2010 RESILIENT MODULUS OF ROADBED SOILS FACTS & FIGURES Department of Transportation

State of Florida
Department of Transportation
2010 RESILIENT MODULUS OF ROADBED SOILS
FACTS & FIGURES
FDOT Office
State Materials Office
Research Report Number
FL/DOT/SMO/11-543
Authors
Charles Holzschuher
Hyung Lee
Date of Publication
April 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. i PAVEMENT MATERIAL SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... iii PART I: OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2 Deflection-Based Techniques ................................................................................. 2 USE OF DEFLECTION-BASED DEVICES: FLORIDA HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE................................................................................................................... 2 Benkelman Beam .................................................................................................... 2 Dynaflect ................................................................................................................. 3 Falling Weight Deflectometer................................................................................. 4 FLORIDA TESTING PROCEDURE ................................................................................. 5 Deflection Testing ................................................................................................... 5 Prediction of In-Place Moduli of Embankment Material ....................................... 5 Field Testing Requirements .................................................................................... 6 PROJECT TESTING REQUESTS ..................................................................................... 7 HISTORICAL FWD DATABASE..................................................................................... 8 RESEARCH RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 8 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL FWD DATA ................................................. 8 IDENTIFICATION OF VIBRATION SENSITIVE WORK ZONES ................................... 12 PART II: FACTS & FIGURES ................................................................................................. 15 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 32 PAVEMENT MATERIAL SYSTEMS
The Pavement Material Systems provides the Department with the technical expertise to
ensure safe and durable pavement systems. This section interacts and partners with other
central and district offices, the Federal Highway Administration, pavement industry, and
other stakeholders. To support these goals, presented are the Pavement Material
System’s Mission, Vision, and Value Statements.
Mission
Make Florida’s pavements safer, last longer, and perform better.
Vision
The best pavements in the country.
Values
Do it R.I.T.E (Respect, Integrity, Teamwork, and Excellence), Now!
To learn more about our people, functions, and services, we invite you to visit us at:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statematerialsoffice/
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
One of the primary functions of the Non-Destructive Testing Group, a unit of the
State Materials Office in Gainesville, Florida, is to characterize the in-situ properties of
Florida’s roadbed materials for pavement design purposes. The basis for such a
characterization is the resilient modulus (MR). The resilient modulus is a measure of the
material elastic property recognizing it’s certain nonlinear characteristics. It is estimated,
in our case, in-place from deflection measurements. This information has been critical to
the Department's effort to support informed highway planning, as well as policy and
decision making. This requires the apportionment and allocation of funds as well as the
determination of appropriate cost-effective strategies to rehabilitate and preserve existing
highway transportation infrastructure.
This report is intended to provide information regarding our program testing
procedures, to report current and past MR values on a statewide basis, and to identify
historical regional MR trends in the various Districts.
iii
PART I: OVERVIEW
1
INTRODUCTION
One of the primary functions of the Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) program is to
characterize the in-situ properties of the Florida’s roadbed (embankment) materials for
pavement design purposes. The basis for such a characterization is the resilient modulus
(MR). The resilient modulus is a measure of a material’s elastic property recognizing its
nonlinear characteristics. It is directly estimated, in our case, in-place using deflectionbased techniques.
Deflection-Based Techniques
Due to their speed and ease of operation deflection-based techniques are being
widely used in the evaluation of the structural integrity and for estimating the elastic
moduli of in-place pavement systems. The deflections can be non-destructively induced
and measured using various commercially available devices. These devices are designed
based on a variety of loading modes and measuring sensors. The loading modes include
static, steady-state vibratory, and impulse loading; while the resulting responses are
measured with sensors that include geophones, accelerometers, and linear voltage
differential transducers (LVDT).
USE OF DEFLECTION-BASED DEVICES: FLORIDA HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE
The Department implemented the use of the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
in the early 1980s. It has, however for pavement design purposes, initially specified the
use of a Benkelman Beam, and then the use of a vibratory-type device (Dynaflect).
Benkelman Beam
The Benkelman Beam was the first deflection-based device used in Florida for
pavement design purposes. It was developed by A.C. Benkelman during the Western
Association of State Highway Officials (WASHO) Road Test. It consists of a
measurement probe hinged to a three-legged reference beam, as schematically illustrated
in Figure 1. The probe is positioned between the rear dual tires of a track, and the
rebound deflection is measured by a dial placed on the reference beam when the truck is
slowly driven away. Although this method is simple and relatively inexpensive, it is also
slow and labor intensive. In addition, the measurements are usually limited to maximum
deflections only and are produced under unrealistic load durations. Furthermore, the
leveled position of the reference beam may, in some cases, be unduly influenced by the
deflection basin.
2
10”
55.5”
96”
24”
MEASUREMENT PROBE
PIVOT
SUPPORT BEAM
Figure 1. Schematic Illustration of a Benkelman Beam
Dynaflect
In mid-1980s, the Department switched to a steady-state vibratory device, known
as a Dynaflect. The Dynaflect consists of a relatively lightweight (2,000 lbs.) two-wheel
trailer equipped with an automated data acquisition and control system. The deflections
are generated by a combination of a sinusoidal dynamic load and the static weight of the
trailer. The dynamic loading of a pavement surface is performed using two counterrotating eccentric steel weights. These steel weights, rotating at a constant frequency of
eight cycles per second (8 Hz), generate a peak-to-peak dynamic load of approximately
1000 pounds in magnitude. The resulting deflections of a pavement system are measured
with geophones. The geophones are electromechanical devices that use a magnetic field
to produce an electrical impulse. These geophones are suspended, at set intervals, from
the tongue of the trailer.
A primary advantage of the Dynaflect over a static-loading device, such as
Benkelman beam, is that a reference frame is not required. In addition, the Dynaflect
generates a complete deflection basin at each test location. However, the fixed
magnitude and the loading frequency are its major limitations. A photographic
illustration of a Dynaflect is given in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Dynaflect Device
3
Falling Weight Deflectometer
The Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) consists of a trailer mounted, falling
weight system capable of loading a pavement in a manner that simulates actual wheel
loads in both magnitude and duration. An impulse load is generated by dropping a mass
from a specified height. The mass is raised hydraulically, then released by an electrical
signal and dropped with a buffer system on a 12-inch diameter rigid steel plate. A set of
springs between the falling mass and hit bracket mounted above the load cell buffers the
impact by decelerating the mass. A thin, neoprene pad rests between the plate and the
pavement surface to allow for an even load distribution. When a weight is dropped, an
impulse load enters the pavement system creating body and surface waves. The resulting
vertical velocity of the pavement surface is picked up through a series of sensors located
along the centerline of the trailer. These signals are then used to obtain the maximum
deflection from each geophone through analog integrations. A single analog integration
of a signal generates the deflection-time trace. The deflection measurements are recorded
by the data acquisition system typically located in the tow vehicle. Figure 3 provides a
schematic illustration of the FWD loading principle.
Mass
Height of
Drop
Figure 3. FWD Loading Principle
The use of the Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing for pavement design
and rehabilitation purposes was first introduced by AASHTO in the 1993 Pavement
Design Guide. In recent years, the FWD has gained further acceptance among highway
agencies because of its versatility, reliability, and ease of use. The FWD loading is
believed to better simulate the effects of traffic on pavement structures. Therefore as of
March 2001, the Department has implemented the use of FWD for all pavement-related
evaluations, including design activities. A photographic illustration of the FWD is shown
in Figure 4.
4
Figure 4. Falling Weight Deflectometer
FLORIDA TESTING PROCEDURE
Deflection Testing
When testing with the FWD for pavement design purposes, two 9-kip load drops
are used. However, only the deflection data resulting from the last loadings are
considered for roadbed soil characterization. It is generally believed that the deflection
data produced under the first impact load may not always be representative of the true
pavement response (2). Therefore, the first load is mainly used for the loading plate
“seating” purposes. All the deflection data are obtained using the sensor configuration
shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Schematic Illustration of Sensor Configuration
Prediction of In-Place Moduli of Embankment Material
The current procedure for predicting the insitu strength of the embankment
material of a pavement system is based on the procedure described in the AASHTO Guide
5
for Design of Pavements Structures calibrated to Florida conditions (3). This method was
originally proposed by Ullidtz (4), and is based on Boussinesq’s theory on a concentrated
load applied on an elastic half-space (5). In this procedure, the modulus of an
embankment material is estimated as follows:
Er = 0.24P /drr
Where:
(2)
Er = Subgrade modulus, in psi;
P = Applied load, in pounds;
dr = Deflection measured at a radial distance r, in inches; and
r = Radial distance at which the deflection is measured, in inches.
The AASHTO Design Guide suggests the deflection used in the above equation be
measured as close as possible to the loading plate and yet be sufficiently far from the
load. This is suggested to satisfy the assumption that, at points sufficiently distant from
the load, the deflections measured at the pavement surface are mainly due to the
embankment deformation, and are also independent of the load plate size. Florida’s
previous experience with non-destructive deflection testing has shown that the pavement
deflections measured at 36 inches away from the load are appropriate for the
determination of the embankment moduli. Therefore, only the pavement deflections
measured at 36 inches (r = 36 inches in equation 2) away from the load are considered for
design purposes in the Florida procedure. Furthermore, within a project limits, the
resilient modulus (Mr) value is reported based on the mean deflection plus two standard
deviations (dr = mean deflection + 2 σ).
Field Testing Requirements
Generally, testing is only conducted on 2-lane projects greater than 1 mile long, or on
multi-lane projects greater than 0.5 mile long.
Testing frequency for 2-lane projects is conducted at 28 tests / mile in one direction. For
multi-lane projects testing is conducted at 14 tests / mile / each direction.
6
PROJECT TESTING REQUESTS
To request a project to be tested, simply contact the following District FWD
coordinators:
District
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Turnpike
Name
Debra Childs
Chad Townsend
Samuel Weede
Brent Lee-Shue-Ling
Timothy Keefe
Cathy Margoshes
Mary Sheets
Michael Shannon
E-mail
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
NDT Testing Process
DISTRICT’S REQUEST
FOR TESTING IS
RECEIVED BY THE NDT
GROUP
M.O.T. IS SCHEDULED
THROUGH DISTRICT
MAINTENANCE
Include the following information within the body of the request:
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
Roadway Id (e.g. SR 91, 91470000, FL Turnpike)
County Name (e.g. Okeechobee)
Project Limits (e.g. MP 181.7 to MP 188.9)
Exceptional Needs (e.g. Extend testing 1000 ft past
Begin/End segment limits, vibration analysis desired.)
5.) Project Location Map
6.) Recommended Due Date
7.) MOT, Traffic Restrictions
After the District FWD coordinators have gathered the
information needed for the requested projects, they will submit the
request to the SMO’s NDT group. The NDT group will then
review the submitted requests and schedule Maintenance of
Traffic (MOT) with District Maintenance Offices for deflection
testing. The flow chart to the right details the project testing
process.
DEFLECTION TESTING
IS CONDUCTED
THE
TEST DATA
IS PROCESSED
THE
TEST RESULTS
ARE ANALYZED
Mr VALUE(S) ARE
RECOMMENDED FOR
THE PROJECT
For coordination purposes, it is best to provide the State Materials Office with as much
time as possible by submitting any testing requests immediately after the work program
has been updated and the project schedules are set. In order to ensure that all requests
may be dealt with in a timely and efficient manner, a minimum of 6 months is required
by the State Materials Office for testing. For further information on SMO’s FWD
deflection testing process, contact:
Charles Holzschuher, Nondestructive Testing
[email protected]
Phone: (352) 955-6341
Fax: (352) 955-6345
7
HISTORICAL FWD DATABASE
For the benefit of district engineers, the FWD historical data from January 1, 2004 to
current is provided on the State Materials Office’s website at:
http://databases.sm.dot.state.fl.us/fwddata.htm
The FWD historical data can be searched by; beginning mile post, county, financial
project number, project number and year. Search result include; state road number,
project number, beginning and end mile posts, financial project number, date requested,
test date, lanes tested, number of lanes and modulus values.
RESEARCH RESULTS
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL FWD DATA
In 2010, a statistical analysis of the historical FWD data was conducted and the results
are presented in this section of the report.
First of all, it was assumed that the typical values may depend on the District. This
assumption was made because some “exceptionally” high Mr values have been observed
in south Florida which is not typical in the other regions. Note that the “exceptionally”
high Mr, values may be as high as several million psi. But even in these situations, the
highest Mr value that can be recommended is bound by 32,000 psi per FDOT’s design
manual. Therefore, it was expected that the distribution of the Mr values in south Florida
may be extremely skewed and have different statistical characteristics when compared to
north or central Florida.
The statistical analysis was performed using all the Mr values recommended based on
FWD testing, which include more than 8 years worth of FWD data collected from 9,500
lane-miles of roadway. Table 1 shows a summary of the Mr statistics.
Table 1. Summary Statistics of Historical Mr (2002 to 2010)
District
1 2 3 4 5 Lane Miles Tested 1,657 1,579 1,147 1,705 1,909 Weighted
23 20 16 25 21 Average Upper
Mr
28 24 20 30 24 Quartile
Values (ksi) 23 19 14 24 21 Median Lower
18 14 10 18 16 Quartile 8
Statewide
6 554 7 982 27 23 22 32 28 28 32 21 21 20 18 16 9,534 Based on the data shown in the above table, District 6 has the highest embankment Mr
whereas District 3 shows the lowest. For all districts with the exception of District 6, the
difference between the weighted average and the median was within 2 ksi (note that the
median Mr value for District 6 is equal to 32 ksi which is the highest value that can be
recommended). The above table also shows the upper and lower quartiles of the Mr
values, in order to allow the readers for a better idea of the Mr distribution for their
respective Districts Figures 6 through 13 show the plots of the Mr distribution for each
District and statewide data. Note again the high percentage of 32 ksi in south Florida
(D1, D4, D6, and Statewide).
30 - 32
28 - 30
26 - 28
24 - 26
22 - 24
20 - 22
18 - 20
16 - 18
14 - 16
12 - 14
10 - 12
8 - 10
6- 8
4- 6
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
<= 4
Percent Lane Miles
District 1
Resilient Modulus Range (ksi)
Figure 6. District 1 Embankment Resilient Modulus Distribution
District 2
Percent Lane Miles
25
20
15
10
5
30 - 32
28 - 30
26 - 28
24 - 26
22 - 24
20 - 22
18 - 20
16 - 18
14 - 16
12 - 14
10 - 12
8 - 10
6- 8
4- 6
<= 4
0
Resilient Modulus Range (ksi)
Figure 7. District 2 Embankment Resilient Modulus Distribution
9
District 3
Percent Lane Miles
30
25
20
15
10
5
30 - 32
28 - 30
26 - 28
24 - 26
22 - 24
20 - 22
18 - 20
16 - 18
14 - 16
12 - 14
10 - 12
8 - 10
6- 8
4- 6
<= 4
0
Resilient Modulus Range (ksi)
Figure 8. District 3 Embankment Resilient Modulus Distribution
District 4
Percent Lane Miles
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
30 - 32
28 - 30
26 - 28
24 - 26
22 - 24
20 - 22
18 - 20
16 - 18
14 - 16
12 - 14
10 - 12
8 - 10
6- 8
4- 6
<= 4
0
Resilient Modulus Range (ksi)
Figure 9. District 4 Embankment Resilient Modulus Distribution
10
30 - 32
28 - 30
26 - 28
24 - 26
22 - 24
20 - 22
18 - 20
16 - 18
14 - 16
12 - 14
10 - 12
8 - 10
6- 8
4- 6
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
<= 4
Percent Lane Miles
District 5
Resilient Modulus Range (ksi)
Figure 10. District 5 Embankment Resilient Modulus Distribution
District 6
Percent Lane Miles
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
30 - 32
28 - 30
26 - 28
24 - 26
22 - 24
20 - 22
18 - 20
16 - 18
14 - 16
12 - 14
10 - 12
8 - 10
6- 8
4- 6
<= 4
0
Resilient Modulus Range (ksi)
Figure 11. District 6 Embankment Resilient Modulus Distribution
11
District 7
Percent Lane Miles
25
20
15
10
5
30 - 32
28 - 30
26 - 28
24 - 26
22 - 24
20 - 22
18 - 20
16 - 18
14 - 16
12 - 14
10 - 12
8 - 10
6- 8
4- 6
<= 4
0
Resilient Modulus Range (ksi)
Figure 12. District 7 Embankment Resilient Modulus Distribution
30 - 32
28 - 30
26 - 28
24 - 26
22 - 24
20 - 22
18 - 20
16 - 18
14 - 16
12 - 14
10 - 12
8 - 10
6- 8
4- 6
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
<= 4
Percent Lane Miles
Statewide
Resilient Modulus Range (ksi)
Figure 13. Statewide Embankment Resilient Modulus Distribution
IDENTIFICATION OF VIBRATION SENSITIVE WORK ZONES
Based on the findings of a recent research project (http://www.dot.state.fl.us/researchcenter/Completed_Proj/Summary_SMO/FDOT_BDB11rpt.pdf), FDOT developed a
methodology for identifying vibration-sensitive portions of resurfacing projects during
routine pre-construction testing that does not require a detailed knowledge of the layering
of the pavement structure or the geology of the surrounding site (6, 7). When the State
Materials Office personnel is informed that a project is potentially vibration-sensitive, the
FWD operator will be alerted to record the full FWD displacement time histories on each
FWD test performed during pre-design testing. The time history data will then be
processed to develop upper bound predictor of the ground motion at the site. By knowing
12
or assuming a frequency for the vibratory roller to be used during construction, the peak
particle velocity can be used to identify locations along a given project where vibratory
compaction is not recommended. The analysis procedure is outlined in Figure 14.
(3)
Obtain PPV threshold
(1)
Use FWD to characterize site
10
Predictor Curve
FWD
0.1
0.2
0.3 0.4
0.6 0.8 1
2
3
4
Scaled Range, ft/(ft-lbs)0.5
Peak Particle Velocity, in/sec
10
1
Convert scaled range to actual distance using the energy of the vibratory roller
(2)
Operating frequency of vibratory roller
CRITERIA
1
0.1
1
10
100
Frequency, Hz
(4)
Avoid vibratory compaction if critical structures are present in RED zone
(5)
Figure 14. Vibration Analysis Procedures (6, 7)
The outcome of the analysis is a brief report that provides the limits for the “Red”,
“Yellow” and “Green” zones defined as:



RED zone: designates a region where the vibratory compaction may cause
damage to nearby structures.
YELLOW zone: designates a region where the vibratory compaction may cause
human annoyance, but damage to buildings is unlikely.
GREEN zone: designates the region where the vibratory compaction may or may
not be noticeable, and human annoyance is unlikely.
An example of the project-specific vibration report is shown in Figure 15. If a sensitive
structure is found within the limits of the “Red” zone, it is recommended that use of
vibratory rollers for compaction of pavement layers be avoided and other means of
compacting be considered to prevent major or minor damages in the structure, especially
in urban areas.
FWD time histories can be easily collected while the typical deflection testing is
performed for determining the resilient modulus values and no other information is
13
necessary to perform the vibration analysis. To submit a request for the vibration report,
simply inform the District FWD coordinators that the vibration report is needed when
submitting the request for FWD testing. Then, the Nondestructive Testing Unit will
provide the vibration report with the resilient modulus recommendations.
Figure 15. Sample Vibration Report
14
PART II: FACTS &
FIGURES1
1
Project resilient modulus values presented are the lowest values recommended for each project. Some
projects may have multiple resilient modulus values.
15
DISTRICT 1 TEN YEAR PRODUCTION SUMMARY
Secondary
Lane
Projects
Miles
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
3.711
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
9.944
0
0.000
0
0.000
2
13.655
Turnpike/Toll
Lane
Projects
Miles
1
14.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
42.842
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
36.284
3
93.126
Interstate
Lane
Projects
Miles
3
48.970
3
58.212
8
74.998
2
38.752
9
115.278
4
74.100
8
63.750
2
17.402
1
7.500
1
1.280
41
500.242
All Systems
Lane
Projects
Miles
15
120.667
71
301.724
40
229.142
34
216.670
51
416.638
32
116.735
45
269.714
34
159.431
44
224.090
5
45.177
371
2099.988
500
100
Projects Tested
80
400
Lane Miles Tested
60
300
40
200
20
100
0
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Lane Miles Tested by System
Primary
71%
Secondary
Turnpike/Toll
24%
1%
4%
16
Interstate
Lane Miles Tested
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Primary
Lane
Projects
Miles
11
57.697
68
243.512
32
154.144
31
174.207
41
258.518
28
42.635
37
205.964
31
132.085
43
216.59
3
7.613
325
1492.965
Projects Tested
Year
DISTRICT 2 TEN YEAR PRODUCTION SUMMARY
Secondary
Lane
Projects
Miles
1
6.034
0
0.000
2
8.105
0
0.000
6
27.071
3
19.062
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
4.737
0
0.000
13
65.009
Turnpike/Toll
Lane
Projects
Miles
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
Interstate
Lane
Projects
Miles
2
27.224
1
8.734
3
65.040
7
105.366
1
1.420
4
20.554
0
0.000
2
28.060
3
56.680
0
0.000
23
313.078
500
100
Projects Tested
80
400
Lane Miles Tested
60
300
40
200
20
100
0
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Lane Miles Tested by System
81%
Primary
Secondary
16%
Interstate
3%
17
Lane Miles Tested
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Primary
Lane
Projects
Miles
49
243.803
26
153.046
27
166.176
47
332.541
40
250.477
34
292.598
4
37.273
7
30.746
15
96.43
8
44.696
257
1647.786
Projects Tested
Year
All Systems
Lane
Projects
Miles
52
277.061
27
161.780
32
239.321
54
437.907
47
278.968
41
332.214
4
37.273
9
58.806
19
157.847
8
44.696
293
2025.873
DISTRICT 3 TEN YEAR PRODUCTION SUMMARY
Secondary
Lane
Projects
Miles
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
2.857
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
2.857
Turnpike/Toll
Lane
Projects
Miles
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
Interstate
Lane
Projects
Miles
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
18.332
2
42.910
2
23.222
1
15.158
0
0.000
0
0.000
3
44.974
1
31.084
10
175.680
100
All Systems
Lane
Projects
Miles
2
15.036
37
225.450
24
135.304
16
133.583
19
125.074
15
88.546
16
79.768
16
94.629
26
260.996
34
220.077
205
1378.463
500
Projects Tested
80
Lane Miles Tested
400
60
300
40
200
20
100
0
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Lane Miles Tested by System
87%
Primary
Secondary
13%
Interstate
0.2%
18
Lane Miles Tested
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Primary
Lane
Projects
Miles
2
15.036
37
225.450
23
116.972
13
87.816
17
101.852
14
73.388
16
79.768
16
94.629
23
216.022
33
188.993
194
1199.926
Projects Tested
Year
DISTRICT 4 TEN YEAR PRODUCTION SUMMARY
Secondary
Lane
Projects
Miles
0
0.000
1
0.997
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
0.864
2
2.992
3
8.520
2
12.469
1
0.395
1
0.794
11
27.031
Turnpike/Toll
Lane
Projects
Miles
5
32.678
2
26.000
3
62.200
5
99.708
2
92.252
0
0.000
1
10.800
1
7.800
0
0.000
0
0.000
19
331.438
Interstate
Lane
Projects
Miles
7
69.074
6
40.722
5
60.570
0
0.000
3
52.102
5
62.794
3
34.620
1
21.198
4
45.696
3
11.626
37
398.402
500
100
Projects Tested
80
400
Lane Miles Tested
60
300
40
200
20
100
0
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Lane Miles Tested by System
Primary
63%
Secondary
20%
Turnpike/Toll
16%
Interstate
1.3%
19
Lane Miles Tested
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Primary
Lane
Projects
Miles
28
123.333
58
207.308
28
119.843
29
157.283
50
249.376
9
27.138
28
106.443
48
138.321
7
18.972
32
119.63
317
1267.647
Projects Tested
Year
All Systems
Lane
Projects
Miles
40
225.085
67
275.027
36
242.613
34
256.991
56
394.594
16
92.924
35
160.383
52
179.788
12
65.063
36
132.050
384
2024.518
DISTRICT 5 TEN YEAR PRODUCTION SUMMARY
Secondary
Lane
Projects
Miles
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
0.554
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
0.554
Turnpike/Toll
Lane
Projects
Miles
3
10.960
3
23.568
4
73.914
0
0.000
2
167.434
1
21.340
0
0.000
6
43.012
0
0.000
0
0.000
19
340.228
Interstate
Lane
Projects
Miles
4
52.092
0
0.000
6
111.872
1
27.890
2
32.714
7
115.096
1
12.316
0
0.000
1
8.926
0
0.000
22
360.906
All Systems
Lane
Projects
Miles
27
209.658
38
275.331
39
341.620
25
168.480
27
393.924
38
305.966
36
150.466
24
120.398
11
78.880
27
115.847
292
2160.570
500
100
Projects Tested
80
400
Lane Miles Tested
60
300
40
200
20
100
0
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Lane Miles Tested by System
67%
Primary
Secondary
17%
Turnpike/Toll
16%
Interstate
0.0%
20
Lane Miles Tested
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Primary
Lane
Projects
Miles
20
146.606
35
251.763
28
155.280
24
140.590
23
193.776
30
169.53
35
138.15
18
77.386
10
69.954
27
115.847
250
1458.882
Projects Tested
Year
DISTRICT 6 TEN YEAR PRODUCTION SUMMARY
Secondary
Lane
Projects
Miles
0
0.000
1
11.065
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
11.065
Turnpike/Toll
Lane
Projects
Miles
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
40.150
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
6.684
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
2
46.834
Interstate
Lane
Projects
Miles
1
4.414
0
0.000
2
8.806
0
0.000
1
10.844
1
2.484
2
6.190
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
7
32.738
100
All Systems
Lane
Projects
Miles
13
43.076
30
93.881
10
62.123
19
104.466
17
62.567
35
93.703
11
50.136
15
29.500
35
100.567
23
82.369
208
722.388
500
Projects Tested
80
400
Lane Miles Tested
60
300
40
200
20
100
0
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Lane Miles Tested by System
87%
Primary
Secondary
Turnpike/Toll
Interstate
5%
6%
2%
21
Lane Miles Tested
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Primary
Lane
Projects
Miles
12
38.662
29
82.816
8
53.317
18
64.316
16
51.723
34
91.219
8
37.262
15
29.5
35
100.567
23
82.369
198
631.751
Projects Tested
Year
DISTRICT 7 TEN YEAR PRODUCTION SUMMARY
Secondary
Lane
Projects
Miles
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
0.800
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
1.120
2
1.920
Turnpike/Toll
Lane
Projects
Miles
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
1
30.660
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
0
0.000
2
75.182
3
105.842
Interstate
Lane
Projects
Miles
2
19.464
1
19.232
2
18.898
0
0.000
1
9.400
0
0.000
4
64.606
0
0.000
3
24.150
1
6.150
14
161.900
100
All Systems
Lane
Projects
Miles
9
52.533
4
28.665
21
79.553
28
109.888
14
117.577
10
42.635
30
242.384
22
101.178
20
113.443
34
203.681
192
1091.537
500
Projects Tested
80
400
Lane Miles Tested
60
300
40
200
20
100
0
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Lane Miles Tested by System
Primary
75%
Secondary
15%
Turnpike/Toll
10%
Interstate
0.2%
22
Lane Miles Tested
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Primary
Lane
Projects
Miles
7
33.069
3
9.433
19
60.655
27
109.088
12
77.517
10
42.635
26
177.778
22
101.178
17
89.293
30
121.229
173
821.875
Projects Tested
Year
STATEWIDE TEN YEAR PRODUCTION SUMMARY
1714
8520.832
Secondary
Lane
Projects
Miles
1
6.034
2
12.062
3
8.659
3
7.368
7
27.935
5
22.054
3
8.520
3
22.413
2
5.132
2
1.914
31
Turnpike/Toll
Lane
Projects
Miles
9
57.638
5
49.568
7
136.114
6
139.858
6
333.188
1
21.340
2
17.484
7
50.812
0
0.000
3
111.466
122.091
46
917.468
Interstate
Lane
Projects
Miles
19
221.238
11
126.900
27
358.516
12
214.918
19
244.980
22
290.186
18
181.482
5
66.660
15
187.926
6
50.140
154
1942.946
300
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Projects Tested
250
Lane Miles Tested
200
150
100
50
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Lane Miles Tested by System
Primary
74%
Secondary
Turnpike/Toll
17%
Interstate
1.1%
8%
23
All Systems
Lane
Projects
Miles
158
943.116
274
1,361.858
202
1,329.676
210
1,427.985
231
1,789.342
187
1,072.723
177
990.124
172
743.730
167
1,000.886
167
843.897
1945
Lane Miles Tested
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Grand
Total
Primary
Lane
Projects
Miles
129
658.206
256
1173.328
165
826.387
189
1065.841
199
1183.239
159
739.143
154
782.638
157
603.845
150
807.828
156
680.377
Projects Tested
Year
11,503.337
2010 PROJECT LISTING BY DISTRICT
District 1
District
County
Section
Financial
Project
Number
County
State
Road
Travel
Direction
Beginning
Milepost
Ending
Milepost
Test
Date
Mr
(psi)
1
1
1
1
1
03175
06010
13130
16250
16470
425843-1
414547-1
427363-1
197562-1
423199-1
Collier
Hardee
Manatee
Polk
Polk
93
35
55
37
570
NTST
NT
NTST
NT
ETWT
50.107
0.000
0.155
8.471
0.000
50.747
4.955
1.125
9.189
18.142
2/22/10
3/18/10
2/24/10
3/18/10
4/26/10
27,000
15,000
21,000
20,000
26,000
Comments
Lane
Miles
Tested
1.280
4.955
1.940
0.718
36.284
2010 PROJECT LISTING BY DISTRICT
District 2
District
County
Section
Financial
Project
Number
County
State
Road
Travel
Direction
Beginning
Milepost
Ending
Milepost
Test
Date
Mr
(psi)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
71020
72018
72018
72090
72090
74040
74060
74060
76010
78060
78060
208207-7
426963-1
426966-1
423412-1
423412-1
210711-3
210711-3
210711-3
426959-1
424481-1
424481-1
Clay
Duval
Duval
Duval
Duval
Nassau
Nassau
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
St. Johns
15
104
104
115
115
A1A
A1A
A1A
15
16
16
NTST
ETWT
WT
NT
ST
ETWT
ET
WT
ETWT
ETWT
ETWT
13.845
6.800
0.000
0.000
0.000
27.340
0.000
0.000
26.450
15.900
17.900
14.360
7.567
1.992
3.400
3.400
30.548
7.020
7.020
27.911
17.900
20.881
9/23/10
11/22/10
11/22/10
1/11/10
1/11/10
1/27/10
1/27/10
1/27/10
11/1/10
11/29/10
11/29/10
14,000
17,000
15,000
20,000
16,000
14,000
22,000
14,000
21,000
25,000
20,000
Comments
Lane
Miles
Tested
1.030
1.534
1.992
3.400
3.400
6.416
7.020
7.020
2.922
4.000
5.962
2010 PROJECT LISTING BY DISTRICT
District 3
District
County
Section
Financial
Project
Number
County
State
Road
Travel
Direction
Beginning
Milepost
Ending
Milepost
Test
Date
Mr
(psi)
3
3
46010
46060
426949-1
421639-1
Bay
Bay
30
77
ET
NTST
1.729
1.976
7.252
6.490
8/4/10
8/3/10
13,000
12,000
24
Comments
Lane
Miles
Tested
5.523
9.028
2010 PROJECT LISTING BY DISTRICT
District 3
District
County
Section
Financial
Project
Number
County
State
Road
Travel
Direction
Beginning
Milepost
Ending
Milepost
Test
Date
Mr
(psi)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
47010
48003
48003
48004
48004
48005
48010
48010
48020
48020
48060
48070
48100
48110
48013001
50020
50040027
51010
51020
51020
51030
51502
52030
52030
53120
55050
55050
55060
56010
57040
426933-1
423061-1
426934-1
413435-1
413435-1
426928-1
416940-1
416940-1
426935-1
426935-1
426929-1
415378-1
423057-1
424614-1
423054-1
426930-1
426930-1
426957-1
419305-1
419305-1
424620-1
423064-1
426936-1
426936-1
424621-2
426931-1
426931-1
426937-1
424622-1
424623-1
Calhoun
Escambia
Escambia
Escambia
Escambia
Escambia
Escambia
Escambia
Escambia
Escambia
Escambia
Escambia
Escambia
Escambia
Escambia
Gadsden
Gadsden
Gulf
Gulf
Gulf
Gulf
Gulf
Holmes
Holmes
Jackson
Leon
Leon
Leon
Liberty
Okaloosa
20
289
289
727
727
752
10
10
10A
10A
95
291
30
298
742
12
12
30
71
71
22
30A
79
79
73/166
61
61
10
20
20
ET
NTST
NTST
ST
ST
WTET
ET
ETWT
ET
ETWT
NTST
NT
NTST
ET
WT
ET
WT
ET
NT
ST
ET
ET
NT
NTST
ST
NT
ST
ETWT
ET
ETWT
12.560
0.000
0.508
0.000
3.800
0.007
7.389
10.237
17.290
16.065
4.533
0.123
2.967
8.135
19.439
0.008
0.165
8.744
0.419
0.419
0.000
5.803
0.000
0.899
15.719
4.090
4.090
6.151
1.757
15.960
23.046
0.485
6.005
3.800
5.923
1.154
10.237
15.455
18.239
17.290
20.075
2.491
3.275
10.808
20.015
10.906
0.777
11.633
6.799
1.070
5.416
12.464
0.899
1.388
17.476
5.663
5.663
8.448
9.360
19.013
8/18/10
1/26/10
6/2/10
1/27/10
1/27/10
6/2/10
1/27/10
1/27/10
6/3/10
6/3/10
6/9/10
1/26/10
1/26/10
1/26/10
1/26/10
7/21/10
7/21/10
7/13/10
8/4/10
8/4/10
7/14/10
7/13/10
8/17/10
8/17/10
8/17/10
8/24/10
8/24/10
8/16/10
8/19/10
6/23/10
17,000
9,000
10,000
10,000
15,000
11,000
13,000
13,000
12,000
12,000
16,000
10,000
17,000
10,000
17,000
12,000
12,000
23,000
9,000
14,000
11,000
10,000
20,000
32,000
14,000
28,000
24,000
20,000
13,000
15,000
25
Comments
Lane
Miles
Tested
10.486
0.970
10.994
3.800
2.123
2.294
2.848
10.436
0.949
2.450
31.084
2.368
0.616
2.673
0.576
10.898
0.612
2.889
6.380
0.651
5.416
6.661
0.899
0.978
1.757
1.573
1.573
4.594
7.603
6.106
2010 PROJECT LISTING BY DISTRICT
District 3
District
County
Section
Financial
Project
Number
County
State
Road
Travel
Direction
Beginning
Milepost
Ending
Milepost
Test
Date
Mr
(psi)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
57050
57050
58030
58030
58040
60030
60080
426932-1
426932-2
421644-1
421644-1
426938-1
424623-2
427089-1
Okaloosa
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Santa Rosa
Santa Rosa
Walton
Walton
85
85
30
30
87
20
85
NTST
NTST
ET
WT
NT
ET
NT
1.248
4.088
0.000
0.000
6.911
0.000
0.000
4.088
4.612
12.774
12.774
16.083
16.581
4.240
6/24/10
6/24/10
7/20/10
7/20/10
6/22/10
7/27/10
7/28/10
13,000
13,000
14,000
9,000
10,000
14,000
12,000
Comments
Lane
Miles
Tested
5.680
1.048
12.774
12.774
9.172
16.581
4.240
2010 PROJECT LISTING BY DISTRICT
District 4
District
County
Section
Financial
Project
Number
County
State
Road
Travel
Direction
Beginning
Milepost
Ending
Milepost
Test
Date
Mr
(psi)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
86006
86006
86014
86014
86016
86016
86020
86030
86040
86060
86065
86075
86075
86090
86100
86100
86170
428724-1
428724-1
427004-1
427004-1
426855-1
428725-1
428726-1
428727-1
427006-1
423031-1
428731-1
415154-1
415154-1
428732-1
427010-1
427010-1
427011-1
Broward
Broward
Broward
Broward
Broward
Broward
Broward
Broward
Broward
Broward
Broward
Broward
Broward
Broward
Broward
Broward
Broward
842
842
870
870
848
848
5
A1A
820
25
845
93
93
816
7
7
811
ET
WT
ET
WT
ETWT
ETWT
NTST
NTST
ETWT
NTST
NTST
NT
ST
ETWT
NT
ST
NT
4.940
4.940
1.180
1.180
0.755
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.600
3.355
1.250
6.450
6.087
4.400
23.400
23.400
5.445
6.340
6.340
2.330
2.330
1.759
2.730
1.830
0.900
5.390
7.297
1.800
8.946
7.865
6.230
24.591
24.591
6.776
11/3/10
11/3/10
1/20/10
1/20/10
4/20/10
11/16/10
11/16/10
11/16/10
4/20/10
1/19/10
11/3/10
4/20/10
4/20/10
11/16/10
1/20/10
1/20/10
1/20/10
27,000
22,000
21,000
26,000
18,000
20,000
17,000
10,000
32,000
32,000
20,000
32,000
32,000
18,000
22,000
32,000
23,000
26
Comments
Lane
Miles
Tested
1.400
1.400
1.150
1.150
2.008
5.460
3.660
1.800
7.580
7.884
1.100
2.496
1.778
3.660
1.191
1.191
1.331
2010 PROJECT LISTING BY DISTRICT
District 4
District
County
Section
Financial
Project
Number
County
State
Road
Travel
Direction
Beginning
Milepost
Ending
Milepost
Test
Date
Mr
(psi)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
86190
86170001
86170001
88050
89010
89010
89010
89060
93004
93040
93070
93120
93121
93220
93220
93220
93220
93220
93220
93280
93280
93290
93310
93310
94005
94010
94010
427012-1
427011-1
427011-1
427022-1
427024-1
427023-1
427023-1
427026-1
427014-1
428718-1
428719-1
419013-1
426053-1
429198-1
427516-1
427516-1
426843-1
426843-1
429198-1
427020-1
427020-1
428722-1
229896-1
229897-2
424762-1
428728-1
428728-1
Broward
Broward
Broward
Indian River
Martin
Martin
Martin
Martin
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
St. Lucie
St. Lucie
St. Lucie
823
811
811
510
5
5
5
76
808
5
809
80
812
N/A
9
9
9
9
N/A
704
704
715
710
710
615
5
5
NTST
NT
ST
ET
NTST
NT
ST
ETWT
ETWT
NTST
NTST
WT
ETWT
ET
NTST
NTST
NT
ST
WT
ETWT
ETWT
NT
WT
WT
NTST
NT
ST
7.650
0.000
0.000
5.880
2.000
0.000
0.000
26.000
0.000
11.110
20.360
21.100
0.000
0.000
11.498
12.700
7.600
7.600
0.000
5.550
6.550
2.090
22.838
21.994
0.970
8.470
8.470
10.897
1.336
1.336
6.380
5.030
1.400
1.400
29.830
1.180
12.410
24.200
21.928
0.570
0.397
12.700
15.174
14.400
14.400
0.397
6.550
7.550
12.070
23.665
22.838
2.470
10.780
10.780
1/20/10
1/20/10
4/12/10
2/9/10
2/10/10
2/10/10
2/10/10
2/10/10
2/17/10
12/14/10
10/27/10
2/17/10
10/27/10
10/27/10
12/14/10
12/14/10
6/24/10
6/24/10
10/27/10
2/17/10
2/17/10
10/26/10
2/17/10
2/17/10
2/9/10
10/28/10
10/28/10
32,000
26,000
23,000
18,000
20,000
21,000
26,000
19,000
31,000
17,000
22,000
24,000
3,000
18,000
32,000
21,000
32,000
27,000
23,000
20000
14,000
6,000
15,000
21,000
18,000
23,000
12,000
27
Comments
Extremely Weak Embankment
Weak Embankment
Lane
Miles
Tested
6.494
1.336
1.336
0.500
6.060
1.400
1.400
7.660
2.360
2.600
7.680
0.828
1.140
0.397
2.404
4.948
6.800
6.800
0.397
2.000
2.000
9.980
0.827
0.844
3.000
2.310
2.310
2010 PROJECT LISTING BY DISTRICT
District 5
District
County
Section
Financial
Project
Number
County
State
Road
Travel
Direction
Beginning
Milepost
Ending
Milepost
Test
Date
Mr
(psi)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
70010
70030
70050001
73030
73030001
11010
11090
11100
36002
36009
36009
36100
75010
427225-1
424889-1
427225-1
427253-1
427253-1
427230-1
427246-1
424881-1
427249-1
424885-1
427273-1
238651-1
427047-1
Brevard
Brevard
Brevard
Flagler
Flagler
Lake
Lake
Lake
Marion
Marion
Marion
Marion
Orange
5
5
5
A1A
A1A
44
19
19
200
35
35
200
500
NTST
NTST
ET
ST
ST
ETWT/EPWP
NTST
NTST
NTST
NT
NT
WT
NTST
16.237
4.644
0.000
10.257
0.000
0.000
30.136
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.600
0.475
6.056
17.260
6.930
0.228
18.595
0.940
2.365
32.049
3.816
4.774
1.600
3.910
5.818
8.638
4/6/10
8/9/10
4/6/10
8/11/10
8/11/10
9/22/10
4/5/10
3/3/10
4/8/10
3/4/10
8/10/10
3/4/10
4/7/10
13,000
20,000
13,000
15,000
15,000
18,000
20,000
14,000
27,000
21,000
22,000
16,000
21,000
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
75010
75050
75260
92090
77010
77010
77060
77070
77170
77070001
18030
18060
79070
79150
79270
427228-1
424896-1
424899-1
424906-1
424900-1
424900-1
427259-1
422015-1
422015-1
422015-1
424884-1
427241-1
427267-1
422030-2
408178-1
Orange
Orange
Orange
Osceola
Seminole
Seminole
Seminole
Seminole
Seminole
Seminole
Sumter
Sumter
Volusia
Volusia
Volusia
500
50
424
530
15
15
426
419
434
419
50
48
44
40
483
NTST
ETWT
NTST
ETWT
NT
ST
ET
ET
ST
ET
ET
ET
ETWT
ETWT
NTST
11.083
6.075
2.272
3.330
5.867
5.867
6.262
6.765
3.129
0.000
0.000
8.339
20.000
0.108
-0.252
28
14.201
9.208
4.854
4.843
9.400
9.400
6.992
9.465
4.029
0.355
4.262
9.900
26.978
0.430
2.643
4/7/10
2/22/10
1/13/10
4/5/10
1/12/10
1/12/10
3/2/10
4/6/10
4/6/10
4/6/10
1/13/10
12/13/10
3/8/10
3/15/10
3/15/10
21,000
16,000
14,000
16,000
16,000
11,000
14,000
10,000
18,000
10,000
25,000
13,000
16,000
16,000
18,000
Comments
Lane
Miles
Tested
2.046
4.572
0.228
8.338
0.940
9.460
3.826
3.816
9.548
1.600
2.310
5.343
5.164
Concrete : From MP 11.00 to MP
13.243 (not tested therefore Mr
represents MP 13.243 to 14.201
6.236
6.266
5.164
3.026
3.533
3.533
0.730
2.700
0.900
0.355
4.262
1.561
13.956
0.644
5.790
2010 PROJECT LISTING BY DISTRICT
District 6
District
County
Section
Financial
Project
Number
County
State
Road
Travel
Direction
Beginning
Milepost
Ending
Milepost
Test
Date
Mr
(psi)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
87001
87001
87003
87003
87020
87020
87026
87026
87044
87044
87054
87055
87060
87060
87060
87062
87070
87080
87120
87150
87150
87260
90020
87080001
87080900
87091
87281
90010
90030
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
410625-1
410625-1
427518-1
427518-1
424544-1
424544-2
427513-1
427651-1
414636-1
250236-1
414636-1
428484-1
249615-9
427452-1
428485-1
405575-5
405575-5
425478-1
423137-1
427517-1
427452-1
425644-1
428482-1
250548-3
250548-3
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Dade
Miami Dade
Miami Dade
Monroe
Monroe
94
94
112
112
5
5
860
860
976
976
972
986
A1A
A1A
A1A
959
997
934
90
997
997
826
5
934
934
994
953
5
5
ET
WT
ET
WT
NT
ST
ET
WT
ETWT
ETWT
ETWT
ETWT
ET
NT
WT
ST
NT
WT
ET
NT
NT
NTST
NT
ETWT
WT
NTST
NTST
NTST
NT
7.740
7.740
0.000
0.000
3.620
3.620
0.000
0.000
4.599
4.863
0.508
1.697
3.149
3.694
3.149
0.217
0.974
0.000
17.501
0.000
1.640
13.275
22.647
0.761
37.734
4.325
0.000
0.000
1.975
8.500
8.500
2.667
2.667
5.278
5.278
2.846
2.846
4.774
4.963
2.899
4.018
3.670
4.506
3.670
2.038
14.164
0.662
18.147
1.640
3.827
15.372
25.560
3.079
40.027
8.058
1.000
4.561
3.884
4/13/10
4/13/10
7/7/10
7/7/10
11/2/10
11/2/10
5/19/10
5/19/10
10/20/10
10/20/10
4/13/10
4/13/10
1/19/10
10/20/10
1/19/10
11/2/10
2/3/10
5/18/10
10/20/10
11/2/10
11/2/10
5/18/10
11/7/10
5/19/10
5/18/10
8/18/10
8/18/10
9/16/10
11/7/10
24,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
32,000
26,000
20,000
24,000
17,000
17,000
32,000
24,000
10,000
31,000
4,000
32,000
32,000
25,000
27,000
7,000
32,000
32,000
16,000
14,000
25,000
32,000
32,000
16,000
13,000
29
Comments
Extremely Weak Embankment
Lane
Miles
Tested
0.760
0.760
2.667
2.667
1.658
1.658
2.846
2.846
0.350
0.200
4.782
4.642
0.521
0.812
0.521
1.821
13.190
0.662
0.646
1.640
2.187
4.194
2.913
4.636
2.293
7.466
2.000
9.122
1.909
2010 PROJECT LISTING BY DISTRICT
District 7
District
County
Section
Financial
Project
Number
County
State
Road
Travel
Direction
Beginning
Milepost
Ending
Milepost
Test
Date
Mr
(psi)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
02010
08010
08020
08040
08040
08040
08470
10010
10010
10010
10020
10020
10030
10075
10080
10090
10090
10120
10120
10250
10250
10260
10340
10030103
10250101
10250101
14030
14050
14050
14470
427148-1
427153-1
427152-1
427150-1
427151-1
427151-1
427324-1
427454-1
428496-1
427454-1
427145-1
427170-1
427149-1
427137-1
427171-1
424560-1
424560-1
423048-1
423049-1
418685-1
427159-1
425336-1
427158-1
427169-1
418685-1
427168-1
427157-1
427160-1
427165-1
424792-1
Citrus
Hernando
Hernando
Hernando
Hernando
Hernando
Hernando
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Pasco
Pasco
Pasco
Pasco
45
45
55
50
50
50
589
43
41
43
685
685
600
93A
60
574
574
674
674
585
580
41
574
600
585
585
55
39, 41
35
589
NT
ET
NTST
WT
ET
WT
NTST
ST
NTST
NT
NTST
NTST
ETWT
NTST
ETWT
ET
WT
WT
WT
NT
ETWT
ST
ETWT
ET
ST
ST
NTST
NT
NTST
NTST
0.000
9.194
7.221
9.878
3.855
3.855
0.000
20.141
24.344
20.141
5.362
2.961
3.511
36.779
4.562
3.990
3.990
6.286
15.773
6.845
7.253
3.131
7.595
1.121
0.485
0.000
13.838
3.746
15.667
0.000
6.100
9.650
19.514
11.305
5.700
5.700
17.731
20.771
26.253
20.771
6.365
4.335
4.772
39.854
5.238
4.306
4.306
8.500
23.381
7.447
8.550
4.433
12.267
1.745
1.092
1.241
19.688
5.700
20.910
19.860
3/25/10
4/1/10
5/25/10
4/1/10
4/1/10
4/1/10
4/28/10
3/29/10
4/22/10
3/29/10
3/23/10
3/29/10
3/22/10
3/23/10
3/29/10
2/8/10
2/8/10
3/9/10
3/9/10
3/23/10
3/30/10
2/8/10
3/22/10
3/29/10
3/23/10
3/29/10
3/24/10
3/31/10
3/31/10
4/12/10
16,000
11,000
29,000
17,000
28,000
23,000
27,000
32,000
21,000
24,000
19,000
13,000
19,000
21,000
15,000
22,000
18,000
21,000
19,000
22,000
15,000
19,000
18,000
24,000
22,000
19,000
21,000
20,000
22,000
23,000
30
Comments
Lane
Miles
Tested
6.100
0.456
24.586
1.427
1.845
1.845
35.462
0.630
3.818
0.630
2.006
2.748
2.522
6.150
1.352
0.316
0.316
2.214
7.608
0.602
2.594
1.302
9.344
0.624
0.607
1.241
11.700
1.954
10.486
39.720
2010 PROJECT LISTING BY DISTRICT
District 7
District
County
Section
Financial
Project
Number
County
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
15050
15050
15050
15070
15080
15080
15090
15140
427166-1
424563-1
424563-1
427163-1
424563-1
424563-1
427162-1
427161-1
Pinellas
Pinellas
Pinellas
Pinellas
Pinellas
Pinellas
Pinellas
Pinellas
7
15150
413622-2
Pinellas
7
15150
413622-2
Pinellas
Lane
Miles
Tested
State
Road
Travel
Direction
Beginning
Milepost
Ending
Milepost
Test
Date
Mr
(psi)
590
580
580
580
580
580
687
699
CR
296
CR
296
ETWT
ET
WT
ETWT
ET
WT
NTST
NTST
0.247
13.068
13.068
3.179
2.040
2.040
0.895
1.510
1.435
13.144
13.144
4.115
2.454
2.454
6.670
3.299
3/10/10
3/10/10
3/10/10
3/10/10
3/10/10
3/10/10
3/30/10
3/10/10
15,000
17,000
24,000
16,000
17,000
24,000
15,000
14,000
2.376
0.076
0.076
1.872
0.414
0.414
11.550
3.578
ET
12.440
13.000
3/30/10
23,000
0.560
WT
12.440
13.000
3/30/10
19,000
0.560
31
Comments
REFERENCES
1. Nazef A., and B. Choubane. Survey of Current Practices of Using Falling Weight
Deflectometers. Research Report FL/DOT/SMO/01-452, Florida Department of
Transportation, Gainesville, September 2001.
2. Bentsen, R. A., S. Nazarian, and J. a. Harrison. Reliability Testing of seven
Nondestructive Pavement Testing devices. In Nondestructive Testing of Pavement and
Backcalculation Moduli, ASTM STP 1026, A. J. Bush, III and G. Y. Baladi, Eds.,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1989.
3. AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., March 1993.
4. Ullidtz, P. Pavement Analysis. Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, 1987.
5. Boussinesq, J. Application des Potentiels à l’Etude de l’Equilibre et du Mouvement des
Solides Elastiques. Gauthiers-Villars, Paris 1885.
6. Jackson, N. M., Hammons, M. I., Walker, R. and H. Von Quintus. Use of Nondestructive
Techniques to Estimate the Allowable Vibratory Compaction Level during Construction.
Research Report FL/DOT/SMO/07-BDB-11, Florida Department of Transportation,
Gainesville, March 2007.
7. Jackson, N. M., Choubane, B., Lee, H. S., Holzschuher, C., Hammons, M. and R.
Walker. Recommended Practice for Identifying Vibration Sensitive Work Zones Based on
FWD Data. In Transportation Research Record. No. 2081, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington D.C., 2008, pp. 139-149.
32