HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200400102 Correspondence Road Plan and Comps. 2006-02-24 03/10/2006 08:.21 4349793759 VDOT PAGE 02/03
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
INTRADEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
February 24, 2006
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr.J.S.Utterback
ATTENTION: Mr.C.T.Baber
1 `
•
FROM: Roger C.Riner "
SUBJECT: CBR Tests&Pavement Design •
West End Circle,Haden Lane(10+00 to 16+07), Hampstead Drive and
Alley C(23+61 to 29+92)
Ballard Field Subdivision
Albemarle County
In response to your 2-22-06 memorandum, I have reviewed the six(6). CBR tests submitted for the above
roadways and find that they appears to have been performed in a satisfactory manner. However,there is a slight
computational error in the test for Alley C and its CH.R value is 22.7 versus the 22.3 reported
The pavement design worksheets submitted with the tests,are based on the initial assumed subgrade CBR and
not the actual tests. Consequently,I have performed design analyses based on the tests Md the traffic volumes
shown on the worksheets(which differ from those shown on the plan giving the test locations). The results of
those analyses indicate that the proposed pavement designs are much more than adequate for the soil and traffic
conditions anticipated on the roadways.
Please advise if further discussion is desired.
er;2(,,,
Roger C.Riner
Assistant District Materials Engineer
1
12/27/2005 08:01 4349793759 VDOT PAGE 03/03
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
December 15,2005
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr.J. S. Utterbaek
ATTENTION: Mr,C.T.Baber
•
FROM: Roger C.Riner
SUBJECT: CBR Tests&Pavement Design
West End Drive(sta. 13+81 to 20+13),
Haden Terrace,Alley"C"(sta.23+61 to 29+92),
Alley"E"(sta. 17+44 to 23+90)
Ballard Field Subdivision
Albemarle County
In response to your I I.28-05 memorandum,I have reviewed the five(5)CBR tests submitted for the above
roadways. The tests appear to have been performed in a satisfeetory manner.
I have also reviewed the pavement design worksheets submitted and note that one of them contains several
errors. Specifically,for Haden Terrace the SM-9.5A should have an equivalency value of 1.67 versus the 2.25
value used and the equivalency value for the 21A aggregate in the base course should be 1.0 versus the 2.25
value used. I have re-run the design computations with the correct values which results in the following
conclusions:
The proposed design for this segment of West End Drive-1.5"SM-9.5A,3"BM-25.0 and 6"Aggr.
Base,Type I,Size 21A is more than adequate for the anticipated traffic(including the ultimate traffic).
The minimum design allowed for the use of an asphalt concrete surfacing—2"SM-9.5A over 6"Aggr,
Base,Type 1,Size 21 A is more than structurally adequate for Haden Ten-ace and the segments of
Alleys"C"&"E".
Please advise if further discussion is desired.
ectene-en---"
Roger C.Riner
Assistant District Materials Engineer
11/01/2005 07.:39 4349793759 VDU T HAUL 01/U4
a)5
Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Phone (434) 293-0011 FAX(434) 979-3759
Date; it/- o 5- From : eZ$i, /L:; &i a'a
To : ecp eoo/cy Phone: frK- Z9.3-o//
FAX : 97g,- vrar FAX:
ro,,, Fa/1 . /ley Q�,c�t- c Gam/
sceil
F,d 0Avere",lf
/4- m4' s •t - "?"
Number of Pages4'�Including Cover Sheet)
If you have any trouble receiving this information, please call VDOT at (434) 293-0011.
11/01/2005 07:39 4349793759 VDOT PAGE 02/04
t
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JNTRA-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
October 26, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr.J. S. Utterback •
ATTENTION: Mr. C.T.Saber
,i
FROM: Roger C.Riner
•
SUBJECT: CBR Tests&Pavement Design
Brook View Road&Grass Dale Lane
Lower Ballard Field Subdivision
Albemarle County
In response to your memorandum dated 10-1S-05,I have reviewed the seven(7)CBR tests submitted for the
above roadways. My review indicates that the tests appear to have been performed in a satisfactory manner.
The pavement design worksheets forwarded with the tests are based on assumed soil conditions and not the
actual tests. Consequently,I have performed pavement design analyses for the roadways. The results of those
analyses arc that the proposed pavement structure of 1.5"SM-9.5A,3"BM-25,0A and 6"Aggregate Base
Material,Type I,Size 21A is more than adequate for the actual soil conditions and anticipated traffic as shown
on the pavemeot design worksheets. In fact,the design for Grass We Lane could be reduced to 2"SM-9,5A
over 6"of aggregate and it would still be more than structurally adequate. I have also checked the design
requirements based on the possible future Traffic of 900 VPD for Brook View Road indicated in the table of
designs submitted with previous data from this development. That analysis also concludes that the proposed
design is more than adequate.
Please note that although one test was included for Hampstead Drive,I have not included that roadway in my
analyses since further test data is required to cover the full length of the roadway.
Please advise if further discussion is desired.
akre0
Roger C.Riner
Assistant District Materials Engineer