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.


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%


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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,


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.


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


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.


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).


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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

AutoCAD SHX Text

Irrigation

AutoCAD SHX Text

Structure

AutoCAD SHX Text

Irrigation

AutoCAD SHX Text

Structure

AutoCAD SHX Text

Irrigation

AutoCAD SHX Text

Structure

AutoCAD SHX Text

Shed

AutoCAD SHX Text

"MM 8"

AutoCAD SHX Text

"No Outlet"

AutoCAD SHX Text

"Sight Distance"

AutoCAD SHX Text

"Blossom Ct."

AutoCAD SHX Text

"2119 Broadway"

AutoCAD SHX Text

"2117 Broadway"

AutoCAD SHX Text

Private Driveway

AutoCAD SHX Text

18" CMP

AutoCAD SHX Text

FL=4614.0'

AutoCAD SHX Text

FL=4616.1'

AutoCAD SHX Text

12" CMP

AutoCAD SHX Text

FL=4647.3'

AutoCAD SHX Text

FL=4646.9'

AutoCAD SHX Text

FL=4642.9'

AutoCAD SHX Text

T

AutoCAD SHX Text

m

AutoCAD SHX Text

m

AutoCAD SHX Text

STOP

AutoCAD SHX Text

STOP

AutoCAD SHX Text

1+85.66

AutoCAD SHX Text

2+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

3+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

4+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

5+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

6+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

7+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

8+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

9+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

10+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

11+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

12+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

13+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

14+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

14+89.48

AutoCAD SHX Text

15+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

STOP


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


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.


Longitudinal and alligatorcracking at test hole locationin existing asphalt.

80

87




Location: 30' E of north driveway, middle of EB lane.

Groundwater Levels: Not Observed



Symbol

Depth

Date

Weather Notes: Sunny 80s








-

-

-

-

-

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Field Notesand

Other LabTests

Fin

es C

onte

nt

(%)

Pla

sticity

Index



AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: TH-2


leva

tio

n(f

ee

t)

4645

4640

4635

De

pth

(fe

et)

5

10

Sam

ple

Type/

Advancem

ent M

eth

od


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


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.


67




Location: 20' W of MM8, 5' S of SH 340 edge of asphalt

Groundwater Levels: Not Observed



Symbol

Depth

Date









-

-

-

-

-

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Field Notesand

Other LabTests

Fin

es C

onte

nt

(%)

Pla

sticity

Index



AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: TH-3


leva

tio

n(f

ee

t)

4640

4635

4630

De

pth

(fe

et)

5

10

Sam

ple

Type/

Advancem

ent M

eth

od


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


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.


Alligator cracking in existingasphalt at test hole location.

87

53




Location: At SE corner of Colonial and SH-340, 5' NE of

southern edge of 8' sidewalk. Groundwater Levels: Not Observed



Symbol

Depth

Date

Weather Notes: Mild 70s








-

-

-

-

-

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Field Notesand

Other LabTests

Fin

es C

onte

nt

(%)

Pla

sticity

Index



AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: TH-4


leva

tio

n(f

ee

t)

4635

4630

4625

De

pth

(fe

et)

5

10

Sam

ple

Type/

Advancem

ent M

eth

od


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


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.


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



Location: 40' SE from Colonial and SH-340, 4'' off centerline

in EB lane. Groundwater Levels: Not Observed



Symbol

Depth

Date

Weather Notes: Sunny mid 90s








-

-

-

-

-

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Field Notesand

Other LabTests

Fin

es C

onte

nt

(%)

Pla

sticity

Index



AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: TH-5


leva

tio

n(f

ee

t)

4630

4625

4620

De

pth

(fe

et)

5

Sam

ple

Type/

Advancem

ent M

eth

od


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


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.


AUGER REFUSAL at 14.3feet.

83

67




Location: Top of slope, edge of R.O.W., line up with west

Colonial Dr flowline. Groundwater Levels: Not Observed



Symbol

Depth

Date

Weather Notes: Sunny upper 80s








-

-

-

-

-

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Field Notesand

Other LabTests

Fin

es C

onte

nt

(%)

Pla

sticity

Index



AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: W-1


leva

tio

n(f

ee

t)

4635

4630

4625

De

pth

(fe

et)

5

10

Sam

ple

Type/

Advancem

ent M

eth

od


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


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.


AUGER REFUSAL at 10.3feet.

67

33




Location: Toe of slope, approx 60' NW of private driveway

(near creek), 6' W from SH-340 EB lane. Groundwater Levels: Not Observed



Symbol

Depth

Date









-

-

-

-

-

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Field Notesand

Other LabTests

Fin

es C

onte

nt

(%)

Pla

sticity

Index



AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: W-2


leva

tio

n(f

ee

t)

4620

4615

4610

De

pth

(fe

et)

5

10

Sam

ple

Type/

Advancem

ent M

eth

od


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


Soil Samples

Re

co

ve

ry (

%)

Rock

RQ

D (

%)


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


Figure No.: B-6


Depth (ft.): 4

#200 35


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



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


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



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


Sand (%) 61 PL NP


Figure No.: B-8


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



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


Sand (%) 57 PL 14

Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: SAND, clayey (SC) Checked By: SR

Figure No.: B-9


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



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


Sand (%) 60 PL 14


Figure No.: B-10


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



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


Sand (%) 37 PL NP

Project No.: 216-255 Sample Description: GRAVEL, silty, sandy (GM) Checked By: SR

Figure No.: B-11


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



1002"

Revised 08/16/2016

Drawn By: JM

Date: 08/25/16

PI NP

Sample ID: TH-5


Figure No.: B-12


Depth (ft.): 3-5 (BULK)

#200 37


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



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



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


Sand (%) 33 PL NP


Figure No.: B-14


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



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


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



1002"

Revised 08/16/2016

Drawn By: JM

Date: 09/14/16

PI 14

Sample ID: HD-1


Figure No.: B-16


#200 40


Sand (%)


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



1002"

Revised 08/16/2016

Drawn By: JM

Date: 09/14/16

PI NP

Sample ID: HD-2


Figure No.: B-17


#200 31


Sand (%)


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



1002"

Revised 08/16/2016

Drawn By: JM

Date: 09/14/16

PI NP

Sample ID: HD-3


Figure No.: B-18


#200 34


Sand (%)


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



1002"

Revised 08/16/2016


APPENDIX C

ESALs and Traffic Numbers


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





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:





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





AADTT (Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic) Growth* Traffic cap is not enforced





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





< -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





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





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





HMA Layer 1: Layer 1 Flexible : R3 SX(75) PG 58-28 United





Analysis Output Charts





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





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





Layer 3 Subgrade : A-1-b


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


Sieve






FalseIs layer compacted?







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





Layer 4 Subgrade : A-6 Compacted


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.


Sieve






TrueIs layer compacted?







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





Layer 5 Subgrade : A-6


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.


Sieve






FalseIs layer compacted?

UnboundLayer thickness (in) Semi-infinitePoisson's ratio 0.35Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0) 0.5






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





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





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





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

^^