7.2 Geotech Evaluation - Colorado Springs...2017/03/02 · East Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement...

Supplemental Geotechnical Engineeringand Pavement Thickness Design Report

East Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement EvaluationColorado Avenue to Printers Parkway Avenue

Terracon Project No. 23165087March 2, 2017

Prepared for:AECOM

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Prepared by:Terracon Consultants, Inc.


7.2 Geotech Evaluation

Terracon Consul tants, Inc. 4172 Center Park Dr ive Colorado Spr ings, Colorado 80916P [719] 597 2116 F [719] 597 2117 terracon.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 12.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 2

2.1 Project Description ............................................................................................... 23.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 3

3.1 Typical Profile ...................................................................................................... 33.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 4

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................... 54.1 Swell Test Results ............................................................................................... 54.2 Soil-Lime Mix Stabilization Test Results ............................................................... 54.3 Soil-Cement Mix Stabilization Test Results .......................................................... 54.4 Corrosivity Test Results ....................................................................................... 6

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ...................................... 75.1 Geotechnical Considerations ..................................................................................... 7

5.1.1 Mitigation of Poor Quality Pavement Subgrades ....................................... 75.1.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................ 75.1.3 Claystone Bedrock ................................................................................... 8

5.2 Earthwork............................................................................................................. 85.2.1 Pavement Subgrade Preparation.............................................................. 85.2.2 Pavement Subgrade Mitigation ................................................................. 95.2.3 Chemical Stabilization Subgrade Preparation ......................................... 115.2.4 Full-Depth Reclamation Subgrade Preparation....................................... 115.2.5 On-site and Imported Material ................................................................ 125.2.6 Backfill Compaction Requirements ......................................................... 125.2.7 Trench Excavation .................................................................................. 135.2.8 Trench Backfilling ................................................................................... 145.2.9 Utility Line Subgrade Preparation ........................................................... 145.2.10 Manhole Subgrade Preparation .............................................................. 15

5.6 Lateral Earth Pressures ..................................................................................... 156.0 Pavement Design......................................................................................................... 17

6.1 Design Traffic ..................................................................................................... 176.2 Pavement Design Parameters ........................................................................... 206.3 Recommended Minimum Pavement Sections .................................................... 21

7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................... 25

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Resourceful

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATIONExhibit A-1 Field Exploration DescriptionExhibit A-2 Site Vicinity MapExhibits A-3 and A-4 Exploration PlansExhibit A-5 PCI RatingExhibits A-5 and A-7 Exploration Plans with AASHTO Soil ClassificationExhibits A-8 to A-23 Boring LogsExhibit A-24 Subsurface Profile

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY DATAExhibit B-1 Laboratory TestingExhibits B-2 to B-4 Summary of Laboratory ResultsExhibit B-5 Atterberg Limits ResultsExhibit B-6 Atterberg Limits ResultsExhibit B-7 Grain Size DistributionExhibit B-8 Soil-Lime Mix Moisture-Density RelationshipExhibit B-9 Soil-Lime Mix Unconfined Compressive StrengthExhibit B-10 Corrosivity Test Results

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING INFORMATIONExhibit C-1 General NotesExhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification SystemExhibit C-2 Description of Rock PropertiesExhibit C-4 Pavement Edge Drain Detail

APPENDIX D – PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN NOMOGRAPHSExhibit D-1 R-value of 6, Flexible and Rigid (East Pikes Peak Avenue)Exhibit D-2 R-value of 20, Flexible and Rigid (East Pikes Peak Avenue)Exhibit D-3 R-value of 20, Flexible and Rigid (Union Blvd Intersection)Exhibit D-4 R-value of 40, Flexible and Rigid (Union Blvd Intersection)Exhibit D-5 R-value of 6, Flexible (Minor Arterial)Exhibit D-6 R-value of 6, Flexible (Major/Minor Collector)Exhibit D-7 R-value of 6, Flexible (Local)Exhibit D-8 R-value of 20, Flexible (Minor Arterial)Exhibit D-9 R-value of 20, Flexible (Major/Minor Collector)Exhibit D-10 R-value of 20, Flexible (Local)Exhibit D-11 R-value of 40, Flexible (Minor Arterial)Exhibit D-12 R-value of 40, Flexible (Major/Minor Collector)Exhibit D-13 R-value of 40, Flexible (Local)

APPENDIX E – BORING LOGS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS(TERRACON REPORT NO. 23085044 AND 23155032)

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Resourceful

March 2, 2017

AECOM2315 Briargate Parkway, Suite 150Colorado Springs, Colorado 80920

Attn: Mrs. Celeste E. Raine, PE

Re: Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering and Pavement Thickness Design ReportEast Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement EvaluationColorado Avenue to Printers ParkwayColorado Springs, ColoradoTerracon Project Number: 23165087

Mrs. Raine:

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering explorationfor the above referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with ourproposal number P23165087 dated May 20, 2016. Terracon previously completed ageotechnical engineering exploration and report for pavement thickness designrecommendations for approximately 2 miles of roadway along Pikes Peak Avenue fromColorado Avenue to North Circle Drive, dated September 09, 2008, under Terracon ProjectNumber 23085044. A supplemental geotechnical engineering exploration and report wascompleted under Terracon Project Number 23155032, dated March 4, 2016. This reportcombines the field and laboratory data from the previous studies with the findings of the currentsubsurface exploration to provide supplemental recommendations concerning earthwork andpavement thickness design for the project. The recommendations in our March 4, 2016geotechnical report remain applicable, except where superseded herein.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questionsconcerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely,Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Alexander Vega Ryan Feist, P.E.Senior Staff Geotechnical Professional Geotechnical Services Manager

cc: 1 PDF

Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering and Pavement Thickness Design ReportEast Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement Evaluation ■ Colorado Springs, ColoradoMarch 2, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No. 23165087

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Terracon has completed a supplemental subsurface field exploration and laboratory testing forthe East Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement Evaluation project. Between September 28 and 30,2016, sixteen (16) test borings were advanced to depths ranging between 5 to 30½ feet belowthe existing asphalt concrete paved surface along East Pikes Peak Avenue between theintersections of Colorado Avenue and Printers Parkway in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Basedon the information obtained from our current study, the following geotechnical considerationswere identified and should be considered for the proposed roadway construction:

n The majority of the subgrade soils along the proposed improvements classified as A-2-4,A-2-6, A-6, and A-7 soils in accordance with the American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The supplemental borings generally reaffirmedour previous results, however minor refinements were made to the extents of theclassification boundaries.

n Based on laboratory testing, an R-value of 6 was used for design within A-6 and A-7 soiltypes. An R-value of 20 was used for design purposes in areas of A-2-4 and A-2-6 soils.An R-value of 40 was used for full-depth reclamation pavement sections.

n Poor quality soils were encountered within the influence of the pavement section inareas along East Pikes Peak Avenue. These areas will require mitigation by removaland replacement, moisture conditioning, and/or chemical stabilization.

n Low strength soils are expected to be locally present. Consequently, low strength soilsencountered below the proposed roadway alignment will require some localizedstabilization prior to pavement installation.

n Portions of subgrade materials below existing pavements will likely be relatively moist tonearly saturated and yielding to unstable. This condition is typically due to moisturecollecting in the subgrade through cracks or seams in the pavements and not drying dueto the presence of the pavements/hardscape. We recommend that the subgrade bestabilized by scarifying the subgrade soils to a minimum depth of 9 inches, processingthe scarified subgrade soils, moisture conditioning, and compacting the subgradematerials in-place.


Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable ii

n Compaction and importation of pavement supporting soils should follow therecommendations outlined in the “Earthwork” section of this report.

n Perched groundwater will likely be encountered along portions of the proposed stormwater utility alignment. Groundwater conditions are shown on the borings logs andsummarized in Section 3.2 Groundwater of this report. Additionally, a subsurfaceprofile with approximate groundwater conditions is shown in Section A-A’, Exhibit A-24.

n In areas where claystone bedrock is encountered at manhole invert elevations,manholes should bear on a minimum 4 feet of controlled low strength material (CLSM),also known as flowable fill, to mitigate against differential movements of the manholesubgrade due to the expansive nature of the bedrock.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It shouldbe recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and this reportmust be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein.The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the reportlimitations.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANDPAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN REPORT

EAST PIKES PEAK AVENUE PAVEMENT EVALUATIONCOLORADO AVENUE TO PRINTERS PARKWAY

COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO

Terracon Project No. 23165087March 2, 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Terracon has completed a supplemental subsurface field exploration and laboratory testing forthe East Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement Evaluation project. Between September 28 and 30,2016, sixteen (16) test borings were advanced to depths ranging between 5 to 30½ feet belowthe existing asphalt concrete paved surface along East Pikes Peak Avenue between theintersections of Colorado Avenue and Printers Parkway in Colorado Springs, Colorado. TheBoring Logs along with Exploration Plans are included in Appendix A of this report.

The purpose of these services is to provide supplemental information and geotechnicalengineering recommendations relative to:

n Existing pavement thicknessn Subsurface soil conditions

n Pavement thicknessn Pavement construction

n Groundwater conditionsn Earthwork

n Pavement performance

The field and laboratory testing, and pavement thickness recommendations presented herein,were performed in general accordance with the guidelines outlined by the City of ColoradoSprings Engineering Criteria Manual: Section II Pavement Design Criteria Manual, dated July 1,2010, the City of Colorado Springs Engineering Standard Specifications Manual, datedFebruary 2, 2014, and the Pikes Peak Region Asphalt Paving Specification, Version 2 datedApril 1, 2008, referred to hereafter as the Standards.



2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project DescriptionItem Description

Provided DrawingsThe stationing referenced in this report is based on theprovided AECOM drawings titled “Drainage Plan”, Sheets 1through 13, dated April 25 and 26, 2016.

Project Location

(See Appendix A, Exhibits A-2 through A-4) The projectsite is located along East Pikes Peak Avenue between theintersections at Colorado Avenue (STA 107+90) and PrintersParkway (179+00) in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Proposed Construction

Earthwork, pavement rehabilitation, and pavement thicknessdesign recommendations have been provided in the previousTerracon geotechnical reports. The current study will be usedto refine the subgrade soil characterization and mitigationmeasures, which include the addition of lime stabilizationrecommendations. Additionally, subsurface data will be usedto assist with construction of a storm water drainage systemconsisting of manhole, catch basins, pipes, and culvertstructures.

Roadway Construction

We anticipate the pavement section will consist of hot mixasphalt (HMA) and base course materials; however, we haveprovided options with chemically treated subgrade, full-depthreclamation, as well as Portland cement concrete (PCC)pavement thickness options.

Grading

Within pavement areas, we anticipate cut and fill of less than2 feet (+/-) max to alleviate grade discrepancies within EastPikes Peak Avenue and abutting side roads. We anticipatecuts up to depths up to 25 will be required for proposed stormsewers.

Traffic Data

A Pikes Peak Avenue traffic count of 22,000 vehicles per day(each direction) was provided by the City of Colorado Springson December 18, 2015. This value was understood to includeno estimated traffic growth because the road section is wellestablished and developed.



3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical ProfileBased on our previous study and results of our current subsurface exploration, the subsurfaceconditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Generalized Soil Profile

Description Material Encountered Approximate Depth toBottom of Stratum* Consistency/Density

Stratum 1 Asphalt About 2 to 13 inches N/AStratum 2 1 Apparent Base Course About 2 to 21 inches N/A

Stratum 3 2

Fill materials consisting of sandwith varying amount of clay, siltand gravel, and lean clay with

varying amounts sand

About 1½ to 6 feetClay: stiff

Sand: loose to mediumdense

Stratum 4 3Native soils consisting of sand with

varying amount of clay, silt andgravel

30½ feet or greater Very loose to verydense

Stratum 5 Native soils consisting of clay withvarying amounts sand

10½ to 20½ feet orgreater

medium stiff to hard

Stratum 6 Claystone bedrock 24.3 or greater Very hard1. Base course materials encountered only in Borings B-1 to B-6, B-9, B-11, B-12, B-14 to B-17, B-19

to B-21, B-208, B-307, and B-308.2. Fill soils encountered only in Borings B-101 to B-103, B-105 to B-107, B-109, B-110, B-202, B-205,

B-206, B-208, and B-301.3. Native clay soils encountered at subgrade level only in Borings B-7, B-15, B-104 through B-106, B-

206, B-209, and B-304 through B-3064. Claystone bedrock only encountered only in Borings B-204, B-205, B-207, B-209

Subsurface conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individualboring logs. Stratification boundaries on the logs represent the approximate depths of changesin soil type; the transition between materials may be gradual. The boring logs are presented inAppendix A of this report.

In general, the soils encountered at subgrade level within the additional borings (B-201 throughB-209 and B-301 through B-308) were similar to the AASHTO soil classifications presented inour previous report. Figures showing the soil types of the near surface soils were updated tofurther delineate the extents of soils types. The revised figures are shown on the Appendix A,Exhibits A-5 through A-8. The details of the laboratory test results are presented in AppendixB. As a reference, the borings logs and laboratory test results from our previous studies havealso been included in Appendix C of this report.



3.2 GroundwaterBoreholes B-201 through B-209, were requested to be drilled near the proposed manholesalong East Pikes Peak Avenue between the intersections at Colorado Boulevard and HancockAvenue. These borings were observed for the presence and level of groundwater while drillingand the boreholes were left open a minimum of 24 hours after completion of drilling for furthermonitoring. The water levels as observed in the boreholes are noted on the attached boring logsand shown on the table below.

Groundwater Observation Summary

BoringNumber

ApproximateSTA location

Depth tobottom ofboring (ft.)

Depth to groundwaterwhile drilling (ft.)

Depth to groundwater24 hours after drilling

(ft.)B-202 110+30 25½ 24 20B-203 112+30 30½ 27 30B-204 114+70 24¼ No free water observed 13½B-205 121+40 24¼ 15 12B-206 123+60 20½ 16 13½B-207 127+10 19½ No free water observed 11B-208 129+10 15 No free water observed No free water observed 1

B-209 133+20 19½ 10¾ 72

1. Groundwater reading obtained approximately 4 hours after drilling.2. Estimated based on soil moisture content and sample recovery.

Groundwater was not observed in the other borings while drilling, or for the short duration that theborings were allowed to remain open, during our previous studies and Borings B-301 through B-308 from our current study. However, this does not necessarily mean these borings terminatedabove groundwater, or that the water levels summarized above are stable groundwater levels.Due to the low permeability of the soils encountered in the borings, a relatively long period of timemay be necessary for a groundwater level to develop and stabilize in a borehole in these materials.Long term observations in piezometers or observation wells sealed from the influence of surfacewater are often required to define groundwater levels in materials of this type.

Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoffand other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwaterlevels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lowerthan the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuationsshould be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

Zones of perched and/or trapped groundwater may also occur at times in the subsurface soilsand/or claystone bedrock. The location and amount of perched water is dependent uponseveral factors, including hydrologic conditions, type of site development, irrigation demands onor adjacent to the site, fluctuations in water features, seasonal and weather conditions. Acomprehensive groundwater study was not included within our scope of services.



4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

The laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local orother accepted standards. Results of the laboratory testing are shown in Appendix B.

4.1 Swell Test ResultsSwell test were not performed on samples of the claystone bedrock encountered in deeper soilborings (Borings B-201 through B-209). It has been our experience that claystone bedrock nearthe vicinity of East Pikes Peak Avenue has moderate to high swell potential. Mitigation ofswelling claystone bedrock is not required for pavement sections as there is sufficientseparation between the pavement subgrades and underlying bedrock. However, mitigation willbe required for manhole subgrades if claystone bedrock is encountered at invert elevations.

4.2 Soil-Lime Mix Stabilization Test ResultsSoil-lime stabilization mix design tests were performed on a representative bulk sample of A-6soils obtained from Boring B-304 between depths of 3 to 5 feet below the ground surface. Theresults of the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) testing are shown below:

Soil-Lime Mix Stabilization Test Results Summary 1

Boring AASHTO SoilClassification Lime Content (%)

Average 7-dayCompressive

Strengths (psi)

B-304 A-63 177.75 196.37 174.7

1. Detailed soil-lime mix results can be found on Exhibits B-5 and B-6

As shown in the table above, a 7-day compressive strength threshold is achieved as the limecontent increases, at which point the strength begins to diminish. In general, soil stabilizationoccurs when lime is added to a reactive soil to generate long-term strength gain through apozzolanic (chemical) reaction. A soil-lime mixture with an excessive amount of lime cannegatively affect the pozzolanic reaction and thereby reduce the strength characteristics of soils.

4.3 Soil-Cement Mix Stabilization Test ResultsSoil-cement stabilization mix design tests were performed on representative bulk samples of A-2-4 and A-2-6 soils obtained from Boring B-105 and B-110 between depths of 0 to 5 feet belowthe ground surface. The results of the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) testing areshown below:



Soil-Cement Mix Stabilization Test Results Summary

Boring AASHTO Soil ClassificationCement Content (%)

for 160 psi (graphicallyinterpolated)

B-105 A-2-6 3.6B-110 A-2-4 2.0

A correlated compressive strength of 160 psi was achieved at about 2 to 3.6 percent cementcontent by weight.

4.4 Corrosivity Test ResultsThe table below lists the results of laboratory soluble sulfate, soluble chloride, electricalresistivity, and pH testing. These values may be used to estimate potential corrosivecharacteristics of the on-site soils with respect to contact with the various underground materialswhich will be used for project construction.

Corrosivity Test Results Summary

Boring SampleDepth (ft.)

AASHTO SoilClassification

SolubleSulfate

(Percent)

SolubleChloride(Percent)

ElectricalResistivity(ohm.cm)

pH

B-106 4 A-2-6, A-2-7 0.082 0.0124 452 7.7

B-108 2 A-2-4 0.009 0.0220 1028 7.5

B-304 1 to 5 A-6 0.011 --- --- ---

Results of soluble sulfate testing indicate that samples of the on-site materials tested possessnegligible when classified in accordance with Table 4.3.1 of the ACI Design Manual. Althoughnot found in our test results, higher sulfate values may be encountered in high plasticity claysthroughout the site. We recommend additional corrosivity testing be performed duringconstruction to determine sulfate contents beyond the areas tested during our study.

A double treatment application of cement within a 7-day mellowing period for chemically treatedsubgrade soils is required for sulfate concentrations from 0.2 to about 0.5 percent. A singleapplication mellowing period is considered suitable with sulfate concentrations of less than 0.2percent. Concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI DesignManual, Section 318, Chapter 4.



5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Based on the results of our field investigation, laboratory testing program and geotechnicalanalyses, reconstruction of pavement and construction of the utility lines and manholes isconsidered feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the conclusions andconsiderations provided herein are incorporated into the design and construction of the project.

5.1 Geotechnical Considerations

5.1.1 Mitigation of Poor Quality Pavement SubgradesBased on our exploration and laboratory testing results, the poorest quality near-surface soiltypes encountered were primarily the AASHTO A-7-6 soils and the A-6 soils with group indexesof 10 or greater. These poor quality soils present at subgrade were low strength clayey soilsbased on test boring data. We recommend clay soils (A-6 and A-7-6) be removed or mitigatedthrough chemical stabilization (cement or lime) prior to installing the new pavement section.Although not recommended, we have presented an option for a thicker pavement sectionbearing on the clay soils where it may not be practical to remove or mitigate the clay soils due toexisting utilities.

Mill and overlay options were considered; however, the low projected ESALs based on the FWDtesting highly suggest that the existing pavement section along East Pikes Peak Avenue shouldbe mitigated by full depth removal and replacement. It is anticipated that an asphalt concreteoverlay will result in 1 to 5 years of extended use, but reflective cracking is likely to begin shortlyafter an overlay is constructed.

The pavement condition survey indicates most of East Pikes Peak Avenue is considered to bein very poor condition. One section of the roadway, adjacent to Memorial Park, is considered tobe in serious to very poor condition. We suspect that a combination of high clay content soilsand likely overwatering of the grass areas of the park has likely resulted in softening of thesubgrade soils ultimately causing the pavement surface to deteriorate more rapidly in this area.We have included recommendations for edge drains to direct water away from pavementsubgrade that should extend pavement life.

5.1.2 GroundwaterPerched groundwater will likely be encountered along portions of the proposed storm waterutility alignment. Groundwater conditions are shown on the borings logs and summarized inSection 3.2 Groundwater of this report. Additionally, a subsurface profile with approximategroundwater conditions is shown in Section A-A’, Exhibit A-24. Groundwater will likely causedifficulties and dewatering of excavations and utility trenches will likely be required duringconstruction. The use of sumps or well points are common dewatering methods used for thistype of construction, however, the requirements for properly dewatering the utility trenches andfoundation excavations are beyond the scope of services provided for this project. Lightweightexcavation and compaction equipment as well as stabilization of the subgrade may be required.



The individual contractor(s) should be made responsible for designing and constructing stable,temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom.

It is our opinion that soils removed below the groundwater table during the utility trenchexcavation will likely require significant drying in order for these materials to be reused ascompacted engineered fill. If time constraints or allowable drying areas do not permit the use ofthe removed materials, consideration should be given to the use imported backfill.

5.1.3 Claystone BedrockClaystone bedrock was encountered in Borings B-204, B-205, B-207, and B-209 at depths asshallow as 6 feet below the existing pavement surfaces. Claystone bedrock may beencountered in areas outside or borings varying depths. Based on our field testing results, weanticipate that excavation into the bedrock will be feasible using conventional, heavy duty,excavation methods.

Although not shown in the laboratory test results, we consider the claystone bedrockencountered to have moderate to high swell potential. Mitigation of swelling claystone bedrockis not required for pavement sections as there is sufficient separation between the pavementsubgrades and underlying bedrock. However, mitigation will be required for manhole subgradesif claystone bedrock is encountered at invert elevations. In areas where claystone bedrock isencountered at manhole invert elevations, manholes should bear on a minimum 4 feet ofcontrolled low strength material (CLSM), also known as flowable fill, to mitigate againstdifferential movements of the manhole subgrade.

5.2 EarthworkThe following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation and subgradepreparation. All earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. Theevaluation of earthwork should include overexcavation operations, observation and testing ofsubgrade preparation, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of theproject. Excavations should be backfilled with approved on-site or imported soils as outlinedherein.

5.2.1 Pavement Subgrade PreparationRemove existing asphalt, concrete, and other deleterious materials from proposed pavementareas. All exposed surfaces should be free of mounds and depressions which could preventuniform compaction.

Subgrade preparation will likely consist of a combination of the following: reconditioning existingsubgrade soils; replacing existing soils with higher R-value material, and chemical stabilizationof existing subgrade soils. Provided the soil subgrade will be reconditioned without the use ofchemical stabilization, we recommend, all exposed subgrade areas, once properly cleared,should be scarified to a minimum depth of 9 inches, conditioned to near optimum moisturecontent and compacted to reduce the risk of local discontinuities. Subgrade soils exposed to theelements for more than 24 hours should be checked for density and moisture content prior to



placing additional fill and/or pavements.

We anticipate that groundwater will not be encountered in excavations for the proposedpavements. However, if groundwater is encountered within excavations for the proposedpavements, we should be contacted to provide site specific recommendations duringconstruction.

5.2.2 Pavement Subgrade MitigationTest boring data indicates that low strength soils may be locally present at subgrade elevationthroughout the alignment, particularly in areas susceptible to water infiltration. It has been ourexperience that localized portions of subgrade materials below existing pavements will likely berelatively moist to nearly saturated and yielding to unstable. This is typically due to moisturecollecting in the subgrade through cracks or seams in the pavements and not drying due to thepresence of the pavements/hardscape. After removal of pavements, the contractor shouldexpect unstable subgrade materials that will need to be locally stabilized prior to construction ofnew pavements.

At a minimum, the soil subgrade should be stabilized by scarification to a minimum depth of 9inches and processing the scarified subgrade soils to near optimum water content. If the soilsare significantly over optimum water content, we anticipate several days of dry, sunny weatherand significant processing may be required before the subgrade is stable enough forrecompaction and paving, depending on the weather. However, the contractor should beprepared to perform more aggressive stabilization methods such as removal and replacementor by other means, such as over-excavation of wet zones and mixing these soils with crushedgravel or recycled concrete and recompaction. Use of lime, fly ash, kiln dust, cement orgeotextiles could also be considered as a stabilization technique. Lightweight excavationequipment may be required to reduce subgrade pumping.

We have provided pavement thickness design for areas that are considered to have poor qualityclay soils (all A-7 soil types and A-6 soils with group indexes of 10 or greater). In general, theCSPDCM prefers clay soils be removed or mitigated for support of pavements. However, werecognize that there could be areas with existing shallow utilities that may be difficult to over-excavate and replace, or perform chemical stabilization. In our opinion, pavement supported onclay soils should be considered in isolated areas, but not for overall construction.

In areas with poor, clayey soils (A-7 soil types and A-6 soils with group indexes of 10 orgreater), encountered at subgrade elevation, we recommend over-excavating the material to adepth of 2 feet below soil subgrade elevation by removal and replacement, or chemicallystabilized to a depth of 12 inches. If the over-excavation and replacement option is considered,the geotechnical engineer or his authorized representative should observe the extent of theremoval and replacement of unsuitable soils. In addition, we encourage the top of soilsubgrades be crowned at a minimum of 2 percent to an edge drain as shown in Appendix C,Exhibit C-4.



Based on the subsurface exploration, and the recommendations in the CSPDCM, subgrademitigation has been broken into types of mitigation labeled Subgrade Mitigation A and B. Thesemitigation recommendations are described in the following table.

Subgrade Mitigation RecommendationsSubgrade Mitigation Type Mitigation

A Scarify, water condition, and recompact the upper 9 inches of the soilsubgrade as outlined in the Earthwork section of this report

B (three options)

n Replace upper 2 feet of pavement subgrade with A-2-4 soils orbetter (Minimum R-value = 20)

n Replace upper 2 feet of pavement subgrade with full-depthreclamation (FDR) material (Minimum R-value = 40)

n Replace 1 foot of existing subgrade with a chemically-treated soilin accordance with recommendations in this report

The approximate limits of the recommended stabilization are presented in the following tableand in the Pavement Section Diagrams, Exhibits A-8 to A-10. There could be variations withinthe soil profile between borings that could result in localized areas of poor soils within MitigationType A that will need to be removed and replaced, or chemically stabilized.

Approximate Extents of Recommended StabilizationApproximate Beginning

Station No.Approximate Ending

Station No. Subgrade Mitigation Type

107+90(Colorado Avenue)

138+10(North Sheridan Avenue)

A (R-value of 20)

138+10(North Sheridan Avenue)

171+30(Iowa Avenue)

B (R-value of 6)

171+30(Iowa Avenue)

179+00(Printers Parkway)

A (R-value of 20)

Transitions zones at least 20 feet in length should be prepared between areas of differentsubgrade mitigation type to make changes in subgrade preparation more gradual along theroadway. Once the subgrade has been properly treated, it should be proofrolled to assess anyunstable areas. If unstable areas are noted, the geotechnical engineer should be notified toprovide supplemental recommendations.

It is imperative that soil subgrades be protected from a loss of moisture. A significant loss ofmoisture of the pavement supporting materials could result in a highly expansive subgrade.Pavement materials placed on moderate to highly expansive materials will most likely result indistress and movement of the pavement surface if the subgrade becomes elevated in moisturecontent.



5.2.3 Chemical Stabilization Subgrade PreparationWe recommend a soil-lime mix for cohesive soils and a soil-cement mix for granular soil. Perthe Colorado Springs Pavement Design Criteria Manual (CSPDCM), chemically stabilizedsubbase should have a minimum 7-day compressive strength of 160 psi. The following tablesummarizes the chemical stabilization mix designs we recommend, which achieved the requiredCSPDCM strength criteria.

Chemical Stabilization Recommendation Summary

Stabilization Methods AASHTO SoilClassification

Lime(% by weight)

Cement(% by weight)

Soil-Lime 1 A-2-6, A-2-7 4 ---

Soil-Cement 1 A-2-4 --- 2½ to 3

1. If existing asphalt and base course will be incorporated into the subgrade material, werecommend the contractor perform additional chemical stabilization mix designs with the tilled-inmaterial to confirm the required chemical contents.

It has been our experience that full depth asphalt placed directly on chemically stabilizedsubgrades has a higher potential for cracking due to reflective cracking from the underlyingtreated subgrade. Therefore, we recommend a composite section of aggregate base courseand asphalt concrete be used when chemically treating the underlying subgrade.

Chemical treatment of the pavement subgrade should occur just prior to paving operations tolimit disturbance from weather and construction activities. The use of chemical agents canimpact the operation of adjacent facilities (e.g., windblown dust), and this should be consideredby the designer and contractor. We recommend following CDOT specifications for placementand construction practices associated with chemically treated subgrades.

5.2.4 Full-Depth Reclamation Subgrade PreparationFDR is a rehabilitation or reconstruction technique in which the full thickness of the asphaltpavement, and underlying base course and a portion of the soil subgrade are, without heat,uniformly pulverized and blended to create a homogenous material. Within existing sandsubgrade soils, we recommend the asphalt be pulverized sufficiently such that 90 percent of theasphalt is less than about 1½ inches in diameter. This material may be used to improve the R-Value of the clayey soil subgrades by removal and replacement of the upper 2 feet. We usedan R-value of 40 for our design purposes. The field blended material should be tested for R-value to confirm a minimum of 40 prior to use below the pavement section.



5.2.5 On-site and Imported MaterialEngineered fill should meet the material property requirements below:

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for PlacementOn-Site Sand

SoilsSP, SP-SC, SP-SM, SM,

SC, SC-SM,The on-site sand soils appear suitable for use asengineered fill beneath pavements.

On-Site SandSoils CL The on-site clay soils should not be used within 24

inches of pavement subgrades.

Native Bedrock N/A The native claystone bedrock is not suitable for reuseas engineered fill.

Imported Soils VariesImported soils meeting the gradation requirementspresented herein are considered acceptable for use asengineered fill for embankment and slope construction.

1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter anddebris. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. Asample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation.

Clean on-site soils or approved imported materials may be used as fill material. Imported soilsshould meet the following material property requirements:

Import Material Property RequirementsGradation Percent finer by weight (ASTM C136)

6” 1003” 70-100

No. 4 Sieve 50-100No. 200 Sieve 35 1

1. If a relatively free draining (less than about 10 percent passing No. 200 sieve), we recommend anedge drain system be installed at the base of the free draining material to reduce the risk of waterbecoming trapped in the subbase material.

n Liquid Limit ............................................................................................ 30 (max)n Plastic Limit............................................................................................ 10 (max)n Maximum Expansive Potential (%) ................................................................ 1.0*n R-Value............................................................................................ 20 Minimum

*Measured on a sample compacted to approximately 95 percent of the ASTM D698 maximum drydensity at optimum water content. The sample is confined under a 200 psf surcharge and submerged.

5.2.6 Backfill Compaction RequirementsEngineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment andprocedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift.



Compaction specifications have been provided based on the City of Colorado Springs StandardSpecification Manual, Section 200, Streets. The chosen compaction specifications should beapproved by the City prior to fill placement. Fill should be compacted as specified below:

Compaction SpecificationsItem Description

Fill Lift Thickness

n 8-inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelledcompaction equipment is used

n 4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e.jumping jack, plate compactor) is used

CompactionRequirements1

n 95% of the materials maximum dry density (ASTM D698 – cohesivesoils)

n 95% of the materials maximum dry density (ASTM D1557 – granularsoils)

Water Content2

n Two percent below to two percent above optimum water content forgranular soils.

n Optimum to two percent above optimum water content for cohesivesoils.

1. We recommend that engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction duringplacement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture orcompaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked andretested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.Specifically, water levels should be maintained low enough to allow for satisfactory compaction tobe achieved without the compacted fill material pumping when proofrolled.

5.2.7 Trench ExcavationExcavations into the on-site fill materials, native soils, and/or bedrock will encounter waterbearing soils, depending upon the final depth of excavation. A subsurface profile withapproximate groundwater conditions between STA 110+30 and 133+20 is shown on Section A-A’, Exhibit A-24. Granular water bearing soils are likely to cave when disturbed by excavationactivities along the proposed storm water utility alignment. The individual contractor(s) shouldbe made responsible for designing and constructing stable temporary excavations withdewatering systems as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom.

Consideration should be given to beginning construction of the proposed drainage system onthe downstream end near Shooks Run Creek. Assuming a proper storm water managementplan is implemented to capture fines or construction related contaminants, excess groundwatercould be conveyed away from the excavation area using the installed storm water lines.

Soils encountered during excavation activities may vary significantly across the project site.The soil classifications in our report are based solely on the materials encountered in theexploratory test borings. The contractor should verify that similar conditions exist throughout theproposed area of excavation. If different subsurface conditions are encountered at the time of



construction, the actual conditions should be evaluated to determine any excavationmodifications necessary to maintain safe conditions.

Although evidence of underground facilities such as abandoned utility structures were notobserved during the site reconnaissance, such features could be encountered duringconstruction. Based on our experience with an unrelated project northwest of the intersection ofEast Pikes Peak Avenue and South Prospect Street, we anticipate that remnants or demolitiondebris of an approximately 30-foot wide abandoned concrete tunnel structure may beencountered about 50 feet west of Boring B-201. The approximate extents of the tunnelstructure are shown in Sanborn Maps Volume 1, Sheet 42, dated the year 1907, 1962, and1963. If abandoned underground facilities are encountered, they should be removed and theexcavations thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement. Any unused or old utilities left inplace below pavements should be properly abandoned to reduce the risk of collapse below theroadway.

As a minimum, all temporary excavations should be sloped or braced as required by OccupationalHealth and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations to provide stability and safe workingconditions. Temporary excavations will probably be required during grading operations. Thegrading contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and constructing stable,temporary excavations and should shore, slope or bench the sides of the excavations as required,to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should comply withapplicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation andTrench Safety Standards.

5.2.8 Trench BackfillingExcavations should be backfilled and compacted with the recommended approved on-site orimported soils. All backfill materials should be free of vegetation, demolition debris, and otherdeleterious materials.

Even if backfilled soils are properly compacted, some settlement of compacted soil trenchbackfill materials should be anticipated. We understand that it will be relatively difficult toachieve proper compaction of backfill materials placed above the crown of utility lines as theneed to balance proper compaction against will be weighed against protecting the utility linesfrom damage caused by the compaction process. We recommend that thinner lift thicknessesof backfill be considered along with smaller hand-guided equipment.

5.2.9 Utility Line Subgrade PreparationThe bearing capacity of the site soils and bedrock appears adequate, for support of theproposed utility lines. We recommend the utility line bedding and trench backfill conform toChapter 2 of the Colorado Springs Utilities Line Extension and Service Standards, WaterStandards, 2010. Utility lines should be supported on a minimum of 6 inches of granularmaterial meeting the requirements provided in the above referenced standard. During trenchexcavation activities, areas of soft, loose or otherwise deleterious materials may be exposed.Firm materials may also be disturbed by the excavation process. All such unsuitable materials



should be excavated entirely and replaced with properly compacted fill. Areas allowed to pondwater during construction will also require excavation and replacement with properly compactedfill. The contractor should take particular care to ensure adequate preparation of the subgradenear pipe joints which are less tolerant differential movements. Where thrust blocks arerequired, the parameters in the Section 5.6 Lateral Loads of this report may be used for thrustblock design.

5.2.10 Manhole Subgrade PreparationWe recommend manholes bear on undisturbed native soils. If disturbed, we recommend thedisturbed soils be excavated and replace with properly compacted fill. In areas where claystonebedrock is encountered at manhole invert elevations, manholes should bear on a minimum 4feet of controlled low strength material (CLSM), also known as flowable fill, to mitigate againstdifferential movements of the manhole subgrade. The CLSM should extend a minimum of 4feet beyond the perimeter of the manhole.

Manhole foundations may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2,000pounds per square foot (psf) provided foundations bear on undisturbed native or recompactedon-site sand soils. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excessof the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the foundation base elevation. Thisassumes fill or soft soils, if encountered, will be undercut and replaced with engineered fill.

5.6 Lateral Earth PressuresBelow grade structures with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed forearth pressures at least equal to those indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will beinfluenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of constructionand/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Two wall restraintconditions are shown. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of free-standingcantilever structures and assumes structure movement. The "at-rest" condition assumes nostructure rotation. The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor ofsafety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the structures.



Earth Pressure CoefficientsEarth

PressureConditions

Coefficient for BackfillType

EquivalentFluid Density

(pcf)

SurchargePressure, p1

(psf)

EarthPressure, p2

(psf)

Active (Ka)Sand Soils - 0.36Clay Soils - 0.4

4555

(0.36)S(0.4)S

(45)H(55)H

At-Rest (Ko)Sand Soils - 0.53Clay Soils - 0.6

7075

(0.53)S(0.6)S

(70)H(75)H

Passive (Kp)Sand Soils - 2.8Clay Soils - 2.5

360320

------

------

Applicable conditions to the above include:· For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements of about

0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height· For passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance· Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure· In-situ soil backfill weight a maximum of 125 pcf· Horizontal backfill, compacted between 95 and 98 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry

density· Loading from heavy compaction equipment not included· No hydrostatic pressures acting on wall· No dynamic loading· No safety factor included· Ignore passive pressure in frost zone

Backfill placed against structures should consist of granular soils with low plasticity. For thegranular values to be valid, the granular backfill must extend out and up from the base of the



wall at an angle of at least 45 and 60 degrees from vertical for the active and passive cases,respectively. To calculate the resistance to sliding, a value of 0.35 should be used as theultimate coefficient of friction between the footing and the underlying soil.

6.0 Pavement Design

6.1 Design TrafficDesign of pavements for the project has been based on the guidelines outlined by the City ofColorado Springs Engineering Criteria Manual: Section II Pavement Design Criteria Manual,dated July 1, 2010, the City of Colorado Springs Engineering Standard Specifications Manual,dated February 2, 2014, and the Pikes Peak Region Asphalt Paving Specification, Version 2dated April 1, 2008, as well as procedures outlined in the 1993 Guideline for Design ofPavement Structures by the American Association of State Highway and TransportationOfficials (AASHTO).

East Pikes Peak Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial roadway. Traffic data of 22,000vehicles per day (VPD), with traffic flowing in each direction, was provided by the City ofColorado Springs. At the request of the City, a growth factor has not been applied for designpurposes. Traffic data was not available at the time of report writing for perpendicular crossstreets for use in evaluating combined traffic loading at intersection locations. The roadwayclassifications were obtained from the provided GSI map titled “Colorado Springs MajorThoroughfare Plan”. The following table summarizes the roadway classification and traffic dataprovided by the City for East Pikes Peak Avenue and major intersections between EastColorado Avenue and Printers Parkway.

Roadway Classification and Traffic Data SummaryRoadway Classification Roadway Traffic Data (VPD)

Major ArterialEast Pikes Peak AvenueNorth Union Boulevard

Printers Parkway22,000

Minor Arterial North/South Hancock Boulevard

Not available at the time of reportwriting

Major/Minor Collector North Institute Street

Local

North Prospect StreetNorth Sheridan Avenue

North Logan AvenueFarragut Avenue

North Meade AvenueSwope AvenueIowa Avenue



The provided one-way VPD value of 22,000 for East Pikes Peak Avenue was converted toEquivalent Daily Load Applications (EDLA) to calculate a design Equivalent Single-Axel Load(ESAL) based on El Paso County criteria. Utilizing the appropriate EDLA factors, designEquivalent Single-Axel Loads (ESALs) were calculated based on the one-way ADT and a 0.9lane distribution factor for the section of East Pikes Peak Avenue between Colorado Boulevardand Printers Parkway. A breakdown of our ESAL calculations and summaries of the full depthpavement thickness design criteria for East Pikes Peak Avenue is presented in the table on thefollowing tables:

East Pikes Peak Avenue Traffic and Load SummaryFlexible Pavement

Vehicle Type Percent ClassVehicle Passes EDLA Factor EDLA

Passenger Cars 95.55 18919 0.003 56.76Busses 0.22 44 0.249 10.85

Single UnitTrucks (SUT)

2-axle 2.04 404 0.249 100.583-axle 0.82 162 0.249 40.43

4-axle+ 0.03 6 0.249 1.48

Single TrailerTrucks (STT)

4-axle max 0.33 65 1.087 71.025-axle 0.94 186 1.087 202.31

6-axle+ 0.04 8 1.087 8.61

Multi TrailerTrucks (MTT)

5-axle max 0.02 4 1.087 4.306-axle 0.01 2 1.087 2.15

7-axle+ 0.00 0 1.087 0.00Total EDLA = 498Total ESAL = 3,638,968



East Pikes Peak Avenue Traffic and Load SummaryRigid Pavement

Vehicle Type Percent ClassVehicle Passes EDLA Factor EDLA

Passenger Cars 95.55 21021 0.003 56.76

Busses 0.22 48 0.285 12.41

Single UnitTrucks (SUT)

2.04 2.04 449 0.285 115.120.82 0.82 180 0.285 46.270.03 0.03 7 0.285 1.69

Single TrailerTrucks (STT)

0.33 0.33 73 1.692 110.560.94 0.94 207 1.692 314.920.04 0.04 9 1.692 13.40

Multi TrailerTrucks (MTT)

0.02 0.02 4 1.692 6.700.01 0.01 2 1.692 3.350.00 0.00 0 1.692 0.00

Total EDLA = 681Total ESAL = 4,972,581

East Pikes Peak AvenueTraffic Design Criteria

Design Criteria ValueRoadway Classification Major Arterial

Design Average One-way ADT with Lane Distribution (0.9)(for 20 year design period)

19,800

Estimated Growth Factor Percentage 0Approximate Truck Percentage 4

Calculated ESAL – Flexible 3,638,968 1

Calculated ESAL – Rigid 4,972,581 2

Estimated ESAL at Union Blvd Intersection – Flexible 7,277,936 3

Estimated ESAL at Union Blvd Intersection – Rigid 9,945,162 3

1. Minimum design ESAL’s for a Major Arterial of 4,500,000 for flexible pavements will be applied ifthe calculated value is less.

2. Minimum design ESALs for a Major Arterial of 4,500,000 for flexible pavements and 6,250,000 forrigid pavements will be applied if the calculated value is less.

3. Assumes the traffic within the Union Boulevard intersection is twice the East Pikes Peak AvenueVolume.

Based on Table 4 of the CSPDCM, the following table summarizes the minimum design ESALsfor major intersections along East Pikes Peak Avenue between East Colorado Avenue andPrinters Parkway with respect to the roadway classification.



City Street Minimum ESAL ValuesRoadway Classification Flexible Pavement ESALs Rigid Pavement ESALs

Major Arterial 4,500,000 6,250,000Minor Arterial 2,500,000 3,250,000

Major/Minor Collector 200,000 200,000Local 50,000 50,000

6.2 Pavement Design ParametersThe following design parameters are based on the Standards and were utilized for pavementthickness design.

Based upon AASHTO criteria, Colorado is located within Climatic Region VI of the UnitedStates. This region is characterized as being dry, with hard ground freeze and spring thaw. Thespring thaw condition typically results in saturated or near-saturated subgrade soil moistureconditions. The AASHTO criteria suggest that these moisture conditions are prevalent forapproximately 12½ percent of the annual moisture variation cycle.

Local drainage characteristics of proposed pavements areas are considered to vary from poorto fair. For purposes of this design analysis, poor drainage characteristics are considered tocontrol the design. These characteristics, coupled with the approximate duration of saturatedsubgrade conditions, results in a design drainage coefficient of 1.0 when applying the AASHTOcriteria for design.

Pavement Thickness Design ParametersInput Parameter Flexible (asphalt) Rigid (concrete)

Reliability 95% 95%

Serviceability Loss 2.0 2.0

Standard Deviation 0.44 0.34

Asphalt Layer Coefficient 0.44 N/A

Aggregate Base Coefficient 0.12 N/A

Lime or Cement Treated Soilswith a compressive strength

between 160 and 350 psi0.14 N/A

Concrete Elastic Modulus(Ec) N/A 3,500,000 psi

Concrete Modulus of Rupture(S’c) N/A 650 psi

Load Transfer Coefficient (J) N/A 3.6 1

1. The Load Transfer Coefficient value provided is based on jointed plain concrete pavementwith dowelled longitudinal and expansion joints at a spacing interval no greater than 15 feet.Also dowelled into the concrete curb and gutter.

Tested R-values for A-6 materials appear appropriate for the encountered clayey soils.However, tested R-values of 73 and 41 for A-2-4 and A-2-6 materials, respectively, appear high



for the encountered soils. A tested R-value of 41 would indicate a Resilient Modulus (Mr) ofapproximately 9,500 psi. Based on the FWD data, a Mr of 9,500 psi would be above a majorityof the existing conditions along East Pikes Peak Avenue. Therefore, it is our opinion that adesign R-value of 20 is appropriate for A-2-4 and A-2-6 soils, or better. The following graphpresents the approximate Mr values obtained from the FWD survey as well as the selecteddesign values.

Design Subgrade ValuesUpper 2 feet of Subgrade

Soils, AASHTO ClassificationDesignR-Value

ResilientModulus

Modulus of SubgradeReaction, k (pci)

A-6/A-7-6 6 3125 90A-2-4/A-2-6 20 4939 100

Full depth reclamation (FDR) 40 9497 200

6.3 Recommended Minimum Pavement SectionsPavement Thickness Design Nomographs provided in CSPDCM were used to generate designstructural numbers. We have provided tables that reflect the use of untreated and chemicallytreated subgrade soils. The nomographs used for design are presented in Appendix D. Basedon calculated structural numbers and corresponding R-Values, we recommend the followingminimum pavement sections for East Pikes Peak Avenue between the intersections at CircleDrive and East Colorado Avenue (STA 107+90 and STA 179+00); at the Union Boulevardintersection (approximately STA 159+50); and for Minor Arterial, Major/Minor Collector, andLocal roadway classifications.

Additionally, we have provided tables that reflect the mitigation measures to stabilize thesubgrade soils. We recommend a soil-lime mix or Full Depth Reclamation (R-Value of 40)replacement in areas with cohesive soil subgrades (R-Value of 6) and a soil-cement mix forgranular soil subgrades (R-Value of 20).



Pavement Thickness SectionsEast Pikes Peak Avenue (STA 107+90 and STA 179+00)

Design ValueStructuralNumber

(SN)

PavementOption

Recommended Pavement Section Thicknesses (inches)HotMix

Asphalt

AggregateBase

Course

PortlandCement

ConcretePavement

SubgradePreparation

TotalSection

R-Value = 6 5.75Flexible 10 12 ---

9 1 31Rigid --- 4 11 24

R-Value = 20 5.0Flexible 8½ 11 ---

9 1 28½Rigid --- 4 11 24

ChemicalStabilization

(R-Value = 6)5.75 Flexible 7 9 --- 12 2 28


(R-Value = 20)5.0 Flexible 6 6 --- 12 2 24

With 24 inches of FDR mixed and compacted subgrade


2440

Rigid --- --- 10½ 34½1. Compacted soil subgrade as outlined in Section 4.2 Earthwork.2. Chemically stabilized subgrade with minimum 7-day compressive strength of 160 psi.3. R-Value of 6, Mitigation: Scarify, water condition, and recompact the upper 9 inches of the soil

subgrade as outlined in the 4.2 Earthwork Section of this report; or replace upper 2 feet ofpavement subgrade with minimum R-value of 20 material and scarify, water condition, andrecompact as outlined in the Section 4.2 Earthwork; or replace 1 foot of existing subgrade with asoil-lime mix in accordance with 4.2.2 Chemical Stabilization Subgrade Preparation; or replaceupper 2 feet of pavement subgrade with minimum R-Value of 40 FDR mix material and scarify,water condition, and recompact as outlined in the Section 4.2 Earthwork.

4. R-Value of 20, Mitigation: Scarify, water condition, and recompact the upper 9 inches of the soilsubgrade as outlined in the 4.2 Earthwork Section of this report; or replace 1 foot of existingsubgrade with a soil-cement mix in accordance with 4.2.2 Chemical Stabilization SubgradePreparation.



Intersection of Union Boulevard andEast Pikes Peak Avenue (Approximately STA 159+50)

Pavement Thickness Sections


(SN)Pavement

Option


Asphalt

AggregateBase

Course

PortlandCement

ConcretePavement

SubgradePreparation

TotalSection


9 134

Rigid --- 4 12 25Chemical

Stabilization(R-value = 6)

6.2 Flexible 7 12 --- 12 2 31

With 24 inches of FDR mixed and compacted subgrade

R-Value = 40 4.45Flexible 7½ 10 ---

2441½

Rigid --- --- 11½ 35½1. Compacted soil subgrade as outlined in Section 4.2 Earthwork.2. Chemically stabilized subgrade with minimum 7-day compressive strength of 160 psi3. R-Value of 6, Mitigation: Scarify, water condition, and recompact the upper 9 inches of the

soil subgrade as outlined in the 4.2 Earthwork Section of this report; or replace upper 2 feetof pavement subgrade with minimum R-value = 20 material and scarify, water condition, andrecompact as outlined in the Section 4.2 Earthwork; or replace 1 foot of existing subgradewith a soil-lime mix in accordance with 4.2.2 Chemical Stabilization SubgradePreparation; or replace upper 1 feet of pavement subgrade with minimum R-Value = 40 FDRmix material and Scarify, water condition, and recompact as outlined in the Section 4.2Earthwork.



Pavement Thickness Sections (Minor Arterials)


(SN)

PavementOption


Asphalt

AggregateBase

Course

PortlandCement

ConcretePavement

SubgradePreparation

TotalSection

R-Value = 6 5.42 Flexible 9½ 11 --- 9 1 29½R-Value = 20 4.69 Flexible 8 10 --- 9 1 27


(R-Value = 6)5.42 Flexible 6½ 8 --- 12 2 26½


(R-Value = 20)4.69 Flexible 5½ 5 --- 12 2 23½

With 24 inches of FDR mixed and compacted subgradeR-Value = 40 3.76 Flexible 6 10 --- 24 40

Pavement Thickness Sections (Major/Minor Collector)


(SN)

PavementOption


Asphalt

AggregateBase

Course

PortlandCement

ConcretePavement

SubgradePreparation

TotalSection

R-Value = 6 3.79 Flexible 6 10 --- 9 1 25R-Value = 20 3.22 Flexible 5 9 --- 9 1 23


(R-Value = 6)3.79 Flexible 4 4 --- 12 2 20½


(R-Value = 20)3.22 Flexible 4 4 --- 12 2 19


1. Compacted soil subgrade as outlined in Section 4.2 Earthwork.2. Chemically stabilized subgrade with minimum 7-day compressive strength of 160 psi.3. R-Value of 6, Mitigation: Scarify, water condition, and recompact the upper 9 inches of the soil





Pavement Thickness Sections (Local)


(SN)

PavementOption


Asphalt

AggregateBase

Course

PortlandCement

ConcretePavement

SubgradePreparation

TotalSection

R-Value = 6 3.06 Flexible 5 8 --- 9 1 22R-Value = 20 2.59 Flexible 4 7 --- 9 1 20


(R-Value = 6)3.06 Flexible 4 4 --- 12 2 19


(R-Value = 20)2.59 Flexible 4 4 --- 12 2 19


1. Compacted soil subgrade as outlined in Section 4.2 Earthwork.2. Chemically stabilized subgrade with minimum 7-day compressive strength of 160 psi.3. R-Value of 6, Mitigation: Scarify, water condition, and recompact the upper 9 inches of the soil



7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so commentscan be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendationsin the design and specifications. Terracon should also be retained to provide testing andobservation during the over excavation (if performed), grading, and construction phases of theproject.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtainedfrom the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed inthis report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across thesite, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations maynot become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should beimmediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can beprovided.



The scope of services for this project does not include, either specifically or by implication, anyenvironmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification orprevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the City is concerned about thepotential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to theproject discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnicalengineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Sitesafety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In theevent that changes are planned in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined inthis report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not beconsidered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes, and either verifies or modifies theconclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION


Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-1

Field Exploration DescriptionThe borings were located in the field by measuring with a measuring wheel from existingproperty lines and site features. Locations of the borings were recorded with a handheld GPSdevice. The accuracy of the handheld GPS is typically on the order of about ± 25 feet. Theaccuracy of the boring locations should only be assumed to the level implied by the methodsused.

The borings were drilled with a CME-75 truck-mounted rotary drill rig with solid-stem augers.During the drilling operations, lithologic logs of the borings were recorded by the field engineer.Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained at selected intervals utilizing a 3-inch outsidediameter ring barrel sampler (RS). Disturbed bulk samples (BS) were obtained from augercuttings. Penetration resistance values were recorded in a manner similar to the standardpenetration test (SPT). This test consists of driving the sampler into the ground with a 140-pound hammer free-falling through a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required toadvance the ring-barrel sampler 12 inches (18-inches for standard split-spoon samplers, final12-inches are recorded) or the interval indicated, is recorded and can be correlated to thestandard penetration resistance value (N-value). The blow count values are indicated on theboring logs at the respective sample depths, ring barrel sample blow counts are not consideredN-values.

An automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the sampler in the borings performed on thissite. A greater efficiency is typically achieved with the automatic hammer compared to theconventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. Published correlations betweenthe ring barrel blow counts, SPT values, and soil properties are based on the lower efficiencycathead and rope method. This higher efficiency affects the standard penetration resistanceblow count value by increasing the penetration per hammer blow over what would be obtainedusing the cathead and rope method. The effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has beenconsidered in the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report.

The standard penetration test provides a reasonable indication of the in-place density of sandytype materials, but only provides an indication of the relative stiffness of cohesive materialssince the blow count in these soils may be affected by the soils moisture content. In addition,considerable care should be exercised in interpreting the N-values in gravelly soils, particularlywhere the size of the gravel particle exceeds the inside diameter of the sampler.

Groundwater measurements were obtained in the borings at the time of site exploration. Uponcompletion of the drilling operations, the borings were backfilled with auger cuttings, andpatched with asphalt. Some settlement of the backfill and asphalt patches may occur andshould be repaired as soon as possible.

Scale:

4172 Centre Park Drive Colorado Springs, Colorado

PH. (719) 597-2116 FAX. (719) 597-2117

RWF

AV

RWF

RWF

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:A-2

Exhibit23165087

11/11/2016

N.T.S

Project No.

File Name:

Date:23155032/A-4

SITE VICINITY MAP

AECOMPIKES PEAK AVENUE PAVEMENT EVALUATION

SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGNCOLORADO SRPINGS COLORADO

Consulting Engineers and Scientists

Approximate location of planned improvements

Section of Pikes Peak Avenue between Circle Drive andPrinters Parkway was overlaid in 2015. Improvement ofthis section is not included in the scope of work

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

Not: Google Earth aerial image datedNovember 2, 2015, used as base image

LEGEND

LEGEND

Scale:


PH. (719) 597-2116 FAX. (719) 597-2117

RWF

AV

RWF

RWF

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:A-3

Exhibit23165087

11/11/2016

N.T.S

Project No.

File Name:

Date:23155032/A-3


Approximate location of Terracon test boringscompleted in 2016

MAT

CH

LIN

EA-

A


SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN

MAT

CH

LIN

EA-

A

MAT

CH

LIN

EB-

B

COLORADO SRPINGS COLORADO

Approximate location of Terracon test boringscompleted in 2015Approximate location of Terracon test boringscompleted in 2008



EXPLORATION PLANCIRCLE DRIVE TO UNION BOULEVARD

LEGEND

Scale:


PH. (719) 597-2116 FAX. (719) 597-2117

RWF

AV

RWF

RWF

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:A-4

Exhibit23165087

11/11/2016

N.T.S

Project No.

File Name:

Date:23155032/A-4

Approximate location of Terracon test boringscompleted in 2016

MAT

CH

LIN

EC

-C


SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN

MAT

CH

LIN

EC

-C


Approximate location of Terracon test boringscompleted in 2015Approximate location of Terracon test boringscompleted in 2008


MAT

CH

LIN

EB-

B



EXPLORATION PLANUNION BOULEVARD TO COLORADO AVENUE

MAT

CH

LIN

EA-

A

Scale:


PH. (719) 597-2116 FAX. (719) 597-2117

RWF

AV

RWF

RWF

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:A-5

Exhibit23165087

11/11/2016

N.T.S

Project No.

File Name:

Date:23155032/A-5


SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGNCOLORADO SRPINGS COLORADO

Consulting Engineers and ScientistsPCI Rating: Very Poor (PCI Range: 26 - 40)

PCI Rating: Serious (PCI Range:11 - 25)


MAT

CH

LIN

EA-

A

LEGEND


PCI RATING

MAT

CH

LIN

EA-

A

Scale:RWF

AV

RWF

RWF

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:A-6

Exhibit23155032

11/11/2016

N.T.S

Project No.

File Name:

Date:23155032/A-6


SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN

LEGEND

Approximate location of Terracon test boringscompleted in 2016Approximate location of Terracon test boringscompleted in 2015Approximate location of Terracon test boringscompleted in 2008


MAT

CH

LIN

EA-

A

MAT

CH

LIN

EB-

B

AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION

A-2-4 Soils

A-2-6 & A-2-7 Soils

A-6(<10) Soils

A-1-b Soils

A-7 & A-6(>10) Soils

EXPLORATION PLAN WITH AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONCIRCLE DRIVE TO UNION BOULEVARD



PH. (719) 597-2116 FAX. (719) 597-2117


Scale:RWF

AV

RWF

RWF

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:A-7

Exhibit23155032

11/11/2016

N.T.S

Project No.

File Name:

Date:23155032/A-7

LEGEND

Approximate location of Terracon test boringscompleted in 2016Approximate location of Terracon test boringscompleted in 2015Approximate location of Terracon test boringscompleted in 2008


MAT

CH

LIN

EB-

B

MAT

CH

LIN

EC

-C

AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION

A-2-4 Soils

A-2-6 & A-2-7 Soils

A-6(<10) Soils

A-1-b Soils

A-7 & A-6(>10) Soils

MAT

CH

LIN

EC

-C

EXPLORATION PLAN WITH AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONUNION BOULEVARD TO COLORADO AVENUE



SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN4172 Centre Park Drive Colorado Springs, Colorado

PH. (719) 597-2116 FAX. (719) 597-2117


9-104-7

2-3

2-3

3-4

5-5

4-6-7N=13

5-5-33N=38

0.61.5

3.0

12.0

18.0

22.0

25.5

ASPHALT, approximately 7-inches thickBASE COURSE, approximately 10.5-inches thickFILL - CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace gravel, fine to coarse grained,dark grayish-brown, loosePOORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT (SM), fine to mediumgrained, dark grayish-brown, very loose to loose

- color change to brown below 6 feet

CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium grained, grayish-brown,loose, with iron-staining

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC), fine to coarsegrained, mottled light brown, brown and dark gray, medium dense

CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium grained, light brown and darkgray, dense

Boring Terminated at 25.5 Feet

712

4

5

10

9

21

10

118109

108

104

103

108

5974.55973.5

5972

5963

5957

5953

5949.5

1011

12

12

12

12

10

9

GR

APH

ICLO

G

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION

Latitude: 38.8335° Longitude: -104.812°

See Exhibit A-2

Colorado Ave. to Hancock Ave. Colorado Springs, COSITE:

Page 1 of 1

Advancement Method:4-inch solid stem auger

Abandonment Method:Borings backfilled with cement-bentonite grout uponcompletion.

Notes:

Project No.: 23165087

Drill Rig: GEFCO SS-10

Boring Started: 9/28/2016

BORING LOG NO. B-202AECOMCLIENT:Colorado Springs, CO

Driller: Meyers, LLC.

Boring Completed: 9/28/2016

Exhibit: A-8

See Exhibit A-1 for description of field procedures

See Appendix B for description of laboratoryprocedures and additional data (if any).See Appendix C for explanation of symbols andabbreviations.

PROJECT: E. Pikes Peak Ave. Pavement Evaluation

4172 Center Park DrColorado Springs, CO

24 feet while drilling20 feet measured after 24 hours

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Surface Elev.: 5975 (Ft.)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5

10

15

20

25

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

4-3

3-3

3-3

3-4

4-5

4-5

3-4-6N=10

4-5-6N=11

4-2-3N=5

0.30.5

30.5

ASPHALT, approximately 4-inches thickBASE COURSE, approximately 2.5-inches thickCLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to coarse grained, brown, very loose tomedium dense- trace gravel observed at 2 feet- with calcium and iron-staining below 4 feet

- color change to dark brown below 19 feet

- poorly graded sand lenses observed below 27 feet


8

10

11

12

7

11

10

11

8

10

4

10

10

11

13

14

19

101

103

96

93

100

99

5983.55983.5

5953.5

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit:

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

A-9







PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)


28-368-8

11-17

N=50/6"

N=50/6"

N=50/6"

N=50/5"

N=50/4"

0.21.3

6.0

24.3

approximately 2.5-inches thickBASE COURSE, approximately 12.5-inches thickCLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium grained, brown, loose to verydense

color change to delineated grayish-brown and gray below 4 feet

INTERBEDDED SANDY CLAYSTONE AND CLAYEYSANDSTONE, fine to medium grained, dark gray, hard to very hardtrace iron-staining below 6 feet

color change to grayish brown below 9 feet

color change to dark gray

trace shells observed at 24 feetBoring Terminated at 24.25 Feet

410

11

12

9

11

8

8

128106

112

112

122

116

59995998

5993

5975

1110

12

6

6

6

5

4

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit: A-10





No free water observed during drilling13.5 feet measured after 24 hours


PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)


SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5

10

15

20R

ECO

VER

Y(In

.)

9-9

4-5

5-4

5-5

10-12

21-29

N=50/3"

N=50/4"

0.30.62.0

4.0

8.0

17.0

24.3

ASPHALT, approximately 3-inches thickBASE COURSE, approximately 4-inches thickFILL - CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium grained, mixed darkbrown and brown, loose, - sample distrubance at 0.5 feetCLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium grained, brown, looseSILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium grained, brown, loose

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC), fine to mediumgrained, dark brown, grayish-brown and reddish-brown, mediumdense to very dense

SANDY CLAYSTONE, dark gray, very hard, trace calcium depositsand iron-staining


10

4

6

5

11

18

4

10

105

98

103

108

105

60196018.5

6017

6015

6011

6002

5995

11

10

11

11

10

12

6

4

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit: A-11







PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)


SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5

10

15

20R

ECO

VER

Y(In

.)

7-114-4

3-3

3-3

3-4

2-2

6-10-17N=27

0.41.02.0

16.0

20.5

ASPHALT, approximately 5-inches thickBASE COURSE, approximately 6.5-inches thickFILL - CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace gravel, mixed dark brown tobrown, with pockets of gray to dark gray lean clayCLAYEY SAND (SC), trace fine gravel, fine to medium grained,brown to dark brown, loose to medium dense

sample disturbed at 14 feet

LEAN CLAY (CL), fine to medium grained, layered dark gray,brown and gray, hard


148

4

9

8

22

111101

103

101

103

6019.560196018

6004

5999.5

1010

12

12

12

0

13

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit: A-12





16 feet while drilling13.5 feet measured after 24 hours


PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)


SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5

10

15

20R

ECO

VER

Y(In

.)

5-1111-11

5-5

6-6

13-17

N=50/5"

N=50/5"

0.40.8

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.5

19.5

ASPHALT, approximately 5-inches thickBASE COURSE, approximately 5-inches thickSILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium grained, light brown, mediumdense

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILTY CLAY (SP-SC), fine tomedium grained, light brown to brown, loose

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), trace coarsesand, fine to medium grained, mottled light brown, brown and darkbrown, looseSANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), fine to medium grained, mottled gray,brown and dark gray, very stiff

SANDY CLAYSTONE, dark gray, very hard


107

6

7

11

10

5

105101

104

89

109

103

6025.56025

6022

6020

6018

6015.5

6006.5

10

8

11

12

10

5

5

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit: A-13





No free water observed during drilling11 feet measured after 24 hours


PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)


SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5

10

15

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

8-6

6-6

8-7

6-6

6-8

5-4

0.8

6.0

11.5

15.0

ASPHALT, approximately 9-inches thickFILL - CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace gravel, fine to coarse grained,mixed dark brown and brown, loose, with pockets of dark brown leanclay

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), fine to mediumgrained, brown, loose

CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium grained, brown, loose

Boring Terminated at 15 Feet

35

34

18

6

5

11

83

63

104

110

111

111

6011.5

6006

6000.5

5997

10

12

12

12

12

12

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit: A-14





No free water observed during drillingWATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)


SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5

10

15

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

12-105-6

5-8

5-6

4-3

7-9

N=50/5"

0.60.8

12.0

16.0

19.5

ASPHALT, approximately 7-inches thickPOORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC), fine to coarsegrained, brown, approximately 3-inches thickPOORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), brown, loose

LEAN CLAY (CL), mottled brown and gray, stiff

- sample distrubed at 14 feet.

SANDY CLAYSTONE, dark gray, very hard, with trace shells


44

5

16

24

16

112104

107

101

6034.56034

6023

6019

6015.5

10

11

12

0

12

12

0.5

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit: A-15





10.75 feet while drilling7 feet measured after 4 hours


PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)


SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5

10

15

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

5-7

4-4

4-4

0.3

0.8

2.0

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 3.5-inches thickBASE COURSE, approximately 6.5-inches thick

FILL - LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), brown, medium stiff

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grained,brown, loose


71

7

20

9

104

109

49-22-27

6035.5

6035

6034

6031

11

10

0

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit: A-16






PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)


SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5R

ECO

VER

Y(In

.)

10-9

5-5

3-4

0.5

0.8

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 5.5-inches thick

BASE COURSE, approximately 4.5-inches thick

SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), fine to coarse grained, loose tomedium dense


229

8

8

108

110

106

21-17-4

6043.5

6043

6039

10

11

12

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit: A-17






PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)


SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5R

ECO

VER

Y(In

.)

11-8

9-16

15-18

0.4

0.9

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 5-inches thick


SILTY SAND (SM), trace gravel, fine to medium grained, brown,medium dense


159

21

17

107

103

239

NP

6053.5

6053

6049

11

12

10

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit: A-18






PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)


SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5R

ECO

VER

Y(In

.)

11-8

9-16

15-18

0.3

0.7

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 3.5-inches thickBASE COURSE, approximately 4.5-inches thick

LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, very stiff


8916

18

23

104

94

37-19-18

6065.5

6065.5

6061

11

12

10

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit: A-19






PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)


SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5R

ECO

VER

Y(In

.)

9-16

8-13

9-16

0.3

0.8

5.0



SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, very stiff


6318

18

18

108

105

103

37-18-19

6079.5

6079

6075

10

12

10

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit: A-20






PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)


SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5R

ECO

VER

Y(In

.)

13-10

6-7

8-11

0.3

0.6

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 3.5-inches thickBASE COURSE, approximately 3.5-inches thickSANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, stiff to very stiff


6510

16

19

117

104

104

39-19-20

6086.5

6086.5

6082

11

12

12

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit: A-21






PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)


SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5R

ECO

VER

Y(In

.)

10-7

10-6

5-6

0.6

5.0


CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to coarse grained, brown, loose


4510

11

19

108

105

102

36-17-19

6092.5

6088

10

9

11

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit: A-22






PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)


SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5R

ECO

VER

Y(In

.)

8-12

5-9

6-11

0.3

5.0


SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), brown, loose


3011

4

4

108

109

106

22-17-5

6094

6089.5

10

11

12

GR

APH

ICLO

G


THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T12

/9/1

6

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-2


Page 1 of 1



Notes:







Exhibit: A-23






PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Surface Elev.: 6094.5 (Ft.)

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)

5R

ECO

VER

Y(In

.)

5,940

5,950

5,960

5,970

5,980

5,990

6,000

6,010

6,020

6,030

6,040

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,4005,940

5,950

5,960

5,970

5,980

5,990

6,000

6,010

6,020

6,030

6,0400 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400

BT-25.5 Ft.

B-202

BT-30.5 Ft.

B-203

BT-24.3 Ft.

B-204

BT-24.3 Ft.

B-205

BT-20.5 Ft.

B-206

BT-19.5 Ft.

B-207

BT-19.5 Ft.

B-209

BoreholeTermination Type

BoreholeLithology

Explanation

Distance Along Baseline - Feet

Elev

atio

n-F

eet

NOTES:

AsphaltGeoEng Fill(madeground)

ClayeySand Silty Sand

Poorly-gradedSand withClay

Shale Lean ClayPoorly-gradedSand withSilt

Sandy LeanClay

Sampling(See General Notes)

See Exhibit A-2 for orientation of soil profile.See General Notes in Appendix C for symbols and soil classifications.Soils profile provided for illustration purposes only.Soils between borings may differAR - Auger RefusalBT - Boring Termination

EastWest

Water Level Readingafter drilling.

Water Level Readingat time of drilling.

B-202%wMoisture

Content LL PL

ARBT

Liquid and Plastic Limits

BoreholeNumber


PH. 719-597-2116 FAX. 719-597-2117

SUBSURFACE PROFILE EXHIBITProject Manager: MKM

Section A-A'E. PIKES PEAK AVE. PAVEMENT EVALUATION

COLORADO AVE. TO IOWA AVE.COLORADO SPRINGS, CO

File Name: 23165087.A-24

Scale: N.T.S.


Drawn by: AV

Date: 11/30/2016

Approved by: RWF

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

SMAR

TFE

NC

E23

1650

87.G

PJTE

RR

ACO

N20

12.G

DT

11/3

0/16 Approximate Invert of proposed

72-inch storm line

A-24

Sta.

110

+30,

MH

100-

1

Sta.

112

+30,

MH

100-

2

Sta.

114

+70.

MH

100-

3 Sta.

121

+40,

M

H10

0-5

Sta.

123

+60,

M

H10

0-6

Sta.

127

+10,

M

H10

0-7

Sta.

133

+20,

M

H10

0-9

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING


Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit B-1

Laboratory TestingSamples retrieved during the field exploration were returned to the laboratory for observation bythe project geotechnical engineer, and were classified in general accordance with the UnifiedSoil Classification System and Description of Rock Properties described in Appendix C.

At this time, an applicable laboratory-testing program was formulated to determine engineeringproperties of the subsurface materials. Following the completion of the laboratory testing, thefield descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary, and Logs of Borings were prepared.These logs are presented in Appendix A.

Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. These results were used for thegeotechnical engineering analyses and to aid in the design and construction of pavements forthis project. All laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable localor other accepted standards.

Selected soil samples were tested for the following engineering properties:

n Water contentn Dry densityn Grain sizen Atterberg Limitsn Consolidation/expansion

n Moisture-density relationshipn R-valuen Water soluble sulfate contentn Water soluble chloride contentn pHn Electrical resistivity

B-202 1.46 - 2.46 6.7 117.9

B-202 2.46 - 3.46

B-202 4 - 5 4.3 108.2

B-202 7 - 8 5.3 104.2

B-202 9 - 10 10.0 103.1

B-202 14 - 15 9.0 108.1

B-202 19 - 20.5 20.6

B-202 24 - 25.5 10.1

B-203 0.54 - 1.54 10.1 100.5

B-203 2 - 3 4.2 103.5

B-203 4 - 5 10.3 95.9

B-203 7 - 8 10.1 93.3

B-203 9 - 10 11.5 100.0

B-203 14 - 15 12.7 99.1

B-203 19 - 20.5 14.0

B-203 24 - 25.5 19.2

B-203 29 - 30.5

B-204 1.25 - 2.25 3.5 128.0

B-204 2.25 - 3.25 10.1 105.7

B-204 4 - 5 10.7 112.1

B-204 7 - 7.5 11.8 111.6

B-204 9 - 9.5 9.1 121.7

B-204 14 - 14.5 10.6 115.7

B-204 19 - 19.5 7.7

B-204 24 - 24.25 8.2

B-205 0.58 - 1.58 9.5

B-205 2 - 3 4.2 105.3

B-205 3 - 10

B-205 4 - 5 6.4 98.3

B-205 7 - 8 4.7 102.6

B-205 9 - 10 10.6 108.2

B-205 14 - 15 18.3 104.9

B-205 19 - 19.5 3.9

B-205 24 - 24.25 10.5

B-206 0.96 - 1.96 14.4 110.9

B-206 2 - 3 8.0 101.4

B-206 3 - 10

B-206 4 - 5 4.5 103.4

B-206 7 - 8 9.2 101.5

B-206 9 - 10 8.0 103.0

B-206 14 - 15

B-206 19 - 20.5 21.6

Sheet 1 of 3Summary of Laboratory Results

AASHTO Classificationand Soil DescriptionDepth

CompressiveStrength

(psi)

%<#200Sieve

DryDensity

(pcf)

WaterContent

(%)BORING

IDLiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

%Gravel

%Sand

%Silt

%Clay

PROJECT NUMBER: 23165087PROJECT: E. Pikes Peak Ave. Pavement

Evaluation

SITE: Colorado Ave. to Hancock Ave. Colorado Springs, CO

CLIENT: AECOM Colorado Springs, CO

EXHIBIT: B-24172 Center Park Dr

Colorado Springs, CO

LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.O

LD-L

ABSU

MM

ARY:

AASH

TO23

1650

87.G

PJTE

RR

ACO

N20

12.G

DT

12/9

/16

B-207 0.84 - 1.84 10.1 105.3

B-207 2 - 3 6.8 100.7

B-207 4 - 5 5.6 104.0

B-207 7 - 8 7.2 89.2

B-207 9 - 10 10.9 109.2

B-207 14 - 14.5 10.4 102.6

B-207 19 - 19.5 4.9

B-208 0.75 - 1.75 35.1 83.4

B-208 2 - 3 33.8 63.1

B-208 4 - 5 18.2 104.1

B-208 7 - 8 5.8 109.5

B-208 9 - 10 5.4 111.0

B-208 14 - 15 11.3 111.1

B-209 0.83 - 1.83 4.4 111.9

B-209 2 - 3 4.3 103.8

B-209 4 - 5 4.9 106.7

B-209 7 - 8

B-209 9 - 10 16.3 100.6

B-209 14 - 15 24.3

B-209 19 - 19.5 16.1

B-301 0.83 - 1.83 A-7-6 (18) 49 22 27 70.6 0.2 29.2 20.1 103.6

B-301 2 - 3 8.8 109.1

B-301 3 - 5

B-301 4 - 5

B-302 0.83 - 1.83 A-2-4 (0) 21 17 4 22.4 0.0 77.6 8.9 108.1

B-302 2 - 3 7.7 109.9

B-302 4 - 5 8.0 105.9

B-303 0.88 - 1.88 A-2-4 (0) NP NP NP 15.2 0.0 84.7 8.6 107.0

B-303 2 - 3 21.1 102.7

B-303 4 - 5 16.6 239.2

B-304 0.67 - 1.67 A-6 (16) 37 19 18 89.0 1.0 9.9 15.8

B-304 2 - 3 17.6 104.5

B-304 3 - 5

B-304 4 - 5 23.1 93.9

B-305 0.79 - 1.79 A-6 (10) 37 18 19 63.1 0.0 36.9 17.7 107.5

B-305 2 - 3 17.7 104.8

B-305 3 - 5

B-305 4 - 5 17.9 103.4

B-306 0.58 - 1.58 A-6 (11) 39 19 20 64.7 0.0 35.3 9.6 116.9

B-306 2 - 3 15.9 103.5

B-306 3 - 5

B-306 4 - 5 18.7 104.1



CompressiveStrength

(psi)

%<#200Sieve

DryDensity

(pcf)

WaterContent

(%)BORING

IDLiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

%Gravel

%Sand

%Silt

%Clay


Evaluation





LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.O

LD-L

ABSU

MM

ARY:

AASH

TO23

1650

87.G

PJTE

RR

ACO

N20

12.G

DT

12/9

/16

B-307 0.58 - 1.58 A-6 (5) 36 17 19 45.2 0.0 54.8 10.1 108.2

B-307 2 - 3 11.4 105.3

B-307 4 - 5 19.4 101.7

B-308 0.33 - 1.33 A-2-4 (0) 22 17 5 30.4 0.1 69.4 10.6 108.2

B-308 2 - 3 4.1 109.1

B-308 4 - 5 4.0 105.6



CompressiveStrength

(psi)

%<#200Sieve

DryDensity

(pcf)

WaterContent

(%)BORING

IDLiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

%Gravel

%Sand

%Silt

%Clay


Evaluation





LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.O

LD-L

ABSU

MM

ARY:

AASH

TO23

1650

87.G

PJTE

RR

ACO

N20

12.G

DT

12/9

/16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

"A" Line

4921NP3737393622

2217NP1918191717

274

NP181920195

7122158963654530

LL

B-301B-302B-303B-304B-305B-306B-307B-308

ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTSASTM D4318

0.83 - 1.80.83 - 1.80.88 - 1.90.67 - 1.70.79 - 1.80.58 - 1.60.58 - 1.60.33 - 1.3

Description

A-7-6 (18)

A-2-4 (0)

A-2-4 (0)

A-6 (16)

A-6 (10)

A-6 (11)

A-6 (5)

A-2-4 (0)

CHor

OH

CLor

OL

ML or OL

MH or OH

PL PIBoring ID Depth Fines

PLASTICITY

INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT

"U" Lin

e

LEAN CLAY with SAND

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND

SILTY SAND

LEAN CLAY

SANDY LEAN CLAY

SANDY LEAN CLAY

CLAYEY SAND

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND

AASHTO


Evaluation

SITE: Colorado Ave. to Iowa Ave. Colorado Springs, CO




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.AT

TER

BER

GLI

MIT

S-AA

SHTO

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T11

/30/

16

CL-ML

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

USCS Classification AASHTO Classification Boring ID Depth LL

D100 D30

Cc Cu

Boring ID Depth D60 %Clay

49

21

NP

37

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

SILT OR CLAY

4 501.5 2006 810 14

9.5

4.75

9.5

9.5

0.091

0.112

0.2

0.0

0.0

1.0

29.2

77.6

84.7

9.9

B-301

B-302

B-303

B-304

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

HYDROMETER

PL PI

D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt

22

17

NP

19

27

4

NP

18

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLES GRAVEL SANDcoarse medium

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PER

CEN

TFI

NER

BYW

EIG

HT

coarse fine

LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL)

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM)

SILTY SAND (SM)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

A-7-6 (18)

A-2-4 (0)

A-2-4 (0)

A-6 (16)

B-301

B-302

B-303

B-304

0.275

0.371

70.6

22.4

15.2

89.0

0.83 - 1.8

0.83 - 1.8

0.88 - 1.9

0.67 - 1.7

0.83 - 1.8

0.83 - 1.8

0.88 - 1.9

0.67 - 1.7

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136


Evaluation





LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.G

RAI

NSI

ZE:U

SCS

&AA

SHTO

CO

MBI

NED

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T11

/30/

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40




D100 D30

Cc Cu


37

39

36

22

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

SILT OR CLAY

4 501.5 2006 810 14

4.75

4.75

4.75

9.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

36.9

35.3

54.8

69.4

B-305

B-306

B-307

B-308

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

HYDROMETER

PL PI


18

19

17

17

19

20

19

5

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLES GRAVEL SANDcoarse medium


PER

CEN

TFI

NER

BYW

EIG

HT

coarse fine

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)


CLAYEY SAND (SC)


A-6 (10)

A-6 (11)

A-6 (5)

A-2-4 (0)

B-305

B-306

B-307

B-308

0.112

0.143

63.1

64.7

45.2

30.4

0.79 - 1.8

0.58 - 1.6

0.58 - 1.6

0.33 - 1.3

0.79 - 1.8

0.58 - 1.6

0.58 - 1.6

0.33 - 1.3

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136


Evaluation





LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.G

RAI

NSI

ZE:U

SCS

&AA

SHTO

CO

MBI

NED

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T11

/30/

16

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Test Method

Remarks:

TEST RESULTS

PIPLLL

ATTERBERG LIMITS

PCF%

Maximum Dry Density Optimum Water Content

102.7

% Percent Fines

ASTM D698 Method A

21.5

DR

YD

ENSI

TY,p

cf

WATER CONTENT, %

ZAV for Gs = 2.8

ZAV for Gs = 2.7

ZAV for Gs = 2.6

Source of MaterialDescription of Material

MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIPASTM D698/D1557

4172 Center Park Dr Colorado Springs, CO

PROJECT: E. Pikes Peak Pavement Evaluation PROJECT NUMBER: 23165087

SITE: CLIENT: AECOM

EXHIBIT: B-8

LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.C

OM

PAC

TIO

N-V

2SO

IL-L

IME

2316

5087

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T11

/14/

16

89

37 19 18

Colorado Ave. to Iowa Ave.Colorado Springs, CO Colorado Springs, CO

5- Gallon Bulk Samplerecovered from Boring B-304between 3 to 5 feet below

5% lime by weight

existing grade.

PROJECT: E. Pikes Peak Ave. Pavement Evaluation JOB NO: 23165087LOCATION: WORK ORDER NO: -MATERIAL: LAB NO: 8312

SAMPLE SOURCE: B-304, 3 to 5 feet DATE SAMPLED: 9/29/16REVIEWED BY: RWF

SAMPLE LIME MAX AGEID CONTENT LOAD STRESS IN DAYS

(%) (lbs) (psi)

1 3.0 2,149 171 72 3.0 2,400 191 73 3.0 2,149 171 7

AVERAGE STRESS(psi): 178

3 5.0 2,325 185 74 5.0 2,325 185 75 5.0 2,752 219 7


6 7.0 2,099 167 77 7.0 2,224 177 78 7.0 2,262 180 7


SOIL-LIME MIX UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHASTM D5102 Method B

Lean Clay (CL)Colorado Springs, Colorado

5- Gallon Bulk Sample recovered from Boring B-304 between 3 to 5feet below existing grade.

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Aver

age

unco

nfin

edco

mpr

essi

vest

reng

th(p

si)

Lime content by weight (%)

Soil-Lime MixUnconfined Compressive Strength

7 Day strength

Exhibit: B-9

161021011TASK NO:

Analytical Results

Terracon, Inc. - Colo Springs

Ryan Feist

Company:

Report To:

Company:

Bill To:

4172 Center Park DriveColo. Springs CO 80916

Accounts Payable

Terracon, Inc. - A/P18001 W. 106th StSuite 300Olathe KS 66061

Pikes Peak Pavement Eval 23165087Date Reported: 10/28/16

Task No.: 161021011

Matrix: Soil - Geotech

Date Received: 10/21/16

Client Project:Client PO:

Customer Sample ID 23165087 Boring B-304 3-5ft

Test Method

161021011-01Lab Number:

Result

Sulfate - Water Soluble AASHTO T290-91/ ASTM D4327 0.011 %

240 South Main Street / Brighton, CO 80601-0507 / 303-659-2313Mailing Address: P.O. Box 507 / Brighton, CO 80601-0507 / Fax: 303-659-2315

DATA APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY

Abbreviations/ References:

161021011

AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials. ASA - American Society of Agronomy. DIPRA - Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association Handbook of Ductile Iron Pipe.

Exhibit: B-10

APPENDIX C

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS

Water levels indicated on the soil boringlogs are the levels measured in theborehole at the times indicated.Groundwater level variations will occurover time. In low permeability soils,accurate determination of groundwaterlevels is not possible with short termwater level observations.

NoRecovery

ModifiedDames & MooreRing Sampler

GrabSample

ModifiedCalifornia

Ring Sampler

GENERAL NOTES

4 - 8

Unconfined CompressiveStrength, Qu, psf

ST

RE

NG

TH

TE

RM

S

Over 12 in. (300 mm)12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mmPassing #200 sieve (0.075mm)

Particle Size

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

< 55 - 12> 12

Percent ofDry Weight

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES

01 - 1011 - 30

> 30

Plasticity Index

SA

MP

LIN

G

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

> 99 4,000 to 8,000

2,000 to 4,000

MacroCore

1,000 to 2,000

500 to 1,000

less than 500

Stiff59 - 98

19 - 5810 - 29

Soft7 - 18

Very Soft0 - 60 - 3Very Loose

Hard

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

Includes gravels, sands and silts.

Percent ofDry Weight

Major Componentof Sample

Water Level After aSpecified Period of Time

Water InitiallyEncountered

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

< 1515 - 29> 30

Term

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

8 - 15

RockCore

Split SpoonShelby Tube

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

30 - 50

5 - 9Medium-Stiff

3 - 42 - 44 - 9

< 30 - 1

Very Dense

Dense

Medium Dense

Ring SamplerBlows/Ft.

Ring SamplerBlows/Ft.

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

Very Stiff

Loose

Descriptive Term(Consistency)

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

TraceWithModifier

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

Water Level Aftera Specified Period of Time

TraceWithModifier

Bulk

Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dryweight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils haveless than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, andsilts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may beadded according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are definedon the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracyof such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey wasconducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographicmaps of the area.

> 8,000

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field

visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance

(HP)

(T)

(b/f)

N

(PID)

(OVA)

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Standard PenetrationTest (blows per foot)

N value

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

_

> 42> 30

19 - 4215 - 30> 50

10 - 18

BouldersCobblesGravelSandSilt or Clay

Non-plasticLowMediumHigh

Descriptive Term(Density)

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FIE

LD

TE

ST

S

Exhibit C-1

Exhibit C-2

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group Symbol

Group Name B

Coarse Grained Soils: More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels: More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels: Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines: More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands: 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands: Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines: More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils: 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays: Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line J CL Lean clay K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays: Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles

or boulders, or both” to group name. C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded

gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name. I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name. J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,”

whichever is predominant. L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to

group name. M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name. N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O PI 4 or plots below “A” line. P PI plots on or above “A” line. Q PI plots below “A” line.

Exhibit C-3

DESCRIPTION OF ROCK PROPERTIES

WEATHERINGTerm Description Unweathered No visible sign of rock material weathering, perhaps slight discoloration on major discontinuity surfaces. Slightly weathered

Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and discontinuity surfaces. All the rock material may be discolored by weathering and may be somewhat weaker externally than in its fresh condition.

Moderately weathered

Less than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a continuous framework or as corestones.

Highly weathered

More than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones.

Completely weathered

All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. The original mass structure is still largely intact.

Residual soil All rock material is converted to soil. The mass structure and material fabric are destroyed. There is a large change in volume, but the soil has not been significantly transported.

STRENGTH OR HARDNESS

Description Field Identification Uniaxial Compressive Strength, PSI (MPa)

Extremely weak Indented by thumbnail 40-150 (0.3-1)

Very weak Crumbles under firm blows with point of geological hammer, can be peeled by a pocket knife

150-700 (1-5)

Weak rock Can be peeled by a pocket knife with difficulty, shallow indentations made by firm blow with point of geological hammer

700-4,000 (5-30)

Medium strong Cannot be scraped or peeled with a pocket knife, specimen can be fractured with single firm blow of geological hammer

4,000-7,000 (30-50)

Strong rock Specimen requires more than one blow of geological hammer to fracture it

7,000-15,000 (50-100)

Very strong Specimen requires many blows of geological hammer to fracture it 15,000-36,000 (100-250) Extremely strong Specimen can only be chipped with geological hammer >36,000 (>250)

DISCONTINUITY DESCRIPTION

Fracture Spacing (Joints, Faults, Other Fractures) Bedding Spacing (May Include Foliation or Banding)

Description Spacing Description Spacing

Extremely close < ¾ in (<19 mm) Laminated < ½ in (<12 mm)

Very close ¾ in – 2-1/2 in (19 - 60 mm) Very thin ½ in – 2 in (12 – 50 mm)

Close 2-1/2 in – 8 in (60 – 200 mm) Thin 2 in – 1 ft (50 – 300 mm)

Moderate 8 in – 2 ft (200 – 600 mm) Medium 1 ft – 3 ft (300 – 900 mm)

Wide 2 ft – 6 ft (600 mm – 2.0 m) Thick 3 ft – 10 ft (900 mm – 3 m)

Very Wide 6 ft – 20 ft (2.0 – 6 m) Massive > 10 ft (3 m) Discontinuity Orientation (Angle): Measure the angle of discontinuity relative to a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the core. (For most cases, the core axis is vertical; therefore, the plane perpendicular to the core axis is horizontal.) For example, a horizontal bedding plane would have a 0 degree angle.

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD*) Description RQD Value (%) Very Poor 0 - 25

Poor 25 – 50 Fair 50 – 75

Good 75 – 90 Excellent 90 - 100

*The combined length of all sound and intact core segments equal to or greater than 4 inches in length, expressed as a percentage of the total core run length.

Reference: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No FHWA-NHI-10-034, December 2009

Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels – Civil Elements

DRAIN PIPE SHOULD BE SLOPED AT A

MINIMUM OF 1/8-INCH PER FOOT TO STORM

SEWER OR OTHER SUITABLE OUTLET

NOTE:

MINIMUM 3-INCH DIAMETER

PERFORATED RIGID PVC DRAIN

PIPE IN FABRIC SOCK WITH

PERFORATIONS DOWN

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

GUTTER

18" MINIMUM

8"

MINIMUM

FREE DRAINING 3/4" GRAVEL OR

RECYCLED CONCRETE WITH LESS

THAN 5% PASSING THE No.200 SIEVE

WRAPPED IN MIRAFI 140N OR

EQUIVALENT

ASPHALT CONCRETE

PAVEMENT

2"

4" MINIMUM

6 TO 10-INCH THICK CLAY OR

LOW PERMEABILITY SOIL CAP

AGGREGATE

BASE COURSE

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

Project Mngr:

File No.

Date:

Scale:

Project No. Exhibit


4172 Center Park Drive Colorado Springs, Colorado 80916FAX. (719) 597-2117PH. (719) 597-2116

PAVEMENT EDGE DRAIN DETAILRWF

AV

RWF

RWF

23155032

NOT TO SCALE

Drawings\EdgeDrain

03/04/2016C-4

City of Colorado SpringsEAST PIKES PEAK AVENUE PAVEMENT EVALUATION

CIRCLE DRIVE TO COLORADO AVENUECOLORADO SPRINGS COLORADO

APPENDIX D

PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN NOMOGRAPHS

Geotechnical Engineering Pavement Thickness Design ReportPikes East Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement Evaluation ■ Colorado Springs, CODecember 31, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. 23155032

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

SN = 5.75

R-Value = 6

Exhibit D-1

R-value = 6East Pikes Peak Avenue



R-Value = 6

Exhibit D-1




(Cont.)

Concrete Thickness = 11”

R-Value = 6

Exhibit D-1




kcorr = 16

Exhibit D-1



SN = 5.00

R-Value = 20

Exhibit D-2




R-Value = 20

Exhibit D-2




(Cont.)


R-Value = 20

Exhibit D-2




kcorr = 19

Exhibit D-2



SN = 6.20

at Union Blvd intersection

R-Value = 6

Exhibit D-3

R-value = 6East Pikes Peak Avenue at Union Boulevard Intersection




R-Value = 6

Exhibit D-3




(Cont.)



R-Value = 6

Exhibit D-3


Geotechnical Engineering Pavement Thickness Design ReportEast Peak Avenue Pavement Evaluation ■ Colorado Springs, ColoradoDecember 31, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. 23155032


kcorr = 15

Exhibit D-3

Geotechnical Engineering Pavement Thickness Design ReportPikes East Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement Evaluation ■ Colorado Springs, COFebruary 2, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 23155032


SN = 4.10

R-Value = 40

Exhibit D-4

East Pikes Peak AvenueR-value = 40



R-Value = 40

Exhibit D-4




(Cont.)

Concrete Thickness = 10.5”

R-value = 40

Exhibit D-4




kcorr = 40

Exhibit D-4



SN = 4.45

R-Value = 40

Union Boulevard Intersection

Exhibit D-4

East Pikes Peak Avenue at Union Boulevard IntersectionR-value = 40



R-value = 40

Exhibit D-4




(Cont.)

Concrete Thickness = 11.5”

Exhibit D-4


Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering and Pavement Thickness Design ReportEast Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement Evaluation ■ Colorado Springs, ColoradoDecember 2, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 23165087


SN = 5.42

Minor ArterialR-Value = 6

Exhibit D-5



SN = 3.79

Major/Minor CollectorR-Value = 6

Exhibit D-6



SN = 3.06

LocalR-Value = 6

Exhibit D-7



SN = 4.69


Exhibit D-8



SN = 3.22


Exhibit D-9



SN = 2.59

LocalR-Value = 20

Exhibit D-10



SN = 3.76


Exhibit D-11



SN = 2.54


Exhibit D-12



SN = 2.02

LocalR-Value = 40

Exhibit D-13

APPENDIX EBORING LOGS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS(TERRACON REPORT NO. 23085044 AND 23155032)

22

7

7 NP

11 N = 34

0.7

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 8 inches

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, dense



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6

Colorado Avenue to Circle Drive Colorado Springs, ColoradoSITE:

Page 1 of 1



4172 Center Park DriveColorado Springs, Colorado

Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50


BORING LOG NO. B-1City of Colorado SpringsCLIENT:

Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-11

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.


PROJECT: Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement Evaluation

PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH

LOCATION See Exhibit A-2


None encountered while drillingWATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

266 25-16-9

0.4

5.0


CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-12




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




24

8

8 NP

12 N = 31

0.5

5.0


SILTY SAND (SM), brown, dense



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-13




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




3910 32-16-16

0.4

5.0





GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-14




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




29

18

32 43-31-12

10 N = 32

0.6

5.0


SILTY SAND (SM), dark gray to brown, dense



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-15




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




4613 32-15-17

0.3

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 4 inchesCLAYEY SAND (SC), dark brown



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-16




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




67

15

10 39-16-23

11 N = 20

0.5

1.0

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 5½ inches

BASE COURSE, approximately 6 inches

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, very stiff



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-17




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




3812 32-15-17

1.0

1.7

5.0






GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-18




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




19

6

8 NP

10 N = 23

1.1

5.0


SILTY SAND (SM), brown, medium dense



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-19




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




4410 35-16-20

0.4

1.1

5.0






GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-20




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




21

9

10 NP

10 N = 26

0.5

5.0


SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, medium dense



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-21




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




298 25-20-5

0.5

5.0


SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), brown



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-22




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




34

15

8 30-19-11

4 N = 50/4"

0.5

1.0

5.0

ASPHALT

BASE COURSE, very dense

CLAYEY SAND (SC), dark brown to dark gray



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-23




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




146 NP

0.4

5.0


SILTY SAND (SM), brown



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-24




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




59

17

19 43-17-26

11 N = 14

0.3

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 3½ inchesSANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, very stiff



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-25




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




279 24-17-7

0.7

5.0


SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), dark gray



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-26




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




41

13

14 37-16-21

10 N = 53

0.3

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 3 inchesCLAYEY SAND (SC), brown, very dense



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-27




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




286 27-15-12

0.4

1.4

5.0






GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-28




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




19

7

9 28-16-12

10 N = 20

0.4

5.0


CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown, medium dense



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-29




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




287 25-15-10

0.4

5.0





GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-30




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




22

7

9 26-16-11

12 N = 24

0.4

5.0


CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown, medium dense



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: D-50



Driller: GDI


Exhibit: A-31




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




11

11

5

4

116

116

114

22-16-6

10

12

12

8-10

7-10

7-10

0.20.5

2.0

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 2 inchesBASE COURSE, reddish-brown, approximately 3 inchesFILL - SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), fine to coarse grained, dark brown,loose, varies to CLAYEY SAND (SC).

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC), fine to coarse grained,brown, loose, varies to POORLY-GRADED SAND (SP).



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-75



Driller: D. Toney


Exhibit: A-32




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




21

11

7

7

99

98

97

20-19-1

11

12

12

9-13

4-4

5-6

0.3

0.8

1.5

3.0

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 4 inchesBASE COURSE, approximately 6 inches

FILL - POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP), fine to coarsegrained, reddish-brown, medium dense

FILL - SILTY SAND (SM), fine to coarse grained, dark brown to black,loosecolor change to brown observed at 2 feet.

CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to coarse grained, brown to dark brown, loose



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-75



Driller: D. Toney


Exhibit: A-33




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




47

12

14

6

5

117

110

110

37-17-20

28-16-12

12

12

12

7-7

5-7

7-11

0.40.5

1.5

5.0


BASE COURSE, approximately 2 inchesFILL - CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown to dark brown, loose

FILL - POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC), fine to coarsegrained, brown, loose

varies to POORLY-GRADED SAND (SP), with calcium deposits and colorchange to light brown observed at 3 feet.



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-75



Driller: D. Toney


Exhibit: A-34




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




237

7

9

110

101

20-18-212

5

12

12-14

10-11

5-4

0.2

2.0

3.5

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 2½ inchesBASE COURSE, dark brown, approximately 21 inches

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP), fine to coarse grained,dark brown to black, medium dense, petroleum odor observed at 2 feet.

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), dark brown, medium stiff, varies to CLAYEYSAND (SC).



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-75



Driller: D. Toney


Exhibit: A-35




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




82

90

3

17

9

119

106

118

43-19-24

43-22-21

11

9.5

12

14-10

12-20

20-36

0.5

0.8

1.5

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 5¼ inches

BASE COURSE, approximately 3 inchesFILL - POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL (SP-SC),fine to coarse grained, reddish-brown, medium dense

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), grayish-brown to light brown, very stiff tohard, with iron staining



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-75



Driller: D. Toney


Exhibit: A-36




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




27

2

8

25

118

118

91

32-18-14

11

12

12

16-20

6-6

7-8

0.5

1.0

1.5

4.0

5.0



FILL - POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP), fine to coarsegrained, reddish-brown, medium denseCLAYEY SAND (SC), trace gravel, fine to coarse grained, grayish-brown,loose

color change to light grayish-brown observed at 3 feet.

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, stiff



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-75



Driller: D. Toney


Exhibit: A-37




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




12

2

5

7

114

111

110

21-17-4

10

10

9

20-12

6-7

7-9

0.50.8

3.0

5.0


BASE COURSE, approximately 4 inchesFILL - POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC), dark brown,loose to medium dense

SILTY SAND (SM), light brown, stiff



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-75



Driller: D. Toney


Exhibit: A-38




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




11

10

7

6

13

102

99

110

NP

NP

10

12

12

10-9

6-7

7-12

0.30.5

4.0

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 3 inchesBASE COURSE, approximately 2 inchesPOORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), light brown, loose tomedium dense

SILTY SAND (SM), brown, medium dense



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-75



Driller: D. Toney


Exhibit: A-39




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




15

20

3

9

10

114

104

101

NP

NP

12

11

12

33-18

17-27

50/4"

0.2

0.8

2.0

5.0

ASPHALT, approximately 2½ inchesBASE COURSE, approximately 8 inches

FILL - POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL (SP-SC),fine to coarse grained, reddish-brown, medium dense

SILTY SAND (SM), light brown, medium to very dense



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-75



Driller: D. Toney


Exhibit: A-40




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




13

19

8

9

7

117

116

112

NP

25-18-7

10

12

12

19-20

13-19

17-24

0.6

1.0

1.5

3.0

5.0



FILL - SILTY SAND (SM), fine to coarse grained, light brown to brown,medium denseFILL - SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), fine to coarse grained, darkbrown to black, medium dense

FILL - SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), fine to coarse grained, mixedlight and dark brown, medium dense, varies to POORLY-GRADED SANDWITH CLAY AND GRAVEL (SP-SC), with brick fragments.



GR

APH

ICLO

G

THIS

BOR

ING

LOG

ISN

OT

VALI

DIF

SEPA

RAT

EDFR

OM

OR

IGIN

ALR

EPO

RT.

GEO

SMAR

TLO

G-N

OW

ELL

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2015

.GD

T1/

11/1

6


Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-75



Driller: D. Toney


Exhibit: A-41




PER

CEN

TFI

NES

WAT

ERC

ON

TEN

T(%

)

DR

YU

NIT

WEI

GH

T(p

cf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SAM

PLE

TYPE

WAT

ERLE

VEL

OBS

ERVA

TIO

NS

DEP

TH(F

t.)5

REC

OVE

RY

(In.)

FIEL

DTE

STR

ESU

LTS

DEPTH




B-1 0.67 - 2.17 6.9

B-1 1

B-1 1.5 - 5 A-2-4 (0) NP NP NP 21.7 2.7 75.6 6.9

B-2 1 - 5 A-2-4 (0) 25 16 9 25.5 3.0 71.4 6.1

B-3 0.5 - 2 7.8

B-3 1

B-3 1.5 - 5 A-2-4 (0) NP NP NP 23.5 0.3 76.2 8.3

B-4 1 - 5 A-6 (2) 32 16 16 39.0 0.0 0.0 10.4

B-5 0.58 - 2.08 17.7

B-5 1

B-5 1.5 - 5 A-2-7 (0) 43 31 12 29.4 8.8 61.8 31.9

B-6 1 - 5 A-6 (4) 32 15 17 45.8 0.0 0.0 13.4

B-7 0.46 - 1.96 15.4

B-7 1

B-7 1.5 - 5 A-6 (13) 39 16 23 67.1 0.0 0.0 10.1

B-8 1 - 5 A-6 (2) 32 15 17 38.5 0.0 0.0 11.7

B-9 1 - 2.5 6.3

B-9 1.5 - 5 A-2-4 (0) NP NP NP 18.8 0.0 81.2 7.6

B-10 1 - 5 A-6 (4) 35 16 19 44.1 0.0 0.0 10.1

B-11 0.5 - 2 8.6

B-11 1

B-11 1.5 - 5 A-2-4 (0) NP NP NP 21.3 2.3 76.4 9.6

B-12 1 - 5 A-2-4 (0) 25 20 5 28.9 0.0 0.0 8.4

B-13 0.5 - 1 15.4

B-13 1

B-13 1.5 - 5 A-2-6 (0) 30 19 11 33.6 0.0 0.0 7.9

B-14 1 - 5 A-2-4 (0) NP NP NP 14.1 1.4 84.4 5.7

B-15 0.29 - 1.79 17.0

B-15 1

B-15 1.5 - 5 A-7-6 (12) 43 17 26 58.5 0.0 0.0 18.7

B-16 1 - 5 A-2-4 (0) 24 17 7 26.9 3.9 69.3 8.8

B-17 0.25 - 1.75 13.0

B-17 1

B-17 1.5 - 5 A-6 (4) 37 16 21 41.1 0.0 0.0 13.5

B-18 1

B-18 1.42 - 5 A-2-6 (0) 27 15 12 27.6 0.0 0.0 6.1

B-19 0.42 - 1.92 7.3

B-19 1

B-19 1.5 - 5 A-2-6 (0) 28 16 12 19.4 2.6 78.0 9.3

B-20 1 - 5 A-2-4 (0) 25 15 10 28.4 0.0 0.0 7.3

B-21 0.42 - 1.92 7.0

B-21 1



CompressiveStrength

(psi)

%<#200Sieve

DryDensity

(pcf)

WaterContent

(%)BORING

IDLiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

%Gravel

%Sand

%Silt

%Clay

PROJECT NUMBER: 23155032PROJECT: Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement

Evaluation

SITE: Colorado Avenue to Circle Drive Colorado Springs, Colorado CLIENT: City of Colorado Springs

EXHIBIT: B-24172 Center Park Drive


LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.O

LD-L

ABSU

MM

ARY:

AASH

TO-N

OAS

SIG

NM

ENT

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T1/

11/1

6

B-21 1.5 - 5 A-2-4 (0) 26 16 10 22.2 3.9 73.9 9.1

B-101 0

B-101 0.2 - 1.2 10.8 116.0

B-101 2 - 3 A-1-b (0) 22 16 6 11.3 0.0 86.0 4.9 116.1

B-101 4 - 5 3.6 113.7

B-101 7

B-101 9

B-101 14

B-101 19

B-101 24

B-102 0 - 5

B-102 0.1

B-102 0.3 - 1.3 10.8 99.4

B-102 2 - 3 A-2-4 (0) 20 19 1 20.7 0.0 79.0 6.7 98.1

B-102 4 - 5 7.4 96.7

B-102 7

B-102 9

B-102 14

B-102 19

B-102 24

B-102 29

B-102 34

B-103 0

B-103 0.4 - 1.4 A-6 (5) 37 17 20 46.7 0.0 52.9 13.9 116.7

B-103 2 - 3 5.9 109.9

B-103 4 - 5 A-2-6 (0) 28 16 12 12.0 0.0 81.6 4.7 110.3

B-104 0

B-104 0.2 - 1.2 A-2-4 (0) 20 18 2 23.0 0.0 76.7 7.0 110.1

B-104 2 - 3 6.5

B-104 4 - 5 8.9 101.0

B-105 0 - 5

B-105 0.1

B-105 0.5 3.2 118.9

B-105 0.6 - 1.6

B-105 2 - 3 A-7-6 (19) 43 19 24 81.9 0.0 17.9 17.1 105.9

B-105 4 - 5 A-7-6 (20) 43 22 21 90.0 0.0 9.9 8.9 118.4

B-106 0.5 - 1.5 2.2 117.8

B-106 2 - 3 A-2-6 (0) 32 18 14 27.1 4.1 65.3 7.5 118.0

B-106 4 - 5 24.6 90.7

B-107 0

B-107 0.5 - 1.5 2.2 114.0

B-107 2 - 3 A-2-4 (0) 21 17 4 11.9 0.0 87.4 5.2 111.2



CompressiveStrength

(psi)

%<#200Sieve

DryDensity

(pcf)

WaterContent

(%)BORING

IDLiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

%Gravel

%Sand

%Silt

%Clay


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.O

LD-L

ABSU

MM

ARY:

AASH

TO-N

OAS

SIG

NM

ENT

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T1/

11/1

6

B-107 4 - 5 6.6 110.5

B-108 0

B-108 0.3 - 1.3 A-2-4 (0) NP NP NP 11.3 0.0 88.0 7.0 102.1

B-108 2 - 3 A-3 (0) NP NP NP 9.9 0.0 89.9 6.3 99.0

B-108 4 - 5 13.1 109.7

B-109 0

B-109 0.2 - 1.2 3.0 113.8

B-109 2 - 3 A-2-4 (0) NP NP NP 14.9 0.0 85.1 9.1 103.7

B-109 4 - 5 A-2-4 (0) NP NP NP 19.9 0.0 80.0 9.6 100.8

B-110 0 - 5

B-110 0.1

B-110 0.6 A-2-4 (0) NP NP NP 13.5 0.0 84.8 7.8 116.8

B-110 0.7 - 1.7

B-110 2 - 3 A-2-4 (0) 25 18 7 19.1 2.5 76.7 9.1 115.7

B-110 4 - 5 7.4 111.6



CompressiveStrength

(psi)

%<#200Sieve

DryDensity

(pcf)

WaterContent

(%)BORING

IDLiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

%Gravel

%Sand

%Silt

%Clay


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.O

LD-L

ABSU

MM

ARY:

AASH

TO-N

OAS

SIG

NM

ENT

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T1/

11/1

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

CHor

OH

CLor

OL

ML or OL

MH or OH

PL PIBoring ID Depth Description

SILTY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

SILTY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

SILTY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

SANDY LEAN CLAY

CLAYEY SAND

SILTY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

SILTY SAND

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

SILTY SAND

SANDY LEAN CLAY

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

SMSCSMSCSMSCCLSCSMSCSM

SC-SMSCSMCL

SC-SMSCSCSCSC

"U" Lin

e

"A" Line

NP25NP3243323932NP35NP2530NP432437272825

NP16NP1631151615NP16NP2019NP171716151615

NP9

NP1612172317NP19NP

511NP267

21121210

2226243929466738194421293414592741281928

LL USCS

B-1B-2B-3B-4B-5B-6B-7B-8B-9B-10B-11B-12B-13B-14B-15B-16B-17B-18B-19B-20


1.5 - 51 - 5

1.5 - 51 - 5

1.5 - 51 - 5

1.5 - 51 - 5

1.5 - 51 - 5

1.5 - 51 - 5

1.5 - 51 - 5

1.5 - 51 - 5

1.5 - 51.42 - 51.5 - 5

1 - 5

Fines

PLASTICITY

INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.AT

TER

BER

GLI

MIT

S23

1550

32-R

EVIS

ED.G

PJTE

RR

ACO

N20

15.G

DT

1/11

/16

CL-ML

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

CHor

OH

CLor

OL

ML or OL

MH or OH

PL PIBoring ID Depth Description

CLAYEY SAND

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILTY CLAY

SILTY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

SILTY SAND

LEAN CLAY with SAND

LEAN CLAY

CLAYEY SAND

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILTY CLAY

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT

SILTY SAND

SILTY SAND

SILTY SAND

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND

SCSP-SC

SMSCSCSMCLCLSC

SP-SCSP-SMSP-SM

SMSMSM

SC-SM

"U" Lin

e

"A" Line

26222037282043433221NPNPNPNPNP25

16161917161819221817NPNPNPNPNP18

1061

20122

2421144

NPNPNPNPNP

7

22112147122382902712111015201319

LL USCS

B-21B-101B-102B-103B-103B-104B-105B-105B-106B-107B-108B-108B-109B-109B-110B-110


1.5 - 52 - 32 - 3

0.4 - 1.44 - 5

0.2 - 1.22 - 34 - 52 - 32 - 3

0.3 - 1.32 - 32 - 34 - 5

0.62 - 3

Fines

PLASTICITY

INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.AT

TER

BER

GLI

MIT

S23

1550

32-R

EVIS

ED.G

PJTE

RR

ACO

N20

15.G

DT

1/11

/16

CL-ML

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40



ASTM D422


D100 D30

Cc Cu


NP

25

NP

32

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

SILT OR CLAY

4 501.5 2006 810 14

9.525

9.525

9.525

0.075

0.124

0.101

0.115

2.7

3.0

0.3

0.0

75.6

71.4

76.2

0.0

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

HYDROMETER

PL PI


NP

16

NP

16

NP

9

NP

16

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

coarse medium


PER

CEN

TFI

NER

BYW

EIG

HT

coarse fine

SILTY SAND (SM)

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

SILTY SAND (SM)

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

A-2-4(0)

A-2-4(0)

A-2-4(0)

A-6(2)

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

0.456

0.538

0.512

21.7

25.5

23.5

39.0

1.5 - 5

1 - 5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.G

RAI

NSI

ZE:U

SCS

&AA

SHTO

CO

MBI

NED

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T1/

11/1

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40



ASTM D422


D100 D30

Cc Cu


43

32

39

32

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

SILT OR CLAY

4 501.5 2006 810 14

19.05

0.075

0.075

0.075

0.078 8.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

61.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

HYDROMETER

PL PI


31

15

16

15

12

17

23

17

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

coarse medium


PER

CEN

TFI

NER

BYW

EIG

HT

coarse fine

SILTY SAND (SM)

CLAYEY SAND (SC)


CLAYEY SAND (SC)

A-2-7(0)

A-6(4)

A-6(13)

A-6(2)

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

0.466 29.4

45.8

67.1

38.5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.G

RAI

NSI

ZE:U

SCS

&AA

SHTO

CO

MBI

NED

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T1/

11/1

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40



ASTM D422


D100 D30

Cc Cu


NP

35

NP

25

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

SILT OR CLAY

4 501.5 2006 810 14

4.75

0.075

9.525

0.075

0.121

0.115

0.0

0.0

2.3

0.0

81.2

0.0

76.4

0.0

B-9

B-10

B-11

B-12

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

HYDROMETER

PL PI


NP

16

NP

20

NP

19

NP

5

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

coarse medium


PER

CEN

TFI

NER

BYW

EIG

HT

coarse fine

SILTY SAND (SM)

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

SILTY SAND (SM)


A-2-4(0)

A-6(4)

A-2-4(0)

A-2-4(0)

B-9

B-10

B-11

B-12

0.252

0.363

18.8

44.1

21.3

28.9

1.5 - 5

1 - 5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.G

RAI

NSI

ZE:U

SCS

&AA

SHTO

CO

MBI

NED

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T1/

11/1

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40



ASTM D422


D100 D30

Cc Cu


30

NP

43

24

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

SILT OR CLAY

4 501.5 2006 810 14

0.075

9.525

0.075

19.05

0.155

0.086

0.0

1.4

0.0

3.9

0.0

84.4

0.0

69.3

B-13

B-14

B-15

B-16

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

HYDROMETER

PL PI


19

NP

17

17

11

NP

26

7

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

coarse medium


PER

CEN

TFI

NER

BYW

EIG

HT

coarse fine

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

SILTY SAND (SM)



A-2-6(0)

A-2-4(0)

A-7-6(12)

A-2-4(0)

B-13

B-14

B-15

B-16

0.377

0.32

33.6

14.1

58.5

26.9

1.5 - 5

1 - 5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.G

RAI

NSI

ZE:U

SCS

&AA

SHTO

CO

MBI

NED

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T1/

11/1

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40



ASTM D422


D100 D30

Cc Cu


37

27

28

25

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

SILT OR CLAY

4 501.5 2006 810 14

0.075

0.075

9.525

0.075

0.164

0.0

0.0

2.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

78.0

0.0

B-17

B-18

B-19

B-20

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

HYDROMETER

PL PI


16

15

16

15

21

12

12

10

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

coarse medium


PER

CEN

TFI

NER

BYW

EIG

HT

coarse fine

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

A-6(4)

A-2-6(0)

A-2-6(0)

A-2-4(0)

B-17

B-18

B-19

B-20

0.957

41.1

27.6

19.4

28.4

1.5 - 5

1.42 - 5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5

1.5 - 5

1.42 - 5

1.5 - 5

1 - 5


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.G

RAI

NSI

ZE:U

SCS

&AA

SHTO

CO

MBI

NED

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T1/

11/1

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40



ASTM D422


D100 D30

Cc Cu


26

22

20

37

0.77 10.34

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

SILT OR CLAY

4 501.5 2006 810 14

12.7

2.36

2.36

4.75

0.122

0.198

0.095

3.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

73.9

86.0

79.0

52.9

B-21

B-101

B-102

B-103

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

HYDROMETER

PL PI


16

16

19

17

10

6

1

20

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

coarse medium


PER

CEN

TFI

NER

BYW

EIG

HT

coarse fine

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILTY CLAY(SP-SC)

SILTY SAND (SM)

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

A-2-4(0)

A-1-b(0)

A-2-4(0)

A-6(5)

B-21

B-101

B-102

B-103

0.603

0.724

0.231

0.124

22.2

11.3

20.7

46.7

1.5 - 5

2 - 3

2 - 3

0.4 - 1.4

1.5 - 5

2 - 3

2 - 3

0.4 - 1.4


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.G

RAI

NSI

ZE:U

SCS

&AA

SHTO

CO

MBI

NED

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T1/

11/1

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40



ASTM D422


D100 D30

Cc Cu


28

20

43

43

1.63 23.31

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

SILT OR CLAY

4 501.5 2006 810 14

2.36

4.75

2.36

1.18

0.395

0.093

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

81.6

76.7

17.9

9.9

B-103

B-104

B-105

B-105

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

HYDROMETER

PL PI


16

18

19

22

12

2

24

21

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

coarse medium


PER

CEN

TFI

NER

BYW

EIG

HT

coarse fine

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

SILTY SAND (SM)

LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

A-2-6(0)

A-2-4(0)

A-7-6(19)

A-7-6(20)

B-103

B-104

B-105

B-105

1.493

0.268

12.0

23.0

81.9

90.0

4 - 5

0.2 - 1.2

2 - 3

4 - 5

4 - 5

0.2 - 1.2

2 - 3

4 - 5


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.G

RAI

NSI

ZE:U

SCS

&AA

SHTO

CO

MBI

NED

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T1/

11/1

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40



ASTM D422


D100 D30

Cc Cu


32

21

NP

NP

0.78

1.01

0.95

5.83

4.82

3.94

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

SILT OR CLAY

4 501.5 2006 810 14

9.5

4.75

2.36

2.36

0.089

0.149

0.156

0.146 0.075

4.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

65.3

87.4

88.0

89.9

B-106

B-107

B-108

B-108

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

HYDROMETER

PL PI


18

17

NP

NP

14

4

NP

NP

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

coarse medium


PER

CEN

TFI

NER

BYW

EIG

HT

coarse fine

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILTY CLAY(SP-SC)

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)

A-2-6(0)

A-2-4(0)

A-2-4(0)

A-3(0)

B-106

B-107

B-108

B-108

0.604

0.407

0.343

0.296

27.1

11.9

11.3

9.9

2 - 3

2 - 3

0.3 - 1.3

2 - 3

2 - 3

2 - 3

0.3 - 1.3

2 - 3


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.G

RAI

NSI

ZE:U

SCS

&AA

SHTO

CO

MBI

NED

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T1/

11/1

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 16 20 30 40



ASTM D422


D100 D30

Cc Cu


NP

NP

NP

25

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

SILT OR CLAY

4 501.5 2006 810 14

1.18

4.75

4.75

9.5

0.121

0.11

0.139

0.12

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.5

85.1

80.0

84.8

76.7

B-109

B-109

B-110

B-110

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

HYDROMETER

PL PI


NP

NP

NP

18

NP

NP

NP

7

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

coarse medium


PER

CEN

TFI

NER

BYW

EIG

HT

coarse fine

SILTY SAND (SM)

SILTY SAND (SM)

SILTY SAND (SM)


A-2-4(0)

A-2-4(0)

A-2-4(0)

A-2-4(0)

B-109

B-109

B-110

B-110

0.198

0.199

0.375

0.487

14.9

19.9

13.5

19.1

2 - 3

4 - 5

0.6

2 - 3

2 - 3

4 - 5

0.6

2 - 3


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.G

RAI

NSI

ZE:U

SCS

&AA

SHTO

CO

MBI

NED

2315

5032

-REV

ISED

.GPJ

TER

RAC

ON

2012

.GD

T1/

11/1

6

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Test Method

Remarks:

TEST RESULTS

PIPLLL

ATTERBERG LIMITS

PCF%


115.8

% Percent Fines

ASTM D698 Method B

14.1

DR

YD

ENSI

TY,p

cf

WATER CONTENT, %

ZAV for Gs = 2.8

ZAV for Gs = 2.7

ZAV for Gs = 2.6



B-105 @ 0 - 5 feetLEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL)

(A-7-6)Bulk Sample


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.C

OM

PAC

TIO

N-V

223

1550

32-R

EVIS

ED.G

PJTE

RR

ACO

N20

12.G

DT

1/11

/16

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Test Method

Remarks:

TEST RESULTS

PIPLLL

ATTERBERG LIMITS

PCF%


125.4

% Percent Fines

ASTM D698 Method B

9.0

DR

YD

ENSI

TY,p

cf

WATER CONTENT, %

ZAV for Gs = 2.8

ZAV for Gs = 2.7

ZAV for Gs = 2.6



B-110 @ 0 - 5 feetSILTY SAND (SM) (A-2-4)

Bulk Sample


Evaluation




LABO

RAT

OR

YTE

STS

ARE

NO

TVA

LID

IFSE

PAR

ATED

FRO

MO

RIG

INAL

REP

OR

T.C

OM

PAC

TIO

N-V

223

1550

32-R

EVIS

ED.G

PJTE

RR

ACO

N20

12.G

DT

1/11

/16

Exhibit B-18

Exhibit B-19

1901 Sharp Point Dr

Fort Collins, Colorado 80525

(970) 484-0359 FAX (970) 484-0454

CLIENT: DATE OF TEST: 01-Dec-15


LOCATION: B-105 (A-6)

TERRACON NO. 23155032 CLASSIFICATION:

TEST SPECIMEN NO. 1 2 3

COMPACTION PRESSURE (PSI) 50 80 70

DENSITY (PCF) 106.9 111.0 106.1

MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 21.8 20.5 21.1

EXPANSION PRESSURE (PSI) -0.62 -0.71 -0.68

HORIZONTAL PRESSURE @ 160 PSI 143 144 144

SAMPLE HEIGHT (INCHES) 2.51 2.48 2.54

EXUDATION PRESSURE (PSI) 223.0 374.4 304.5

CORRECTED R-VALUE 5.1 6.3 6.5

UNCORRECTED R-VALUE 5.1 6.3 6.5

R-VALUE @ 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE = 6

AASHTO T190

PRESSURE OF COMPACTED SOIL

RESISTANCE R-VALUE & EXPANSION

SAMPLE DATA TEST RESULTS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

R-V

AL

UE

EXUDATION PRESSURE - PSI

Exhibit B-20

B-105 @ 0-5'SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) (A-2-6)

1901 Sharp Point Dr

Fort Collins, Colorado 80525

(970) 484-0359 FAX (970) 484-0454

CLIENT: DATE OF TEST: 01-Dec-15


LOCATION: B-110 (A-2-4)

TERRACON NO. 23155032 CLASSIFICATION:

TEST SPECIMEN NO. 1 2 3

COMPACTION PRESSURE (PSI) 350 350 350

DENSITY (PCF) 125.4 129.3 131.9

MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 10.2 8.8 8.0

EXPANSION PRESSURE (PSI) -0.65 -0.71 -0.68

HORIZONTAL PRESSURE @ 160 PSI 29 28 25

SAMPLE HEIGHT (INCHES) 2.50 2.46 2.44

EXUDATION PRESSURE (PSI) 50.8 305.7 439.0

CORRECTED R-VALUE 72.2 73.5 74.7

UNCORRECTED R-VALUE 72.2 73.5 76.5

R-VALUE @ 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE = 73

AASHTO T190

PRESSURE OF COMPACTED SOIL

RESISTANCE R-VALUE & EXPANSION

SAMPLE DATA TEST RESULTS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

R-V

AL

UE

EXUDATION PRESSURE - PSI

Exhibit B-21

SILTY SAND SM) (A-2-4)B-110 @ 0-5'

PROJECT: Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement Evaluation JOB NO: 23155032LOCATION: Colorado Springs, Colorado WORK ORDER NO: -MATERIAL: LAB NO: 8312

DATE SAMPLED: 12/14/15SAMPLE SOURCE: B-105 @ 0 - 5 feet REVIEWED BY: RWF

WETSAMPLE SAMPLE DRY CEMENT MAX AGE

ID WEIGHT MOISTURE DENSITY DIAMETER CONTENT LOAD STRESS IN DAYS(g) (%) (pcf) (in) (%) (lbs) (psi)

1 1,662 15.1% 110.0 4.00 3.0 1,530 120 72 1,662 15.1% 110.0 4.00 3.0 1,620 130 7


3 1,662 15.1% 110.0 4.00 5.0 2,940 230 74 1,662 15.1% 110.0 4.00 5.0 2,510 200 7


5 1,662 15.1% 110.0 4.00 7.0 2,830 230 76 1,662 15.1% 110.0 4.00 7.0 2,690 210 7


SOIL CEMENT MIX UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHARIZONA 241A AS APPLICABLE


0

50

100

150

200

250

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Aver

age

unco

nfin

edco

mpr

essi

vest

reng

th(p

si)

Cement Content (%)

Soil Cement MixUnconfined Compressive Strength

7 Day strength

Exhibit B-22

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) (A-2-6)

PROJECT: Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement Evaluation JOB NO: 23155032LOCATION: Colorado Springs, Colorado WORK ORDER NO: -MATERIAL: LAB NO: 8312

DATE SAMPLED: 12/14/15SAMPLE SOURCE: B-110 @ 0 - 5 feet REVIEWED BY: RWF

WETSAMPLE SAMPLE DRY CEMENT MAX AGE

ID WEIGHT MOISTURE DENSITY DIAMETER CONTENT LOAD STRESS IN DAYS(g) (%) (pcf) (in) (%) (lbs) (psi)

1 1,802 10.0% 119.3 4.00 3.0 3,030 240 72 1,802 10.0% 119.3 4.00 3.0 3,090 250 7


3 1,802 10.0% 119.3 4.00 5.0 4,560 360 74 1,802 10.0% 119.3 4.00 5.0 4,490 360 7


5 1,802 10.0% 119.3 4.00 7.0 6,830 540 76 1,802 10.0% 119.3 4.00 7.0 6,960 550 7


SOIL CEMENT MIX UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHARIZONA 241A AS APPLICABLE

SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Aver

age

unco

nfin

edco

mpr

essi

vest

reng

th(p

si)

Cement Content (%)

Soil Cement MixUnconfined Compressive Strength

7 Day strength

Exhibit B-23

SILTY SAND (SM) (A-2-4)

151216007TASK NO:

Analytical Results

Terracon, Inc. - Colo SpringsRyan Feist

Company:Report To:

Company:Bill To:

4172 Center Park DriveColo. Springs CO 80916

Accounts PayableTerracon, Inc. - Lenexa13910 W. 96th TerraceLenexa KS 66215

Pikes Peak Ave. 23155032Date Reported: 12/18/15

Task No.: 151216007

Matrix: Soil - Geotech

Date Received: 12/16/15

Client Project:Client PO:

23155032 Boring B-106 @ 4 Ft.Customer Sample ID

Test Method

151216007-01Lab Number:

ResultChloride - Water Soluble AASHTO T291-91/ ASTM D4327 0.0124 %pH AASHTO T289-91 7.7 unitsResistivity AASHTO T288-91 452 ohm.cmSulfate - Water Soluble AASHTO T290-91/ ASTM D4327 0.082 %

23155032 Boring B-108 @ 2 Ft.Customer Sample ID

Test Method

151216007-02Lab Number:

ResultChloride - Water Soluble AASHTO T291-91/ ASTM D4327 0.0220 %pH AASHTO T289-91 7.5 unitsResistivity AASHTO T288-91 1028 ohm.cmSulfate - Water Soluble AASHTO T290-91/ ASTM D4327 0.009 %

240 South Main Street / Brighton, CO 80601-0507 / 303-659-2313Mailing Address: P.O. Box 507 / Brighton, CO 80601-0507 / Fax: 303-659-2315

DATA APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY

Abbreviations/ References:

151216007

AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials. ASA - American Society of Agronomy. DIPRA - Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association Handbook of Ductile Iron Pipe.

Exhibit B-24

7.2 Geotech Evaluation - Colorado Springs...2017/03/02 · East Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement...

Documents

Transcript of 7.2 Geotech Evaluation - Colorado Springs...2017/03/02 · East Pikes Peak Avenue Pavement...