TxDOT COVER-UP: Documents show the TTC Primer - SH 130 Materials Failing

TTC Corruption:
Documents show TTC Primer,
SH 130, Materials Failing

At $1.5 Billion dollars, the SH 130 turnpike is the largest transportation project in Texas history.

Documents revealed by an inside source, show the primer for Gov. Perry's TTC, SH 130, east of Austin, and other toll roads being built around Texas, have FAILED numerous “Dry Density” tests. Documents from inspectors show this amount of failure is causing a loss in concrete integrity by 5 to 8% within the first few months of being poured, and inspector charts show they will continue to decay rapidly. I've seen the documents myself.

Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc., is one of the major Lone Star Infrastructure partners who built SH 130.
Balfour Beatty Construction is known for corrupt business practices and the use of inferior materials. In 2005, Balfour Beatty paid millions to settle a financial fraud claim with the Department of Justice. And, Balfour has been accused of using inferior materials for different projects in the past.

Part of Jack Blood's report states:
"What the documents prove so far, is that:

The Crushed Limestone used to make the concrete of which the roads are to be built with is weak. This has lead to a total failure of most of the structures, and superstructures currently standing as our future Trans Texas Corridor. Translation: These roads will fall apart long before they are paid for, and could take innocent drivers with them. This has apparently been covered up not only by TXDOT and their contractors, but is being certified out the door by the very contractors there to make sure we never get to this point.

Charts done by my source and other inspectors show that the standing infrastructure is failing right from the beginning. “Decantation tests.” A 5.1 – 8% loss in concrete integrity over just the last few months. This seems to be caused by the initial testing, or lack of testing, of the Sieve quality. (Sieve refers to the rock that makes up the concrete.) In fact my source told me that he was told to inspect around the #4 Sieve (The bigger rocks) because they would not pass, and therefore not be usable in the project. He would eliminate them from the test, but they are used in the end product. He also said that it wouldn’t matter if the test failed anyway, and the testing itself is just a formality. The sieve goes out before the tests are even done, and subsequently used on the roads. No matter how bad it is, it’s just too late. Can you imagine what this concrete will look like in a few years when the job is completed? If it is completed.

In documents reflecting the number of tests needed for August – October 2005, we found that on the SH 130 Turnpike project alone, the tests performed versus the tests REQUIRED by law were far less than required. It seems like TXDOT doesn’t care, and I suspect that they are confident that they wouldn’t get caught. So much for that now.

Tests on the concrete failed consistently on: The Hanson aggregate freeways, the Burnett Grade 2 aggregate, the RTI Georgetown aggregate, Capitol Bolm Road, the Travis aggregate, TXI Green Plant, and the SH 130 Turnpike in general. Nothing was ever done to comply with these tests, and again inspectors were told to shut up about it, or else. So now they are not just under testing the grade, but also covering up failed tests."

“Dry Density tests” are soil tests to make sure that the soil under the freeway structure isn’t “Quick sand”. On the charts we have in our possession, the curve shows that the Dry Density Test met with a maximum percentage of 126.27. I am told that it needs to be closer to 270.00. The inspectors will again “#2 Stamp” the approval and move on, with the soil test coming in under 50%.
Read Jack Bloods complete report


Anonymous said...

The document image that appears in your post (as part of the Jack Blood report quote) does not support the statements about material test failures. Obviously, you have other images of test reports, but the one that you have posted does not support the statements made in the post. The document is a test report for a series of laboratory tests (the tests are circled on the right in the document image) that describe the materials properties. The material in question is flexible base, which is an aggregate not a soil. According to the test report, the aggregate meets the required specifications. The requirements are indicated by the range of values given under the column headings “minimum required”, “required”, and “max”.

The sample tested was taken from a stockpile of material that has been set aside for the project. This test report does not represent an in-place sample (i.e. one taken from material already in the roadway). A technician from PaveTex obtained the sample from the stockpile and performed the tests. If the material is accepted, the information is given to the inspector. The inspector will perform an in-place density test using the moisture-density curve or compaction curve that is shown. TxDOT specifications require flexible base to meet this curve at 100%. In other words, the in-place density test must show, at a minimum, 126.3 (rounded) pounds per cubic foot (pcf) density and 10.4 percent moisture.

The following statement “On the charts we have in our possession, the curve shows that the Dry Density Test met with a maximum percentage of 126.27. I am told that it needs to be closer to 270.00.” is not correct. The chart does not indicate a percentage at all. It indicates that the material must be compacted to a density of 126.27 pcf at the optimum moisture in order to be stable. The value of 270 has no meaning in the context of this test report, nor does it represent a TxDOT specification for flexible base.

Also, I would suggest that the document image be edited to remove the engineer’s license number in addition to the engineer’s name. It is given in two locations on the document.

Sal Costello Sal@TexasTollParty.com said...

I have a number of documents.

If anyone wants to see them, please email me at sal at texastollparty.com


Anonymous said...

All the stink about southwest airlines voluntarily reporting an inspection lapse an no front page headline about this.

Anonymous said...

I am guessing you should probably understand what you are talking about before you say something .. You are comparing apples and oranges here... The article is about how the aggregate used in the production on the concrete was sub-standard and the report you show is for a Flex base materials which was never used in the production of the concrete .. Previous comments are correct about how the dry density is determined ..