Laserfiche WebLink
Murch 3Q 2009 <br /> HWA Projcct No.2009-030-21 <br /> ro dctcrmi�ic allowable bcaring capacity and footing geomeuy based on an allowable <br /> settlement magniwde. For exa�nple, if foundation settlemcnt is to be limitcd to 1 indi or <br /> Icss,tlien a 3-foot squarc foofiug could bc proporlioned for 2,000 psf,or a 5-foot square <br /> footing could he propor(ioned for 1,000 psf. <br /> Por shori-temi h•ansient loading conditions sucl�as wind or seismic effccts,a SO% <br /> incrcasc in allowablc bcaring capacity may bc acsumcd. <br /> -. <br /> 9 i �._ <br /> ' 3.4 STRUCTUNALPAVEMEN7�DESIGN � <br /> 3.4.1 Dcsig�1'raffic f <br /> � <br /> I3ased on infotmation providcd by Pcrtcct,wc anticipate bus traffic within thc BR1' <br /> terminal lo consisting of G ariiculated buses(DRT.t�uftic)per hour for 20}iours a day and <br /> 30 non-uriiculatcJ(local traffic)busscs per day. Using a 40-year design life,'a2"/o growth <br /> rale,S.l I P.quivalent Si��gle Axle Loads(I:SAL)per articulated.bus, a�id 1.6�ESAL per <br /> non•nrticulated bus results in u total of 14,742,1 C0 ESAI;ovcr Gu:design life of the <br /> puvcmcnt. Bccausc of thc rcgulnr licavy articulating bus traffic, tlii,�design ESAL is <br /> significant. � `�� ;" <br /> The pavement��ecomiuendations presented in this report arc b8scd on thcse trati�c <br /> estimates. If additionnl.tritffic inf'ormation is obtained lhat varies appreciably from these <br /> valucs,thc rccommendiltions given in diis repoit should be reviewed and revised as <br /> necessn�y. i <br /> 3.4.2 I'avement Subgrnde Yrepurntlnn - <br /> All areas lo be paved shoulci he prtiof=rolled with u fully loadcd dump livck lo verify lhe <br /> intcgrity of thc subgradc soils prior;toplaccmcnt oPCSIIC. Where proof rolling inducos <br /> unncceptnblc defomintions the on sitc soils should bc over cxcuvntcd�nd replaced wi0i <br /> compactcd struotural fill. <br /> lf thc proof rolling revcnls significant nrcAs of yielding unsuitable subgrade and thc <br /> volumes malerial lhat will need to Ue over-excavated is found to bc too lurgc,altetnativcs <br /> mcthods of subgmdc improvcment shauld bc csploi�;d. Possible alternatives to over <br /> cxcavntion nnd rehlaccment could includc pincement of geogrid reinforcemcnt or ccment <br /> trcatment of the onsitc soils. Thcse and any otlicr contractor-proposed nitemntives should <br /> cvaluatcd by HWA on a caso-spcciCc basis. <br /> � �20(r9��?0-21 Drnn coe ( IiN'A GF.OSCIFNCFS INf, <br /> . r C� <br />