TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

Background of Existing Facility 3

Proposed Work 4

Objective of this Report 4

Required Data 4

Pavement Design Procedure 5

Other Data Requirements 7

Pavement Structures 8

Pavement Drainage Analysis 10

Conclusion 10

Appendix A: Project Location Map 11

Appendix B: Existing Pavement Structure Typical Sections 13
Appendix C: TxDOT Rigid Pavement Policy 14
Appendix D: Annual Precipitation by Climatic Divisions 15
Appendix E: Pavement Management Information System Report and
Base Maps 16
Appendix F: Traffic Analyses, from TP&P 17
Appendix G: The Existing Configuration of IH-635 18
Appendix H-1: Subgrade Soils Report for Pavement Design 19
Appendix H-2: Results of the Additional Subgrade Soils Investigation
on the Extent of the Soluble sulfate Content 20
Appendix I: Dallas District Policy on Subgrade Potential Vertical Rise and
On Required Minimum of 4” of HMAC base for Rigid Pavement 21
Appendix J: Results of DARWin Computations 22
Appendix K: Proposed Pavement Structure Typical Sections 23

2
Background of Existing Facility

The reconstruction of IH-635 (LBJ Freeway) is approximately a twenty-mile roadway

project that consists of two sections called the East section and the West Section. The
overall location of the project is shown in Appendix A. The West section which is the
subject of this report is approximately 8.81 miles, located in the cities of Dallas and
Farmers Branch and consists of four CSJ’s. This segment of LBJ Freeway was
constructed in the late 1960’s to early 1970’s to serve as an outer loop freeway and
provide mobility for the rapidly growing North Dallas and Farmers Branch areas. The
existing facility within the limits of the West section consists of eight 12-foot mainlanes,
two HOV lanes, two 10-ft outside shoulders as well as non-continuous frontage roads and
a few auxiliary lanes. Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the existing pavement structures of
the freeway.

From Luna Rd To IH-35 Interchange

x Travel Lanes Pavement structure from top to bottom:
MAIN LANES - 10” Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP)
- 4” Asphalt Stabilized Base
- 8” Lime Treated Subgrade
x Travel Lanes Pavement structure from top to bottom:
FRONTAGE - 9” Asphalt Concrete Pavement
ROADS - 8” Lime Treated Subgrade
Table 1 – Pavement Structure of the Existing Facility

From IH-35 Interchange To East of U-75

x Travel Lanes Pavement structure from top to bottom:
MAIN LANES - 8” Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP)
- 6” Lime Treated Flexible Base
- 6” Lime Treated Subgrade
x Travel Lanes Pavement structure from top to bottom:
FRONTAGE - 8” Uniform Concrete Pavement
ROADS - 6” Lime Treated Flexible Base
- 6” Lime Treated Subgrade
Table 2 - Pavement Structure of the Existing Facility

The existing typical sections of pavement structures for above segments are included in
Appendix B.

3
Proposed Work

The proposed roadway work for the West section of IH-635 that extends from West of
Luna Rd to East of Park Central Drive (a segment of approximately 9 miles) consists of
complete reconstruction of the existing facility. The proposed improvements include:

ƒ Mainlane improvement;
ƒ Addition of multiple HOV lanes in both directions from 0.5 miles East of
Luna Rd to East of Josey Lane and from Hughes Lane to West of Coit Rd.
ƒ Addition of two- and three-lane frontage roads to link the existing non-
continuous frontage roads in each direction;
ƒ Reconstruction of the existing frontage roads to accommodate other
corridor improvements;
ƒ Removal of old ramps and construction of new ramps.
ƒ Addition of two bored and cut-and-cover tunnels for managed HOV lanes
from Midway Rd to Preston Rd. The pavement structure for use in these
tunnels is beyond the scope of this study.

The project generally follows the existing horizontal alignment of IH-635. The proposed
vertical alignment will almost be completely modified in order to provide for current
vertical curve design standards and vertical clearance standards.

Objective of This Report

The objective of this report is to present the rigid pavement design analysis used in
developing the proposed pavement structure for the reconstruction of the West section of
the LBJ freeway including its mainlanes, managed HOV lanes, frontage roads and ramps.

Required Data

The following inputs are required to determine the Design Thickness of the concrete
pavement in inches:
x Effective Modules of Subgrade Reaction, k (pci)
x Concrete Elastic Modulus, Ec (psi)
x Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture, S'c (psi)
x Load Transfer Coefficient, J
x Drainage Coefficient, Cd
x Initial Serviceability Index
x Terminal Serviceability Index
x Reliability, (%)
x Overall Standard Deviation, So
x Estimated Future Traffic, Total 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL)
Applications for the Performance Period

Pavement Design Procedure

4
The required thicknesses of the concrete pavement for carrying the proposed traffic loads
were determined by the use of “DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System”. This
program is the automated version of the design procedure that is outlined in the
“AASHTO Guide for Design of Rigid Pavement Structures, 1993”. The procedure is
described in Part II, Chapter 3, Section 3.2 of the Guide. Selections of the pavement
design parameters, required as input data for the DARWin program, were based on
TxDOT Pavement Design Manual recommendations and rigid pavement policy. This
information is shown in Appendix C. The following sections describe how various
parameters were chosen:

1. Effective Modules of Subgrade Reaction, k (pci)

A Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k of 300 pci is selected for this project per TxDOT
Pavement Design Manual recommendation.

2. Concrete Elastic Modulus, Ec (psi)

It is anticipated that the coarse aggregate used in the concrete for this project will be
crushed limestone. The resulting concrete Elastic Modulus will be 4,000,000 psi.
This is in accordance with the Pavement Design Manual for rigid pavement provided
by Construction Division of TxDOT, March 2001. Although the actual Elastic
Modulus concrete could be different from this value, however, the end result will not
have a significant effect on the slab thickness.

3. Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture, S'c (psi)

The Modulus of Rupture is a measure of flexural strength of concrete as determined
by breaking concrete beam specimens. Per TxDOT Pavement Design Manual a value
of 650 psi is to be used with the current statewide specification for concrete pavement
and standard detail drawings.

4. Load Transfer Coefficient, J

This project will utilize load transfer devices at joints and will have more than two
lanes in one direction; therefore based on Table 3-1, page 3-10 of TxDOT Pavement
Design Manual the value of J will be 2.9. The table is included in Appendix C.

5. Drainage Coefficient, Cd
The guidelines suggested on Table 3-2, page 3-11 of the Pavement Design Manual
are used to determine Cd. Texas Almanac chart (presented in Appendix D) shows an
annual rainfall of 36 inches in the project area. Therefore, the Drainage Coefficient,
Cd chosen is 1.02.

6. Serviceability Indices, SI
Based on TxDOT Manual recommendation, an initial serviceability index of 4.5 and
a terminal serviceability index of 2.5 is selected for this project.

7. Reliability, (%)

5
 The reliability determination is made using Table 3-3, page 3-11 of the Pavement
Design Manual. This project involves an urban interstate facility with controlled
access and projected average daily traffic (ADT) per lane of more than 20,000.
According to the table, a Reliability of 99.9% is recommended. However,
considering the satisfactory condition of the existing pavement (Refer to Appendix E)
a reliability of 95% would be justified.

8. Overall Standard Deviation

A value of 0.39 is used for this project as recommended by TxDOT Pavement Design
Manual for this type of roadway.

9. Traffic Analysis Report

The traffic loading used to develop the pavement sections, for the mainlanes as well
as the frontage roads, is based on the traffic analyses performed by TxDOT
Transportation Planning and Programming Division. The traffic projections were
determined according to a 30-year design period from 2010 to 2040, and were
evaluated for 10-inch and 13-inch thick rigid pavement slabs. The traffic analyses
report is presented in Appendix F.

As described in the report, due to differences in traffic volumes, the project was
divided into three sections namely 4, 5 and 6 for the West section. Table 3 shows the
(average) total number of 18K Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) applications
expected, in one direction, for each section and in terms of the existing configuration
within the limits of LBJ West section. The existing configuration of the West Section
is presented in Appendix G.

TOTAL NUMBER OF 18K

CSJ SECTION LIMITS ESAL APPLICATIONS
FROM - TO Mainlanes Frontage Rd’s
2374-07-046 6-5/Q Luna Rd – E. End of BNSF RR 201,190,000 6,040,000
2374-01-032 5/P E. End of BNSF RR – 198,134,000 9,022,000
Webb Chapel Road
2374-01-068 4/N,M,L Webb Chapel Road – E. of DNT 255,570,000 20,832,000
Including
2374-01-136
2374-01-068 4/K E. of DNT – E. of Park Central 314,123,000 19,769,000
Including
2374-01-136
Table 3 - Total Number of 18K Equivalent Single Axle Load Applications

The LBJ Freeway within this section will have more than eight mainlanes and 5-6
frontage road lanes. Therefore, according to Table 3-4 of the TxDOT Pavement Design
Manual a Lane Distribution Factor (LDF) of 0.6 and 0.8 is selected for the mainlanes and
frontage road lanes respectively. The corresponding adjusted 18K ESAL applications are
shown in Table 4.
ADJUSTED 18K ESAL
CSJ SECTION LIMITS APPLICATIONS

6
 FROM - TO Mainlanes Frontage
Roads
2374-07-046 6-5/Q Luna Rd – E. End of BNSF RR 120,714,000 4,832,000
2374-01-032 5/P E. End of BNSF RR – 118,880,400 7,217,600
Webb Chapel Road
2374-01-068 4/N,M,L Webb Chapel Road – E. of DNT 153,342,000 16,665,600
Including
2374-01-136
2374-01-068 4/K E. of DNT – E. of Park Central 188,473,800 15,815,200
Including
2374-01-136
Table 4 – Adjusted Number of 18k Equivalent Single Axle Load Applications

In this study no provisions for stage-construction are considered for the design of the
proposed rigid pavement.

Other Data Requirements

In addition to the above data the following reports were also obtained and used for
determining the total thickness of the new pavement structure and the condition of the
existing concrete pavement:

1. District Laboratory Subgrade Soils Report

This report (see Appendix H-1) was prepared by the Dallas District Laboratory.
Seventeen soil borings were drilled within the limits of the project and several
samples were obtained and tested to determine the in-situ soil properties and estimate
the required depth of cover above the subgrade to limit the Potential Vertical Rise
(PVR) to one inch. Dallas District policy on restricting subgrade PVR is presented in
Appendix I. According to visual description and laboratory tests the District Lab
determined that there are two types of subgrade soils within the limits of LBJ West
Section, namely Type 1 and Type 2. Table 5 presents the extent of Type 1 and Type
2 soils in terms of the existing configuration within the limits of the LBJ West
Section.

SUBGRADE SOILS LIMITS

TYPE 1 TYPE 2
CSJ FROM - TO CSJ FROM - TO
Luna Rd – E. End of BNSF RR
Luna Rd – 2374-07-046
(E.B.)
2374-07- E. End of BNSF
E. End of BNSF RR –
046 RR 2374-01-032
Webb Chapel Road
(W.B.)
2374-01-68 E. of DNT – E. of Park Central
Table 5 - Extent of Type 1 and Type 2 soils

7
 According to the as built plans Type 1 soil, which exists at borings 1 and 3
(westbound between Luna Rd and IH35E interchange) is actually the embankment
materials placed underneath the existing pavement and does not represent the in-situ
subgrade soil. The soil has a Texas Triaxial Class of 4.75 with a median plasticity
index (PI) of 17.

Type 2 soils which exist at boring 2 and between borings 4 and 17, have a Texas
Triaxial Class of 6 and consist predominantly of brown sandy clay to clay with
calcareous nodules (CH). The clays have a median PI of 37. In this report these soils
are considered to be the existing natural subgrade for the entire project.

Evidence of sulfate materials was visually identified in boring 8 (approximately 600

feet to the east of Webb Chapel Rd), between the depths of 2-3 feet. The results of
the laboratory tests on the samples from this boring indicate that the soluble sulfate
concentrations at the location of this borehole is more than 10,000 ppm.

To determine the extent of the soluble sulfate, further subsurface explorations were
conducted by drilling two additional boreholes (about ¼ of a mile in each direction
from boring 8, and to a depth of ten feet) and collecting samples for visual inspection.
The results of the investigations indicated no significant presence of sulfate materials
in either borehole (refer to Appendix H-2). Therefore, based on the information
provided by the Dallas district laboratory, it is the opinion of this report that if, within
the limits of the West section, sulfate materials do exist it would be only localized
and found in small pockets.

2. Pavement Management Information System (PMIS) Data and Base Maps–

PMIS data and base maps were obtained from the Dallas District Pavement Section to
evaluate the condition of the existing pavement. The information is included in
Appendix E.
The following conclusions have been drawn from the PMIS data and Base Maps:
x Distress Score- about 25% Very Poor to Fair and about 75% Good to Very Good
x Ride Score- about 20% Fair and about 80% Good
x Condition Score- about 25% Poor to Fair and about 75% Good to Very Good
Based on the above information and the fact that the freeway was constructed more
than 30 years ago, conclusions could be drawn that the condition and the performance
of the existing concrete pavement within the West section of the LBJ freeway is
satisfactory.

Pavement Structures

The results of the DARWin software program, using the above required data, are
included in Appendix J. The required thickness of concrete slabs for the mainlanes and
the frontage roads are summarized in Table 6.

8
 CONCRETE
SUBGRADE LIMITS THICKNESS
CSJ SOIL FROM - TO (in)
TYPE Main Frontage
Lanes Roads
2374-07-046 (1=Fill), 2
Luna Rd – E. End of BNSF RR 14.40 8.61
2374-01-032 2 E. End of BNSF RR –
14.36 9.21
Webb Chapel Road
2374-01-068 2 Webb Chapel Road – E. of DNT 14.93 10.57
2374-01-068 2 E. of DNT – E. of Park Central 15.40 10.48
Table 6 – Required Thickness of Concrete for the mainlanes and the frontage roads

Based on these results and TxDOT rigid pavement policy (Appendix C) requiring the use
of a minimum of four inches of hot mix asphalt concrete (HMAC) under concrete
pavement the following pavement structures are proposed:

x Main Lanes, HOV lanes and shoulders – A 15-inch CRCP slab with 4 inches of
HMAC base is proposed for pavement structures for the mainlanes, managed HOV
lanes and shoulder.

This project is located within a controlled access facility. The District policy, shown
in Appendix I, requires the PVR to be restricted to 1.0 inch on this class of roadways.

Based on the PMIS information the overall condition of the pavement structure
within the segment that Type 1 soil exists is fair to good. Therefore, it is
recommended that the top 6-12 inches of this material be lime stabilized with 4%
lime (by weight) for further improving the condition of the soil, and also for
providing a firm platform for facilitating construction.

For Type 2 soils, according to the District Laboratory soil report, the total depth of
cover must be at least 38 inches to restrict the PVR to one inch. Therefore, in the fill
sections, whereas most contractors have machines that will mix lime 12 inches deep,
a minimum of 7 inches of suitable fill materials must be provided to fulfill the
minimum 38-inch cover and the PVR requirements. In the cut sections since, in most
cases, stabilizing the existing subgrade with lime is less expensive than bringing in
select borrows it is recommended temporarily removing the top 7 inches, lime
stabilizing 12 inches of the existing subgrade, and then replacing and lime stabilizing
the top 7 inches. As recommended by the soil report Type 2 soils shall be mixed with
6% lime (by weight).

Also, although very localized, if any soluble sulfate concentrations of greater than
2000 ppm (the maximum permissible) is encountered during the construction the
subgrade at that location must be removed and replaced with suitable fill materials.

x Ramps – The ramps for controlled access facilities are typically designed to have the
same sections as the mainlanes. Therefore, the ramps for this project will have the
same pavement structure as the mainlanes.

9
x Frontage Roads – A 9-inch CRCP with 4 inches of HMAC base is proposed for the
segment between Luna Road and Webb Chapel Road. For the segment between
Webb Chapel Road and E. of Park Central an 11-inch CRCP with 4 inches of HMAC
base is recommended.

As indicated in the soil report for type 2 soils (that are the existing natural subgrade
of the frontage roads) the required depth of better material must be 22 inches to limit
the PVR to 1.5 inches. Therefore, a minimum depth of 6 inches of lime stabilization
is recommended for fulfilling the minimum 22-inch cover and the PVR requirements.
This would also serve as a firm platform for facilitating construction.

Again, if any soluble sulfate concentrations of greater than 2000 ppm is encountered
the subgrade at that location must be removed and replaced with suitable fill
materials.

For all embankments, associated with the pavement structures, suitable fill material with
plasticity index between 8 and 40 should be specified. As suggested in the District
laboratory report the backfill materials for bridge abutments should be restricted to select
fill with plasticity index between 10 and 25. All embankments shall be compacted using
moisture and density controlled method.

To avoid destabilizing the existing subgrade it is recommended that the existing

pavement remain in place and be overlaid with fill and pavement materials for the fill
sections. This strategy will also contribute to cost benefits as far as removals and
subgrade stabilization are concerned.

The typical sections of pavement structures for the mainlanes, managed HOV lanes,
shoulders, ramps and frontage roads (corresponding to the above cases) are shown in
Appendix K. It should be noted that these sections are for pavement structure layers
illustration only and they do not represent the proposed roadway typical sections.

Pavement Drainage Analysis

The pavement will be drained by a network of storm sewer systems, and within a few
short stretches, by side ditches. Ramps and connectors will be drained over the sides of
the embankments and along the side ditches into the storm sewer systems. Positive
drainage, as a whole, is not expected to be a problem because the project will extensively
render increased impervious surface, and it will be constructed in a controlled drainage
environment.

Conclusion

This pavement design is based on the available data and the currently accepted practices
which indicate that the methods employed are considered to be sound approaches to
providing the performance required for the facility.

10
 Appendix A
PROJECT LOCATION MAP

11
 I.H. 635 (LBJ) Corridor Study
na Road End at Valley View / SH 161

PGBT

DNT
I.H

5
.

.7
35

U.S
BELT LINE
E

WEST

78
SECTION

S.H .
LUNA

EAST
I.H. 635 SECTION
(LBJ)

BE
LT
RD

LI
N
12 . 30

E
LO O P I.H

N
LA
AR
I.H G
.3 U .S . 8 0
5E
U.S. 75 / I.H. 635 Interchange I.H.30
(The Dallas High Five) CBD
Under Construction I.H. 635
(LBJ)

12
 Appendix B

EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE TYPICAL SECTIONS

13
 Appendix C

TxDOT RIGID PAVEMENT POLICY

14
 Appendix D

ANNUAL PRECIPITATION BY CLIMATIC DIVISIONS

15
 Appendix E

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (PMIS) REPORT

AND BASE MAPS

16
 Appendix F

TRAFFIC ANALYSES, FROM TP&P

17
 Appendix G

THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION OF IH-635

18
 Appendix H-1

SUBGRADE SOILS REPORT FOR PAVEMENT DESIGN

19
 Appendix H-2

RESULTS OF THE ADDITIONAL SUBGRADE SOILS INVESTIGATION

ON THE EXTENT OF THE SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT

20
 Appendix I

DISTRICT POLICY ON RESTRICTING SOIL POTENTIAL VERTICAL RISE (PVR)

AND ON REQUIRED MINIMUM OF 4” OF HMAC BASE FOR RIGID PAVEMENT

21
 Appendix J

RESULTS OF DARWin COMPUTATIONS

22
 Appendix K

PROPOSED PAVEMENT STRUCTURE TYPICAL SECTIONS

23