FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT COLONIAL DRIVE ... · 11/12/2019 · Attn: Kent Shaffer,...
Transcript of FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT COLONIAL DRIVE ... · 11/12/2019 · Attn: Kent Shaffer,...
FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
COLONIAL DRIVE BYPASS LANE GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO June 6, 2018
Prepared For:
Rolland Consulting Engineers LLC Attn: Kent Shaffer, P.E. 405 Ridges Blvd Grand Junction, CO 81507 (970) 243-8300
Prepared By: Yeh and Associates, Inc. 588 N. Commercial Dr. Grand Junction, CO 81505 Phone (970) 242-5125 Fax (970) 255-8512 Project No. 217-448
Colonial Drive Bypass Project No. 216-255 Grand Junction, Colorado
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description .................................................................................... 2 1.3 Site Conditions .......................................................................................... 2 1.4 Site Geology .............................................................................................. 2 1.5 Seismic Considerations ............................................................................. 2
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION ......................................................................................... 3 2.1 Subsurface Investigation ........................................................................... 3 2.2 Subsurface Conditions .............................................................................. 5 2.2.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................... 6
3.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 6 3.1 MSE and Gravity Wall Recommendations ................................................ 7 3.2 Ground (Soil) Nail Wall Recommendations ............................................... 9 3.3 General Nongravity Cantilevered Wall Recommendations ..................... 11
4.0 GLOBAL STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................ 13
5.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 14 5.1 Resilient Modulus, Mr .............................................................................. 14 5.2 Traffic ....................................................................................................... 15 5.3 Climate .................................................................................................... 16 5.4 Subgrade Strength .................................................................................. 17 5.5 Recommended Threshold Values of Performance Criteria for Flexible Pavement ............................................................................................................ 17
6.0 RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT THICKNESSES ................................................ 17
7.0 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE PREPARATION ........................................................ 17
8.0 WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE AND CORROSION TESTING ........................... 18 8.1 Sulfate Concentration .............................................................................. 18 8.2 Chemical Testing ..................................................................................... 18
9.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 19
10.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................... 20
Colonial Drive Bypass Project No. 216-255 Grand Junction, Colorado
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Seismic Design Parameters for Reference Site Class B .................................. 3
Table 2 – Seismic Design Parameters for Site Class D .................................................... 3
Table 3 - Test Hole Depth and Approximate Elevations ................................................... 4
Table 4 – Existing Pavement and Base Thickness ........................................................... 5
Table 5 – L-Pile Parameters for Lateral Load Analysis ................................................... 12
Table 6 – Input Parameters for Global Stability Analysis ................................................ 14
Table 7 – Average Annual Daily Traffic Forecasts .......................................................... 16
LIST OF DIAGRAMS
Diagram 1 – MSE Wall Typical Section and Existing ROW Impacts ................................ 9
Diagram 2 – Soil Nail Wall Typical Section and Existing ROW Impacts ......................... 10
Diagram 3 – Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall Typical Section within Existing ROW .......... 13
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Approximate Site Location Figure 2 – Approximate Test Hole Locations
LIST OF APPENDICES Drill Logs and Legend ....................................................................................................... A Summary Table and Laboratory Test Results ................................................................... B ESALs and Traffic Numbers ..............................................................................................C Pavement Design ..............................................................................................................D
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
1 | P a g e
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This study presents the results of the Yeh and Associates, Inc. (Yeh) geotechnical investigation
and preliminary recommendations for retaining wall design and pavement design for the
Colonial Drive Bypass Project, hereinafter referred to as Colonial Drive. The project limits for
Colonial Drive are within the right-of-way (ROW) of State Highway 340 (SH-340) from the
intersection of 21-1/8 Road with SH 340 west of Colonial Drive near MP 7.9, to a private
driveway near mile 8.1 east of Colonial Drive, in Grand Junction, Colorado.
The purpose of the Yeh geotechnical investigation was to evaluate general geotechnical
characteristics of the subsurface materials along the roadway and to provide preliminary
geotechnical recommendations and parameters for design of the pavement and retaining wall.
The scope of Yeh geotechnical services included:
Drill two test holes at locations for the retaining wall for foundation analysis, and five test
holes in the existing and proposed roadway for pavement design;
Perform pre-determined and additional laboratory tests on samples obtained during the
subsurface exploration to evaluate pertinent soil classification and engineering
properties, including soil corrosivity testing;
Perform R-value testing for pavement design;
Prepare a report to present the results of our geotechnical investigation and
recommendations for the proposed construction, including the proposed retaining wall,
asphalt, and concrete pavement construction.
The site investigation consisted of field reconnaissance and exploratory test hole drilling to
investigate subsurface conditions. Test hole drilling was observed by a representative of Yeh
and Associates. Samples obtained during the field exploration were examined by the project
personnel and representative samples were subjected to laboratory testing to determine the
engineering characteristics of materials encountered. This report summarizes our field
investigation, the results of our analyses, and our conclusions and recommendations based on
the proposed construction, site reconnaissance, subsurface investigation, and results of the
laboratory testing.
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
2 | P a g e
1.2 Project Description
Mesa County is proposing a bypass lane for east-bound vehicles on SH-340, also known as
Broadway, at the intersection with Colonial Drive due to a very limited sight distance around a
curve in the highly traveled road, see Figure 1. The proposed construction consists of widening
the road to include a left-hand turn lane and a shoulder for bicyclists. The construction will also
include a retaining wall along the southwest side of SH-340.
1.3 Site Conditions
The project area is located within the CDOT ROW of SH-340, between MP 7.9 and MP 8.1.
Current conditions include residential neighborhoods, a drainage ditch on the southwest side of
SH 340 and a concrete sidewalk with curb and spill-gutter on the northeast side of SH 340.
Areas of longitudinal and alligator pavement cracking were observed in SH 340 in the project
area. Elevations along the proposed roadway approximately range from 4,626 to 4,657 feet. In
general, the site was gently sloping down to the south and east at an approximate grade of 2 to
5 percent.
A culvert for Lime Kiln Gulch crosses under SH 340 approximately 250 feet southeast of the
project extents. The Colorado River is located approximately 0.5 miles north on the site.
Vegetation at the site included landscaped and native grasses, shrubs and trees.
1.4 Site Geology
The project site is located in the Grand Valley west of the confluence of the Colorado and
Gunnison rivers and adjacent to the north edge of the Uncompahgre Uplift of the Colorado
Plateau. Southwest of the site is the Redlands Fault and monocline. Based on geologic maps by
others, the site is located on terrace deposits of sand, gravels, cobbles and boulders overlying
the Cretaceous age Dakota Sandstone.
1.5 Seismic Considerations
The project site is located at an approximately latitude 39.09 and longitude -108.66. Based on
Standard Penetration Test N-values between 8 and 50, we recommend using a Site Class D
designation in accordance with Table 1613.5.2 of the International Building Code (IBC) 2012/15
edition. The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), and the short- and long-period spectral
acceleration coefficients (Ss and S1 respectively) for the project site were obtained using the
2012 IBC calculations which utilizes USGS 2008 Seismic Parameters for an event with a 2%
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
3 | P a g e
Probability of Exceedance (PE) in 50 years and a Reference Site Class B. The values were
adjusted using Site Factors for Site Class D in accordance with Table 1613.5.2 of the IBC
(2012/15) Specifications. The seismic parameters for this site are shown in Table 1 and Table 2
below.
Table 1 – Seismic Design Parameters for Reference Site Class B
SS (0.2 sec) S1 (1.0 sec)
0..228 g 0.068 g
Table 2 – Seismic Design Parameters for Site Class D
SMS SM1 SDS (0.2 sec) SD1 (1.0 sec)
0.364 g 0.164 g 0.243 g 0.109 g
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
2.1 Subsurface Investigation
Seven test holes were drilled on August 15, 2016 at the project site. The test holes were
categorized into two types of borings. Pavement test holes are labeled TH-1 through TH-5 and
retaining wall test holes are labeled W-1 and W-2. Approximate test hole locations can be found
in Figure 2. Approximate test hole elevations have been estimated from a survey provided by
the client. All test holes were advanced using a CME-55 Rubber Track Rig and 4-inch solid-
stem continuous flight auger to pre-determined depths or auger refusal. Auger refusal was
encountered at depths of 14.3 feet and 10.3 feet in test holes W-1 and W-2, respectively. Test
hole depths and approximate elevations are presented in the Table 3.
In addition to drilled test holes, hand driven samples were obtained from three sites located in
the embankment above and southwest of SH 340 in the area of the proposed retaining wall.
These samples were taken from depths of 2 to 4 feet below the top of the embankment.
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
4 | P a g e
Table 3 - Test Hole Depth and Approximate Elevations
Test Hole Number
ApproximateElevation
(feet)
Depth Drilled (feet)
Drilling Refusal
Encountered
TH-1 4647.7 10.5 No
TH-2 4648.6 10.5 No
TH-3 4642.9 10.0 No
TH-4 4636.6 10.0 No
TH-5 4632.4 9.0 No
W-1 4638.3 14.3* Yes
W-2 4624.5 10.3* Yes
*Drilling refusal was encountered at the drilled depths.
At selected intervals, a modified California sampler with a 2-inch interior diameter (ID) and 2.5
inch outside diameter (OD), or a standard split spoon sampler with a 1⅜-inch ID and 2 inch OD
were used to record blow counts and obtain samples. The sampler was seated at the bottom of
the test hole, then advanced by a 140 pound hydraulic automatic, or “auto,” hammer falling a
distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler two 6-inch intervals or
a fraction thereof, constitutes the N-value. The N-value, when properly evaluated, is an index of
the consistency or relative density of the material tested. Bulk samples were also obtained from
auger cuttings. Hand drive samples were obtained using 2 inch outer diameter brass tubes that
were advanced into the ground using a hand driven hammer. The test hole logs and legend are
presented in Appendix A.
Samples obtained during the field explorations were examined by the project personnel and
representative samples were submitted for laboratory testing to determine the engineering
characteristics of materials encountered.
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
5 | P a g e
2.2 Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface conditions in the existing pavement areas consisted of a 3-inch asphalt layer over
18 to 21 inches of coarse road base over approximately 6 to 8.5 feet of clayey and/or silty sand,
over very dense silty, sandy gravel with cobbles and possible boulders. Existing pavement and
road base thicknesses can be found in Table 4 below. Non-pavement areas had general
subsurface conditions of 1 to 1.5 feet of topsoil over 9 to 10 feet of clayey and/or silty sand over
very dense silty, sandy gravels with cobbles and possible boulders.
Table 4 – Existing Pavement and Base Thickness
Type of Pavement Test Hole Number
Pavement Thickness (inches)
Base Thickness (inches)
Asphalt (HMA)
TH-2 3 18
TH-4 3 18
TH-5 3 21
Native Clay Material. Three clay soil samples tested had between 54 and 62 percent fines
(material passing the No. 200 sieve). Atterberg limits testing on these samples indicated liquid
limits of 20 to 25 percent and plasticity indices of 8 to 13 percent. The clay samples were tested
for swell/compression under wetting and an applied load based on the proposed construction.
Two samples tested under an applied pressure of 200 psf (pounds per square foot) exhibited
swell of 0.4 percent and 0.6 percent. One sample tested under an applied pressure of 1,000 psf
exhibited consolidation of 0.6 percent.
The native clay samples classified as CL according to the Unified soil Classification System
(USCS) and as A-6 (3), and as A-4, with group indices 1 and 3, based on the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
Native Sand Material. Nine sand soil samples tested had between 31 and 48 percent fines.
Six of the sand samples had liquid limits of no value to 28 percent, and plasticity indices of non-
plastic to 14 percent. Four sand samples were tested for swell/compression under wetting and
an applied load based on the proposed construction. Two samples tested under an applied
pressure of 200 psf exhibited consolidation of 0.2 percent and 0.7 percent. Two samples tested
under an applied pressure of 500 psf exhibited consolidation of 0.6 percent and 4.7 percent. A
bulk sand sample from test hole TH-5 exhibited an R-value of 52.
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
6 | P a g e
The native sand samples classified as SC and SM (USCS) and as A-6, with group indices 0, 1,
and 2; A-4 (0); and A-2-4(0) (AASHTO).
Native Gravel Material. Three gravel samples tested had between 13 and 19 percent fines,
liquid limits of no value, and plasticity indices of non-plastic. The native gravel samples
classified as GM (USCS) and as A-1-a (0) and A-1-b (0) (AASHTO).
Results of the laboratory testing and the Summary of Laboratory Test Results are presented in
Appendix B.
2.2.1 Groundwater
No groundwater was encountered in any of the test holes at the time of drilling. Variations in
groundwater conditions may occur seasonally. The magnitude of the variation will be largely
dependent upon fluctuations in the Colorado River, local irrigation ditches and drainages, the
amount of spring snowmelt, duration and intensity of precipitation, site grading changes, and the
surface and subsurface drainage characteristics of the surrounding area. Seasonal perched
areas of groundwater may also exist, but were not encountered in any of the test holes.
3.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
It is our understanding that a retaining wall is proposed from approximate Stations 10+44 to
13+87. The wall varies in height from approximately 3 feet to 9 feet with back slopes on top of
the wall ranging from 30 to 33 degrees for a distance of approximately 8 feet vertically above
the proposed wall based on cross sections provided by Rolland Consulting Engineers. Existing
ground beyond the break in the back slope is near horizontal. The final wall facing is to be
located approximately 5 to 7 feet horizontally from an existing Right-Of-Way (ROW).
Constructing a wall with limited width next to an existing ROW presents the following challenges
and issues:
Fill Type Walls. If additional ROW can be acquired that extends at least 25 feet further
back from existing ROW, a fill type wall system such as a mechanically stabilized earth
(MSE) wall or other similar system can be constructed without temporary shoring. The
internal, external and global stability of the wall will be dependent on the onsite retained
materials and backslope above the wall. In general, stacking gravity wall systems are not
externally stable for heights in excess of 5 or 6 feet especially if a backslope exists
above the top of the wall.
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
7 | P a g e
Cut Type Walls. If additional ROW can be acquired to extend at least 10 feet further
back from existing ROW, cut walls such as soil or ground nail wall systems can be
constructed.
OSHA guidelines need to be addressed during wall construction. Fill walls may require
temporary shoring or other systems if the slope cannot be laid back.
Overall stability of the wall needs to be addressed. Typically for these applications the
reinforcement length or base of the wall should be 0.7 to 1.3 times the design height
depending on the retained materials and backslopes above the top of wall.
Other Wall Types. If ROW cannot be acquired, non-gravity cantilevered walls can be
constructed within ROW but at a significantly higher cost than other more common wall
types. Common non-gravity wall types include soldier pile and lagging walls and drilled
shaft walls. These walls typically require a greater level of design effort and may require
additional geotechnical analysis depending on the system proposed. Recommendations
for these options can be provided upon request.
Deflection and deformation. When constructing next to existing ROW, the tolerance for
deflection and deformation needs to be addressed as the owners of the property above
the wall system typically will not tolerate cracking or movement of the ground. At rest
versus active earth pressures need to be evaluated.
3.1 MSE and Gravity Wall Recommendations
Design recommendations for MSE and gravity retaining walls are based on the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2014) and the Federal Highway Administration Design
and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes (FHWA,
2009). We recommend that wall design be in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications and FHWA guidelines to be consistent with current standards of practice.
Allowable Stress Design (ASD) parameters can be provided upon request but typically these
design parameters have not been endorsed by FHWA in over a decade. Design
recommendations are as follows:
1) Retaining walls should be constructed on undisturbed natural clayey and/or silty gravel
soils or properly compacted CDOT Class 1 Structure Backfill. Loose, disturbed soils
encountered in the wall excavation should be removed and replaced with compacted
structure backfill or the foundation should be extended to undisturbed gravels.
2) Retaining walls should be backfilled with CDOT Class 1 Structure Backfill.
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
8 | P a g e
3) Reinforcement Length (RL) for MSE walls should be evaluated per AASHTO and FHWA
guidelines.
4) Using LRFD criteria, a nominal bearing capacity can be calculated for walls placed on
existing natural clayey gravel or properly placed and compacted Structure Backfill Class
1 using the following equation:
qn = 6.53 + 1.56*(B-2*e)
where: qn – nominal bearing capacity in ksf
B – Reinforcement length in feet
e – eccentricity in feet
A foundation embedment of 1.5 feet for MSE wall foundations is assumed for
construction.
5) For walls that are backfilled with CDOT Class 1 Structure Backfill and can deflect or
rotate about 0.1 to 0.2 percent of the wall height, the wall can be designed for “active”
earth pressure conditions. For a very rigid wall where negligible deflection can occur, an
“at-rest” lateral earth pressure condition should be used. Backslope behind walls should
be considered in calculating earth pressures.
6) Lateral earth pressure for backfill, existing fill, and overburden material should be
calculated in accordance with Section 3.11.5 of the AASHTO LRFD specifications
(2014). An internal friction angle of 34 degrees can be used for backfill consisting of
compacted Structure Backfill Class 1. An internal friction angle of 31 degrees can be
used for silty and clayey sands and gravels. An internal friction angle of 28 degrees can
be used for sandy clay soils.
7) Passive pressure in front of the wall should be neglected.
8) A nominal coefficient of friction of 0.40 may be used for the calculation of sliding
resistance when performing an external stability check assuming clayey materials are
encountered. Subgrade improvements can be conducted to increase the sliding
resistance.
9) The walls should be designed with appropriate surcharge pressures.
10) The final wall design should meet the minimum requirements of AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2014) for global and external stability conditions.
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
9 | P a g e
11) Retaining walls should be constructed with a drainage system to drain away any excess
water immediately behind the wall. Drainage systems such as free-draining gravel,
pipes, drain board and/or weep holes are commonly used for the wall drainage.
Based on the existing and proposed site information provided to us, it appears that an MSE or
gravity wall meeting AASHTO requirements and excavations for the wall in accordance with
OSHA guidelines will extend outside of the existing ROW. Diagram 1 is a typical section
illustrating the MSE wall with the reinforced zone and limits of excavation extending outside of
the existing ROW. Additional ROW extending at least 25 feet further horizontally beyond the
existing ROW will be required to construct this wall alternative.
Diagram 1 – MSE Wall Typical Section and Existing ROW Impacts
3.2 Ground (Soil) Nail Wall Recommendations
Ground, otherwise known as soil, nails involve installing reinforcing elements as passive
inclusions in the soil mass to provide stabilization. Although identified as “soil” nails, the system
can be utilized to stabilize either rock and soil conditions, or a combination of both. Because soil
nail walls are passive systems, the wall will deflect about 0.2 percent of the wall height to
develop active earth pressures against the wall face.
Design recommendations for soil nail walls are based on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (AASHTO, 2014) and the FHWA Soil Nail Walls Reference Manual (FHWA,
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
10 | P a g e
2015). We recommend that wall design be in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications and FHWA guidelines. Design recommendations are as follows:
1) Current FHWA recommendations call for preliminary soil nail lengths of approximately
70 to 100 percent of the height (H) of the wall with nails inclined at 15 degrees for
preliminary design. Longer lengths may be required for backslopes above the top of the
wall. Final soil nail lengths and inclinations should evaluated be based on global stability
and soil nail pullout.
2) The nominal bond stress is estimated to be 11 psi for clayey sand material. Verification
and proof tests should be performed during construction to verify design assumptions.
3) Retaining walls should be constructed with a drainage system to drain away any excess
water immediately behind the wall. Drainage systems such as drain board and/or weep
holes are commonly used for the wall drainage.
For this project, soil or ground nail walls appear to be a suitable retention system; however,
nails may extend outside of the existing ROW. Diagram 2 is a typical section illustrating the soil
nail wall with soil nails extending outside of the existing ROW. It will be necessary to acquire
additional ROW extending at least 10 feet horizontally beyond the existing ROW to install the
soil nails.
Diagram 2 – Soil Nail Wall Typical Section and Existing ROW Impacts
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
11 | P a g e
3.3 General Nongravity Cantilevered Wall Recommendations
Nongravity cantilevered walls, such as soldier pile and lagging walls, are typically used in cut
wall applications where ROW constraints limit the use of other common wall types. Nongravity
cantilevered wall heights are limited by soil conditions and the ROW constraints that do not
allow for ground anchors within and extending behind the wall system to provide additional
structural capacity for greater wall heights. Depending on the system proposed and complexity
of design, additional borings may be required.
Soldier pile and lagging walls consist of H-piles placed within a drilled hole and concreted in-
place on a specified horizontal spacing. Lagging, typically consisting of wood, is placed in
between the piles to retain the material behind the wall during construction. A permanent wall
face consisting of shotcrete or concrete can be placed on the front face of the wall. Additional
drilling may be necessary for design of an ‘H’-pile system.
Drilled shaft walls consist of shafts or caissons installed adjacent to, or overlapping each other,
depending on design requirements. A permanent face consisting of shotcrete or concrete can
be placed over the exposed shafts to form the front face of the wall.
Design recommendations for nongravity cantilevered walls are based on the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2014) and the FHWA Drilled Shafts: Construction
Procedures and LRFD Design Methods (FHWA, 2010). We recommend that wall design be in
accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and FHWA guidelines. Design
recommendations are as follows:
1) For walls that can deflect or rotate about 0.2 to 1 percent of the wall height, the wall
should be designed for “active” earth pressure conditions. For a very rigid wall where
negligible deflection can occur, an “at-rest” lateral earth pressure condition should be
used. Backslope behind walls should be included in calculating earth pressures.
2) Lateral earth pressure for existing fill and overburden material should be calculated in
accordance with Section 3.11.5 of the AASHTO LRFD specifications (2014). An internal
friction angle of 31 degrees can be used for silty and clayey sands and gravels. An
internal friction angle of 28 degrees can be used for sandy clay soils.
3) Passive pressure in front of the wall for a depth of at least two feet from the proposed
finished grade should be neglected.
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
12 | P a g e
4) The final wall design should meet the minimum requirements of AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications Section 11.8 (AASHTO, 2014).
5) Retaining walls should be constructed with a drainage system to drain away any excess
water immediately behind the wall. Drainage systems such as drain board and/or weep
holes are commonly used for the wall drainage. If drainage cannot be provided, the wall
should be designed for hydrostatic water pressures.
6) Table 55 summarizes recommended parameters for lateral load analysis using L-Pile. P-
Multipliers should be applied in the analysis as required in AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications Section 10.7.2.4 (AASHTO, 2014).
Table 5 – L-Pile Parameters for Lateral Load Analysis
Soil Type L-Pile Soil Type
Effective Unit
Weight (pcf)
Internal Friction Angle (deg)
p-y Modulus,
k (pci)
Undrained Shear
Strength (psf)
Strain at 50%
Stress, ε50
Clayey Sand and Clayey
Gravel Sand 120 31 225 - -
Sandy Clay Stiff Clay
120 - - 50 0.005
If additional ROW cannot be acquired for this project, a nongravity cantilevered wall could be
constructed; however, the cost of these types of walls are generally significantly greater than
other common wall types. Diagram 3 is a typical section of a soldier pile and lagging wall
illustrating the wall within the existing ROW.
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
13 | P a g e
Diagram 3 – Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall Typical Section within Existing ROW
4.0 GLOBAL STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS
Global stability of retaining wall alternatives should be evaluated using the limiting equilibrium
method of slices. By using this technique, the slope and wall geometric profile is divided into
many vertical “slices,” driving and resisting forces are calculated for each slice, the forces are
summed, and then a global stability factor of safety is calculated as the ratio of the sum of
resisting forces to the sum of driving forces. A factor of safety (FS) of 1.0 can be interpreted as
indicating resisting forces are equal to driving forces, or a slope that exists just at equilibrium
(which is very close to failure). A FS less than 1.0 can be interpreted as indicating resisting
forces are less than driving forces, or a slope below the limit of equilibrium, in which the wall or
slope is actively failing. A FS more than 1.0, for example at 1.5, indicates total resisting forces
are 50% higher than total driving forces.
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
14 | P a g e
The AASHTO 7th Edition LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2014 – Section 11.6.2.3)
indicates the overall (global) stability of earth slopes with or without a foundation unit should be
investigated using a resistance factor of:
• 0.75 where the slope does not support or contain a structural element
• 0.65 where the slope contains or supports a structural element
For overall (global) stability, resistance factors are inverted to get a factor of safety
corresponding to that calculated by limiting equilibrium. A resistance factor of 0.75 is equivalent
to a FS of 1.33; a resistance factor of 0.65 is equivalent to a FS of 1.54.
Based on a review of the laboratory testing and experience with similar projects, unit weights
and strength parameters for global stability analysis are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6 – Input Parameters for Global Stability Analysis
Material Unit Weight (pcf) Internal Friction
Angle (deg) Cohesion (psf)
Clayey Sand and Clayey Gravel
120 31 20
Sandy Clay 120 28 50
5.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The pavement recommendations were developed using the AASHTOWare Mechanistic
Empirical Pavement Design program, Version 2.2, Build 2.2.6. According to information
available from CDOT’s online “Highway Data Explorer”, SH 340 is a two-lane highway, and is
assigned a Functional Classification of 4 – Minor Arterial – Non-Rural. The posted speed limit in
the project area is 45 miles per hour, and there are no truck restrictions. The terrain is classified
as “Rolling”, and existing lane widths are 12 feet.
5.1 Resilient Modulus, Mr The Hveem “R”-value test was performed on one composite bulk sand sample collected from
borings TH-5 and TH-5B. The measured R-value was 52 on the A-4 soil, a silty sand which also
included some gravel. The presence of A-6 soils in other borings, specifically TH-2, resulted in
our selecting a more conservative R-value for design, one appropriate for the A-6 soil
classification. An R-value of 25 was therefore assumed. The AASHTO Mechanistic Empirical
(M-E) pavement design software uses a single input value (Resilient Modulus, Mr). The R-value
was correlated to the design resilient modulus using equation 4-1 from the 2017 CDOT
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
15 | P a g e
Pavement Design Manual (Mr =3438.6*R0.2753) = 8341 psi. A value of Mr = 8000 psi was
therefore used for the subgrade resilient modulus in the M-E Pavement Design program.
5.2 Traffic
The M-E pavement design program for determining pavement thickness uses the truck volumes
and compounded annual growth rates and subgrade strength properties to determine the
recommended pavement thickness. Version 2.2 of the M-E program used has been calibrated
to address Colorado conditions for climate and HMA mixes. Truck type distributions called
“Clusters” have also been developed for various conditions in Colorado. For example, Cluster 1
represents an urban condition with primarily Class 5 (single unit) trucks.
Truck traffic volumes and truck types were obtained from CDOT’s Traffic Data (see Table 7
Annual Average Daily Traffic Forecasts). This truck information was used to determine the
cluster for input to the design program. Traffic counts for the project area are collected at two
separate locations, representing segments both west and east of Colonial Drive. Traffic number
data can be found in Appendix C.
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
16 | P a g e
Table 7 – Average Annual Daily Traffic Forecasts Yea
r Highway Segment Colonial Drive – West Colonial Drive – East
Station ID 105374 105376
2015
Count 8,500 11,000
Single 130 230
Combined 90 80
2017 Forecast 8,906 11,165
Single 136 233
Combined 94 81
2037
Forecast 12,988 12,815
Single 199 268
Combined 138 93
20‐Year Factor 1.46 1.15
Annual Growth Rate (r) 1.980 0.703
Truck Cluster 3 1
Design Hourly Volume 9% 10%
Directional Distribution 63% 64%
The above traffic information and 20-year Growth Factors were utilized to determine the annual
rate of growth using CDOT Eq. 3.1, Tf = (1 + r)20 where Tf is the 20-year Growth Factor.
5.3 Climate Climate data for the M-E Design software was obtained from the Grand Junction weather station
(GRAND JUNCTION, CO 39.13400 -108.53800 4839). Information such as temperature,
precipitation, wind speed, percent sunshine and relative humidity are used to predict the
temperature and moisture profiles within the pavement structure.
ANNUAL STATISTICS:
Mean annual air temperature (°F) 53.73
Mean annual precipitation (inches) 8.07
Freezing index (°F – days) 362.07
Average annual number of freeze/thaw cycles 111.77
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
17 | P a g e
5.4 Subgrade Strength For the pavement design, in order to provide a uniformly strong subgrade, we recommend that
in areas of widening, the top 12 inches of material below the Aggregate Base Course have a
minimum R-value of 25, which is the general characteristic of the in-situ material.
5.5 Recommended Threshold Values of Performance Criteria for Flexible Pavement HMA Design Life (Years) 20
Terminal IRI (in/mile) 50
AC top-down fatigue cracking (ft/mile) 3000
AC bottom-up fatigue cracking (% lane area) 25
AC thermal cracking (ft/mile) 1500
Permanent deformation – total pavement (in) 0.80
Permanent deformation-AC only (in) 0.65
6.0 RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT THICKNESSES
Pavement layer types and thicknesses approximately equivalent to the existing materials, as
identified during the subsurface investigation, were evaluated for their ability to meet the
performance criteria with a reasonable level of reliability. A reliability target of 90 percent was
considered for SH 340 to reach an optimum thickness design.
The following materials were input into the M-E pavement design software:
Thickness Material Type Description (Inches)
Surface Course Hot Mix Asphalt Grading SX (75), PG 64-22 5
Base Course Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) 6
Subbase Aggregate Base Course (Class 2) 12
Subgrade A-6 Subgrade (Compacted) 12
With one exception, all of the performance criteria were achieved with a reliability of 90% or
greater. The program computed that reliability for the AC bottom-up fatigue cracking will be
88%. Pavement design data can be found in Appendix D.
7.0 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE PREPARATION
The swell test results on samples taken from representative soils in pavement test holes along
the alignment indicated swell potentials ranging from -0.7 percent (consolidation) to 0.6 percent
(swell). This range of results typically indicates a low risk for damage due to swelling soils based
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
18 | P a g e
on Table 4.9 of the CDOT Pavement Design Manual. The A-4 and A-6 soils may be frost-
susceptible. These soils should be kept a minimum of 15 inches below the final surface of the
roadway. (The recommended pavement design provides for 23 inches of cover over the native
soils.)
We recommend that the soil underneath the proposed ABC Class 2 be moisture conditioned
and recompacted at a moisture content 2 percent wet of optimum, following section 203 of the
2011 CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, to a depth of 12 inches.
The prepared subgrade should be proof rolled to determine if any soft spots are present. Any
soft spots should be removed and recompacted and proof rolled again. If this does not eliminate
the soft spot, the soil should be excavated and replaced, recompacted, and proof rolled until
satisfactory. Proof rolling and subgrade compaction tests should be observed and reviewed by a
representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to paving.
Per CDOT Roadway Design Guide 2005, Typical Section Figures 4-1 through 4-5, the above
treatments should extend to the side slope in areas with unprotected slope. In areas with curb
and gutter, the treatment should extend for a minimum distance of 12 inches beyond the back
face of the gutter, if possible. These should be shown in the plan set typical sections.
8.0 WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE AND CORROSION TESTING
8.1 Sulfate Concentration Concentrations of water-soluble sulfates measured in the laboratory on two samples taken at an
approximate depth of 2 feet in test hole W-1, and at a depth of 3.5 feet in test hole W-2 were
0.073 and 0.095 percent, respectively. These concentrations result in a severity of Sulfate
Exposure for concrete of class 0 in accordance with Section 601.04 of the CDOT 2011 Standard
Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.
8.2 Chemical Testing In addition to soluble sulfate, the pH, electrical resistivity and percent of water-soluble chloride
were also determined for the same samples. Test results measured pH values of 7.8 and 8.0,
which are considered slightly basic for subsurface soils. Resistivity measurements were
between 779 and 839 ohm-centimeters, and water-soluble chlorides were 0.0079 and 0.0253
percent. These values should be used in helping to select the appropriate culvert material in
conjunction with the CDOT Culvert Pipe Selection guidelines. A qualified corrosion engineer
should review this data to determine the appropriate level of corrosion protection.
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
19 | P a g e
9.0 REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2014, LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1993. AASHTO guide for
design of pavement structures, Washington, D.C.: The Association.
Cashion, W.B., 1973, Geologic and structure map of the Grand Junction quadrangle, Colorado
and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-736,
scale 1:250,000.
Colorado Department of Transportation Roadway Design Guide, 2005.
Colorado Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction, 2011.
Colorado Department of Transportation M-E Pavement Design Manual, 2017
Federal Highway Administration, 2009, Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized
Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, FHWA-NHI-10-024, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Federal Highway Administration. 2010. Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD
Design Methods, FHWA-NHI-10-016, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C.
Federal Highway Administration FLH Project Development and Design Manual, March 2011.
Federal Highway Administration, 2014, Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and
Bridges on Federal Highway Projects.
Federal Highway Administration, 2015, Soil Nail Walls Reference Manual, FHWA-NHI-14-007,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Whitney, J.W., 1981, Surficial geologic map of the Grand Junction 1 degree x 2 degrees
quadrangle, Colorado and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations
Series Map I-1289, scale 1:250,000.
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
20 | P a g e
10.0 LIMITATIONS
The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based upon our data obtained
from preliminary field observations, laboratory testing, our understanding of the proposed
construction and other information as discussed in this report. It is possible and likely that
subsurface conditions may vary from surface observations. The nature and extent of such
variations may not become evident until construction. We recommend an on-site observation of
exposed bearing material or excavations be performed by a representative of the geotechnical
engineer. We should also review the report if the scope of the proposed construction, including
the proposed loads, finished elevations or structure locations, change from those described in
this report.
The scope of services for this project did not include, specifically or by implication, any
environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, and bacteria) assessment of the site or
identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions or biological
conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, conditions or
pollution, other studies should be undertaken.
The report was prepared in substantial accordance with the generally accepted standards of
practice for geotechnical engineering as exist in the site area at the time of our investigation. No
warranties, express or implied, are intended or made. The recommendations in this report are
based on the assumption that Yeh and Associates will conduct an adequate program of
construction testing and observation to evaluate compliance with our recommendations.
Site Location Map
Colonial Drive Bypass
CO-340, Grand Junction, CO
PROJECT NUMBER:
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT:
FIGURE
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
DATE:
DESIGNED FOR:
Consulting Engineers & ScientistsYeh and Associates, Inc. 1
JRM
SWR
11/29/2016
11/29/2016
Rolland Consulting Engineers
216-255
N
Base maps acquired from maps.google.com and
Colorado Highway Mileposts GPS at data.colorado.gov/transportation/
MP 7
MP 8
MP 9
Project Area
Site Location
See Below
340
340
YEH TH-1
YEH TH-2
YEH TH-3
YEH TH-4
YEH TH-5
YEH W-1
YEH W-2
R
.
N
.
1
5
0
0
9
1
8
21 1/8th R
d.
Blossom
C
t.
C
o
l
o
n
i
a
l
D
r
.
H
w
y
3
4
0
H
w
y
3
4
0
N
TH-1
TH-2
TH-3
TH-4
W-1
TH-5
W-2
Start Retaining Wall
Sta: 10+44.86, R31.50'
End Retaining Wall
Sta: 13+80.11, R31.50'
PROJECT NUMBER:
SCALE: 1"=80'
PROJECT:
FIGURE
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
DATE:
DESIGNED FOR:
Consulting Engineers & ScientistsYeh and Associates, Inc. 2
JRM
SWR
11/29/2016
11/29/2016
Rolland Consulting Engineers
216-255
0 40 80 16020
LEGEND
TH-1 Indicates approximate location of test hole
W-1 Indicates approximate location of test hole
HD-1 Indicates approximate location of test hole
Approximate Test Hole
Location Map
Colonial Drive Bypass
Grand Junction, CO
Notes: Base map obtained from Rolland Engineering.
HD-1
HD-2
HD-3
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
APPENDIX A
Test Hole Logs and Legend
TOPSOIL, clayey with organics, low plasticity, dry to damp, stiff, darkbrown or brown with pink.
CLAY, with sand or gravel to sandy, low plasticity, damp to moist, stiff tomedium stiff, pink to red, dark red (CL).
GRAVEL, silty, sandy, with cobbles, possible boulders, occassionallyclayey or silty with sand, no to low plasticity, dry to damp, dense to verydense, subangular to angular rock, gray to light brown, brown (GM).
Road base
Indicates Bulk sample of augercuttings.
Project Number: 216-255FIGURE A-1
SAND, clayey, no to low plasticity, dry to damp, loose to medium dense,pink to red (SC).
SAND, silty, occassionally with gravel, no to low plasticity, dry to moist,loose to medium dense, pink to red, occassionally dark red or brown(SM).
*e.g. A value of 50/4 or 50:4 indicates 50 blows wereapplied to the sampler, with a penetration of 4 inches, in thelast increment.A value of 74/8 indicates that 50 blows were applied with apenetration of 2 inches for the last increment, and 24 blowswere applied for the second-to-last 6-inch increment.
Test hole elevations were obtained from survey provided by client.
4,610
4,615
4,620
4,625
4,630
4,635
4,640
4,645
Indicates auger refusal
Ele
vatio
n (ft
)4,650
LAB TESTING ABBREVIATIONS
MC - % Moisture ContentDD - Dry Density (pcf)
#200 - % Fines Passing #200 SieveLL - % Liquid LimitPL - % Plastic LimitPI - % Plastic Index
NV - No ValueNP - No Plasticity
S/C - % Swell/ConsolidationS - % Water Soluble Sulfate
Chl - % Water Soluble ChlorideRe - ohm-cm Resistivity
Indicates Modified Californiasample
Other SymbolsIndicates split spoonsampling
Penetration Resistance(Blows per foot -OR-inches of penetration)*
LabTestingResults
TYPICAL BOREHOLE LOG
FEN
CE
201
5 - 1
1X17
- C
OM
B. R
EF
BLO
WS
ALL
216
-255
CO
LON
IAL
BY
PA
SS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TES
PR
AC
TIC
E A
.GD
T 2
015
LIB
RA
RY
.GLB
12/
1/16 Material Description
Graphics(see Legend)
Sample TypeGraphic
Boring No.
##
Colonial Bypass LaneGrand Junction, CO
Asphalt Pavement
Soil LithologyLEGEND
For additional information, refer to Geotechnical Reportprepared by Yeh and Associates, Inc.
C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
11
8
13
18
9
8
11
9
9
9
12
4
8
8
78
19
12
15
28
26
13
74/8
50/4
50
59
82
50/4
TH-1
TH-2
TH-3
TH-4
TH-5
W-1
W-2
A-4 (0)SM
A-2-4 (0)SM
S/C=-0.7%
6.0 ft - Drillernoticed stifferconditions betweendepths of 6 to 8feet.
48
35
NP
NP
NV
NV
52
57
0
8
6.1
3.6
90.0
90.0
5-6
4-4
6-7
9-9
6-5-4
11
8
13
18
9
0.0 - 1.5 ft. TOPSOIL, clayeywith organics, brown withpink, low plasticity, dry todamp, stiff, High organiccontent.
1.5 - 10.5 ft. SAND silty, SM,pink to red, no plasticity, dryto damp, loose to mediumdense.
Bottom of Hole at 10.5 ft.
80
Total Depth: 10.5 ft
Ground Elevation: 4647.7 ft
Coordinates: N: 1.0 E: 1.0
Location: 30' E of 21-1/8 Road, S 10' of SH 340 edge of
asphalt Groundwater Levels: Not Observed
Logged By: J. Mulumba
Final By: J. Mulumba
Symbol
Depth
Date
Weather Notes: Partly cloudy 70s
Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical
Boring Began: 8/15/2016
Boring Completed: 8/15/2016
Drilling Method(s): Solid-Stem Auger (4" OD)
Driller: HRLC Solutions
Drill Rig: CME 55 Rubber Track
Hammer Type: Automatic (hydraulic)-
-
-
-
-
-
Night Work:
ProjectName:
PAGE1 of 1
AASHTO& USCSClassifi-cations
Field Notesand
Other LabTests
Fin
es C
onte
nt
(%)
Pla
sticity
Index
Project Number: 216-255
Colonial Bypass Lane
AtterbergLimits
Boring No.: TH-1
Yeh and Associates, Inc.E
leva
tio
n(f
ee
t)
4645
4640
4635
De
pth
(fe
et)
5
10
Sam
ple
Type/
Advancem
ent M
eth
od
C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s
Liq
uid
Lim
it
BO
RIN
G L
OG
20
15
2
16
-25
5 C
OL
ON
IAL
BY
PA
SS
.GP
J
20
15
YE
H A
SS
OC
IAT
ES
TE
MP
LA
TE
.GD
T
20
15
LIB
RA
RY
.GL
B
12
/1/1
6
Sand C
onte
nt
(%)
Gra
vel C
onte
nt
(%)
Mois
ture
Conte
nt
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)Blows
per6 in
Pe
ne
tra
tio
nR
esis
tan
ce
Lith
olo
gy
Material Description
Soil Samples
Re
co
ve
ry (
%)
Rock
RQ
D (
%)
A-6 (3)CL
A-4 (0)SM
S/C=0.6%
6.5 ft - Drillinggravels
54
39
13
NP
24
NV
45
61
1
0
15.1
8.5
107.04-4
4-7
7-4-5
6-5-4
8
11
9
9
0.0 - 0.3 ft. 3" HMA.
0.3 - 2.0 ft. 18" Road base.
2.0 - 6.5 ft. CLAY sandy, CL,dark red, low plasticity, dampto moist, stiff to medium stiff.
6.5 - 10.5 ft. SAND silty, SM,dark red with pink, lowplasticity, moist, loose.
Bottom of Hole at 10.5 ft.
Longitudinal and alligatorcracking at test hole locationin existing asphalt.
80
87
Total Depth: 10.5 ft
Ground Elevation: 4648.6 ft
Coordinates: N: 1.0 E: 2.0
Location: 30' E of north driveway, middle of EB lane.
Groundwater Levels: Not Observed
Logged By: J. Mulumba
Final By: J. Mulumba
Symbol
Depth
Date
Weather Notes: Sunny 80s
Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical
Boring Began: 8/15/2016
Boring Completed: 8/15/2016
Drilling Method(s): Solid-Stem Auger (4" OD)
Driller: HRLC Solutions
Drill Rig: CME 55 Rubber Track
Hammer Type: Automatic (hydraulic)-
-
-
-
-
-
Night Work:
ProjectName:
PAGE1 of 1
AASHTO& USCSClassifi-cations
Field Notesand
Other LabTests
Fin
es C
onte
nt
(%)
Pla
sticity
Index
Project Number: 216-255
Colonial Bypass Lane
AtterbergLimits
Boring No.: TH-2
Yeh and Associates, Inc.E
leva
tio
n(f
ee
t)
4645
4640
4635
De
pth
(fe
et)
5
10
Sam
ple
Type/
Advancem
ent M
eth
od
C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s
Liq
uid
Lim
it
BO
RIN
G L
OG
20
15
2
16
-25
5 C
OL
ON
IAL
BY
PA
SS
.GP
J
20
15
YE
H A
SS
OC
IAT
ES
TE
MP
LA
TE
.GD
T
20
15
LIB
RA
RY
.GL
B
12
/1/1
6
Sand C
onte
nt
(%)
Gra
vel C
onte
nt
(%)
Mois
ture
Conte
nt
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)Blows
per6 in
Pe
ne
tra
tio
nR
esis
tan
ce
Lith
olo
gy
Material Description
Soil Samples
Re
co
ve
ry (
%)
Rock
RQ
D (
%)
A-6 (1)SC
A-4 (0)
S/C=-0.2%
39
39
12
NP
26
NV
57411.0
10.0
106.0
116.0
4-5
5-7
6-2-2
9
12
4
0.0 - 1.0 ft. TOPSOIL, clayeywith organics, dark brown, lowplasticity, damp, high organiccontent.
1.0 - 3.0 ft. SAND clayey,SC, pink to red, low plasticity,dry to damp, loose.
3.0 - 10.0 ft. SAND silty, pinkto red, no plasticity, dry todamp, loose.
Bottom of Hole at 10.0 ft.
67
Total Depth: 10.0 ft
Ground Elevation: 4642.9 ft
Coordinates: N: 1.0 E: 3.0
Location: 20' W of MM8, 5' S of SH 340 edge of asphalt
Groundwater Levels: Not Observed
Logged By: J. Mulumba
Final By: J. Mulumba
Symbol
Depth
Date
Weather Notes: Sunny 80s
Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical
Boring Began: 8/15/2016
Boring Completed: 8/15/2016
Drilling Method(s): Solid-Stem Auger (4" OD)
Driller: HRLC Solutions
Drill Rig: CME 55 Rubber Track
Hammer Type: Automatic (hydraulic)-
-
-
-
-
-
Night Work:
ProjectName:
PAGE1 of 1
AASHTO& USCSClassifi-cations
Field Notesand
Other LabTests
Fin
es C
onte
nt
(%)
Pla
sticity
Index
Project Number: 216-255
Colonial Bypass Lane
AtterbergLimits
Boring No.: TH-3
Yeh and Associates, Inc.E
leva
tio
n(f
ee
t)
4640
4635
4630
De
pth
(fe
et)
5
10
Sam
ple
Type/
Advancem
ent M
eth
od
C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s
Liq
uid
Lim
it
BO
RIN
G L
OG
20
15
2
16
-25
5 C
OL
ON
IAL
BY
PA
SS
.GP
J
20
15
YE
H A
SS
OC
IAT
ES
TE
MP
LA
TE
.GD
T
20
15
LIB
RA
RY
.GL
B
12
/1/1
6
Sand C
onte
nt
(%)
Gra
vel C
onte
nt
(%)
Mois
ture
Conte
nt
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)Blows
per6 in
Pe
ne
tra
tio
nR
esis
tan
ce
Lith
olo
gy
Material Description
Soil Samples
Re
co
ve
ry (
%)
Rock
RQ
D (
%)
A-6 (0)SC
A-1-a (0)GM
36
13
12
NP
26
NV
60
37
4
50
14.7
2.7
95.03-5
4-4-4
16-28-50
8
8
78
0.0 - 0.3 ft. 3 inches HMA.
0.3 - 1.8 ft. 18 inches roadbase.
1.8 - 8.5 ft. SAND clayey,SC, pink to red, no to lowplasticity, damp, loose.
8.5 - 10.0 ft. GRAVEL silty,sandy, with cobbles andpossible boulders, GM, lightbrown, no plasticity, dry, verydense, subangular.
Bottom of Hole at 10.0 ft.
Alligator cracking in existingasphalt at test hole location.
87
53
Total Depth: 10.0 ft
Ground Elevation: 4636.6 ft
Coordinates: N: 1.0 E: 5.0
Location: At SE corner of Colonial and SH-340, 5' NE of
southern edge of 8' sidewalk. Groundwater Levels: Not Observed
Logged By: J. Mulumba
Final By: J. Mulumba
Symbol
Depth
Date
Weather Notes: Mild 70s
Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical
Boring Began: 8/15/2016
Boring Completed: 8/15/2016
Drilling Method(s): Solid-Stem Auger (4" OD)
Driller: HRLC Solutions
Drill Rig: CME 55 Rubber Track
Hammer Type: Automatic (hydraulic)-
-
-
-
-
-
Night Work:
ProjectName:
PAGE1 of 1
AASHTO& USCSClassifi-cations
Field Notesand
Other LabTests
Fin
es C
onte
nt
(%)
Pla
sticity
Index
Project Number: 216-255
Colonial Bypass Lane
AtterbergLimits
Boring No.: TH-4
Yeh and Associates, Inc.E
leva
tio
n(f
ee
t)
4635
4630
4625
De
pth
(fe
et)
5
10
Sam
ple
Type/
Advancem
ent M
eth
od
C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s
Liq
uid
Lim
it
BO
RIN
G L
OG
20
15
2
16
-25
5 C
OL
ON
IAL
BY
PA
SS
.GP
J
20
15
YE
H A
SS
OC
IAT
ES
TE
MP
LA
TE
.GD
T
20
15
LIB
RA
RY
.GL
B
12
/1/1
6
Sand C
onte
nt
(%)
Gra
vel C
onte
nt
(%)
Mois
ture
Conte
nt
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)Blows
per6 in
Pe
ne
tra
tio
nR
esis
tan
ce
Lith
olo
gy
Material Description
Soil Samples
Re
co
ve
ry (
%)
Rock
RQ
D (
%)
A-4 (3)CL
A-4 (0)
S/C=0.4%
R-Value=52
3.5 ft - More sand
8.5 ft - Grinding oncobbles andpossible boulders.
62
37
9
NP
25
NV4221
12.0
1.8
118.09-10
7-5
19
12
0.0 - 0.3 ft. 3 inches HMA.
0.3 - 2.0 ft. 21 inches road base.
2.0 - 3.0 ft. CLAY with sand or gravel,CL, pink to red, low plasticity, dry todamp, stiff.
3.0 - 8.5 ft. SAND silty with gravel, pinkand brown, no plasticity, damp, loose.
8.5 - 9.0 ft. GRAVEL silty, sandy, withcobbles and possible boulders, lightbrown, no plasticity, dry, very dense.
Bottom of Hole at 9.0 ft.
Longitudinal and alligator cracking inexisting asphalt at test hole location.Drilled a second test hole (TH-5B)approximately 8' NW of TH-5 for R-valuetesting sample.
Total Depth: 9.0 ft
Ground Elevation: 4632.4 ft
Coordinates: N: 1.0 E: 6.0
Location: 40' SE from Colonial and SH-340, 4'' off centerline
in EB lane. Groundwater Levels: Not Observed
Logged By: J. Mulumba
Final By: J. Mulumba
Symbol
Depth
Date
Weather Notes: Sunny mid 90s
Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical
Boring Began: 8/15/2016
Boring Completed: 8/15/2016
Drilling Method(s): Solid-Stem Auger (4" OD)
Driller: HRLC Solutions
Drill Rig: CME 55 Rubber Track
Hammer Type: Automatic (hydraulic)-
-
-
-
-
-
Night Work:
ProjectName:
PAGE1 of 1
AASHTO& USCSClassifi-cations
Field Notesand
Other LabTests
Fin
es C
onte
nt
(%)
Pla
sticity
Index
Project Number: 216-255
Colonial Bypass Lane
AtterbergLimits
Boring No.: TH-5
Yeh and Associates, Inc.E
leva
tio
n(f
ee
t)
4630
4625
4620
De
pth
(fe
et)
5
Sam
ple
Type/
Advancem
ent M
eth
od
C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s
Liq
uid
Lim
it
BO
RIN
G L
OG
20
15
2
16
-25
5 C
OL
ON
IAL
BY
PA
SS
.GP
J
20
15
YE
H A
SS
OC
IAT
ES
TE
MP
LA
TE
.GD
T
20
15
LIB
RA
RY
.GL
B
12
/1/1
6
Sand C
onte
nt
(%)
Gra
vel C
onte
nt
(%)
Mois
ture
Conte
nt
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)Blows
per6 in
Pe
ne
tra
tio
nR
esis
tan
ce
Lith
olo
gy
Material Description
Soil Samples
A-4 (0)SC
A-4 (1)CL
A-1-b (0)GM
pH=7.8S=0.073%Chl=0.0079%S/C=-4.7%Re=779ohm·cmS/C=-0.6%
S/C=-0.6%
11.0 ft - Grindingon gravels andcobbles
13.5 ft - Drillbouncing andgrinding, slowdrilling
42
40
59
19
8
8
NP
24
20
NV
59
33
1
48
7.8
4.5
11.6
3.5
90.0
98.0
111.0
6-9
12-16
10-16
6-7
24-24-50/2
50/4
15
28
26
13
50/2
50/4
0.0 - 1.5 ft. TOPSOIL, clayeywith organics, brown, lowplasticity, dry to damp,medium stiff, high organiccontent.
1.5 - 7.0 ft. SAND clayey,clayey or silty, SC, pink todark red, low plasticity, dry tomoist, medium dense.
7.0 - 11.0 ft. CLAY with sandor gravel, CL, pink to darkred, low plasticity, dry tomoist, stiff.
11.0 - 14.2 ft. GRAVEL silty,sandy with cobbles andpossible boulders, GM, grayto light brown, no plasticity,dry to damp, very dense.
Bottom of Hole at 14.3 ft.
AUGER REFUSAL at 14.3feet.
83
67
Total Depth: 14.3 ft
Ground Elevation: 4638.3 ft
Coordinates: N: 1.0 E: 4.0
Location: Top of slope, edge of R.O.W., line up with west
Colonial Dr flowline. Groundwater Levels: Not Observed
Logged By: J. Mulumba
Final By: J. Mulumba
Symbol
Depth
Date
Weather Notes: Sunny upper 80s
Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical
Boring Began: 8/15/2016
Boring Completed: 8/15/2016
Drilling Method(s): Solid-Stem Auger (4" OD)
Driller: HRLC Solutions
Drill Rig: CME 55 Rubber Track
Hammer Type: Automatic (hydraulic)-
-
-
-
-
-
Night Work:
ProjectName:
PAGE1 of 1
AASHTO& USCSClassifi-cations
Field Notesand
Other LabTests
Fin
es C
onte
nt
(%)
Pla
sticity
Index
Project Number: 216-255
Colonial Bypass Lane
AtterbergLimits
Boring No.: W-1
Yeh and Associates, Inc.E
leva
tio
n(f
ee
t)
4635
4630
4625
De
pth
(fe
et)
5
10
Sam
ple
Type/
Advancem
ent M
eth
od
C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s
Liq
uid
Lim
it
BO
RIN
G L
OG
20
15
2
16
-25
5 C
OL
ON
IAL
BY
PA
SS
.GP
J
20
15
YE
H A
SS
OC
IAT
ES
TE
MP
LA
TE
.GD
T
20
15
LIB
RA
RY
.GL
B
12
/1/1
6
Sand C
onte
nt
(%)
Gra
vel C
onte
nt
(%)
Mois
ture
Conte
nt
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)Blows
per6 in
Pe
ne
tra
tio
nR
esis
tan
ce
Lith
olo
gy
Material Description
Soil Samples
Re
co
ve
ry (
%)
Rock
RQ
D (
%)
pH=8S=0.095%Chl=0.0253%Re=839ohm·cm
5.0 ft - Grindingand slow drillingbetween depths of 5to 10 feet.
1627571.8 106.010-40
27-32
40-40-42
50/4
50
59
82
50/4
0.0 - 1.5 ft. TOPSOIL, clayeywith organics, dark brown, lowplasticity, damp, organics.
1.5 - 10.3 ft. GRAVEL clayeyor silty, with sand, cobblesand possible boulders, gray -brown, no to low plasticity,dry, dense to very dense,subangular to angular.
Bottom of Hole at 10.3 ft.
AUGER REFUSAL at 10.3feet.
67
33
Total Depth: 10.3 ft
Ground Elevation: 4624.5 ft
Coordinates: N: 1.0 E: 7.0
Location: Toe of slope, approx 60' NW of private driveway
(near creek), 6' W from SH-340 EB lane. Groundwater Levels: Not Observed
Logged By: J. Mulumba
Final By: J. Mulumba
Symbol
Depth
Date
Weather Notes: Sunny 90s
Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical
Boring Began: 8/15/2016
Boring Completed: 8/15/2016
Drilling Method(s): Solid-Stem Auger (4" OD)
Driller: HRLC Solutions
Drill Rig: CME 55 Rubber Track
Hammer Type: Automatic (hydraulic)-
-
-
-
-
-
Night Work:
ProjectName:
PAGE1 of 1
AASHTO& USCSClassifi-cations
Field Notesand
Other LabTests
Fin
es C
onte
nt
(%)
Pla
sticity
Index
Project Number: 216-255
Colonial Bypass Lane
AtterbergLimits
Boring No.: W-2
Yeh and Associates, Inc.E
leva
tio
n(f
ee
t)
4620
4615
4610
De
pth
(fe
et)
5
10
Sam
ple
Type/
Advancem
ent M
eth
od
C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s
Liq
uid
Lim
it
BO
RIN
G L
OG
20
15
2
16
-25
5 C
OL
ON
IAL
BY
PA
SS
.GP
J
20
15
YE
H A
SS
OC
IAT
ES
TE
MP
LA
TE
.GD
T
20
15
LIB
RA
RY
.GL
B
12
/1/1
6
Sand C
onte
nt
(%)
Gra
vel C
onte
nt
(%)
Mois
ture
Conte
nt
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)Blows
per6 in
Pe
ne
tra
tio
nR
esis
tan
ce
Lith
olo
gy
Material Description
Soil Samples
Re
co
ve
ry (
%)
Rock
RQ
D (
%)
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
APPENDIX B
Summary Table and Laboratory Test Results
Project No:
Grain Size Analysis Atterberg Limits
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
200 psf 500 psf 1,000 psf
TH-1 2 MC 6.1 90 0 52 48 NV NP NP -0.7 A-4 (0) SM SAND, silty
4 MC 3.6 90 8 57 35 NV NP NP A-2-4 (0) SM SAND, silty
TH-2 2 MC 15.1 107 1 45 54 24 11 13 0.6 A-6 (3) CL CLAY, sandy
9 SS 8.5 0 61 39 NV NP NP A-4 (0) SM SAND, silty
TH-3 1 MC 11.0 106 4 57 39 26 14 12 -0.2 A-6 (1) SC SAND, clayey
3 MC 10.0 116 39 NV NP NP A-4 (0) SAND, silty
TH-4 2 MC 14.7 95 4 60 36 26 14 12 A-6 (0) SC SAND, clayey
8.5 SS 2.7 50 37 13 NV NP NP A-1-a (0) GM GRAVEL, silty, sandy
TH-5 2 MC 12.0 118 62 25 16 9 0.4 A-4 (3) CL CLAY with sand or gravel
3-5 BULK 1.8 21 42 37 NV NP NP 52 A-4 (0) SM SAND, silty with gravel
Sample
Type
Dry Density
(pcf)
Gravel
> #4
(%)
Moisture
Content
(%)
Water
Soluble
Chloride
(%)
PL
Sample Location
Test
HoleDepth (ft)
USCSR-Value
Swell- Consolidation (%) at
normal applied pressure
YEH & ASSOCIATES, INC
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Sand
(%)
Fines
< #200
(%)
LL
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane
PIAASHTO Material DescriptionpH
Water
Soluble
Sulfate
(%)
216-255 Project Name:
MC - Indicates Modified California sample.
SS - Indicates Split Spoon sample.
HD - Indicates Hand-Drive sample.
NV - Indicates "No Value".
NP - Indicates "No Plasticity". Page 1 of 2
Project No:
Grain Size Analysis Atterberg Limits
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
200 psf 500 psf 1,000 psf
Sample
Type
Dry Density
(pcf)
Gravel
> #4
(%)
Moisture
Content
(%)
Water
Soluble
Chloride
(%)
PL
Sample Location
Test
HoleDepth (ft)
USCSR-Value
Swell- Consolidation (%) at
normal applied pressure
YEH & ASSOCIATES, INC
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Sand
(%)
Fines
< #200
(%)
LL
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane
PIAASHTO Material DescriptionpH
Water
Soluble
Sulfate
(%)
216-255 Project Name:
W-1 2 MC 7.8 90 42 24 16 8 0.073 0.0079 779 7.8 -4.7 A-4 (0) SAND, clayey
3 MC 4.5 98 1 59 40 -0.6 SAND, clayey
7 MC 11.6 111 59 20 12 8 -0.6 A-4 (1) CL CLAY with sand or gravel
11.5 SS 3.5 48 33 19 NV NP NP A-1-b (0) GM GRAVEL, silty, sandy
W-2 1.5 MC 1.8 106 57 27 16 GRAVEL, clayey or silty, with sand
3.5 SS 0.095 0.0253 839 8.0 GRAVEL, clayey or silty, with sand
HD-1 2 HD 4.0 93 SAND, clayey or silty
4 HD 4.0 91 0 60 40 28 14 14 A-6 (2) SC SAND, clayey
HD-2 2 HD 2.0 97 9 60 31 NV NP NP A-2-4 (0) SM SAND, silty
HD-3 2 HD 3.0 97 0 66 34 NV NP NP A-2-4 (0) SM SAND, silty
MC - Indicates Modified California sample.
SS - Indicates Split Spoon sample.
HD - Indicates Hand-Drive sample.
NV - Indicates "No Value".
NP - Indicates "No Plasticity". Page 2 of 2
Drawn By: JM
Date: 08/25/16
Sieve Size
% Passing
3" -
2 ½" -
2" -
1 ½" -
1" -
¾ " 0
½" 0
⅜" 0
#4 100
#10 97
#40 91
#200 48
Gravel (%) 0 LL NV Project Name: Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Sand (%) 52 PL NP
Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: SAND, silty (SM) Checked By: SR
Figure No.: B-5
Fines (%) 48SIEVE ANALYSIS Sample
Depth (ft.): 2PI NP
Sample ID: TH-1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11101001000
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Particle Size (mm)
20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm
1002"
Revised 08/16/2016
Drawn By: JM
Date: 08/25/16
PI NP
Sample ID: TH-1
Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: SAND, silty (SM) Checked By: SR
Figure No.: B-6
Fines (%) 35SIEVE ANALYSIS Sample
Depth (ft.): 4
#200 35
Gravel (%) 8 LL NV Project Name: Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Sand (%) 57 PL NP
#4 92
#10 88
#40 77
¾ " 100
½" 99
⅜" 97
2" -
1 ½" -
1" -
Sieve Size
% Passing
3" -
2 ½" -
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11101001000
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Particle Size (mm)
20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm
1002"
Revised 08/16/2016
Drawn By: JM
Date: 08/25/16
Sieve Size
% Passing
3" -
2 ½" -
2" -
1 ½" -
1" -
¾ " 0
½" 0
⅜" 100
#4 99
#10 98
#40 93
#200 54
Gravel (%) 1 LL 24 Project Name: Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Sand (%) 45 PL 11
Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: CLAY, sandy (CL) Checked By: SR
Figure No.: B-7
Fines (%) 54SIEVE ANALYSIS Sample
Depth (ft.): 2PI 13
Sample ID: TH-2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11101001000
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Particle Size (mm)
20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm
1002"
Revised 08/16/2016
Drawn By: JM
Date: 08/25/16
Sieve Size
% Passing
3" -
2 ½" -
2" -
1 ½" -
1" -
¾ " 0
½" 0
⅜" 0
#4 100
#10 100
#40 100
#200 39
Gravel (%) 0 LL NV Project Name: Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Sand (%) 61 PL NP
Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: SAND, silty (SM) Checked By: SR
Figure No.: B-8
Fines (%) 39SIEVE ANALYSIS Sample
Depth (ft.): 9PI NP
Sample ID: TH-2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11101001000
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Particle Size (mm)
20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm
1002"
Revised 08/16/2016
Drawn By: JM
Date: 08/25/16
Sieve Size
% Passing
3" -
2 ½" -
2" -
1 ½" -
1" -
¾ " 0
½" 100
⅜" 99
#4 96
#10 92
#40 85
#200 39
Gravel (%) 4 LL 26 Project Name: Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Sand (%) 57 PL 14
Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: SAND, clayey (SC) Checked By: SR
Figure No.: B-9
Fines (%) 39SIEVE ANALYSIS Sample
Depth (ft.): 1PI 12
Sample ID: TH-3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11101001000
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Particle Size (mm)
20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm
1002"
Revised 08/16/2016
Drawn By: JM
Date: 08/25/16
Sieve Size
% Passing
3" -
2 ½" -
2" -
1 ½" -
1" -
¾ " 100
½" 99
⅜" 98
#4 96
#10 90
#40 80
#200 36
Gravel (%) 4 LL 26 Project Name: Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Sand (%) 60 PL 14
Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: SAND, clayey (SC) Checked By: SR
Figure No.: B-10
Fines (%) 36SIEVE ANALYSIS Sample
Depth (ft.): 2PI 12
Sample ID: TH-4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11101001000
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Particle Size (mm)
20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm
1002"
Revised 08/16/2016
Drawn By: JM
Date: 08/25/16
Sieve Size
% Passing
3" -
2 ½" -
2" -
1 ½" 100
1" 90
¾ " 79
½" 68
⅜" 63
#4 50
#10 40
#40 30
#200 13
Gravel (%) 50 LL NV Project Name: Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Sand (%) 37 PL NP
Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: GRAVEL, silty, sandy (GM) Checked By: SR
Figure No.: B-11
Fines (%) 13SIEVE ANALYSIS Sample
Depth (ft.): 8.5PI NP
Sample ID: TH-4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11101001000
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Particle Size (mm)
20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm
1002"
Revised 08/16/2016
Drawn By: JM
Date: 08/25/16
PI NP
Sample ID: TH-5
Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: GRAVEL, silty, sandy (GM) Checked By: SR
Figure No.: B-12
Fines (%) 37SIEVE ANALYSIS Sample
Depth (ft.): 3-5 (BULK)
#200 37
Gravel (%) 21 LL NV Project Name: Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Sand (%) 42 PL NP
#4 79
#10 71
#40 61
¾ " 94
½" 90
⅜" 87
2" -
1 ½" 100
1" 95
Sieve Size
% Passing
3" -
2 ½" -
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11101001000
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Particle Size (mm)
20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm
1002"
Revised 08/16/2016
Drawn By: JM
Date: 08/25/16
PI
Sample ID: W-1
Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: SAND, Checked By: SR
Figure No.: B-13
Fines (%) 40SIEVE ANALYSIS
#200 40
Gravel (%) 1 LL Project Name: Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Sand (%)
Sample Depth (ft.): 3
59 PL
#4 99
#10 98
#40 95
¾ " 100
½" 100
⅜" 100
2" -
1 ½" -
1" -
Sieve Size
% Passing
3" -
2 ½" -
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11101001000
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Particle Size (mm)
20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm
1002"
Revised 08/16/2016
Drawn By: JM
Date: 08/25/16
Sieve Size
% Passing
3" -
2 ½" -
2" -
1 ½" 100
1" 95
¾ " 79
½" 66
⅜" 62
#4 52
#10 46
#40 39
#200 19
Gravel (%) 48 LL NV Project Name: Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Sand (%) 33 PL NP
Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: GRAVEL, silty, sandy (GM) Checked By: SR
Figure No.: B-14
Fines (%) 19SIEVE ANALYSIS Sample
Depth (ft.): 11.5PI NP
Sample ID: W-1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11101001000
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Particle Size (mm)
20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm
1002"
Revised 08/16/2016
Drawn By: JM
Date: 08/25/16
Sieve Size
% Passing
3" -
2 ½" -
2" -
1 ½" 100
1" 80
¾ " 71
½" 59
⅜" 53
#4 43
#10 36
#40 29
#200 16
Gravel (%) 57 LL Project Name: Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Sand (%) 27 PL
Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: GRAVEL, clayey or silty, with sand Checked By: SR
Figure No.: B-15
Fines (%) 16SIEVE ANALYSIS Sample
Depth (ft.): 1.5PI
Sample ID: W-2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11101001000
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Particle Size (mm)
20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm
1002"
Revised 08/16/2016
Drawn By: JM
Date: 09/14/16
PI 14
Sample ID: HD-1
Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: SAND, clayey (SC) Checked By: SR
Figure No.: B-16
Fines (%) 40SIEVE ANALYSIS
#200 40
Gravel (%) 0 LL 28 Project Name: Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Sand (%)
Sample Depth (ft.): 4
60 PL 14
#4 100
#10 99
#40 93
¾ " 100
½" 100
⅜" 100
2" -
1 ½" -
1" -
Sieve Size
% Passing
3" -
2 ½" -
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11101001000
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Particle Size (mm)
20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm
1002"
Revised 08/16/2016
Drawn By: JM
Date: 09/14/16
PI NP
Sample ID: HD-2
Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: SAND, silty (SM) Checked By: SR
Figure No.: B-17
Fines (%) 31SIEVE ANALYSIS
#200 31
Gravel (%) 9 LL NV Project Name: Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Sand (%)
Sample Depth (ft.): 2
60 PL NP
#4 91
#10 81
#40 69
¾ " 100
½" 96
⅜" 95
2" -
1 ½" -
1" -
Sieve Size
% Passing
3" -
2 ½" -
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11101001000
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Particle Size (mm)
20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm
1002"
Revised 08/16/2016
Drawn By: JM
Date: 09/14/16
PI NP
Sample ID: HD-3
Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: SAND, silty (SM) Checked By: SR
Figure No.: B-18
Fines (%) 34SIEVE ANALYSIS
#200 34
Gravel (%) 0 LL NV Project Name: Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Sand (%)
Sample Depth (ft.): 2
66 PL NP
#4 100
#10 99
#40 94
¾ " 100
½" 100
⅜" 100
2" -
1 ½" -
1" -
Sieve Size
% Passing
3" -
2 ½" -
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.11101001000
Perc
ent P
assi
ng
Particle Size (mm)
20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm
1002"
Revised 08/16/2016
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
APPENDIX C
ESALs and Traffic Numbers
Colonial Drive Bypass Lane Project No. 217-448 Grand Junction, Colorado
APPENDIX D
Pavement Design
Design Inputs
Age (year) Heavy Trucks (cumulative)
2017 (initial) 3142027 (10 years) 710,3132037 (20 years) 1,472,170
TrafficDesign Structure
Layer type Material Type Thickness (in)
Flexible R3 SX(75) PG 58-28 United 5.0
NonStabilized A-1-a 6.0Subgrade A-1-b 12.0Subgrade A-6 Compacted 12.0Subgrade A-6 Semi-infinite
Volumetric at Construction:Effective binder content (%) 10.7
Air voids (%) 5.5
Distress TypeDistress @ Specified
Reliability Reliability (%) Criterion Satisfied?
Target Predicted Target AchievedTerminal IRI (in/mile) 200.00 149.98 90.00 99.81 Pass
Permanent deformation - total pavement (in) 0.80 0.61 90.00 99.87 Pass
AC bottom-up fatigue cracking (% lane area) 25.00 24.98 90.00 90.02 Pass
AC thermal cracking (ft/mile) 1500.00 123.79 90.00 100.00 Pass
AC top-down fatigue cracking (ft/mile) 3000.00 920.87 90.00 100.00 Pass
Permanent deformation - AC only (in) 0.65 0.45 90.00 99.92 Pass
Distress Prediction Summary
Flexible PavementDesign Type:20 yearsDesign Life:
September, 2017Traffic opening:Pavement construction: July, 2017
May, 2017Base construction: Climate Data Sources (Lat/Lon)
39.134, -108.538
Design Outputs
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 1 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
Distress Charts
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 2 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
Traffic Volume Monthly Adjustment Factors
Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
Graphical Representation of Traffic Inputs
Traffic Inputs
Operational speed (mph) 45.0
Percent of trucks in design direction (%): 60.0100.01 Percent of trucks in design lane (%):Number of lanes in design direction:
314Initial two-way AADTT:
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 3 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
Traffic WanderMean wheel location (in)
Traffic wander standard deviation (in)Design lane width (ft)
18.0
10.012.0
Axle ConfigurationAverage axle width (ft) 8.5
Dual tire spacing (in)Tire pressure (psi)
12.0120.0
Average Axle SpacingTandem axle spacing (in)Tridem axle spacing (in)Quad axle spacing (in)
51.6
49.2
49.2
Wheelbase does not apply
Number of Axles per Truck
Vehicle Class
Single Axle
Tandem Axle
Tridem Axle
Quad Axle
Class 4 1.53 0.45 0 0Class 5 2.02 0.16 0.02 0Class 6 1.12 0.94 0 0Class 7 1.19 0.07 0.45 0.02Class 8 2.41 0.56 0.02 0Class 9 1.16 1.9 0.01 0
Class 10 1.05 1.01 0.93 0.02Class 11 4.35 0.29 0.02 0Class 12 3.27 1.22 0.09 0Class 13 2.77 1.4 0.51 0.04
Axle Configuration
Volume Monthly Adjustment Factors Level 3: Default MAF
Month Vehicle Class4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
January 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9February 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8March 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9April 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1May 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0June 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0July 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3August 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0September 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1October 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1November 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0December 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9
Distributions by Vehicle Class
Growth Factor
Rate (%) Function0.703% Compound0.703% Compound0.703% Compound0.703% Compound0.703% Compound0.703% Compound0.703% Compound0.703% Compound0.703% Compound0.703% Compound
Vehicle ClassAADTT
Distribution (%) (Level 3)
Class 4 2.1%Class 5 56.1%Class 6 4.4%Class 7 0.3%Class 8 14.2%Class 9 21.1%Class 10 0.7%Class 11 0.7%Class 12 0.2%Class 13 0.2%
Truck Distribution by Hour does not apply
Tabular Representation of Traffic Inputs
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 4 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
AADTT (Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic) Growth* Traffic cap is not enforced
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 5 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
Climate Inputs
Climate Data Sources:
Climate Station Cities: Location (lat lon elevation(ft))39.13400 -108.53800 4839GRAND JUNCTION, CO
Monthly Climate Summary:
Annual Statistics:
Mean annual air temperature (ºF) 53.73Mean annual precipitation (in) 8.07Freezing index (ºF - days) 362.07Average annual number of freeze/thaw cycles: 111.77 Water table depth
(ft)10.00
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 6 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
< -13º F
Hourly Air Temperature Distribution by Month:
-13º F to -4º F -4º F to 5º F 5º F to 14º F 14º F to 23º F 23º F to 32º F 32º F to 41º F 41º F to 50º F
59º F to 68º F50º F to 59º F 68º F to 77º F 77º F to 86º F 86º F to 95º F 95º F to 104º F 104º F to 113º F
> 113º F
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 7 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
HMA Design Properties
Layer Name Layer Type Interface Friction
Layer 1 Flexible : R3 SX(75) PG 58-28 United Flexible (1) 1.00
Layer 2 Non-stabilized Base : A-1-a Non-stabilized Base (4) 1.00
Layer 3 Subgrade : A-1-b Subgrade (5) 1.00Layer 4 Subgrade : A-6 Compacted Subgrade (5) 1.00
Layer 5 Subgrade : A-6 Subgrade (5) -
Use Multilayer Rutting Model FalseUsing G* based model (not nationally calibrated) False
Is NCHRP 1-37A HMA Rutting Model Coefficients True
Endurance Limit - Use Reflective Cracking True
Structure - ICM PropertiesAC surface shortwave absorptivity 0.85
Design Properties
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 8 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
Thermal Cracking (Input Level: 1)
Indirect tensile strength at 14 ºF (psi) 555.90Creep Compliance (1/psi)
Loading time (sec) -4 ºF1 2.78e-0072 3.11e-0075 3.48e-00710 3.74e-00720 4.22e-00750 4.63e-007100 5.28e-007
14 ºF3.91e-0074.79e-0075.57e-0076.94e-0078.31e-0071.08e-0061.35e-006
32 ºF2.65e-0073.91e-0076.33e-0079.55e-0071.28e-0061.99e-0062.72e-006
Thermal ContractionIs thermal contraction calculated? True
Mix coefficient of thermal contraction (in/in/ºF) - Aggregate coefficient of thermal contraction (in/in/ºF) 5.0e-006
Voids in Mineral Aggregate (%) 16.2
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 9 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
HMA Layer 1: Layer 1 Flexible : R3 SX(75) PG 58-28 United
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 10 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
Analysis Output Charts
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 11 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 12 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 13 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 14 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
Layer InformationLayer 1 Flexible : R3 SX(75) PG 58-28 United
Asphalt Binder
Temperature (ºF) Binder Gstar (Pa) Phase angle (deg)147.2 1661 85158 776 87168.8 384 89
T ( ºF) 0.5 Hz14 206709940 93080070 207600100 52500130 24100
25 Hz28732992196999103920029190078900
1 Hz2488999147280043960010120035400
10 Hz2785899200839983870021530060900
Asphalt Dynamic Modulus (Input Level: 1)
AsphaltThickness (in) 5.0Unit weight (pcf) 145.0Poisson's ratio Is Calculated? True
Ratio - Parameter A -1.63Parameter B 3.84E-06
General Info
Name ValueReference temperature (ºF) 70Effective binder content (%) 10.7Air voids (%) 5.5Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-ºF) 0.67Heat capacity (BTU/lb-ºF) 0.23
Field ValueDisplay name/identifier R3 SX(75) PG 58-28 United
Description of object Mix ID # FS1918-9
Author CDOTDate Created 4/3/2013 12:00:00 AMApprover CDOTDate approved 4/3/2013 12:00:00 AMState ColoradoDistrictCountyHighwayDirection of TravelFrom station (miles)To station (miles)ProvinceUser defined field 2User defined field 3Revision Number 0
Identifiers
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 15 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
Layer 2 Non-stabilized Base : A-1-a
Liquid LimitPlasticity Index 1.0
6.0
Sieve Size % Passing0.001mm0.002mm0.020mm#200 8.7#100#80 12.9#60#50#40 20.0#30#20#16#10 33.8#8#4 44.73/8-in. 57.21/2-in. 63.13/4-in. 72.71-in. 78.81 1/2-in. 85.82-in. 91.62 1/2-in.3-in.3 1/2-in. 97.6
Is User Defined? Falseaf 7.2555bf 1.3328cf 0.8242hr 117.4000
Sieve
Is User Defined? Value
Maximum dry unit weight (pcf) False 127.7
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr) False 5.054e-02
Specific gravity of solids False 2.7Optimum gravimetric water content (%) False 7.4
User-defined Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC)
TrueIs layer compacted?
UnboundLayer thickness (in) 6.0Poisson's ratio 0.35Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0) 0.5
Resilient Modulus (psi)25000.0
Modulus (Input Level: 2)
Analysis Type: Modify input values by temperature/moisture
Method: Resilient Modulus (psi)
Use Correction factor for NDT modulus? - NDT Correction Factor: -
Field ValueDisplay name/identifier A-1-a
Description of object ABC (Class 6) Road Base
Author MLTalvitieDate Created 9/13/2016 12:00:00 AMApproverDate approved 1/1/0001 12:00:00 AMStateDistrictCountyHighwayDirection of TravelFrom station (miles)To station (miles)ProvinceUser defined field 2User defined field 3Revision Number 0
Identifiers
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 16 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
Layer 3 Subgrade : A-1-b
Liquid LimitPlasticity Index 1.0
11.0
Sieve Size % Passing0.001mm0.002mm0.020mm#200 13.4#100#80 20.8#60#50#40 37.6#30#20#16#10 64.0#8#4 74.23/8-in. 82.31/2-in. 85.83/4-in. 90.81-in. 93.61 1/2-in. 96.72-in. 98.42 1/2-in.3-in.3 1/2-in. 99.4
Is User Defined? Falseaf 5.8206bf 0.4621cf 3.8497hr 126.8000
Sieve
Is User Defined? Value
Maximum dry unit weight (pcf) False 123.7
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr) False 2.303e-03
Specific gravity of solids False 2.7Optimum gravimetric water content (%) False 9.1
User-defined Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC)
FalseIs layer compacted?
UnboundLayer thickness (in) 12.0Poisson's ratio 0.35Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0) 0.5
Resilient Modulus (psi)14000.0
Modulus (Input Level: 3)
Analysis Type: Modify input values by temperature/moisture
Method: Resilient Modulus (psi)
Use Correction factor for NDT modulus? - NDT Correction Factor: -
Field ValueDisplay name/identifier A-1-b
Description of object ABC (Class 2) Subbase
Author MLTalvitieDate Created 9/13/2016 12:00:00 AMApproverDate approved 1/1/0001 12:00:00 AMStateDistrictCountyHighwayDirection of TravelFrom station (miles)To station (miles)ProvinceUser defined field 2User defined field 3Revision Number 0
Identifiers
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 17 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
Layer 4 Subgrade : A-6 Compacted
Liquid LimitPlasticity Index 13.0
24.0
Sieve Size % Passing0.001mm0.002mm0.020mm#200 53.8#100 72.0#80#60#50 88.0#40 93.0#30 95.0#20#16 97.0#10 98.0#8 98.0#4 99.03/8-in. 100.01/2-in.3/4-in.1-in.1 1/2-in.2-in.2 1/2-in.3-in.3 1/2-in.
Is User Defined? Falseaf 96.3038bf 0.7648cf 0.2955hr 500.0000
Sieve
Is User Defined? Value
Maximum dry unit weight (pcf) False 112.2
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr) False 2.607e-05
Specific gravity of solids False 2.7Optimum gravimetric water content (%) False 15.3
User-defined Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC)
TrueIs layer compacted?
UnboundLayer thickness (in) 12.0Poisson's ratio 0.35Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0) 0.5
Resilient Modulus (psi)8000.0
Modulus (Input Level: 2)
Analysis Type: Modify input values by temperature/moisture
Method: Resilient Modulus (psi)
Use Correction factor for NDT modulus? - NDT Correction Factor: -
Field ValueDisplay name/identifier A-6 Compacted
Description of object TH-2 @ 2.0 to 6.5 feet
Author MLTalvitieDate Created 9/12/2016 12:00:00 AMApproverDate approved 1/1/0001 12:00:00 AMState ColoradoDistrict Region 3County MesaHighway SH 340Direction of Travel EastboundFrom station (miles) 7.85To station (miles) 8.11ProvinceUser defined field 2User defined field 3Revision Number 0
Identifiers
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 18 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
Layer 5 Subgrade : A-6
Liquid LimitPlasticity Index 13.0
24.0
Sieve Size % Passing0.001mm0.002mm0.020mm#200 53.8#100 72.0#80 73.5#60#50 88.0#40 93.0#30 95.0#20#16 97.0#10 98.0#8 98.0#4 99.03/8-in. 100.01/2-in.3/4-in.1-in.1 1/2-in.2-in.2 1/2-in.3-in.3 1/2-in.
Is User Defined? Falseaf 96.3038bf 0.7648cf 0.2955hr 500.0000
Sieve
Is User Defined? Value
Maximum dry unit weight (pcf) False 111.5
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (ft/hr) False 2.761e-05
Specific gravity of solids False 2.7Optimum gravimetric water content (%) False 15.3
User-defined Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC)
FalseIs layer compacted?
UnboundLayer thickness (in) Semi-infinitePoisson's ratio 0.35Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0) 0.5
Resilient Modulus (psi)8000.0
Modulus (Input Level: 2)
Analysis Type: Modify input values by temperature/moisture
Method: Resilient Modulus (psi)
Use Correction factor for NDT modulus? - NDT Correction Factor: -
Field ValueDisplay name/identifier A-6
Description of object TH-2 @ 2-6.5'
Author MLTalvitieDate Created 9/12/2016 12:00:00 AMApproverDate approved 1/1/0001 12:00:00 AMState ColoradoDistrict Region 3County MesaHighway SH 340Direction of Travel EastboundFrom station (miles) 7.85To station (miles) 8.11ProvinceUser defined field 2User defined field 3Revision Number 0
Identifiers
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 19 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
Calibration Coefficients
k1: 0.007566k2: 3.9492k3: 1.281Bf1: 130.3674Bf2: 1Bf3: 1.217799
AC Fatigue
AC Layer K1:-3.35412 K2:1.5606 K3:0.3791 Br1:6.7 Br2:1 Br3:10.1414 * Pow(RUT,0.25) + 0.001
AC Rutting
AC Rutting Standard Deviation
Level 1 K: 6.3Level 2 K: 0.5Level 3 K: 6.3
Level 1 Standard Deviation: 0.1468 * THERMAL + 65.027Level 2 Standard Deviation: 0.2841 * THERMAL + 55.462 Level 3 Standard Deviation: 0.3972 * THERMAL + 20.422
Thermal Fracture
k1: 1 k2: 1 Bc1: 0.75 Bc2:1.1
CSM Fatigue
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 20 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
Subgrade Rutting
Granular Finek1: 2.03 Bs1: 0.22 k1: 1.35 Bs1: 0.37Standard Deviation (BASERUT)0.0104 * Pow(BASERUT,0.67) + 0.001
Standard Deviation (BASERUT)0.0663 * Pow(SUBRUT,0.5) + 0.001
c1: 7 c2: 3.5
200 + 2300/(1+exp(1.072-2.1654*LOG10(TOP+0.0001)))
AC Cracking
1 + 15/(1+exp(-3.1472-4.1349*LOG10(BOTTOM+0.0001)))
AC Top Down Cracking AC Bottom Up Cracking
c3: 0 c4: 1000 c3: 6000c2: 2.35c1: 0.021AC Cracking Top Standard Deviation AC Cracking Bottom Standard Deviation
C1: 0 C2: 75
CSM Cracking
C4: 3C3: 5
CTB*1CSM Standard Deviation
IRI Flexible Pavements
C3: 0.0111 C4: 0.02C1: 50 C2: 0.55
SH340_Colonial-East_Run2File Name: C:\Users\mtalvitie\Documents\216-255 Colonial Drive SH 340\Pavement Design\SH340_Colonial-East\SH340_Colonial-East_Run1\SH340_Colonial-East_Run2.dgpx
Report generated on: 9/15/2016 3:33 PM Page 21 of 21
by: MLTalvitieon: 9/13/2016 12:00 AM on: 1/1/0001 12:00 AM
by: Created ApprovedVersion: 2.2
4640
4630
4620
4610
4640
4630
4620
46101+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 4+56.18
0 30 60 90
TEST HOLE LEGEND
TYPICAL TEST HOLE LOG
LEGEND OF SYMBOLS
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
OTHER SYMBOLS
^^