sand

Polk Co.BinderSurface

15% RAP30% Quartzite

74.5% Limestone55% Limestone

10.5% Sand15% Sand

woodbury Co •. Binder

Surface15% RAP 32% Quartzite32% Cr. 53% Quartzite

Gravel

53% Limestone15% Sand

Page 22: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Appendix A

Page 18

Page 23: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Individual Core Density,Indirect Tensile and Data

CLARKE COUNTY

Page 19

Core Average Density~ Mainline £L Core

Indirect TensilePSI

AverageIndirect Tensile PSI

After F &Tof 3 Cores

Binder

Surface

58

11

Avg.

15

11

Avg.

2.293

2.336

2.285

2.331

109.199.3

114.1

107.5

115.9129.8130.5

125.4

83.1

90.7

DECATUR COUNTY

Binder 5 134.36 103.0

11 128.1

Avg. 2.329 2.289 121.8 49.0

Surface 4 154.75 194.88 154.0

Avg. 2.439 2.302 167.8 126.9

HARRISON COUNTY

Binder 4 164.56 189.17 177.0

Avg. 2.362 176.9 139.7

Surface 3 161.08 165.6

10 151.6

Avg. 2.324 159.4 135.6

Page 24: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Individual Core Density,Indirect Tensile and Data

MILLS COUNTY

Page 20

Core Average Density~ Mainline ~L Core

Indirect TensilePSI

AverageIndirect Tensile PSI

After F &Tof 3 Cores

Binder

Surface

36

10

Avg.

578

Avg.

2.378

2.322

301.8284.7288.3

291.6

151.3153.5158.1

154.3

246.8

127.8

POLK COUNTY

Binder 3 159.27 148.79 52.3

Avg. 2.367 120.1 103.4

Surface 5 168.98 165.59 136.8

Avg. 2.396 157.1 no.i

WOODBURY COUNTY

Binder 5 175.38 183.2

10 227.0

Avg. 2.398 195.2 140.0

Surface 4 197.78 180.29 169.B

Avg. 2.372 182.6 134.3

Page 25: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Page 21

Individual Core Density,Resilient Modulus and Data

CLARKE COUNTYBinder

Resilient ModulusCore 50 1bs. 75 lbs ,

.1.ill.:...- Density PSI HDEF PSI HDEF

B-1 2.327 0.21E6 127.4 0.20E6 198.12 2.2673 2.287 0.28E6 87.3 0.26E6 146.24 2.323 0.24E6 89.6 0.25E6 134.65 2.238 0.21E6 141.8 0.20E6 224.56 2.279 0.25E6 115.3 0.22E6 192.97 2.2718 2.2299 2.354 0.22E6 106.6 0.21E6 163.1

10 2.26111 2.29212* 2.28113* 2.299

Avg. 2.285 0.24E6 111.3 0.22E6 176.6

Individual Core Density,Resilient Modulus and Data

CLARKE COUNTYSurface

Resil ient ModulusCore 50 1bs. 75 1bs.

.1.ill.:...- Density PSI HDEF PSI HDEF

s-i 2.3152 2.3663 2.338 0.26E6 54.7 0.25E6 86.84 2.336 0.28E6 46.2 0.24E6 78.35 2.3406 2.328 0.28E6 52.3 0.29E6 77.87 2.351 0.29E6 47.5 0.30E6 71.48 2.3179 2.350 0.31E6 44.5 0.28E6 71.9

10 2.309 0.28E6 . 50.8 0.23E6 91. 711 2.34312* 2.35613* 2.305

Avg. 2.335 0.28E6 49.3 0.27E6

*Centerline Cores

Page 26: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

0.31E6 52.3 0.26E6 92.10.28E6 52.6 0.23E6 95.80.34E6 43.4 0.28E6 79.10.32E6 48.9 0.28E6 86.60.30E6 45.9 0.26E6 83.7o.13E6 126.6 0.l1E6 219.6

Core~ Density

B-1 2.3562 2.3373 2.3474 2.3365 2.3096 2.2067 2.3458 2.3559 2.351

10 2.33011 2.35212 2.25013 2.327

Individual Core Density,Resilient Modulus and Data

DECATUR COUNTYBinder

Resil ient50 1bs.

PSI HDEF

Page 22

Modulus75 lbs.

PSI HDEF

Avg. 2.323 0.28E6 61.6Core B-12 and B-13 are centerline cores

0.24E6 109.5

Individual Core Density,Resilient Modulus and Data

DECATUR COUNTYSurface

Res il i ent ModulusCore 50 1bs. 75 1bs.~ Density PSI HDEF PSI HDEF

S-l 2.367 0.47E6 33.1 0.46E6 45.52 2.357 0.51E6 29.2 0.51E6 45.73 2.366 0.66E6 22.5 0.66E6 34.24 2.3365 2.3576 2.2837 2.374, 0.60E6 24.0 0.59E6 37.28 2.3369 2.356 0.58E6 24.7 0.58E6 37.1

10 2.377 0.61E6 24.0 0.62E6 36.011 2.32712 2.26813 2.31814 2.319

Avg. 2.339 0.57E6 26.3 0.57E6 39.3

Cores S-12 thru S-14 are centerline cores

Page 27: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Page 23

Individual Core Density,Resilient Modulus and Data

HARRISON COUNTYBinder

Resilient Modulus Resilient ModulusResil ient Resilient After 50 Cycles After 50 CyclesModulus Modulus of Freeze &Thaw of Freeze &Thaw

Core 50 1bs. 75 lbs. 50 lbs. 75 1bs,....NiL..- Density PSI HDEF PSI HDEF PSI HDEF PSI HDEF

B-1 2.327 0.27E6 117.7 0.25E6 200.1B-2 2.383 0.31E6 115.6 0.31E6 180.9 0.32E6 117.2 0.33E6 172 .1B-3 2.365 0.31E6 74.8 0.31E6 115.7B-4 2.360 0.46E6 56.9 0.42E6 96.0B-5 2.364 0.26E6 96.1 0.23E6 163.3 0.28E6 92.6 0.28E6 137.6B-6 2.352B-7 2.386B-8 2.355 0.39E6 73.4 o.18E6 108.7 0.43E6 68.5 0.43E6 101.8

Avg. 2.362 0.33E6 71.4 0.28E6 144.1 0.34E6 92.8 0.35E6 137.1

Individual Core Density,Resilient Modulus and Data

HARRISON COUNTYSurface

Resilient Modulus Resilient ModulusResil ient Resil ient After 50 Cycles After 50 CyclesModulus Modulus of Freeze &Thaw of Freeze &Thaw

Core 50 1bs. 75 1bs. 50 1bs. 75 1bs.....NiL..- Density PSI HDEF PSI HDEF PSI HDEF PSI HDEF

S-l 2.316 0.34E6 50.1 0.36E6 68.1 0.32E6 52.6 0.29E6 83.1S-2 2.321S-3 2.316 0.32E6 51.5 0.32E6 74.1S-4 2.326 0.35E6 45.8 0.39E6 66.4 0.39E6 40.9 0.36E6 66.1S-5 2.312S-6 2.342 0.34E6 50.2 0.36E6 72.5S-7 2.336 0.36E6 40.7 0.42E6 54.4 0.37E6 39.4 0.36E6 60.4S-8 2.334 0.36E6 45.4 0.36E6 69.5S-9 2.324 Cracked CoreS-10 2.313

Avg. 2.324 0.35E6 47.3 0.37E6 67.5 0.36E6 44.3 0.34E6 69.9

All RIM answers are an average of two readings per core (20 cycles)

Page 28: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Page 24

Individual Core Density,Resilient Modulus and Data

MILLS COUNTYBinder

Resilient ModulusCore 50 lbs. 751 bs.~ Density PSI HDEF PSI HDEF

B-12 2.381 1.07E6 26.9 0.99E6 44.1

2.350 1. 42E6 24.1 1.36E6 37.64 2.395 1.07E6 26.5 0.90E6 49.05 2.381 1.08E6 28.6 1.22E6 38.36 2.386 1.27E6 25.1 0.97E6 49.47 2.3888 2.3729 2.391 1. IOE6 29.8 1.00E6 51.5

10 2.354

Avg. 2.378 1. 16E6 26.8 I.07E6 45.0

*Note high indirect tensile results compared to all others

Individual Core Density,Resilient Modulus and Data

MILLS COUNTYSurface

Resil ient ModulusCore 50 I bs. 75 Ibs.~ Density PSI HDEF PSI HDEF

S-1 2.3092 2.300 0.46E6 38.5 0.54E6 50.43 2.325 0.49E6 40.9 0.51E6 59.84 2.333 0.51E6 34.5 0.53E6 51.55 2.333 0.54E6 37.8 0.57E6 55.86 2.333 0.58E6 33.6 0.57E6 53.07 2.3268 2.3239 2.311 0.47E6 39.2 0.46E6 62.8

10 2:324

Avg. 2.322 0.51E6 37.4 0.53E6 55.6

Page 29: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Core~ Density

Individual Core Density,Resilient Modulus and Data

POLK COUNTYBinder

Resil ient50 1bs.

PSI HDEF

Modulus75 1bs.

PSI HDEF

Page 25

B-1 2.3952 2.3813 2.3824* *2.2845 2.3906 2.3767 2.3528 2.3819 2.361

10 2.368

Avg. 2.367

*Core #4 has a mud pocket

0.29E6 81.0 0.28E6 122.70.37E6 59.6 0.31E6 120.4

0.35E6 64.6 0.34E6 102.0

0.21E6 101.8 0.21E6 153.00.31E6 77 .1 0.27E6 134.70.29E6 69.5 0.29E6 115.7

0.30E6 75.6 0.28E6 121.8

Individual Core Density,Resilient Modulus and Data

POLK COUNTYSurface

Resil i ent ModulusCore 50 1bs. 75 1bs.~ Density PSI HDEF PSI HDEF

S-l 2.392 0.51E6 30.6 0.57E6 42.02 2.415 0.34E6 48.0 0.40E6 60.63 2.400 0.42E6 38.3 0.54E6 44.04 2.3715 2.4236 2.418 0.44E6 34.2 0.55E6 38.77 2.3748 2.385 0.29E6 56.0 0.45E6 51.09 2.368 0.30E6 60.6 0.27E6 96.1

10 2.412

Avg. 2.396 0.38E6 44.6 0.49E6 55.4

Page 30: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Individual Core Density,Resilient Modulus and Data

WOODBURY COUNTYSurface

Resil ient ModulusCore 50 lbs. 75 1bs.~ Density PSI HDEF PSI HDEF

S-1 2.384 0.56E6 24.2 0.54E6 37.52 2.353 0.35E6 41.0 0.25E6 86.13 2.3624 2.389 0.43E6 30.3 0.36E6 54.15 2.372 0.44E6 31.3 0.41E6 49.16 2.3797 2.3658 2.368 0.36E6 36.6 0.39E6 50.29 2.362 0.50E6 28.3 0.39E6 52.7

10 2.382

Avg. 2.372 0.37E6 32.0 0.35E6 55.0

Page 31: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Appendix B

Page 27

Page 32: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

INDIRECT TENSILE STRENGTH

Indirect Tensile strength (St) =~IT td

Where: St = tensile strength (psi)P = maximum load (pounds)t = specimen thickness (inches)d = specimen diameter (inches)

RESILIENT MODULUS

Test Parameters: 77 ± 1°F90° rotation @ 20 cycles ea.Frequency .33 hzLoad Time 0.1 sec.Tested @ 50 lb. & 75 lb.

Page 28

Page 33: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

11.4.D

arcy'sL

aw237

11.3.H

YD

RA

ULIC

GR

AD

IENT.

The

drivingforce

which

causesw

aterto

flowm

aybe

representedby

aquantity

known

asthe

hydraulicgradient.

This

isdefined

asthe

dropin

headdivided

bythe

distancein

which

thedrop

occurs.It

may'be

expressedby

therelation

inw

hichQ

isthe

volume

offlow

perunit

oftim

e,such

ascubic

feetper

dayor

cubiccentim

etersper

minute;

Ais

thecross-sectional

areaof

flow­

ingw

ater,in

squarefeet

orsquare

centimeters;

andv

isthe

velocityof

flow,in

feetperday

orcentim

etersper

minute.

11

GravitationalW

aterand

Seepage

velocityor

flow,

This

relationshipm

aybe

expressedby

theform

ula

Q=

Au

i=

~

(11-1)

(11-2)

inw

hichiis

thehydraulic

gradient;h

isthe

dropin

head;and

dis

thedis­

tancein

which

thedrop

occurs.For

example,

ifan

openchannel

is5000

ftlong

anddrops

50ft

inthat

distance,the

hydraulicgradientis

50/5000or

0.01.

11.4.D

AR

CY

'SLA

W.

The

generalrelationship

between

hydraulicgradient

andthe

characterand

velocityof

flowis

indicatedin

thediagram

ofFig.

ll-l.A

sthe

hydraulicgradient

isincreased

throughzones

Iand

II,the

flowrem

ainslam

inarand

thevelocity

increasesin

linearpropor­

tionto

thegradient.

At

theboundary

between

zonesII

andIII

theflow

breaksfrom

laminar

toturbulent

andthe

proportionalrelationship

be­tw

eenvelocity

andgradientno

longerprevails.

Under

decreasinghydraulic

gradient.the

flowrem

ainsturbulent

throughzones

IIIand

IIand

doesnot

resume

thelam

inarcharacteristic

untilthe

boundarybetw

eenzones

IIand

Iis

reached.H

erethe

relation­ship

between

velocityand

gradientagain

becomes

linearand

coincidesw

iththat

foran

increasinggradient.

The

gravitationalflow

ofw

aterin

soilis

representedby

thecurve

inzone

Iof

Fig,11-1

andw

em

ayw

ritethe

equation

11.1.N

AT

UR

EO

FG

RA

VIT

AT

ION

AL

FLOW

INS

OIL.

The

nowof

gravi­tational

water

insoil

iscaused

bythe

actionof

gravityw

hichtends

topull

thew

aterdow

nward

toa

lower

elevation.It

issim

ilarin

many

respectsto

thefree

flowof

water

ina

conduitor

anopen

channelin

thatitis

attributableto

thegravitational

pullw

hichacts

toovercom

ecertain

resistancesto

movem

entor

flowof

thew

ater.Such

resistancesare

duem

ainlyto

frictionor

dragalong

thesurfaces

ofcontact

between

thew

aterand

theconduit

infree

flowand

tofriction

andviscous

dragalong

thesidew

allsof

thepore

spacesin

thecase

offlow

throughsoils.

Inhydrau­

lics,gravityflow

ofw

aterm

aybe

eitherlam

inaror

turbulentin

character.its

naturedepending

onthe

velocityof

flowand

onthe

size,shape,

andsm

oothnessof

thesides

ofthe

conduitor

channel.In

thestudy

ofgravi­

tationalflow

insoils,

we

areprim

arilyinterested

inthe

laminar

typeof

flow,

sincethe

velocityof

groundw

aterrarely,

ifever,

becomes

highenough

toproduce

turbulencein

thesense

inw

hichitis

usedhere.

II"

ki(11-3)

11.2.C

HA

RA

CTER

ISTICS

OF

LAM

INA

RFLO

W.

Lam

inarflow

issaid

toexist

when

allparticles

ofw

aterm

ovein

parallelpaths

andthe

linesof

floware

notbraided

orintertw

inedas

thew

aterm

ovesforw

ard.T

hequantity

ofw

aterflow

ingpast

afixed

pointin

astated

periodof

time

isequal

tothe

cross-sectionalarea

ofthe

water

multiplied

bythe

average

236

inw

hichk

isaproportionality

constant.B

ysubstituting

thisexpression

forII

inE

q.(H

-I),w

eobtain

therelation

Q=

Aki

(11-4)

This

relationshipis

generaland

may

beapplied

toany

situationin

-o'" <0CDN<D

Page 34: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

238

Gra

vita

tion

alW

ater

and

Seep

age

11.7

.C

oeff

icie

nto

fPer

cola

tion

239

whi

chth

efl

owis

lam

inar

inch

arac

ter.

Itis

anex

pres

sion

ofD

arcy

'Sla

wap

plie

dto

the

flow

ofgr

avit

atio

nal

wat

erth

roug

hso

il.A

mor

ege

nera

lst

atem

ent

ofth

eD

arcy

law

isne

cess

ary

inco

nnec

tion

with

the

flow

ofot

her

flui

dsth

roug

hot

her

type

sof

poro

usm

edia

,bu

tth

efo

rego

ing

stat

e­m

enti

ssu

ffic

ient

for

the

pu

rpo

seof

this

disc

ussi

on.

Let

usas

sum

eth

atw

eha

vea

cond

uit

inw

hich

am

ass

ofs

oil

ispl

aced

insu

cha

man

ner

that

all

of

the

wat

erfl

owin

gth

roug

hth

eco

ndui

tm

ust

flow

thro

ugh

the

soil,

asil

lust

rate

din

Fig.

11-2

.Si

nce

prac

tica

lly

all

the

resi

stan

ceto

flow

inth

isca

seis

caus

edby

the

mas

sof

soil.

the

valu

eof

the

prop

orti

onal

ity

cons

tant

inE

q,(1

14

)de

pend

son

the

char

acte

rist

ics

ofth

eso

ilw

hich

infl

uenc

eth

efl

owof

wat

erth

roug

hits

pore

s.T

heeq

ua­

tion

indi

cate

sth

atth

equ

anti

tyof

wat

erfl

owin

gth

roug

ha

give

ncr

ess­

sect

iona

lar

eaof

soil

iseq

ual

toa

CO

nsta

ntm

ulti

plie

dby

the

hydr

auli

cgr

adie

nt.

Fig,

II~

I.

Ii;/

lI I

iI

e1

I11

lJ11

1i

I0

I~ 11

I

"I

'"I I I

~

Vel

ocity

,v

Rel

atio

nshi

pbe

twee

nhy

drau

lic

grad

ient

,vel

ocity

,an

dty

peof

flow

.

11

.5.

CO

EFF

ICIE

NT

OF

PE

RM

EA

BIL

ITY

.T

heco

nsta

ntk

inE

q.(1

1-4)

iskn

own

asth

eco

effi

cien

to

fpe

rmea

bili

tyor

.m

ore

rece

ntly

,as

the

coef

fi­

cien

to

jhy

drau

lic

cond

ucti

vity

.It

cons

titu

tes

anim

port

ant

prop

erty

ofso

il,an

dits

valu

ede

pend

sla

rgel

yon

the

size

ofth

evo

idsp

aces

,w

hich

intu

rnde

pend

son

the

size

,sha

pe.

and

stat

eof

pack

ing

ofth

eso

ilgr

ains

.A

clay

eyso

ilw

ithve

ryfi

negr

ains

will

have

ave

rym

uch

low

erpe

rmea

bil­

ityco

effi

cien

tth

anw

illa

sand

with

rela

tivel

yco

arse

grai

ns.

even

thou

ghth

evo

idra

tio

and

the

dens

ityof

the

two

soils

may

bene

arly

the

sam

e.T

here

ason

isth

egr

eate

rre

sist

ance

offe

red

byth

eve

rym

uch

smal

ler

pore

sor

flow

chan

nels

inth

efi

ne-g

rain

edso

ilth

roug

hw

hich

the

wat

erm

ust

pass

asit

flow

sun

der

the

infl

uenc

eof

ahy

drau

lic

grad

ient

.Fr

omth

isst

andp

oint

.we

may

say

that

the

coef

fici

ent

ofpe

rmea

bili

tyis

inde

pend

ent

ofth

evo

idra

tio

orde

nsity

whe

nw

ear

eco

mpa

ring

soils

ofdi

ffer

ent

tex­

tura

lcha

ract

eris

tics

.O

nth

eot

her

hand

.w

hen

we

cons

ider

the

sam

eso

ilin

two

diff

eren

tst

ates

ofde

nsity

.th

epe

rmea

bili

tyis

depe

nden

ton

the

void

rati

o.si

nce

the

soil

grai

nsar

ebr

ough

tin

tocl

oser

cont

act

byth

epr

oces

so

fcom

pact

ion

and

dens

ific

atio

n.T

hepo

resp

aces

are

redu

ced

insi

ze.a

ndre

sist

ance

tofl

owis

incr

ease

d.

11

.6.

VE

LOC

ITY

OF

AP

PR

OA

CH

OF

WA

TE

R.

Att

enti

onis

dire

cted

toth

efa

ctth

at,

inth

eap

plic

atio

nof

the

Dar

cyla

wan

dE

q.(1

l-4

),th

ecr

oss-

sect

iona

lar

eaA

isth

ear

eaof

the

soil

incl

udin

gbo

thso

lids

and

void

spac

es.

Obv

ious

ly.

the

wat

erca

nnot

flow

thro

ugh

the

solid

s,bu

tm

ust

pass

only

thro

ugh

the

void

spac

es.

The

refo

re.

the

velo

city

kiin

Eq.

(1l-

4)

isa

fact

itio

usve

loci

tyat

whi

chth

ew

ater

wou

ldha

veto

flow

thro

ugh

the

who

lear

eaA

inor

der

toyi

eld

the

quan

tity

ofw

ater

Qw

hich

actu

ally

pass

esth

roug

hth

eso

il.T

his

fact

itio

usve

loci

tyis

refe

rred

toas

the

"vel

ocit

yof

appr

oach

"or

the

"sup

erfi

cial

velo

city

"of

the

wat

erju

stbe

fore

ente

ring

,or

afte

rle

avin

g.th

eso

ilm

ass.

Adi

men

sion

alan

alys

isof

Eq.

(11-

4)in

dica

tes

that

the

coef

fici

ent

ofpe

rmea

bili

tyk

has

the

dim

ensi

ons

of

ave

loci

ty,

that

is,

adi

stan

cedi

vide

dby

time.

The

refo

re,

perm

eabi

lity

isso

met

imes

defi

ned

as"t

he

supe

rfic

ial

velo

city

ofw

ater

flow

ing

thro

ugh

soil

unde

run

ithy

drau

lic

grad

ient

...

11

.7.

CO

EFF

ICIE

NT

OF

PE

RC

OLA

TIO

N.

Ifth

eac

tual

velo

city

offl

owth

roug

hth

epo

res

ofth

eso

ilis

cons

ider

ed,

then

the

corr

espo

ndin

gar

eaw

hich

mus

tbe

used

inw

ritin

gth

efl

oweq

uati

onis

the

area

ofth

epo

resp

aces

cut

bya

typi

cal

cros

sse

ctio

nof

the

soil.

The

Dar

cyeq

uati

onfo

rth

isca

seis

Soil

Flo

wI

t~:\~t!4

~!Uj1-

Fig.

B-2

.H

ypot

hetic

alflo

wt-h

roug

hso

il.Q

=A

,k,i

(11-

5)

-o '"(Q (\) w o

Page 35: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

240G

raviuuionatW

alerand

Seepage1I.1I.

Test

with

Constant-H

eadP

ermeam

eter241

inw

hichA

vis

thearea

of

porespaces

ina

soilcross

section;an

dk

pis

aproportionality

constant.T

heproduct

kpiinthis

caseis

equalto

theaverage

actualvelocity

ofthe

water

throughthe

soilpores.

Sincethe

areaof

thepores

inany

crosssection

willalw

aysbe

lessthan

thetotal

area,it

isobvious

thatthis

actualvelocity

willalw

aysbe

greaterthan

thevelocity

ofapproach.

The

proper­tionality

constantk

pis

calledthe

coefficientof

percolation,an

dit

al­w

ayshas

agreater

valuethan

thecoefficient

ofperm

eabilityfor

anygiven

soil.

11.9.A

PPLICA

TION

SO

FPER

MEA

BILITY

CH

AR

AC

TERISTIC

SO

FSO

IL.T

hereare

numerous

typeso

fproblem

sin

connectionw

ithengineering

projectsw

hichrequire

knowledge

of

theperm

eabilitycharacteristics

of

thesoil

involved,such

ascom

putationso

fseepage

throughearth

dams

andlevees

andlosses

fromirrigation

ditches.E

stimates

of

pumpage-capacity

requirements

forunw

ateringcofferdam

sor

excavationsbelow

aw

aterta­

bleare

familiar

examples

of

suchproblem

s.T

he

spacingand

depthof

underdrainsfor

lowering

thew

atertable

undera

roado

rrunw

ayin

orderto

improve

subgradestability

orfor

drainingw

aterloggedagricultural

landis

anothertype

ofproblem

inw

hichthe

permeability

of

thesoil

isof

11.8.R

ELATIO

NB

ETWEEN

CO

EFFICIEN

TSO

FPER

MEA

BIU

TYA

ND

PER

.C

OLA

TION

.T

he

distinctionbetw

eenthe

two

flowcoefficients

shouldbe

clearlyunderstood

bythe

student.T

he

coefficiento

fpercolation

refersto

-theaverage

actualvelocity

ofw

aterflow

ingthrough

theactual

porearea

of

thesoil;

whereas,

thecoefficient

of

permeability

refersto

afactitious

velocityof

flowthrough

thetotal

areao

fsolids

pluspore

spaces,as

pointedo

ut

inS

ection11.6.

Since.as

arule.

thetotal

areaof

soilis

more

convenientlydeterm

inedin

gravitationalflow

problems,

theperm

eabilitycoefficient

isused

more

oftenthan

thepercolation

coefficient.T

he

areaof

thepore

spacesin

atypical

crosssection

ofsoil

isequal

tothe

totalaream

ultipliedby

theporosity.

Ittherefore

follows

that

theco.

,efficientofperm

eabilityo

fthesoil

isequalto

thecoefficient

of

percolationm

ultipliedby

theporosity.

Thus,A

.=

nA(11-6)

By

substitutingthis

valueo

fA

vin

Eq.

(1l~5)

and

settingthe

resultthus

obtainedequal

tothe

expressionsfor

Qgiven

byB

q.(11-4),we

get

Aki

=n

Ak,i

(11-7)

Fig.11-3.

Constant-head

permeam

eter.

-0

'" <0CDW~

Supply/;/

/(:'

1h

11.11.TEST

WITH

CO

NST

AN

T.H

EA

DPER

MEA

METER

.A

laboratorytest

which

isparticularly

adaptedto

determination

ofthe

coefficiento

fperm

e-

11.10.M

EASU

REM

ENT

OF

PERM

EAB

ILITYC

HA

RA

CTER

ISTICS

OF

SOIL.

Severalm

ethodsof

measuring

permeability

characteristicsof

soilsare

available.Som

em

ethodsinvolve

laboratoryprocedures

ondisturbed

orundisturbed

samples,and

othersare

adaptedto

determination

ofthe

per­m

eabilityof

thesoil

inplace

belowa

water

table.E

achof

theseproce­

dureshas

advantagesw

hichare

important

indifferent

typesof

problems;

andthe

method

which

ism

ostfeasible

and

appropriatefor

theparticular

problemin

"handshould

bechosen.

Fo

rexam

ple,in

studyingthe

seepagethrough

arolted

earthdam

.itw

ouldbe

appropriateto

make

alaboratory

typeo

fteston

asam

pleo

fthe

soilto

beused

which

would

becom

pactedto

thesam

edensity

asin

theprototype

structure.O

nthe

otherhand,

afield

testo

fthe

soilin

placew

ouldbe

more

appropriatein

the

caseof

studiesrelating

tothe

unwatering

ofan

excavation.In

everycase.

theob­

jectiveshould

beto

determine

theperm

eabilityof

thesoil

inits

naturalor

normal

operatingcondition

or

todo

soas

nearlyas

ispossible.

Further­

more,

soilsin

natureare

frequentlynonisotroplc

with

respectto

flow;

thatis,the

coefficiento

fperm

eabilityin

thevertical

directionm

aydiffer

con­siderably

fromth

atin

thehorizontal

direction.If

thiscondition

exists,it

may

benecessary

tom

easurethe

permeability

inboth

directions.

paramount

importance.

Also,

therate

ofsettlem

entof

astructure

restingon

asoil

foundationis

afunction

of

therate

atw

hichw

aterm

ovesthrough

andout

ofth

efoundation

soil.

(11-8)k

=nk

p

fromw

hich

Page 36: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

242

Gra

vita

tion

alW

ater

and

Seep

age

11.1

2.T

est

wit

hF

aili

ng-H

ead

Per

mea

met

er24

3

Fig.

11-4

.Fa

lling

-hea

dpe

rmea

met

er.

vari

able

-hea

dpe

rmea

met

eror

falli

ng-h

ead

perm

eam

eter

.A

typi

cal

ar­

rang

emen

tof

appa

ratu

sfo

rth

iste

stis

show

nin

Fig.

11

4.

Inth

eco

nduc

tof

the

test

,th

ew

ater

pass

ing

thro

ugh

the

soil

sam

ple

caus

esw

ater

inth

est

andp

ipe

tod

rop

from

h oto

hiin

am

easu

red

peri

odo

ftim

etl

'T

he

head

onth

esa

mpl

eat

any

time

tbe

twee

nth

est

art

and

fini

shof

the

test

ish;

and,

inan

yin

crem

ent

oftim

edt

,th

ere

isa

decr

ease

inhe

adeq

ual

todh

.F

rom

thes

efa

cts,

the

follo

win

gre

lati

onsh

ips

may

bew

ritt

enrt

(A.

)

"I"

c\;

"

a. (6

~z."'~s

,,)

I_S

tan

dp

ipe

area

a

Ih,

t)~

__

dhin

dt

h ____11

Poro

usst

one/'

'

h.

~,

~ , , , , iLU

l'"!

II'll

.n:-

:,

;-

'.'-

,:

-p

-,,

},

~N

\ I , I V

Sub

stit

utin

gth

ese

valu

esin

Eq.

(11

4),

we

obta

in

0.04

8•

0.19

6x

kx

1.37

5

abili

tyo

fre

lativ

ely

coar

se-g

rain

edso

ilsis

one

inw

hich

the

hydr

aulic

grad

ient

ishe

ldco

nsta

ntth

roug

hout

the

test

ing

peri

od.

Aty

pica

lar

­ra

ngem

ento

fapp

arat

usfo

rth

iste

st.i

call

eda

cons

tant

-hea

dpe

rmea

met

er,

issh

own

inFi

g.11

-3.

Inth

eco

nduc

toft

hete

st,

aUth

ew

ater

pass

ing

thro

ugh

the

soil

sam

­pl

ein

am

easu

red

peri

odof

time

isco

llect

ed,

and

the

quan

tity

ism

ea­

sure

d.T

his

quan

tity

ofw

ater

and

the

appr

opri

ate

dim

ensi

ons

ofth

eap

­pa

ratu

san

dth

eso

ilsa

mpl

ear

esu

bsti

tute

din

Eq,

(11-

4),

and

ava

lue

ofth

epe

rmea

bili

tyco

effi

cien

tis

obta

ined

.

from

whi

ch

SOLU

TIO

N:

Fro

mth

iste

st,

h""

11in

.an

dd

la8

in.;

and

ia

!!a

1.37

5d

Als

o,A

la28

.27

sqin

.,..

0.19

6sq

ftan

d

766

Q""

£""

..,,

<:c

...O

.048

cfm

EX

AM

PL

E11

.1.

Aso

ilsa

mpl

ein

aco

nsta

nt-h

ead

perm

eam

eter

is6

in.

indi

amet

eran

d8

in.

long

.T

heve

rtic

aldi

stan

cefr

omhe

adw

ater

tota

il­w

ater

is11

in.

Ina

test

run,

766

Ibo

fw

ater

pass

esth

roug

hth

esa

mpl

ein

4hr

15m

in.

Det

erm

ine

the

coef

fici

ent

ofp

erm

eabi

lity

.

tTh

em

inus

sign

inE

q.(1

\·9)

isap

prop

riat

ebe

caus

eth

ehe

adde

crea

ses

with

elap

sed

lime.

EX

AM

PL

E11

.2.

Asa

mpl

eo

fcl

ayso

il,ha

ving

acr

oss-

sect

iona

lar

ea

k•

0.17

8rp

m

Inco

mpu

ting

the

valu

eof

the

perm

eabi

lity

coef

fici

ent

from

data

ob­

tain

edin

ate

stof

this

type

,as

inal

lpe

rmea

bili

typr

oble

ms,

itis

impo

rtan

tto

keep

the

com

puta

tion

sdi

men

sion

ally

corr

ect.

Are

lativ

ely

easy

and

sure

way

todo

this

isto

deci

dein

adva

nce

the

unit

sin

whi

chth

eco

effi

­ci

ent

of

perm

eabi

lity

isde

sire

d.T

hen

redu

ceth

eva

lues

of

Qan

dA

toth

ose

unit

sbe

fore

mak

ing

the

com

puta

tion

.In

the

prec

edin

gex

ampl

e,Q

and

Aw

ere

redu

ced

tofe

etan

dm

inut

esan

dth

ere

sult

ing

valu

eo

fk

was

expr

esse

din

feet

per

min

ute.

Sinc

eth

ehy

drau

lic

grad

ient

isa

dim

ensi

on­

less

quan

tity

,th

eun

its

ofh

an

dd

are

not

impo

rtan

t,pr

ovid

edth

esa

me

units

are

used

for

both

dist

ance

s.

11.1

2.TE

STW

ITH

FALU

NG

-HEA

DPE

RMEA

MET

ER.

Ano

ther

labo

rato

ryte

st,

whi

chis

mor

eap

prop

riat

ein

the

case

of

fine

..gra

ined

soils

,is

calle

da

The

n

from

whi

ch

k!!

A•

-adh

ddt

A1'"

1"dh

k-

dt=

-a-

d0

"0h

adhe

-A

log

'-h

~II

\\.

(11-

9)

(11-

10)

~Zy.,/d

(11-

11)

-0

01 <0 /l)

W N

Page 37: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

244G

ravitationalWater

andSeepage

~

11.14.B

ffecto

fVlscosity

ofW

ater245

Fig.11-5.

Correction

factorto

permeability

with

waterat

lO,lO

·C.

varioustem

peraturesm

aybe

determined

onthe

basisof

therelationship

between

temperature

andthe

coefficientofviscosity

forw

ater.T

heunit

ofthe

coefficientofviscosity

inthe

metric

systemis

thedyne-second

persquare

centimeter

andis

calledthe

poise.T

he

coefficientofviscosity

ofw

aterat

20.20·C(68.36"F)

is0.01

poiseor

Icentipoise.

The

curvesin

Fig.11-5

showthe

valuesof

thiscoefficient,in

centlpcises,for

arange

oftem

peratureson

boththe

centigradeand

Fahrenheitscales..

Sincethe

coefficientofperm

eabilityis

inverselyproportional

tothe

viscosityof

theperm

eatingw

aterand

directlyproportional

toits

tempera­

ture,thecoefficientof

viscositycan

beused

asa

correctionfactor

byw

hichthe

permeability

determined

atone

temperature

canbe

reducedto

thatat

thebase

temperature

of20.20"e.

"'" <0CDWW

120100

8060

Tem

perature(deg.)

4020

\\

\

\\

\"uhrellhelt

•\Celltrigrade

\\

<,r-,

'"I

<,<

,I'--,

'"..

"~~

.~~

o o. 1.8

0.4

1.4

1.6

j&l.2

I'fl.O

~0.8

]...0.6

<3

tlog

,N-

2.303loglo

N.

11.14.EFFECT

OF

VISC

OSITY

OF

WA

TER.

The

coefficientofperm

eabilityis

primarily

influencedby

thesize

andshape.

ortortuousness.

ofthe

soilpores

andby

theroughness

ofthe

mineral

particlesof

thesoil..H

owever,

itisalso

affectedby

theviscosity

ofthe

permeating

water.

Sincethe

vis­cosity

ofw

ateris

afunction

ofits

temperature.

itm

aybe

advisablein

some

casesto

correctthe

laboratory-measured

permeability

coefficientfortem

peraturedifference

between

that

ofthe

laboratoryw

aterand

thatof

thew

aterw

hichw

illflowthrough

theprototype

structure.F

or

example,

laboratorym

easurements

ofperm

eabilitym

aybe

made

ata

roomtem

­perature

ofsay

80"F.w

hereasit

isknow

nthat

thetem

peratureof

theseepage

water

throughthe

prototypestructure

willbe

inthe

neighborhoodof

50"F.T

hecoefficientdeterm

inedin

thelaboratory

may

betoo

highin

thiscase

becausethe

viscosityof80"

water

isless

thanof

SO"w

ater.A

correctionfactor

forthe

permeability

coefficientw

ithw

aterat

11.13.EFFEC

TO

FA

IRIN

POR

E$.

The

permeability

of

the

soilsam

plein

eitherof

thetw

olaboratory

testsjust

describedm

aybe

affectedappre­

ciablyby

pocketedbubbles

ofair

inthe

soilpores.

Attem

ptsshould

bem

adeto

eliminate

entrappedair

fromthe

sample

bypassing

water

throughit

fora

considerableperiod

oftim

ebefore

atest

runis

made.

Also,since

difficultym

aybe

encounteredif

dissolvedair

isreleased

fromthe

permeating

water

andtrapped

inthe

poresas

thew

aterpasses

throughthe

soil.it

isadvisable

touse

air-freeor

distilledw

ateras

theperm

eate.F

urthermore,since

water

tendsto

absorbair

asitcools

andto

releasedis­

solvedair

asitw

arms

up,thetem

peratureof

theperm

eatingw

atershould

preferablybe

somew

hathigherthan

thato

fthe

soilsam

ple.T

hisprecau­

tionnot

onlyw

illpreventair

frombeing

releasedin

thesoil.

butm

ayas­

sistin

removing

entrappedair

inthe

poressince

thew

aterw

illbecooled

asitpasses

throughthe

soilandw

illhavea

tendencyto

absorbair.

of7

8.5

sqem

and

aheighto

f5

em,

isplaced

ina

falling-headperm

eameter

inw

hichthe

areaof

thestandpipe

is0.53

sqem

.In

atest

run,the

headon

thesam

pledrops

from80

emto

38em

inI

hr24

min

18sec.

What

isthe

coefficiento

fpermeability

ofthe

soil?

SOLU

TION

:F

rom

thistest,

a'"

0.53sq

em;

/,....

1hr

24m

in18

sec""

84.3m

in;ho..

80em

;d...5

em;and

A...78.5sq

em.

Substitution

inE

q.(II-II)givesj

k=

0.53x8~

3log,

80=

0.000299em

/min

78.5x

.38

Page 38: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

Appendix C

Page 34

Page 39: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

To Office: District #5 Office

Attention: Pete Tollenaere

F. E. Neff

Page 35

Date: September 7, 1989

Ref: 435.2402

Office:

Subject:

District #5 Materials

Research Coring on 1-35 Decatur Co.,.

Coring conducted 9-6-89 by F. E. Neff and C. Proper, District #5 Materials,with District #5 Materials core machine. Cores delivered to Pete Tollenaere'soffice 9-7-89. The core holes were left open by direction of Pete Tollenaere.Results of core length, material and presence of water, note below. All corestaken in southbound inside (passing) lane.

u'Core #1: Sta. 239+00+ 14" Lt. of CLThickness 17", 4 3/4" AC surface, 8i" concrete4" asphalt baseNote: Hole checked approximately 5 hours after coring, had filled

about 1/2 full of water.

Core #2: Sta. 239+00+ on 1/4 point 5'+ Lt. of CLThickness 17", 4" AC surface, Si" concrete4t" asphalt base. Little to no water in this hole when checked.

Core #3: Sta. 241+75+ 4" Lt. of CLThickness 16", 5t" AC Surface, 8" concrete2!" asphalt base. Base core unable to remove in tact. No water attime of coring, did not check later.

Core #4: Sta. 241+75+ on 1/4 pointThickness 1"5", 5;\:" AC surface, H" concrete2i" asphalt base. Unable to remove base core but broken throughto determine thickness.

~ Core #5: Sta. 230+00+ on 1/4 pointThickness 16", 5!" AC surface, S" concrete2i" asphalt base. Unable to remove base core but broken out todetermine thickness. After coring, water seeping in slow, unableto tell for sure if between base and concrete or from under base .

.I Core #6: Sta. 230+00+ on CLThi ckness 16", 5F AC surface, S-f' concrete21" asphalt base. Unable to remove base core but broken out todetermine thickness. As concrete core was removed and water removedfrom hole, observed water running into the hole qUite fast. Appearedto be coming from between base and conrete, but could have beencoming up around outside of base core. Removed base, cleaned holeand within ten (10) minutes the hole had 12 or more inches of water.Cleaned hole again and again and water returned qUite fast. Shoulderdrain outlet on right shoulder at this location was found to havesome water in it but not running.

FEN/edcc: T. McDonald

S. Moussa11 i

Page 40: EVALUATION OF ASPHALT MIX PERMEABILITY · One test on each binder course came out to 15.24 ft/day, and a surface ... OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to evaluate the permeability

JOIN

TS

(TR

AN

SVER

SECO

NT.

RACT

ION

.reM~I

I\I'lL

lI\K

LIRO

ADPL

ANRH

-50f~R,

+~~"

,"'M

-;;'

7-;;

""~"

"~--

-'--

-;OM

1'~0

3:-:

_"11

lS',,~

.·!:

"CE

OB

OA

O~

eN".

..Cl"

f."

o~rE

l;~_~

$01

-03-

92~

12i

-~P

"OVE

:O~

OE

p'

HO

'''"C

TO

RO

f....f.~O"M!:"t

""T

E

}~ ,. "j.,

GEN

ERA

lN

OTE

S:

All

mct

erte

lsan

dco

nstr

uctio

nfe

atur

esus

edin

the

cons

truc

tion

ofpa

vem

enf

join

tssh

allc

onfo

rmto

the

requ

irem

ents

ofcu

rren

tSt

anda

rdSp

ecif

icat

ions

.R

efer

toot

her

appr

opri

ate

Stan

dard

Roo

dPl

ansa

ndpr

ojec

tpla

nsfo

radd

ition

alin

form

atio

n,A

ltern

ate

met

hods

for

cons

truc

tion

of[o

irrt

smoy

besu

bmitt

edto

the

Eng

inee

rfo

rcc

naid

ercf

ion.

Dow

els

for

the

'CD

'joi

ntsh

allb

epr

oper

lypo

sitio

ned

byth

eus

eof

anap

prov

edsu

ppor

tas

sem

bly,

Tie

bars

shal

lbe

held

inpl

ace

byap

prov

edde

vice

sor

met

hods

appr

oved

byth

eE

ngin

eer.

Bar

spl

aced

afte

rco

ncre

tesl

abis

pour

edsh

ellb

ein

stal

led

prio

rto

vibr

atio

nof

pave

men

tsl

ob.

Epo

xyco

atal

lbar

s(s

moo

than

dlie

bars

),se

e"P

avem

ent

Rei

n­fo

rcem

ent"

inth

ecu

rren

tSt

anda

rdSp

ecif

icat

ions

.

The

join

tsas

deta

iled

here

onsh

elln

otbe

mea

sure

dfo

rpa

ymen

!.T

heco

nstr

uctio

nde

toile

dhe

reon

incl

udin

gth

efu

mis

hing

ofth

edo

wel

s,do

wel

asse

mbl

ies,

and

jain

1fill

erm

cter

tel

shal

lbe

cen-

.sl

dere

din

cide

mal

toPC

Cpa

ving

,unl

ess

note

dol

helW

1se.

SPE

CIA

lNO

TE

S,

G)T

halr

eem

ovin

gen

d.01

dow

el...

wo

rt".

..,m

bly

Wol

lhplo

OO<l

ollo

mot

ely=

=jo

ints

.

oR

efur

lo!l

o,S

lze

Tob

ie.

C!)~h

efSQ

W""

'.ho

lll>

e'Y

3ex

cept

'C'i

oint

ohol

lhe

If.ot

.

@'O

W'J

oint

.hol

lb<

>10

rolO

O·<

>tth

em

idpo

inlb

_..

.fu

tu'e

'C'O

t'e

n'J

eint

s,"'

;tho

lole

""",

eof

±2

feet

.0<

>no

tplo~

at"

I"C(I~en

of0

Iv""

"'C

'0,

'CO

'Jei

n!.

oll<

>",

inT1

<l...

......

....

J"itl

/s.h

oU

bo

pl"c

od$0

th",

nob

o'w

.llb

.<

10$0

'tho

..6"

to0

"(lo

ngih

i<ftE

\OlJ

"lnt

(ce"

"'rt

ine

of"'<

>elln

el.

The

di<

l....c

o10

lhe

fim

bo'f

rom

edge

01pa

vem

ent

""II

va

')'

from

6"to

12"

dope

nd;n

gup

onpo

vem

el'l1

wid

th.

S."l

."d

of

0S,

licc>

r.oJo

inl~ls'

.hol

lbe

um

let

lnte

mo

tsp

ov

em."

',o

nd

ow>

clol

edw

o,l<

.j"

wt

~Ith

tape

.R

ofo'

10th

ocu~nl

5ton

derd

Spw

fico

tlon

on"S

eolln

gJo

lnll;

".

(2)E

dge

with

V4

"leo

l!et

len

glh

olj

oln

tin

dk

ole

dil

form

ed;

edgi

ngn

el'

...."

i,ed

wh

enG

Ilw

ilt>

diom

end

bl"

de

'OW

.R

emov

eh

oo

der

blod

<on

dbo

o,d

whe

nse

«>n<

lslo

bi•

.pcl

lr0d

.T

heio

ln!S

holt

be<:

vton

d."

",le

d0$

show

nIn

O.lo

il'S

·.

oI'l

o<em

onl0

1dow

els

or~e

bo'"

shol

lbe

InO

=t<l

OIlC

Ow

ithIll<

>"'

'''''''S

tond

o'd

SP"<lfi(o~on

on"P

laci

ngR

"ln!

o'c<

lmen

l".

Th"

mo'

hc>

dof

ondl

orin

\lba

rs,n

to<l

>i<l

ing

"""o

men

tsho

llbe

""op

proy

odby

!he

fugl

n••

ro•

..,l

lorl

hin

opp"

,pri

"'.·

Mol

orio

lsIn

,ll'l,

f<lio

nolM

ome"

,ndu

"".

4'Io

wa

Dep

artm

entO

fTra

nspo

rtatIo

n\:

-H

ighw

ayD

ivis

ion

@U

nl".

.o'

heJ'

l'lis

esp

edlle

d,'ro

mve

t$<l

<on

tmcf

ien

ioill

t$In

moi

n!in

ep

m.m

",,'

,;,ai

lbe

'CO

'whe

n@

"gr

ookt

r'"

"'1",,

11<>

8".

'C'w

hen

@i$

Ie>s

It>on

8".

oW

hen

~e,ng

inlO

old

pave

men

t,@

,ept

>:>

senl

.Ihe

dept

h"b

ou

nd

Port

lond

Cem

enl

Cen

<re

1e.

-<8>

.~

BAR

SIZ

ETA

BLE

oi<

8"

~~~l~~

,,-".""-'~-'

_'~"-,,-.-~

DOW

ELu"

SIZE

~Tif

tAR-_

.---,

SIZE

"6'1

0I

-u

SEC

TIO

NA

-A

DET

AIL

"B"

JOin

tSC

Il!e

.-~

M"te

ncl_

_~

%"'~"+\~

DET

AIL

"A"

Top

ofP"

'vem

ent

Jo,n

tSe

"I",

.®.J~.

Mllt

eno!

1;iC

-V~"-w,\t1

r',....B=#

=i-r

,;~'r;k~

-~

'"I,~

l,S

ee

Not

e(!)

TYPI

CA

LBA

RPL

AC

EMEN

Tilp

phe.

.to

oIl

Jom

t,""

less

othe~.,se

;-te

ded.

O~"OT"

I~OO;O(;1

er"fQi)~

\i:~O

v""k

Or

xo

°r\

_'..,0

.kan

tL

1I'

1e-

·I--

·'-'-

'­-.

(,

0:-.\:

"~

Now

:M

!ltch

'CD

'or

'C'J

01l1

tlI'

:pl

lvem

ent.

Bot

tom

ofs,

,~C

ut

P,=,

vp.m

ent

Ecl

ge-

P2'

·O",

'l,n.

"",d

"'~d\

IrCf!

'I

cE1','E,'

".'~1"=''''''P''''

iQo~""'"

"~k

r;.

'<~~;~

o".~.;

---·~

..

-=

=t@

(;',

'---

-30

"Lo

ng

II"

Ber

-Se

eN

ote

.\2

;o

t12

"C

ente

rs<1

)'H

T'

HEA

DER

JOIN

T(E

ND

RIG

IOPA

VEM

ENT)

'C'

JOIN

TIN

CURB

f'".e

men

tEd

ge~j

See

Det

llJl"

8"

~'!'~'

':':"

",:'

,e,l

;;'

0"!

~~,

r~<

r>,-

:,<

>"'

-<

'<,

JH

oleO"

,met

e~111

"J

'-1

8"l

on

g:Oo

~el

L<l~

ge,.

then

DOM

elllt

12"C

ente

rs0

See

Not

CD'R

D'

AB

UTT

ING

PAV

EMEN

TJO

INT

Pave

men

tEd

gefrsee

Oet

lld"8

"

i·;:

,fit

;-1J

~-.

'c·C

-,,

,i

Hol

eO

,,,met

<'w

15"

/"-

24"

Lo."'

;;-Tl

C&~

l","ge~

th""

THo

SU

_J

t>t12"Cen\.e~$.

CD'R

T'

See

Not

<!®

®A

BUTT

ING

PAV

EMEN

TJO

INT

RIG

IDT

IE

I'\"'-

"~,,"

,;';

"';

0..

c"''-'

;''''J~

'B'

PLA

INJO

INT

FOR

ABU

TTIN

GPA

VEM

ENT

SLA

BS

See

Now.

<1§)

'C'

CON

TRA

CTIO

NJO

INT

to.,O,~"-a-;,-

;.'.C

.:,"

:

W~l"

",,.

,~

~.~

:.O.

:---±

.

~illf

:,',,"

J;{

~.-.-.

,,-_:-

.'-

.;--.:}'->~

CD::-

0"",>

.;;;~~

"'>'

~'..::.:

:....1

r>.

/Z\

Q,

"-=

.--1

8"Lo

ng[l

o"e

lSe

elk

te.\

.08

'®lit

12"C

em.e

'CD

'DO

WEL

EO

CON

TRA

CTIO

NJO

INT

-So

er:.

.,to:

ll"A

"

jsee

DH~"l

"8"

~,~,;:

:?re_"

&",)~

~"(£

-,1-1

!?'I~

'-3

0"L

on

gTI

SB~

See-

~'ot

e,0.

J\2

.;lit

12"C

ente

rs0

'OW

'D

AY

'SW

ORK

JOIN

T(N

on

-Wo

rkIn

g)