REPORT NO. 2053-1-S REPORT ON EVALUATION OF SERVICE BEHAVIOR OF PLAIN VERSUS REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT BY WILLIAM S. HOUSEL Professor of Civil:Engineering-University of Michigan Research Consultant4-i ahigan.State'Highway Department PROJECT 2053 FOR THE WIRE REINFORCEMENT INSTITUTE INCORPORATED WASHINGTON, D. C. MAY 1954

EVALUATION OF SERVICE BEHAVIOR OF PLAIN VERSUS REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT The results of the investigation of plain and reinforced concrete pavements which are presented in this report cover a program of study which started in May 1952. This program was initiated by the Michigan State Highway Department and the Wire Reinforcement Institute in discussions going back to the fall of 1951. As a result of these discussions, W. W. McLaughlin, Testing and Research Engineer for the Michigan State Highway Department, had a compilation made of the projects in Southern Michigan in which concrete pavements had been built without steel reinforcing. In this connection, it may be explained that Michigan is one of the states which uses steel reinforcing in concrete pavement as standard practice. However, during the war years from 1941 to 1946, steel was not available for this purpose and practically all of the projects in the compiled list were built during those years. For comparison, certain reinforced concrete pavements were selected from a period either before or after the war under conditions selected to be as nearly comparable as possible to the service condition pertaining to the unreinforced pavements. Seventeen projects were selected for field inspection and preliminary surveys made in the summer of 1952. As a result of these preliminary surveys, nine of these seventeen projects were selected for the final studies and seven were eliminated for one reason or another. In several of the nine projects finally selected, there were sections of both reinforced and unreinforced pavement so all together there were twelve typical samples of pavement provided for the final analysis, five of which were reinforced and seven of which were unreinforced. Table I which is presented as part of this report gives the complete identification of the projects and lists 1

in detail the characteristics and conditions pertaining to each. These will be discussed in more detail later but at this point, it is desired to direct attention to the Memorandum Report of December 9, 1952 which presented some of the preliminary results of the investigation and also identified the projects which were being considered for the complete investigation. Two of the projects which were not then being included in the study were later added to the list and these happen to be two projects on US-24A and US-25, the heavily traveled route between Toledo, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan. Of the seven projects which were initially included, one on US-223 south of Blissfield has been eliminated as it was recapped early in the investigation which aside from its being a special case eliminated it from complete study. Another project, however, on M-43 west of Grand Ledge, was added to the list of seven projects selected for complete performance surveys in the report of December 1952. Aside from preliminary discussions, the project was formally instituted in May 1952 at which time a project was established with the Engineering Research Institute of the University of Michigan. The program was set up as a five year contract with the general objective of investigating the adequacy and performance characteristics of plain and reinforced concrete pavements. Thus, the program has been underway for approximately two years and while the present report is not considered to be a final one, it is believed to represent substantial progress toward the ultimate objective. Tentative Program and Objective When this work was started, it was generally felt that a field survey of pavements which had been subjected to a considerable period of years in service would reveal that the cracking pattern of these pavements provided 2

a measure of pavement performance and some indication of structural adequacy. It was also recognized that riding quality as represented by the roughness of the pavement would be a somewhat related but final measure of satisfactory performance from the standpoint of the highway user. It should be stated at this point that those who were most vitally concerned in the launching of this program were of the opinion that the answers to many of the problems of highway design which seemed to puzzle the highway engineer of the present day were to be found in the service behavior of our vast system of existing highways if only a painstaking and intelligent analysis were made of this pavement performance. In other words, it was their feeling that the open road should be the laboratory in which the many controversial aspects of highway design could best be tested under normal conditions of traffic and loading and normal environment. In contrast, it was felt further that these natural conditions could never be satisfactorily duplicated in the test road of the present day under localized environment and simulated service which are admitted to be abnormal and limited in application. Aerial Photographs and Field Surveys Aerial photographs or strip maps were used as the primary means of recording the crack pattern. In this connection, it was considered that photographs would provide the most conclusive and descriptive evidence of the cracking pattern of these pavements. It was felt that aerial photographs would indicate most clearly the prevalence and type of cracking and were the most effective means by which the crack pattern could be accurately determined and clearly presented. In the final analysis, aerial photographs were taken on seven projects, one of which was discarded in the final study while such photographs on six other projects are presented 3

in the Appendix to this report. Three other projects are included in the Appendix for which strip maps were prepared from field surveys without aerial photographs. On these three projects, there was such an immature crack pattern that such photographs were considered to be of little value and visual examination by field surveys most practical. Determining the most practicable method of obtaining the aerial strip maps presented one of the first problems to be worked out in connection with the project. It was first planned to have the various highway projects photographed by a commercial firm providing such service. But after further study, it was feared that such photographs would not give us the necessary information. Subsequently, a plane was obtained on a rental basis from a local Flying Club and photographs were taken by two Michigan State Highway Department employees in the laboratory at Ann Arbor. Both of these men were licensed pilots and one of them in particular has had considerable experience in aerial photography. Trial pictures taken in the first stages of the work demonstrated clearly that special procedures would be required to obtain'an accurate crack pattern. Such photographs had to be taken at a time of day when the sun is at an angle which provided a crack shadow clearly exposing all cracks. The photographs were then taken at an angle looking into the sun in order to photograph the shadow. After a number of trials, it was found that such photographs did give a very satisfactory picture from which most, if not all of the cracks, could be positively identified even though many of them had not been treated with bituminous filler. Considerable difficulty was encountered during the summer with trees and tree shadows so that it was decided that several of the projects would be postponed until the leaves were off the trees in the fall. On three of 4

these projects which were photographed in the fall, there was then a considerable problem in finding suitable weather conditions but they were finally completed. As a result of experience to date, it is felt that the decision to do the aerial photography with personnel available to the project was a wise one. The results are believed to be much better than could have been obtained from routine commercial photography or much less expensive than could be done if the commercial photographers were limited to the special time when the cracks could best be photographed. Reproduction of these photographs as strip maps shown in the Appendix also presented several rather difficult problems. In a number of cases as may be noted, it was necessary to line in the cracks with pen and ink where they were hidden by tree shadows or other obstructions and in cases where the reproduction of the original photographs did not make possible positive identification of cracks. Wherever possible, the original photographs have been reproduced without alteration as they are considered to constitute basic data. In the other cases as noted above, cracking has been emphasized by lining in order to preserve the data and eliminate unjustified error. All strip maps containing the basic data used in this investigation of the cracking pattern have been reproduced in the Appendix. This presentation of data is considered to be a permanent record of pavement condition at the time the surveys were made which will make it possible to follow the progressive development of cracking pattern or pavement deterioration in subsequent years. It is felt that the continuation of such a study may constitute a significant contribution to the development of procedures for measuring pavement performance which are presented in this report. It may be noted that these data sheets of which there are 61 in the Appendix have 5

been designated as "Correlated Pavement Condition Records". In this connection in addition to the aerial view showing the spacing of joints and the cracking pattern, the more significant environmental conditions have been shown. These include soil surveys giving the soil type over which the pavement has been built, indicating the areas of cut and fill, drainage structures and certain other conditions which are felt to exert a significant influence on pavement performance. Whether or not the pavement was reinforced or unreinforced has been designated on the cut and fill line by leaving the straight line without marking for reinforced pavement and indicating a slanting cross line on the cut and fill line for unreinforced concrete pavement. Other pertinent design conditions are included in Table I and will be discussed in more detail later. Preview of Basic Factors of Pavement Performance Before proceeding with the presentation of the results of the investigation, it would appear to be desirable to summarize the significant conclusions that have been drawn from the study and discuss them briefly. In this way, the reader may be prepared to review the results critically and with more understanding of their full significance. Furthermore, these results may then be weighed as a demonstration of the basic factors of pavement performance. After having spent considerable time in study and deliberation over the two year period in which this investigation has been in progress, the writer has come to the conclusion that the adequacy of a highway pavement can be largely represented by two basic factors or characteristics. These are structural continuity and riding quality or roughness. While these two factors are of course related, structural continuity is largely a measure of structural adequacy and indicative of the anticipated useful life of the pavement. 6

A definite measure of structural continuity has been formulated in the course of this study and represents in the writer's opinion an important step in reducing the measure of pavement adequacy to fairly precise quantitative terms. There are two factors which have been selected for this purpose; the continuity ratio and the cracking index. The Continuity Ratio, CR, is the ratio of the average slab length of a pavement divided by a selected standard length or area representing normal subdivision of a concrete pavement which does not substantially impair its serviceability. As will be seen later, this standard slab length has been selected as 15 ft. or, in case of an area involving different slab widths, the area which is equivalent to a 15 ft. slab length has been selected as a standard. While various aspects of the continuity ratio will be discussed in considerable detail throughout the rest of this report, at this point it is only desired to point out that average slab lengths greater than 15 ft. will result in a continuity ratio greater than unity while when the subdivision of a concrete pavement results in slab lengths of less than 15 ft., the continuity ratio will be less than unity. Accepting that slab lengths greater than the standard of 15 ft. are representative of normal subdivision of the concrete slab due to warping and shrinkage stresses, a continuity ratio of greater than unity not only represents unimpaired serviceability but indicates a concrete pavement which insofar as visible evidence is concerned has an indefinite life. On the other hand, it is presumed that when subdivision of the slab results in an average length of less than 15 ft. and as the subdivision of the slab proceeds producing blocks or areas substantially less than that standard, it must be accepted that that pavement is in the stage of progressive failure with a probable useful life which decreases quite rapidly 7

as the continuity ratio decreases. To give this stage of more rapid deterioration added significance, the cracking index has been introduced and becomes the significant measure of structural continuity or rather the lack of structural continuity during this stage of progressive failure. The Cracking Index, CI, may be defined as the ratio of uncracked slab length or equivalent area to the selected standard length or area expressed as a percentage and subtracted from 100 per cent. Thus, the cracking index is the complement of the continuity ratio, expressed as a percentage. A number of examples of the computation of the continuity ratio and the cracking index will be presented in connection with the presentation of the results of the surveys on the projects included in this report. The selection of structural continuity and the formulation of quantitative measures of it is based on the concept that the ideal pavement would be one in which there were no cracks or joints but which stretched in an unending ribbon from beginning to end. This, of course, is a physical impossibility and the inherent characteristic of concrete pavement is that it must either be subdivided into slabs of limited length or that it will naturally arrive at this state by cracking due to warping and shrinkage stresses over which there is no possible control. Every such joint or every crack becomes a free edge unless some means is employed or can be found to provide adequate load transfer between the abutting ends of the concrete slabs. Such joints and cracks become the weakest link in the chain and present several critical problems in the service behavior of such a pavement. Stress concentration due to lack of load transfer, pumping and infiltration of foreign material all present familiar problems. In connection with this discussion, it is pertinent to quote a number of significant statements which have been published by the Highway Research 8

Board in Bulletin No. 78 entitled "Filling and Sealing of Joints and Cracks in Concrete Pavement". This bulletin published in 1953 has been prepared by the Highway Research Board Committee on Joint Material in Concrete Pavement under the chairmanship of William Van Breemen of the New Jersey State Highway Department. The following is quoted from that bulletin under the general heading, "Filling and Sealing of Joints and Cracks in Concrete Pavement". "The problem of preventing the infiltration of water, silt, and other earthy materials into the joints and cracks in concrete pavements is one that has been exceedingly troublesome to highway engineers ever since concrete pavements first came into existence more than 40 yr. ago. Despite determined and prolonged efforts on the part of engineers, chemists, technicians, and the producers of filling and sealing materials, the problem remains to a large extent unsolved. Substantial progress has been made, but the final answer is not yet at hand. In recent years there has been an increasingly greater need for more-effective sealing, for the following reasons: 1. The extensive development of a highly destructive phenomenon known as "pumping", which is a process wherein free water that has accumulated in vacancies between the pavement and the subgrade is ejected by the downward movement of the pavement under the action of heavy loads. In the case of fine-grained subgrade soils, such as the silts and clays, the finer soil particles combine with the water and, in a state of suspension, are ejected along with the water. The progressive loss of subgrade support resulting from this process leads ultimately to serious failure. Exhaustive investigations have disclosed that the water involved in this process is almost invariably surface water which, during rains, has infiltrated to the subgrade through unsealed joints and cracks and along the pavement edges adjacent to the shoulders. The exclusion of this water, in so far as possible, is obviously desirable. Although it is an established fact that the complete sealing of joints and cracks will not in itself prevent pumping, if only because of continued leakage along the shoulder edges, the reduction in the amount of leakage resulting from such measures does, nevertheless, have a significant effect on reducing the magnitude of the pumping action and, in turn, on retarding the rate of failure. (For further data on pumping, see "Final Report of Project Committee No. 1, Maintenance of Concrete Pavement as Related to the Pumping Action of Slabs", Proceedings, Vol. 28, 1948, Highway Research Board, pp. 281-310). 9

2. The current widespread practice of omitting expansion joints and substituting contraction joints in their place. The indications are that the infiltration of inert foreign materials of a solid nature, such as silt and sand, into the contraction joints can sooner or later result in serious damage. PURPOSE This bulletin has several purposes: (1) To present and discuss certain basic facts that are pertinent to the problem. (2) To promote a more widespread understanding of the various aspects of the problem and of the conditions that must be taken into account; ------- Much of the information presented in this bulletin is of a basic nature, and is familiar to most highway engineers. This information has, however, been included for the sake of comprehensive coverage of the subject, and because all too frequently the fundamental aspects of the problem are overlooked. DEFINITIONS The term slab applies to the following: Unreinforced Pavements. Any section of uncracked pavement lying between (a) two transverse joints, or (b) two transverse cracks, or (c) a transverse crack and a transverse joint. Reinforced Pavements. Any section of pavement lying between two transverse joints, regardless of whether or not the pavement is cracked but provided that the reinforcing steel incorporated therein is capable of preventing the appreciable opening of any transverse cracks that may be present. The term does not apply, however, to the unconventional, exceptionally long sections of pavement known as continuously reinforced, nor to any section of pavement that, by reason of changes in the widths of transverse cracks existing therein, does not undergo essentially the same amount of over-all expansion and contraction as an uncracked slab. REASONS FOR THE PROBLEM In the final analysis, the filling and sealing problem originates from the fact that a concrete pavement is not a truly continuous structure, As is well known, all concrete pavements consist of a series of slabs or sections of pavement that are separated from one another by either transverse joints or transverse cracks, or a combination of transverse joints and transverse cracks, as the case may be. The joints or cracks are spaced at various intervals, but the interval rarely exceeds 100 ft. 10

There is, at present, no known practical way of constructing a section of pavement of considerable length in which the concrete itself will remain truly continuous, despite the installation of a large amount of reinforcing steel or the employment of prestressing. This is attributable to the relatively low tensile strength of concrete and the high tensile stresses to which an extensive section of pavement will sooner or later be subjected and which will result in the development of transverse cracks spaced at erratic intervals. Since these cracks have a number of objectionable features, it is the general practice to construct the pavement in a manner such that it will consist of a series of slabs of uniform length, which is accomplished by the introduction of transverse joints of one kind or another. - -..-.-. - Effect of Reinforcing Steel The principal function of reinforcing steel is to prevent the opening of cracks. Consequently a cracked slab that contains an adequate amount of reinforcing steel will undergo essentially the same over-all changes in length as an uncracked slab. For this reason the occurrence of cracking in reinforced pavements neither increases nor decreases the amount of change in joint width to any significant extent. On the other hand, in the case of so-called plain, or unreinforced, pavements the situation is materially different, since there is an unrestrained opening of the cracks whenever the pavement contracts. - - - - - - _ _ _ -. _ _ _ ---." It is most interesting to note in the conclusion reached by this committee that there is a clear recognition of the importance of structural continuity and recognition of the fact that open joints or open cracks without any means of maintaining load transfer or of controlling the width of the crack constitute the points of greatest weakness in a concrete pavement. It seems particularly significant that in defining a slab or slab length that joints and cracks in unreinforced concrete pavements are recognized as discontinuities of the same order of magnitude while in a properly reinforced concrete pavement, the cracks are not considered to be discontinuities in determining slab lengths. While it is believed that the position taken by this committee in this respect is entirely sound, in the presentation of the results of this investigation continuity ratios and cracking indexes have been computed by treating cracks in reinforced 11

or unreinforced pavements on the same basis and accepting them as discontinuities in this respect. While it is believed there are many reasons for agreeing with the committee, it is the feeling of those directing this research program that comprehensive factual data on the structural continuity of reinforced concrete pavement at the cracks should be presented as a basis of demonstration before accepting this very obvious and great advantage in favor of the use of steel reinforcing. Riding Quality or Roughness To the highway user who drives over the pavement without stopping to look for cracks, riding quality or roughness is the final measure of pavement performance. Just as soon as vertical displacement at joints or cracks or other pavement displacement becomes sufficient to produce a reaction from the motorist, satisfactory pavement performance is being lost at a progressing rate aside from the fact that such roughness is indicative of advancing structural failure due to lack of continuity. Roughometer surveys using conventional equipment have been made on most of the projects presented in this report. The relative roughness of these pavements will be presented in more detail in connection with the presentation of the results. However, as a preliminary statement, it is the writer's opinion that presently available equipment of the conventional roughometer type does not provide a satisfactory measure of pavement roughness either in the cumulative magnitude or distribution of vertical displacement of the riding surface. Controlled Flexibility It is obvious from the preceding discussion that the free edges of concrete slabs created by joints and uncontrolled cracking constitute a major problem in pavement design. They destroy structural continuity es12

sential to an adequate pavement and likewise became the focal points of faulting which ultimately reduces the smooth riding quality of the pavement below acceptable standards. Acknowledging that cracks or joints must be accepted if portland cement concrete is to be used for pavements, attention of highway designers should then be directed to providing both crack control and structural continuity. The inadequacy of crack control without structural continuity which appears to be the current fashion has been recognized by perhaps a minority but is beginning to be more forcefully brought to the attention of those responsible for establishing highway standards. The Highway Research Board committee cited in this report are the latest ones to take a completely forthright position on this question. Many of the observations brought together in this report demonstrate the inherent weakness of unreinforced concrete pavement with closely spaced joints whose only contribution is that of providing a straight crack capable of easier maintenance. The contribution of steel reinforcing in providing structural continuity is also clearly shown in the comparative results of the performance surveys reported herein even though the potentialities of steel reinforcing have been only partially exploited. There is much evidence to indicate that the proponents of continuously reinforced concrete pavements may be moving in the right direction even though their efforts to date have not received much attention. In the writer's opinion, the future of concrete pavements may well be bound up in the optimum combination of steel reinforcing and decreased slab thickness. Such a pavement should be designed to produce more frequent small cracks provided with structural continuity and sufficient flexibility to fully mobilize subgrade support. This is "Controlled Flexibility". The basic elements involved are not new but "Controlled Flexibility" does 13

represent an unusual combination of fundamental principles which has been almost completely submerged in the present day over-emphasis on rigidity and the continued but ineffective efforts to bridge over weak subgrades. By introducing "Controlled Flexibility" as a dominant idea in concrete pavements, it is hoped to direct the attention of pavement designers back to the fuller utilization of the supporting capacity of natural subgrades which must ultimately carry both the load and the pavement. To be successful in achieving this objective, it is believed that ability of such pavements to carry loads more efficiently must be demonstrated by a comprehensive research program to accumulate a volume of irrefutable factual data in support of this position. Presentation of Results The results of the pavement performance surveys will now be presented both as illustration of the preceding remarks and as evidence supporting the validity of the conclusions presented. The data are presented first in tabular form to serve as a record and also by diagrams and charts for more effective illustration. In Table I, the design conditions and physical characteristics of the pavement on each project have been summarized. In the subsequent discussion, each pavement sample will be identified by the number given in the first two columns. The projects have been grouped in reinforced, R, and unreinforced, NR, the former being Nos. 1 thru 5 and the latter Nos. 6 thru 12. In addition to comparisons under this grouping, all but the last two projects, Nos. 11 and 12, have been segregated in the most comparable pairs of reinforced and unreinforced pavement. The first three projects, Grand Ledge-West, Erie-North and MilanNorth include reinforced and unreinforced sections in the same projects 14

so make nearly ideal comparisons with the exception that the spacing of contraction joints does vary. These pairs fall in number sequence of 1 & 6, 2 & 7 and 3 & 8. The other comparable pairs, 4 & 9 and 5 & 10, represent projects in the same general locality selected for comparable soil condition and traffic. The last two projects, Nos. 11 and 12, are special cases of pavements with short slab lengths of 20 ft. unreinforced in keeping with some current practice. They were included to determine by direct comparison whether such a design resulted in better or worse pavement performance. All of the data included in Table I are important and which item, if any, is the more important depends upon which particular aspect of pavement performance is under consideration. It is of no value to discuss each item in this table. The data are there for the record and for reference when pertinent to the discussion at hand. Table II likewise records results of the survey on each project for record purposes and for future reference. Much of this information is presented graphically in a form much more convenient for discussion. There are, however, a few items which will not be recorded elsewhere and to which attention should be directed at this point. The age of each project is given by the year built and it is well to note that there are three projects built in 1930, 1931 and 1935 which are much older than most of the group. The Milan project built in 1930 which includes the Sample Pair 3 and 6 was an experimental road and included both reinforced and unreinforced sections. Thus, a direct comparison of the Sample Pair is perfectly valid. However, comparisons between this early project and the other more recent unreinforced projects built during the war years should recognize the much longer period of service of the Milan project. The project north of Tecumseh designated as Sample 4 and built in 1931 15

was the only reinforced concrete project comparable in most factors other than age with the unreinforced pavement, Sample No. 9, which was built in 1944. This makes the much more satisfactory performance rating of the older project even more significant than otherwise would be the case. Similarly, in Sample Pair 5 and 10, the reinforced section in Sample 5 was built in 1935 while the unreinforced section, Sample 10, was built in 1944. Here again the more satisfactory rating of reinforced pavement gains added emphasis from the greater period of service. The last two projects, Samples 11 and 12, must be considered somewhat apart as they represent special conditions although they are valid examples of the weakness of unreinforced concrete pavements and short length slabs. They have been subdivided into(a)and(b)to designate sections in which special conditions produced a marked difference in behavior. In Sample lla, the placing of a concrete recap over an old pavement apparently represents a unusually severe test for a concrete slab with its inherent lack of structural continuity. The Cracking Index, CI, of 58 per cent represents an abnormal progression of slab subdivision for a comparatively young pavement. In Sample 12a and 12b, the special condition is the difference in traffic volume between the traffic lane and the passing lane. While no quantitative measure of actual load applications is available, this obvious difference has produced significant differentials in several factors of pavement performance. This is particularly evident in the roughness values which in the passing lane is within what is considered acceptable and in the traffic lane is definitely rated as extremely rough. The phenomenon here represented is quite evident in several of the heavily traveled expressways in this area which were built during the war years where the 16

combination of a deficiency in structural continuity was emphasized by poor compaction of subgrade or sand subbases. If one doubts the significance of such figures and the importance of such developments from the standpoint of driver reaction, it should be illuminating to observe the regularity with which motorists shift almost immediately to the smoother passing lane on typical sections of the roads under discussion. It is generally accepted among Highway Department engineers that these roads must be scheduled for early recapping even though they are now only a little more than 10 years old. As previously noted, those measures of pavement performance in Table II which can be illustrated by diagram or photograph will be so presented in the figures appended to this report. In the following discussion, these figures will be presented in consecutive order with such brief comment as appears pertinent. As a whole, however, the photographs and diagrams represent an accumulation of factual data quite capable of standing on its own feet and of telling a story more convincing than words. Figure 1 presents two aerial views of a reinforced concrete pavement, Sample 4, now approaching 25 years of age which is still in a remarkable state of preservation. Almost 75 per cent of the 100 ft. slabs are still uncracked and such cracks as have formed have retained reasonable continuity in structural action with little crack faulting or opening. The lower view over a fairly heavy fill and culvert illustrates that even a well designed concrete pavement will crack when its subgrade support is deficient but even here its serviceability has been quite satisfactorily preserved. Figure 2 represents typical unreinforced pavements, Sample 9 at the top and Sample 8 on the bottom. The former represents the subdivision of 40 ft. slabs in a pavement only 10 years old. The continuity ratio of less 17

than unity indicates that this pavement has entered a stage of progressive failure which is designated by a cracking index of 31 per cent. This stage is one which indicates the need for early recapping as joint and crack faulting and the corresponding high roughness value is approaching unacceptable limits. The bottom picture in Figure 2 shows a typical section of the unreinforced portion of the oldest project in the survey. Its service performance has been better than most such pavements. The continuity ratio is just unity indicating a remaining period of anticipated life. It is quite rough but the roughness survey did not segregate the reinforced and unreinforced sections. The combined roughness value of 270 indicates that the roughness on both types has become quite objectionable from the standpoint of riding quality and it will probably be recapped soon. Figure 3 shows typical cracks in reinforced pavement in the two top pictures and in unreinforced pavement in the two lower pictures. The comparison in width of crack opening speaks for itself. The surface spalling in both types of pavement is shown in the older cracks on the left and illustrate a problem of increasing maintenance and increasing roughness of the riding surface. In Figure 4 are shown examples of crack faulting in an unreinforced pavement, Sample 9, that is only 10 years old. In the top picture, the consistent and excessive vertical displacement results in a ladder type of crack shadows that is visible for a considerable distance looking in the direction of oncoming traffic. In Figure 5 are shown examples of joint faulting in two unreinforced pavements, Samples 10 and 12, where the distance between joints has been reduced to 20 feet. The top picture shows the same ladder type of joint 18

shadows previously noted in the case of crack faulting. The lower left hand picture shows an example of excessive joint faulting in pavement, Sample 12, where displacement has developed not only between slabs in the traffic lane but also with a differential in the longitudinal joint between the traffic lane and the passing lane. Seven bar graphs have been prepared in Figures 6 to 11 to provide a visual comparison of the slab performance data given in Table I. Such graphs make possible the important comparisons at a glance as soon as one becomes familiar with the symbols which are the same in all graphs. The direct relationship between comparable pairs of pavement samples may be seen as well as an integrated comparison between all reinforced and unreinforced pavements. In Figure 6, it is shown that with one exception, both the maximum crack width and average crack width of unreinforced pavements is measureably greater than that of reinforced pavements. This is not surprising as the steel must obviously exert direct control on the crack opening but the consistent and fairly substantial difference on all jobs under practical service conditions still has its impact on the thoughtful observer. In connection with Samples 11 and 12 where crack openings are quite small, it should be noted that these figures apply to 20 ft. slabs in which the pavement is relatively immunized against cracking by close spacing of open joints. It should also be noted that all crack openings are quite variable and difficult to measure precisely. The figures are based on critical measurements of a fairly large sample done as accurately and carefully as competent observers may be expected to work. The same general observations can be made with respect to Figure 7 which shows the maximum and average crack faulting for all projects. The 19

same pattern of comparison has been followed and again without exception, the reinforced pavements are definitely superior. In fact, the faulting is practically negligible in all reinforced while it is quite serious in three of the five unreinforced pavements. The joint faulting shown in Figure 8 follows very closely the pattern shc m in crack faulting except that joint faulting in the reinforced pavements is in most cases quite comparable to that in the unreinforced. That is to be expected, however, as there is no reason to expect any difference in faulting at the joints lacking load transfer in both types of pavement. Figures 9 and 10 bring together the most important and far reaching results of the entire investigation. In Figure 9 is shown the original slab length in feet and the slab lengths which have developed after the various periods of service. With only a few notable exceptions among the entire group of twelve samples of pavement, the final slab lengths fall in the range from 10 to 20 ft. regardless of the original slab length. The final slab length in all reinforced pavements is substantially greater than in the comparable unreinforced pavements. One notable project which has maintained an exceptional length of uncracked slab is represented by Samples 1 and 6. This is the youngest project in the study being built in 1946. It gives every evidence of being a superior job in construction and was laid on a superior subgrade. While both the reinforced and unreinforced sections are still in excellent condition, it was included in the study because it was felt that even under these almost ideal conditions, it was already beginning to develop a measureable difference in performance between the reinforced and unreinforced sections. Another project departing from the general average of results is 20

Sample No. 4 which has maintained a much greater than average slab length for even reinforced pavement. This is the oldest pavement in the group being built in 1930. Its unusually good performance has already been commented upon and is at least in part probably due to a superior natural subgrade as well as its advantage of structural continuity due to the steel reinforcing. The two other projects which deserve special comment are Samples 11 and 12 where the original slab lengths of 20 ft. are a controlling factor. Even though these projects are only a little over ten years old, in Sample 11 slab subdivision has advanced into the stage of progressive failure with a high cracking index of 58 per cent in Section (a) and 28 per cent in Section (b). In Sample 12 while there has not been a large decrease in the original slab length, slab subdivision has started in spite of the short slabs originally built and is proceeding in the two lanes involved with a definite relationship to traffic intensity. Figure 10 is closely related to the data in Figure 9 and is simply another method of presenting this most important aspect of pavement performance. The Continuity Ratios, CR, for all pavement samples are presented on the left hand diagram. The Cracking Indexes, CI, are shown on the right hand for those pavements where slab subdivision has progressed into what has been designated as the stage of progressive failure. In all comparable pairs, there is a significant differential in favor of the reinforced pavements, none of which have a continuity ratio of less than unity which separates normal slab subdivision from cracking in the stage of progressive failure. The average continuity ratio of all reinforced pavements is close t to o as compared to an average of a little over one for the unreinforced pavements. 21

There are four samples, all unreinforced pavements, which have entered the stage of progressive failure with continuity ratios less than unity and cracking indexes varying from 27 to 58 per cent. In order to establish some perspective of what these cracking index figures mean and to provide a visual concept of the condition of the concrete pavements involved, several examples have been worked out and are given below. The first example refers to the top photograph in Figure 2 in which there are four 40 ft. slabs with a fairly advanced cracking pattern. The first example will be designated as Slab A, the lower left-hand slab of the four in the photograph. It has three transverse cracks. Slab B is the lower right hand slab and has 32 transverse cracks and 1 longitudinal crack. Slab A 40 Equivalent Slab Length.i 3- 10' 10 Continuity Ratio CR 0.67 15 Cracking Index CI l100 - 0.67 x 100 33% Slab B Equivalent Slab Length - 4 - 8.9' 1 / 3.5 Equivalent Slab Width - =5.5' 2 Continuity Ratio CR = 8*9 x 5.5 0.30 11 x 15 Cracking Index CI = 100 - 0.30 x 100 = 70% The above examples are taken from Pavement Sample 9 which as shown on Figure 10 has an over-all cracking index of 31%. Slab A is closely representative of this entire project as to the numerical value of the 22

cracking index and also as to the type of cracking. There is heavy crack faulting throughout this project and the roughness value of 263 shown on Figure 11 is rated as extremely rough and will require early recapping for this reason if for no other. There are only a few longitudinal cracks such as in Slab B but where present they represent a closer approach to impending failure consistent with a cracking index of 70%. For another example, reference is made to Plate 1 of 5 from Pavement Sample 11 which is on page 51 in the Appendix. This is an example from the concrete recap of Section (a) of this project with a cracking index of 58% shown in Figure 10. Obviously, slab subdivision in this pavement has reached a stage requiring early resurfacing if the pavement is to be salvaged. Plate 4 of 5 from this same project on page 54 of the Appendix shows a crack pattern where the old pavement had been removed so its inherent weakness was not reflected as in the recapped section. The cracking index of 28% in Figure 10 would indicate that this pavement is in the early stage of progressive failure although resurfacing may be postponed for several years. Finally, consideration may be given to riding quality or pavement roughness represented graphically in Figure 11. In commenting upon the roughometer surveys earlier, some dissatisfaction was expressed with this more or less conventional type of roughness measurement. The equipment now used is attached to a standard passenger car and observations are taken at a normal driving speed. While expressed in inches per mile, the figures are only relative as there is an accumulation of bouncing and damping of actual vertical displacement that removes quantitative accuracy as related to actual vertical displacement in the pavement from any assumed reference plane. 23

In these particular surveys, relatively short sections of reinforced and unreinforced pavement within several of the projects were not segregated. This destroyed much of the comparative value of these measurements on those particular projects. It is felt that equipment should be made and operated in such a way as to give an accurate measure of actual vertical displacement in any selected length of pavement. Further, it should be possible to identify the displacement in terms of the faulting at cracks and joints as distinguished from other types of vertical displacement. These are all imperfections in the present data which can be remedied at a future date but were not available for this report. Taking the data that are available as shown in Figure 11, there are some results of value. In discussing these results, the following tentative rating scale has been set up to serve as a basis of evaluating the roughness measurements. Inches Per Mile Rating Less than 100 Exceptionally Smooth 100 - 125 Very Good 125 - 150 Good 150 - 175 Fair 175 - 200 Acceptable 200 - 225 Poor 225 - 250 Very Poor 250/ Extremely Rough The average roughness of all reinforced pavement samples is 193 inches per mile which would be rated as acceptable while the average for all unreinforced pavement falls at 234 inches per mile rated as very poor. The differential is mainly significant but as already pointed out, these ratings are quite tentative. When equipment and procedures have been improved, more positive results can be obtained. 24

CONCLUSION In conclusion, it is desireable to summarize the significant results of the pavement performance surveys and point out research needed for further progress toward the objectives of the investigation. Significant Results of Surveys 1. More precise criteria for evaluating pavement performance or adequacy have been formulated involving specifically structural continuity and riding quality. 2. Definite procedures have been established for measuring structural adequacy in quantitative terms. These are the Continuity Ratio, CR, and the Cracking Index, CI, which have been applied to the projects included in this investigation with results which appear to be promising for wider application. 3. Measurement of riding quality in terms of roughness measurements were of considerable value but equipment and procedures should be improved to obtain more positive results. 4. The results of the pavement performance surveys demonstrated in convincing fashion a clear superiority of reinforced concrete pavement in every aspect studied. The structural continuity provided by steel reinforcing provided superior riding quality over a longer period of years. In more specific terms, the steel reinforcement provided significant and favorable differentials in decreased cracking and crack faulting, increased lengths of uncracked slab and smoother riding pavements. 5. The data gathered and significant comparisons which they afford gave a convincing demonstration that a searching and objective study of existing pavements in their normal environment under normal traffic 25

and loading conditions provides the most revealing method of measuring pavement performance and the most effective approach to the solution of problems in highway design. Under the heading of needed research having in mind the immediate objectives of this research program, the following should be given early attention: 1. A comprehensive series of loading tests and supplementary experiments to demonstrate the value of structural continuity and Controlled Flexibility in concrete pavement. 2. Continued surveys and analyses of existing pavements on projects already catalogued in this investigation and others where valuable data on pavement performance are in evidence. It is believed that procedures developed in this investigation and presented in this report are ready for wider application and give promise of providing a large volume of revealing factual data needed to bring these important problems of highway design forcefully to the attention of those who must determine the future of highway development in this country. 3. A searching investigation into the structural action of steel reinforcing at cracks including the continuation and completion of fatigue studies already in progress. 4. Development of more adequate methods of measuring pavement roughness and application of these methods in the accumulation of factual data on this important aspect of pavement performance. Respectfully submitted, 26

TABLE I PROJECT IDENTIFICATION No. Location Project Sample No. of Thickness Width Joint Spacing Subbase Subgrade R NR Number Location Lanes in Inches in Ft. Expansion Contraction Sand Soils 1. Grand Ledge, FAS 23-6, Sta. 602+00 2 8" Unif. 22 None 1001 15" Cohesive M-43 West C4 to 770+21_ 2. Erie North, F 58-25, Sta. 286+60 2 10-8-10 22 120' 30' 12" Cohesive US-25 C5 to 310+30 0 e7 tt " p tt II! 1 I t II 2 3. Milan North, FO 81-22, Sta. 211+00 2 9" Unif. 20 100' No No Varies US-23 C2 to 273+00 ________ 8.I 1 "1 " 2 I. it III i, 4. Tecumseh, MO 46-18, Sta. 122+62 2 9-7-9 20 100' No No Granular M-52 North C1 to 179+12____ 9. Tipton West, M 46-42, Sta. 52+83 2 8" Unif. 22 240' 40' 15" Cohesive M-50 C1 to 53+69 SE 5. Bronson, F 12-19, Sta. 389+70 2 10-8-10 20 60' 30' No Granular US-112 East C3 to 416+04 __ _____ 10. Bronson, F 12-19, Sta. 150+00 2 8" Unif. 22 120' 20' 12" Granular US-112 West C7 to 209+93 11. Sturgis East, SNF 78-25 Sta. 270+20 2 8|!" Unif. 22 120' 20' No Granular US-112 C1 to 313+10 12. Erie South, F 58-30, Sta. 67+77 4 9" Unif. 22 120' 20' 18" Cohesive US-24A C3 to 118+70 ______ ___ R = Reinforced Slabs; NR - Non-Reinforced Slabs

TABLE II SLAB PERFORMANCE DATA No. Year Traffic Roughness Crack Width Crack Faulting Joint Faulting Cracked Present Continuity Cracking Built Count* In./Mi. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Slabs,% Length Ratio Index,% 1. 1946 2100 112 1/8" HL None None None None 36.8 61.8' 4.12 2. 1940 8500 198 1/8" 1/8" None None 3/8" 1/8" 84.5 16.3' 1.09 o 3. 1930 4500 270 3/16" 1/8" 1/16" Small 1/8" 1/16" 100.0 18.8' 1.25 4. 1931 3500 207 1/16" HL 1/16" Small 3/16" 1/16" 26.7 35.8' 2.39 5. 1935 4000 179 1/16" 6 Small 1/4" 1/8" 84.7 15.5' 1.03 6. 1946 2100 1/2" 3/16" 1/16" Small 1/16" Small 34.9 34.0' 2.27 7. 1940 8500 -- 1/4" 1/16" 1/4" 1/8" 1/2" 1/4" 100.0 15.0' 1.00 a 8. 1930 4500 _- 1/4" 3/16" 1/8" 1/16" 1/8" 1/16" 100.0 15.3' 1.00 o 9. 1944 —. 263 1/4" 1/8" 1/2" 3/16" 1/2" 3/16" 100.0 10.8' 0.69 31 10. 1943 4000 235 1/8" 1/16" 1/8" 1/16" 1/4" 1/8" 83.5 11.0' 0.73 27 o lla. 1943 3600 225 1/16" HL 1/16" Small 1/8" 1/16" 83.9 6.9' 0.42 58 llb. 82.5 10.8' 0.72 28 12a. 1942 4500 279 1/16" HL 3/4" 1/8" 3/4" 3/16" 17.8 17.1' 1.14 12b. |178 7.9 18.8' 1.25 * Vehicles per day for the year 195?. HL Stands for Hairline. lla. Recapped section. 12a. Traffic lane data. llb. Uncapped section. 12b. Passing lane data.

.................................................................................................................................... -..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Tv-nical Air -Photo. Reinforced Concrete Pavement M46 -18, c 1 No. 7-6............

.......................................................................................................................................... xx 77:::xxxx xx ---------- UM M,......................................................................................................................................................................... - _ _................................................................................................................................................................................. --------------- -............ -----------------.................................................................................................................................... Namibia.............. At..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Typical Cracking Non-Reinforced Pavement. m46-42,cl No. 1023526........................................................................................................................ I........... 1.40.........................

4, yl:'W:i't,>>S: ~'~~E.>.Stn0 Z _ r * 0 r"0 q C0.i..:ii i.i...i.i..ii ii:: i:.i iiii I..z I.............0 0 0 C\j P4ii~i Pi O H" 4Cl) I!::Y t X:s:::~+ c; _ c; 41- * i0 0 S U^\ F 0 0..~ -.-~::t:'iD iii.....:.....~~ ~~:~.:.:i * _ ~.... _O............ 0-:il....:::!

::in: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. — I........ E-iC o- cu o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~ -~H -0J a)Q 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a 4.) P!; 4 N rdo' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cp.. prD r-I X.,-.............................''..................i:?ii i?: i::iii o r-4 0 0 KIM~il~. ~ 0o N............. 0 04 oed......

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.:..................v -.....00 lX iD,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.e..i...........++.g.g.+.....: 14jAl X::..:+.:..:+.>{.......Ei +: S Ei E Ei j:: X....1 v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;.."...j... - g 1'.'.''.'''''" i..0 Traffic.. F12-19, c7 No. 1... _ -, _ 11111111 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........ _55E *,t X,;.............................ni N nT l l J n F l n i N n e f c ~~~~~~~Crc hdw NnReinforced Section.Scin F12-l9,c7g~c No. 4.F2lc o......... X.:..............~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:i..........~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'Y_~Iii:-:i.:........................... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' " ~ilii " ~.:::: ___ -~-::_:lii-if ~i: X-ii-j ~i~i- i -i — i iiiiiiigi- i — ii i-i i......................ii i-................~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~._ — ~ _ — -- _ _~- -_::-.:: —:- ~~ —: —-:~-_ —................. B::A'R~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~:..........................::::B:::,:::::::.............: _:. _: -:::.... -.:-::-::::........ 1-.1.111.............................. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:,:::.:: iri3.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: X.: X1, ~ ~ ~ ~ ii~i l........................... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~!XX........................ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j::::~is:-:. -_::: —::::, —:: --- -,:- -— l:~i: —_ —::i~ii~ Crack Shadows on Non-Reinforced Section:::::'ax: Emphasied by Fultingin Diretion o x""::::':::::::::::... ri:::::::::.... -:::-:::::::::: —:~~~Cla:: c:::................. Nikkei~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,. ~ ~ i~iiiiii~:.: -_i_::::- -— ~:~~iiiii-::5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l x~~~~~ I~~~~~~X r *' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"8~~~~~~'. *;- ql~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~XlX............~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:::C:illlili:::-g::~liill~~::: Typical "Open" Crack and Faulting in Non- Typical Joint Faligi o-en're Reinf orced Section. Section. F12-19,c7 No. 4. F12-19,c7 N 5 Figure 5

~6 8 2 2 NRFC it^^^ii7lh 7 16,5r3 3 M U-M 4 4 E 1g7 ////////// 9 9 - i-6 5 5;32 10 10 I:;:i,:j |REINFORCED -e liIb lb 3 I 6 E 12a 12a ^ 6 E 12b 12b 2 4 8'' 4 \' 4 8 t 8 I 8 U A IT IPROJECT MAXIMUM CRACK WIDTH IN INCHES NO. AVERAGE CRACK WIDTH IN INCHES FIGURE 6

NONE I NONE i 6 6 1 32 NONE 2 2 NONE iwws^7 7 ^^^| REINFORCED 4 4 32~-,6j * dNON- REINFORCED 1202^g 35 I 3 II10 0 I 3 I 53 3 4 7 2 8 1 1 M AXIM U M CRAC FAULTI G IN PROJECT 8 S MAXIMUM CRACK FAULTING IN INCHES NO. AVERAGE CRACK FAULTING IN INCHES FIGURE 7

T6 6 6 232 8 /X//8 8 16 3 I~'6!. N.. | 16I 3-, A 2 9 9 1/////////// i^^^S 8^i6 4 L10 10 8 l[1111< lREINFORCED 8||la 11a" E, NON-REINFORCED:t7 3c 2a 1V 7 ///7/////////////~ 43-e 12? b 12 b 3////////////1 3 5 3'11 0115 4 8 2 8 4 PROJECT 8 8 4 MAXIMUM JOINT FAULTING IN INCHES NO. AVERAGE JOINT FAULTING IN INCHES FIGURE 8

100Ex 61li.836 1. 6 50 M6 6 50 3 002 2 16.3 100 3 3 18.8 oo//////////////////////8 3 /// 5.,oo 4 35.8 30 t "~5 5 ^ 31m,5.5 20! /la lid 6.9 20 / lib lib 1 l0.8 20.1 2a 1 I 1/ //7-. 1 20, 12b 2 ///////18.8 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 ORIGINAL SLAB LENGTH IN FT PROJECT PRESENT SLAB LENGTH IN FT NO. LZm ~ REINFORCED FIGURE 9 ////,/NON- REIFNFORED

w old 0 z ~~4.1~2n _~ o1>< I 1.091oo 2 &<Em4 REINFORCED 11I ~ NON-REINFORCED 4.12Lll~hi~T ~ NO 2.39F4.001 5 1.14 [///,/// 12a( 1.2*5 / /2b 12b 5 4 3 2 I 0 0 / 10 20 30 40 50 60 CONTINUITY RATIO PROJECT CRACKING INDEX NO. FIGURE 10

30 279 270 263 W y25- 5_ _ _ __ _ 2355 NON-REINFORCED 235? 225 225 AVERAGE ROUGHNESS = 234 IN./MILE wr 207 O2O0 g 198 _____ | _____-___ REINFORCED 0t~-~~~~~~~~~~~~ P20~~~~~~ ^ ^P l79AVERAGE ROUGHNESS 193 IN./MILE CO) 179 178 w I Z 150 112 c) c) 100 w z I I2 5 10 Ila lb 12a 12b QI50 1 3 4 9 51 l l 2 2 PROJECT NO. ___ REINFORCED V,/ ANON- REINFORCED FIGURE II

APPENDIX AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND STRIP MAPS CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECORDS

—' p 0 o- ------— e- -----— e- ------ e —---- e —---- 602 STATIONS 603 604 6o05 606 607 RAISED GRADE (0 TO 4 FEET) CONOVER SERIESH~~~~~~~~~~~ II' 6o7 608 609 610 6u 612 RAISED RADPE (O TO4 FT) * | *~ — MIAMI SgRI~8 - CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECORD PROJECT FPAS 23-6, c4; GRAD LEDGE WEST 1953 Reinforced Plate 1 of 17

612 613 615 6 617 RAISED GRADE (0 TO 4 FEET) MAMI SERIES 617 618 19 620 621 622 24" CP CULVERT RAISED GRADE (o TO 4 FEET) /////////////////////// MIAMI SIs -- COOVR SIREs - CORRELATED PAVEmENT CONDITION RECOID PROJECT FAS 23-6, C4; GRAND LEDGE WEST 1953 Non-Reinforced shown ////// Plate 2 of 17

622 623 624 625 626 627 //////////////////////////////////////////// RAISE) GRADE (0 TO 4 T) /////////////////////////// CONOVR SERIES -BROOSTON SERIES 627 628 629 630 631 632 6' x 12' BOX CULVET f tfffff ff fffffm///////////////////////////// RAISH) GRAD (0 TO 4 FT) //////////////////////////////////// CONOVER SRIES MIAMI SERIES" CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECORD PROJECT FAS 23-6, C4; GRAND LEDGE WEST lon-Renforced hon //////1953 Plate 3 of 17

0 IC I I I 632 633 634 635 636 637 ////////////////////////////////////////7 mIESD GRADE (o TO 4 FEET) /// //////////////////////// r^z~~~~~~~ ----- BROOBSTON SRES 637 638 639 64 641 642,l ~tlHfllt lttfmfffllmfftllimiffHIIIHIi ttA.ID G (0 T 4 FKET} IIIF/ 1/ ///D111111O 41 "M11//1)111111111 BROOESTOH BEERINTS — * —— Sff —I nS SERIE -- CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECORD PROJECT FAS 23-6, C4; GRAND LEDGE WEST 1953 on-Reinforced shown ////// Plate 4 of 17

642 643 644 645 646 24" CP CULVERT'^fffffl~~)~lfffltll~llffl fffRAI)fsED GRmADE (o TO 4 mr) //11111111111/ 111111111rT/)ill//////// CONOVER SERIeS 647 648 649 65o 651 A it it 1111111111111 $t// RASD GROBAI (0 TO 4 FET) ------------------— CONOVER SERIES CORRELATED PAVEMIENT CONDITION RECORD PROJKCT FAS 23-6, C4; GRAND LEDGE WEST 1953 Non-Reinforced shown //// Plate 5 of 17

652 653 654 655 656 RAISED GRAOBE (0 TO 4 FEET) CONOVER SERI IS PROJECT FAS 23-6, C4; GRAND L WEST 65Reinforce7 658 659 Plate660 66 -- 24 cp CuJL"VT RAISED GRADE (O TO 4 BT) --------------— *-r —----------— COl ER SXRIR B d CORRELATED PAVEMEN T CONDITION RECORD PROJECT PAS 23-6, C4; GRuD WEST 1953 Reinrorced Plate 6 of 17

RAISED GRADE (0 TO i mBT) 667 69 676 RAISED GRADS (0 TO FI ESFT) -M- MIAMI SERIECORRELATED PAVEiiENT CONDITION RECORD PROJECT FAS 23-6, C4; GRAND I3DOE WEST 19R3 Reinforced Plaite 7 of 17

672 673 674 65 76 MIAMI SIRI - II I, I,, Ii, U I i= 677 678 679 680 681 RAISD GRADE ( TO i4 CT) MIAMI 8iRm I CORRELATED PAVE\iENT CONDITION RECORD PROJECT FAS 23-6, C4; cRAOD LEDO WEST 1953 Reinforced Plate 8 of 17

I' t I I II = ^ IN I 682 663 684 685 686 RAISHD GRADE (0 TO 4 PEET) ////////////////// — MIAMI SERIES \0 686 687 688 689 690 691 24" CP CULVERT fh////////// ///////////////II////////////// R BAISED GRADE (0 TO 4r FET) 111/////////// 1////////////////////////ITA -MIAMITEOSRIES ** | ** COHOrO GBRIS - S CORRELATED PAVEWfENT CONDITION RECOID PROJECT PAS 23-6, C4; GRAD LEDGE WEST 1953 Non-Rein forced hown/ /// Plate 9 of 17

III I I I I I 1 1 l I I 1 1 l3 Offff~ffffffffft~tY~ff O''//'//'///'~'/'//'/'// RA G RADE O T O 4OPUT) 696 697 698 699 700 76 ^////////////////////11///////////I////I////IW//Z D 0a1 (0 TO ~4 MST) //////////////////////////////////1////////// | — MIAMI SEIRZ CORIN~E S -- Non-Reinforced hobn //I/ / Plate 10of 17

701 702 703 704 705 24" CP CULVIRP,///////////f///////////////////////////////// RAISED aRAX (o TO 4 FBIT) /I////I/111111/1111111111/11//1/1111111-///// - CONOTEI -] — 1, I 706 707 708 709 710 *///////////f//////////////////////////// / RAISC RAD (O TO 4 ) ////////////////////////////////t///// MIAMI RtR CORRELATED PAVEkENT CONDITION RECOID PROJECT FAS 23-6, C4; GRAND ILDLG WEST Non-Reinforced shown /1953 Platell of 17

711 712 713?75 i I I I 1 1 11 I I I [ = = ^ ////A////////////////////////////////////////// AS O GRADE (0 TO PU FET) //////////////////////////////////////////, I I I II1ItIt11111111 11RS G I I I I ITII I 716 717 718 719 720 ////////////////////////////////////////////// RAIS D OGADE (0 TO 4 IIT) I/////////////////////////////////////////// MIAMI SERIES CORRELATED PAVEkiENT CONDITION RECO1D PROJECT FAS 23-6, C4; GRAND LKDGE WEST Non-Reinforced shown //////953 Plate 12of 17

721 722 723 724 725 RAIseD GRADE (0 TO FEET) 11 11 174Y MIAMI SERIC 726 727 728 729 730 RAISE GRADE (0 TO & FEET) MIAMI SERI CORRfELATED PAVEMJENT CONDITION RECORD PROJECT FAS 23-6, c; GRAND LEDGE WWT 19h f Non.'Reinforced shown 1111 Plate Uf1

731 732 733 734 735 EAISRD GRAD! (0 TO 4 F T) CONO0VER S!RIeE~ v v~~~~~~~~~c X 736 737 738 739 740 PAGISX RADE (0 TO 4 J'UT) CONOVER SERIS CORRELATED PAVEIkIENT CONDITION RECOiD PROJECT 11AS 23-6, c4; GRAD LEDGEn WlT Non-Reinforced shovn /11/1/?latell of 17

I I 1 I i I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I \ ~ il 741l 742 7143 7Uk7~ IRAISEr GRADE (O TO 1 EET) COXOVER SRI 746 747 849 RAISED GRADEC (O TO 4 FEET) 111111 Illitill/11111111 CONOVER SERTIE CORRELATED PAVEWiENT CONDITION RECORD PROJECT FAS 23-6, c4; GRAND LEGE WEST 1953 Non-Beinrorced shown HHH Pldte.Sof1'

I 1 1 I I b l J' I'l ] l I I 751 752 753 754 755 4' x 6' BOX CULVBRT J~~~~~//////////// —-- BRAISED GRADE (o TO 4 TSET) 756 757 758 759 760 PRAISED GRADE (0 TO 4 FEET) CONOVER SKRIRS CORRELATD PAVEaENT CONDITION RECORD PROJECT FAS 23-6, C4; GRAmD ILDGE WEST 1953 Non-Reinforced ahown ////// Platel6 of 17

7'62 773 775 RAISED GRADE (0 TO 4' ET) -----------------------— CONOVER SERIES 766 767 768 769 70 RAISED GRADE (O T BPUT) CONOVKR SERImE CORRELATED PAVEkfENT CONDITION RECORD PROJECT FAS 23-6, c4; GRAND LSDGE WEST 1953 Reinforced Plaite 17 of 17

... 11' I/. ii,/ I' 1I III I! I' I I 287 STATIONS 288 289 290 291 18" CP CULVERT II/////////////11//11/111111 // //1//II/ RAISEID GRADE (O TO 2 EUT) 292 293 294 295 296 18" CP CLVBRT RAIBBD GRADE (O TO 2 PET) TOLEDO SILT LOAM CORRELATED PAVEiMENT CONDITION RECOID) PROJECT F 58-25, C5; BRIE NORH 1953 Plate 1 of 3 Non-Rein orced shown / Plate 1 of 3

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1.... I! I' iII, I f 297 298 299 300 301 18" C CCLVT - RAISED GRADE (O TO 2 FEET) TOLDO S ILT IDAM 0 0 O S o 302 303 304 305 306 -RASMD GRADE (O TO 2 FEET) TOLEDO SILT LOAM CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECORD PROJECT F 58-25, C5; ERIE NORT 1953 Reinforced Plate 2 of 3

II I I I I I II I 1/ 1 1 1 307 308 309 310 18" CP CULVsRT RAISED GRADE (0 TO 2 FEET) TOLEDO SILT LOAM CORRELATED PAVEiMENT CONDITION RECOID PROJECT F 58-25, C5; ERIE NORTH 1953 Reinforced Plate 3 of 3

-— ^ —— / 7: *: Iy-'I I I - f. -..... 2/_2........:......; S.A LDAMoj'RnP,. s=T~ ---....:. WAS.BB, SM WAS SILT L..................................!. |.|1 | ||1'1: ||::1."11" /;^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^,,^^il,I1!^ S...... _ —---,. — _ ---------------- /',',....:...',,.',...''.,.:..,,"I.":'"".':.....'" *:-:::-::: ff::::-:::::j-lt a: ^: -:: i::'i::::':SILT ID M f:: i":onm-Re ros. /f,,, Plate 1 of 7 WAM ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ C 11/ Il///l//ll11//11111 ~~~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SSTIT LallU~~~~~~ —---—........................................... xax'..................................0X ~ c ~...................................................... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I -~~5............................t e 1 o f

2Z2 Z~3 Zz4 Z3' Z2 6................::::.............. NAPPANUZ SILT LOAM COW4A SANDY LOAM Z27 B22 S5 Z, i32 _,//,111////1//1//111GRAD! um //f/ltll"////111t"Il NK/"' —!!lllltflf1111111!l.1!11 1IL: 7f1' /'.!!!/1t //////iHI//IT/' ----------------------- COymF SANDY -LAM * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ CO..'N'::. Y.I A................................::::::............. CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECORD FBOJ"T F0 81-22, C2; MIIAN NORBH Non-Reinforced shn ////// Plate 2 of 7 /II~~~IIIL IIIIIIIIIIIIL IIU.................................. ------ - -----........... BBD YLQ A E h9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........................ va Non-Reiaoreed *hown /1//Yae2o

Z3/ 232 233 $234 233 L —15" CP CULVBRT f//ii/ //////////f///f/ F///////////////////,m /,/:////////i/m fll WTi7'....... ------ COLOM. SADT IDa a ro j 2ii i ii32 j jiiiii j'ii jiiiiiiii2 i223222ii[0i40ii 4t'#iR E:::ir-:::::i~::::R::::::~:., l —.................................................. —--—....... __..... O - -- A —- -- --- --- — O -2 C2- -II ----- Ho-eafr$ 237 23_ _.... 1! /! I I I I I I!..1.111 1 1 / 11/I//1tl//11/111//111//1//!....... CORRELATED PAVE"'~MT CONDITION RECOI^D P1OJECT FO 81-22, C2; [ NORTH lon-Reinforced e2~ ///n /// Plate 3 of 7

.0 Z41 } 2 243 8' 8 7' BOX: Ct'VBe Xi/|////// Cam/// --- -- ---- lmj>' Fu —-- ---- COLOMA SmDY -,c cLOAM i _- IC~....... —--- ------------- - L L FILL 1 GUT COIlmN LOA! SAND CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECORD POJCT FO 81-22, C2; M.ah NORrH'E o-Rinoce m /,/,/ ~1953 Plate 4 of 7.on-. e in..or.d.hu IIII/.

- CP _ ^ - -- y j _ __ O —T - - C. +: ------ Fit ----- ----- -------- - ______ -- _ —— __.............. - --------- ---- ----------— A............................ m., _.......'....................................................... - A....'.. _ _ _ -- -- -- C W! ffi - - -' - - - - -'' -- - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —--—....... _l _...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... -- - - ~~~COLOMII LI~ A D -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..................... CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECORDS JBCT ~! 81-22, 02; ~ Ol': 1953 Reinforced ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Plate 5 of'7

I')~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,S',Y7 ZJ- ~'8 S Z 60 ~ 61 ~~~~~~~.......................i..... i 1 1 i!......................... i ll!........................... ~~~................ - - - - - - - - - - - - - —............. I... —— ~ ^ —---.n.................. i!.........................._......................,..........,................... -..........................!,,,1...............'l......,.....!................................_.,......................... ON Z6- Z63 ZG64 ~6~ Z66 I-10 6* BOX CULVIBT FILL MUCK AND flAT CORRELATED PAVEMILENT CONDITION RECORD PROJECT 70 81-'22, C2; MILAN NORTH 1953 Reinforced Plate 6 of 7

267 2 68 Z69 z 70 -----— FELLC U- -- CUTICOLOM SAHI) LQ - --- -?COLOA SA4tl LOAMM --— M T.-~-~~i..:. 7.~I.-~........:.......................................iiii.i i 27/ 72 7,3 -- " C? CoLVmET.............A.....-......................... CORRELATED PAVEiENT CONDITION RECOID PROCT TO 81-22, 02; MIAI N OWTH 1953 Reinforced Plate 7 of 7

STATIONS /23 /z4 /ZS /z6 /27 /Z8 ~~~~ —----- ~~- O -— A............. —------------------ -OX LOAM r\) /23 /30 /3/ /3Z < /J3 18" 0? CULVERT RB~~~~~~~~eiz~forced Plate 1~~ i of 6iiiiiiii I u....... iiiiiii iiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iii........................ i.....!......................................................... Jl i I _......... PROJECT N ~6-18, C1; DCUEH NORT ~einforced Plate 1 of 6 ~:::::::::::::::,::j:jj:j::: t:~::::::::::FOX LOAM~::::: co~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::::::::::::~i:::::: -------------- --............ --— 1:::::::::::::::j:::::::::::::::::::::':::::::::::::::::j-:::..:::~~:::.::::::::::::.:::::-:::::::::::::::::::::::.:::'~~~~~~~`rrrr.-rrrrr~~~rr-;Sijl::::::::::::: — -------- - ---::::::::::::i~~~j:;.,::~~:~: ~b~::t:.::::: t~~s.::::::::::::::::::::........................ a~~~~~~~:::~::::::~:~:::::~:::~:::..............................I............... ~~n~,~~~Y i~: ~ ~C~~QY~ Y Z~~.~~' ~ ~ ~ ~X:` E ~ I~ Z i~r~~~~.~ r~~ X ~:~........................................................................I.....................11.............

i~~~ E~S l ~l B co 9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'4~~~~~~~~~~Z 0# E.4.................. - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~........... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 29~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~uecnutvt

I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' 0 ccS DB~~~~~~~~c...............~~~ ii i~~~~~~~~i" i~~~~a Uecapitalizatioi ~~~~~~~ 3 o ~ ~ ~ ~~ 0........... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..............~~~~0.4 030~~~~

fr,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O 10~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0) z~~~~ I-' 0 -_-:::::, —-:- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fS 8 ~~~i7~~ jQ~~~~~~~ 3'

32..........................................................0 32~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....

0 i..................!i 0 3 3_iiiiai ~........................ 33-iiiii~ii-... Illliiiiiiiii-iiiiiiij j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j~~~. ij~~~~s~~s~~~ s~~.......',_ —i~~~~~~~~~~~~~iiiiiiil~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~l~~~~iii iii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~............................ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CI...........~~~~~~~~~~ iillllliiiiiiiiiiiiiijliI f t I I i I I I i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......

'0 04 0 4.) 0 I ttI r >~~~CO ||d|gI! 0 14D.. |........ -............. I............ H............ 1I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......0 1.....

Zi c' 4 1W 1101 43 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......:.:... B B. Ci; —_ a4..'........ 1....1 1.......................................:-,Sh''SSSS::.6 Bs -sBB-'l-; 00 J ) 0 t00 l000000000 0 0000000000000000000000000000............ S 11...... 1....11..1008.&. 1 1 1 1.........................4 0.............I = I1 1...............6................0 1 1 1> 1 1 1,0.............X tz t t..'-., w.'.' i..........,"'-:,""'.'..'..H 0 -...... -.0 - ss 0..* _ B35 [ Ba4B B B 3s tJ | 1-* r ~~~~~~~~a. _....... _ 1. 1..........111...1 1t 11 1........11 I... 1.11......I 1 1.1.1.1..........- 1 X 1 11............4 1 1 11....''-'t-S N.I.......- lg

0 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~l, 10 141 IFHI 1-0 aUK 0~~~~~~~~~~ 0 0~~ o~ Q....................... 36......i........1.1....> >........s~.:....|...I 1 I................ 1 1 1 1 S | 1't I I I 11:11:t 1 1g1 1 1 M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..................'S............t~..1 1 1.........1.1 }11 1 9 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..........1iI r 1 T~~~~d 1E I I I 11|1|1||.] 121 | I %~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........ d 1Z I0 I I I 11001"11 W t It1 1 1 X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...........................................I —..1.3 6

1"11111 --- - — r~~ —-—.w._-. — FL —-_ —...........-I - --.... 31 3i3 33 334.......a.J.......... ~.................................... _._............... -?.. FILL -------------------------------------------- 36 37 38 39 CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECOD1 PROJECT M4642, Cl; TIPTON WEST 1953 Non-Reinforced Plate 4 of 6

4.,~~~~~~~~~~~ 1%~~~~~~~~~% (I)~~~~~~0 ~ Cl) QA4 4Z' rOO HE 09) A _....... _...t1 1 1 W. =...........m 1.....|.. I...l*S t12...........hE 2 g s1 s, ~ ~ ~ ~ C 00-,-00_0s 00000-000000. f.. 0..........................................:...............:.. |:...I...I.I.I I I r t | 1 W 1 I G.......... * k~~~~~m

--- 00 —-0_ — -- - Iillii PROJECT:.6-~2, C1; TIPTON VElST Non-Blnf50orced Pate 6 of 6 Non-PEinforced Plate 6 of 6

390 STATI 3O 3/ 3 3...L L........................... -- HCK BRSON SANDY LOAM - o....-......... —---------------- - MUONSON SANDY LOAM CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECOtD PFOJECT F 12-19, C3; BBBONSON AST ReJiSrfCed 1953Plate I 19O3 BeCnforced Plate 1 of4

o * ~~~~~~~~0 Qj 4, 4~~~1~~~~~~~~~~~a4 Benjamn., i f% 717 0~ 1.i;feen.a 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~c

I:Ixi l;:Ib j44)> 04..1 1 1..... ~ i l'iii $ iie

I I 44 0 Cdo 4, Ii ctj 14.3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I...........iliiiiijjj~ i~j~i~i.........' I 1 I i, Ijjij~ijjjlijl4 3

v' —---— o —-- * v^ —- - — ~ ISO STATIONS /S/ /1I // I 154 flf//ff/f/Mft//fffft/It/ff/fff/ff//I ff^ L//////// CUT 1//I/U//I /fl/I////I/Ik -... —..... —.~ —-HLLSDALE SER- S. i iiii. i..i.i..i.iiii................I.I.I III II IIII......:::.- A. -..,-..,_,,........T,....A._.......... SO STIOd Pt 1 o -I7IIIIIf f I/f////llZl!T/!11111111"//f/ I11111"itlllllllllt:11!111!1 11 t/ OU// L IititIilIiii CUT Iiin11illiii f I if imn HILLSDALE SERIES - CORRELATED PAVE~MUNT CONDITION RECOtKD PROJECT F 12-19, C7; BRONSON IfEST 1953 N on-Reinforced Plate 1 of 7 -----— _ — -5 /S 7 ------ Non-Reinforced Plate 1 o

o.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......,..,.~, ----------------------------------------- - --------------------— *iL o -- ~~~~~~~~~~........................................ — LL —A —S — E.........-.. ----------......... 4 4; j S~i BX 0;; 3 + 5 *.. v...............................................................................:.................... -------— e —----------— e —-----------— a —----------— e —----— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — ----- /.59-/69 /16 /6 163 2t 21 BOX CULERT ^/f//////////f/tfi/f/H///ff/f/ll//////// FImL ///J///-//f////////////f////////////////////////////t////7 - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~HILLSDALE SERIES * Z ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ —-- H I L L S D A L E -----------— m —--------------------- ^ —-------— X lftX l4X400X410 i -- - -- - - - - - - - - CORRELATED PAV.ffiST CONDITON RCOt..~~............................... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~........., _ 4.............................................................................~~~~~~~~~~~~........ PROJECT F 12-19,: C?;: BONSON:WEST:P19e3 Non-Relinforc.ed Plate 2 of 7

* —--------— e —------------- -1 ~.- -- - GILFORD SERIES... | * *HILLSDALE SERIES 172t /73 P/74- 37 76........................................., ------------------- HILLSD-E SE —ES --- CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECOKD PROJECT F 12-19, C7; BRONSON WEST 1953. 7 Non-Reinforced Plate 3 of 7

1 —-- 2)41' OP CULVE- T 10:; i-R.: ---- H~iLLSDALE SERIESi~i --— ^ 1~::~~~~ 1',:::::::::::.:::::.: 4f~ _J|lt.~ t t J ~ t t j j J t lt t t i j j t. t t t t t-t _ _ _ t t I, I J_..J..J... — 3 F /77 / 3 /787 ~L ff lll lf7lff f7fffll7lllfffllf FIL/////.11//111111 77f1If1111///lllll llllllll 11111111 111111/ II//// - ~- - ----- ------------------- N S E —--— _ CORRELATED PAVEmENT CONDITION RECO0D 1953 Non-Rei orced~~: w' X_:... r.r.... P a e 4- ---------- O' — - O —-- -: PROJECT F 12-19, C7- BRONSON VEiST Non-Reinforced Plate 4 of 7

--- e —---------— e —----------— e —----------— e —----------— e —~~~~~~~~~~~ —----- - ------- -..............~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~/I'~.............. I~.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~.............:.......'~....,............. ~I ~ ~' ~" __ ~- "V r _ - -_ _~. ~ _........~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......x..........,.s.:..................................r",,............................................................................~~~~~....................... 186 187 /88 /8e t~0........~~~~~~~.....................................................................' - " _........l[ I' l l Illl H llI~~~..........l l l...I..r....................... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~d...............-............~- - --'~ ~!~:'~':.-:.. -.::-:......::'~...........:...........::::~''' ~~'~'"' -';~ ~ ~ ~~ E?-" ~~~~- - ~ ~~ -: —::7,I **: —-- BBADY S-RE —--:~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~.._.......... _~...~...... "..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..............':i.....s:......................................................... --------------- e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I —-2!2" CP CULVERT 111111111!1111111111!1II1! Illllll!11111111111/1111/11!1IFILL 1Illllllllll,.11,llll,/,[,,,,,,,,,,!,,l,,/,,!11I,,!/1/~ ~.' 111!ll mlllltI I iimffffifififii................................................ftfifffiiifiififffiH......... ***BRAAD3Y SEHIESSERIES CORRELATED PAVEiENT CONDITION RECOtd PROJECT F 12-19, C7; BRONSON WEST 19$3 Non-Reinforced Plate - of 7

44 0 o 49.............. 1;.........................

ZOs 2 0~ ~0 7 208 ZQ9 1 —2l" CHP CULVERT~~~ —------ BRAD -gI O — ~ —-,................................................... BRA;DY ~PSERECT F 2-9 GILFO7 BRONSO "ST.............::00.'.'.;0.' ".::::.:.:.:....0.:.:.0.:>.:..:..:.:::.....A.: 0.000 0 0 0 00 0.:.,.0...........0..00..0,,.............................: 1: ~... _t L.OP~ --... _ _.................. _ I. l l l. I.. Ill~ll Ill~ll ~' I I I Ill Illl Illllllllll I ]llll I I I I I I I I I.....I I..........I I.. l Il l ll~ll I ll[ ) I III.. I.I..... CORELATED PAVE9ENT CONDITION RECOY-M PROJECT F 12-19 C7; BRONSON %VEST Non-Reinforced Plate 7 of 7

----- -------------— o —-----— ___-o —------------ ----------— "'1 b l::i" i iii, iii L ii Ill I II I I Iw IIII Iss II II II i ii...................................................s..J0 }Ss}s m2S }AS$}X~ X0$s iw,+Ssx _$: D ifiEE f S fddi 0 0 i i' C< 0:270 SSTATIONS 27/ 2 Z72 2Z7z 17.......................................,,.... //t/// ///////////////,[////////////// ///// F'rILL!f((./(.!~/~//!/!!/!f//!/././//ft/!!fz ////////////// iiii - -. -. U- - - - - - -.........................,,,,..................................................................... 2^ 76 dX 77 Z-78 F~,,L Illllllllllllltlllllllll~~~~~~~~~~~~Merill lll l i llt!I l l!1 l l'.................. _........................... ii i i ii i i......... ////////////////ffJ///f/f /f/////f/ /////l//////lf /// t/ FIL //////f///////i///if/////if//////////////////////////f/J/ BRONSON IMA -- |< ------ BRA:Y SADY L.AM............U............................................... CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECORD PROJECT SN F 78-25, Cl1 STDGIS EAST 1953 iyon-lei nforced Plate 1 of5

~~ —— o —------— __ —----— _ —-- _-_-_.73 20 28/ 2682 283:wJ'/////ffff/f/iiiiiiiiiiiii i i -i iiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiii i ii iiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiiiii ___!b.................................................. 1........._.. I'F...:.......................:iiii::..i:..iiO.:..:.....'........'::ii,......:::...-.-.......,.....,::,-~ — ~:,,~,:;~- <::~:~:~!-:i~ ~:~i......................... -—.~: miinll i n l i i iiiiiiHhliiiiiinuiliiii m }}!}}1111 iii....... _| - mONSONLA u- - - B1AY SAHBY LOAM - CORRELATED PAVEiiENT CO~ I:ION,ECORI) PROJ2C.T S F 78-25, Cl; 8TBSGIBS EAST 1953 2on-Reinforced Plate 2 of 5.. ~ ~ ~ C RR L E..V N....EO................. Hills~J...................................... I l r -R.3 0 e..5.l t... li lf 5o,.........................

0 a. | X I 14.1 1 1! 1S 1 1 1S1 1 1 m~'14 m 1 1 1iM 11 10 S 1 ]Affa r li II Ii 0v I r I g 1|1 1II VP)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A ii ii lm l Bl i 0 ^i 1Sni1 0 al lrl0:t3ilEt1,a 1gl0 53: X 1zi'S'

.:i 4....;.. FILL o Y o % i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.:~~~~~~~.d. ~~.., _ >: a ~ ~ ~ ~~. t E~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~._ ~.... ~. i,,-----------------------—. -.................... --—''r' -"........................... ------ --- ----- --------------------- B!LIBFO BII SANDY LOAM ROJ]ECT SN F 78-25, Cl; STURGIS BAST Non-Reinforced Plate 4 oI 5.~0/ JAD LO8 JA 3,,:I:-::::-::-::: - -:::::::'''I'''''':'':':''::-:i_:::...................................... I..V...ii................................................................................................ lR...' I:A...:........................ii i lllll I lllll I I II I I II I UI:l,Ill~llin l lll I --.JI~IVITas- lllr~rr~srr~ssssrsss~sa~':~II6l I - ---- ---------— I'Ifl —I —-III —---- iSSS~t FILL / f/CUT BRLUm SAMDY ISANDY L AM CORRELATED PAVEkINT CONDITION RECORD PROJ1CT SN F 78-25, Cl; STIGIS EAST 1953

-------...... -------------- 0 -,-..~. ------.. ——................ ---. —-----------—. —...... —..- —.Q —. —.......... —-------—........... —--------—. —-. —-..... —-- 806 507 ^308 309 3/0 ------------------------------------ L O A M --------------------------------— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —------------- 7/I 3/A? 3/3 ---------------- --------- ---------------- CORRELATED PAVEiMEN T CONDITI ON RJ&COhD PROJECT SNr 7 78-25, Cl; StINJEGIS EAST 1953 Non-Reinforced Plate 5 of 5

[ i III 1E1-LAZ1 I II 1 _ |_|_| __ |IIiIIIE IIIF"1I1I f7I11 I ri [ P- L L111II1irIIiI ij11 1 68 STATIONS 69 70 71 72 ///ff//h/////h/f////ffff// fff/f/f/f// ff/ / RAISED GRADE (o TO 4 FEET) ///////////////////////////////////////// TOLEDO SILT LOAM E _____I______[ II I III I{ 1IiIII [II1 73 74 75 76 77 8' x lo0 BOX CULVBRT ////L////////////////////////////////////// RAISED GRADE (O TO 4 FET) ////////////////////////////////////////// TOLD)O SILT LOAM CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECOID) PROJECT F 58-30, C3; ERIS SOUTH 1953 Non-Reinforced Plate 1 of 6

78 79 80 81 82 fW/////////////////////////// ~RAISED GRADE (0 To 4 FEET) ////////////////// TOLDO0 SILT LOAM \jil 83 84 85 86 87 SW/////////////////////// B''UUAISKD GRADE (0 TO 4 ZFET) ////////////////// ---------- TOLEDO SILT LOAMCORRELATED PAVEIENT CONDITION RECORD PROJECT FIr 58-30, C3; ERIE SOUTH 1953 Non-Reinforced Plate 2 of 6

[9 1 __ __[III] II 1 iIi IF__97H' 771F' III ___ " I ___I 111_.1iII I IlL II I ___ Lj I _ I I__ ______L.i__' —~ —------------— o —-----— t —------— ~-~f- --- 88 89 90 91 92 f//////////////////////////ISRD GRADE (0 TO 4 UET) ////////////////// — T0Of SILT LOAM CC) CORRELATED PAVEiiENT CONDITION RECORiD PROJECT F 5830, 03; ERIE SOUTH 1953 on-Reinorced Plate

I I....... I I... 98 99 100 101 102 IIfI l lfl ffU IIIIIIIIII)II)IIIII IIIIIIIII R~fgP GRADEJ (0 TO 4 F III) // /IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/III/I//////IIII TOLEDO SILT LOAM VI _ ___ l_ __..PROJCT F _ 58-30, C3;_ __RI SO N f~on-Re- S:)i i 3 te 103 104 105 106 107 ///////////////////////////////////////// RAIBED GRADE (O TO 4 EET) 1////////////////////////////////////////// TOLEDO SILT LOAM CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECORD PROJECT F 58-30, C3; BRIE SOUTH 1953 Non-Reinforced Plate 4 of 6

.,, —,,, —--—. —--- ------------- 108 109 110 111 112 // // ///f/////////////e//// ///////////////{ RAISED GRADE (o TO /4 Fr) f /f-/ //h' ii//////fiiii///// -- - ------ ITOLEDO SILT LOAM o I I _ 1]' 1] i "'F 1_ __1 i 1 )'' 1 1 113 114 115 6 17 /-//ff/tffft/ffffffffftfffffffttTf RAISED GRADE (0 TO 4 nET) I/////////////////////// / I / TOLEDO SILT LOAM ---- CORRELATED PAVEMENT CONDITION RECO1D PROJECT F 58-30, C3; ERIE SOUM 1953 Nlon-Reinforced Plate 5 of 6

U8j 119 - TOLSDO SILT LOAM CORRELATED PAVEi-ENT CONDITION RECOID PROJECT F 58-30, C3; ERIE SOUTH 1953 Non-Reinforced Plate 6 of 6