140P2018R0054-0003_Att-4_App_B_Geotechnical_Report_Herring_Cove_171012.pdf

Prepared for the

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE

HERRING COVE BEACH COASTAL ADAPTATION PLAN and

VISITOR EXPERIENCE and ACCESS PROJECT

CACO 206869B

PROVINCETOWN, MASSACHUSETTS

Prepared by

166 Valley Street, Bldg. 5

Providence, Rhode Island 02909

October 2017 https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiD4PbMl5zRAhWGSSYKHbjYBlYQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AUS-NationalParkService-Logo.svg&psig=AFQjCNGXe7VXxBUJ5qhjIHZFKjMLx4rywQ&ust=1483196481899994

Geotechnical Report for Herring Cove Beach Parking Lot

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK

2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND TESTING

2.1 GENERAL

2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

2.3 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

2.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA

2.5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.6 GROUNDWATER

3.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 GENERAL

3.2 FOUNDATIONS

3.3 PAVEMENT DESIGN

3.4 EARTHWORK

3.5 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 LIMITATIONS

6.0 REFERENCES

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Figures

Figure 1 Site Location Plan

Figure 2 Investigation Location Plan

Tables Table 1 Pavement Section for the Relocated Parking Lot for 50 years design life

Table 2 Pavement Section for the Relocated Segment of the Province Lands Road (20 years design life):

Table 3 Geotechnical Design Parameters

Table 4 USGS seismic report for seismic design parameters (also see Appendix E)

Appendices

Appendix A Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Results

Appendix B Boring Logs

Appendix C Laboratory Test Results

Appendix D Pavement Design Worksheets

Appendix E USGS Seismic Design Site Specific Response Spectrum

Louis Berger 1 October 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Park Service (NPS) has selected Louis Berger to conduct a geotechnical investigation and evaluation of the data with respect to the proposed relocation of the existing Herring Cove Beach parking lot. Herring Cove Beach is located on the westernmost boundary of Provincetown, Massachusetts. The proposed development consists of removal of the existing asphalt revetment, parking lot, and fee booth, as well as relocating a portion of Province Lands Road. The project also includes construction of a new parking lot with a defined bicycle path, new relocated fee booth, relocated vault toilets, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible pedestrian paths with mobi-mats, new bike racks and benches, and dune stabilization and plantings. The project is part of rebuilding the deteriorated Herring Cove Parking Lot to improve accessibility and safety as well as protect from sea level rise.

This report presents a factual account of the subsurface conditions and our geotechnical analysis and geotechnical evaluations, including conclusions and recommendations to assist the design team in design of the fee booth, vault toilet, at-grade parking and also including fill and grading operations.

This investigation consisted of conducting twenty-one (21) Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests (DCPTs) four (4) boreholes drilled a depth of 30 feet below the existing grade, field and laboratory tests.

Based on the data collected there are two (2) different strata with different elevations and characteristics underlying the ground surface. These strata area: 1) Dune Sand (Stratum 1), loose to medium dense medium Sand in an average thickness of 16 feet below grade, underlain by 2) Terrace Sand (Stratum 2), dense to very dense sand in thickness in excess of 18 feet. The characteristics of these soils were discussed in Section 2.5 of the report. Groundwater is anticipated to be at an approximate elevation of El. +10 feet, and below and is strongly controlled by tidal movements. Therefore, it should be noted that the groundwater table is expected to fluctuate depending on climatic factors, surface drainage conditions, as well as tidal influences and other factors.

For the fee booth and vault toilet, a shallow foundation system consisting of spread footings to be located 4 feet below the finished grade is selected and recommended after preparing the subgrades recommended in Section 3.2 of this report, after which the foundations can be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 2.0 ksf. Any settlement under this magnitude of stress will be less than 1.0 inch and will mostly be completed during construction.

A flexible pavement system both for the relocated parking lot, and also relocated segment of the Province Lands Road were evaluated and recommended in line with the directives provided in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures and Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD). A design period of 50 years for the parking lot and 20 years for the relocated segment of the Province Lands Road were selected. The following pavement box

Louis Berger 2 October 2017 section was evaluated and recommended for both the parking lot and Province Lands Road relocated segment.

In Section 3.4 Earthwork, potential settlement and ground heave, subgrade infiltration and subgrade preparations were discussed and geotechnical design parameters were recommended.

It was identified that the excavated soils can be used as structural fill, common fill and grading fill but would require additional compaction efforts to bring it the desired density. In compaction, vibratory rollers should be used and the maximum lift thickness should be reduced to 8 inches.

For the seismic design, site class “Type D: Stiff Soil Profile” with the parameters given in Section 3.5 can be used. The site does not have a potential for liquefaction.

Material Thickness (inches) MHD Designation

Superpave-HMA 2 Surface course, 9.5 SSC 9.5 2 Intermediate Coure-12.5 SIC-12.5

Aggregate Base 4 Soil aggregate Total Thickness 8 Existing subgrade Compacted to 95% (ASTM D 698) Dune Sand

Louis Berger 3 October 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

On behalf of the National Park Service (NPS), Louis Berger conducted a geotechnical investigation and evaluation of the data with respect to the proposed relocation of the existing Herring Cove Beach parking lot. Herring Cove Beach is located on the westernmost boundary of Provincetown, Massachusetts. The project includes rebuilding the deteriorated Herring Cove Parking Lot to improve accessibility and safety as well as protect from sea level rise.

This report presents a factual account of the subsurface conditions based on four (4) boreholes and twenty-one (21) Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests (DCPT), inspected and logged by Louis Berger, laboratory test results, and our geotechnical analysis and geotechnical evaluations, including conclusions and recommendations to assist the design team in design of the fee booth, vault toilet, at-grade parking and also including fill and grading operations.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Based on the data provided by the NPS, we understand that the proposed site work specific to the geotechnical exploration program consists of removal of the existing asphalt revetment, parking lot, and fee booth, as well as relocating a portion of Province Lands Road. The project also includes construction of a new parking lot with a defined bicycle path, new relocated fee booth, relocated vault toilets, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible pedestrian paths with mobi-mats, new bike racks and benches, and dune stabilization and plantings.

1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK

The objective of this study is to review the existing subsurface conditions based on the recent boring and laboratory test data in reference to the proposed development, conduct a preliminary geotechnical analysis with respect to the proposed development, and develop preliminary recommendations for subgrade preparations and site fill and excavation activities. In order to achieve these objectives, the following scope of work was performed:

1. Retained a drilling contractor for four (4) soil borings, collection of representative soil samples, groundwater observations, and boring Standard Penetration Tests.

2. Provided full time field inspection services for the borings, sampling and field tests.

3. Performed a laboratory testing program on representative soil samples obtained from the borings. The laboratory testing program consisted of grain size analysis.

4. Preparation of this geotechnical report that includes the following:

a. A description of the regional geologic features of the project site and subsurface investigation performed for this project;

b. A DCPT and boring location plan showing the location of completed DCPT and borings;

Louis Berger 4 October 2017

c. Engineering analysis and foundation recommendations for the new toll booth and vault toilet,

d. Pavement design for the new (re-located) parking lot and the re-located section of Province Lands Road

e. The results of the engineering evaluations and recommendations regarding the excavation, fill and earthwork, including:

• Generalized subsurface conditions, including depths to groundwater;

• Estimated settlements due to grade change;

• Subgrade preparations for the new replacement culverts;

• Recommended soil parameters for earthwork.

f. A discussion of construction-related issues, including:

• Excavation considerations, including the use of excavated materials;

• Subgrade preparation and backfill requirements;

• Protection of adjacent structures and utilities; and

g. Appendices that include DCPT results, test boring logs, and laboratory test results.

Louis Berger 5 October 2017

2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND TESTING

2.1 GENERAL

The subsurface investigation consisted of a field investigation and geotechnical laboratory testing. The field investigation included performing twenty-one (21) DCPTs and four (4) test borings. Selected representative soil samples collected from test borings were sent to the laboratory to determine various soil characteristics

2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

Twenty-one (21) DCPT identified as D-001 through D-021 and four (4) borings identified as LB-01 through LB-04 were completed within the project area (Figure 2). DCPTs were performed on September 7 and 8, 2017 and test borings were performed on September 13 and 14, 2017. DCPTs were performed to a depth of six feet below ground surface (bgs). Borings were drilled from the existing grade to a depth of 30 feet bgs. Louis Berger personnel have inspected the boring operations, logged the subsurface, and selected and collected samples for laboratory testing.

The twenty-one (21) DCPT were conducted to develop in place California Bearing Ratio (CBR) as well as to help assess compactness and relative densities of the on-site soils within the proposed new pavement area. During this investigation, a duel cone penetrometer was be used.

Tests were conducted using a 17.6-pound hammer dropped from 22.6 inches to drive 0.63-inch diameter rods connected to a replaceable 60 degrees pointed tip (cone). The tests were conducted in general agreement with ASTM D 6951. DCPT were terminated either where the equipment’s depth limit was reached, or when no observable penetration is achieved under successive hammer blows. The amount of penetration was measured after each blow and recorded as the dynamic cone penetration index (PI). Stiffer or stronger soils require a higher number of blows or drop the hammer to achieve a given penetration. Based on the review of PI values, CBR, and soil strength estimate versus depth parameters were developed. Field data along with depth versus PI and estimated CBR values are provided in Appendix A.

DCPT results showed that the upper one (1) foot of the soils generally have loose compactness with an average Penetration Index (PI) value of 1.0 in/blow. Using the relationship given in ASTM D6951, penetration index values were converted to CBR (California Bearing Ratio). The average PI values within the subgrade that is expected to support the new pavement corresponds to CBR of 5.

The test borings were performed by New England Boring Contractors, Inc. (NE Boring), using a tracked drill rig. Soil samples were obtained using techniques and equipment in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Specifications, ASTM D6151 - Practice for Using Hollow-Stem Augers for Geotechnical Exploration and Soil Sampling and D1586 – Test Method for Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-barrel Sampling of Soils Representative samples were collected using a 1.5-inch inner diameter (I.D.) or 2.5” I.D. split-spoon Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler driven with a 140-pound

Louis Berger 6 October 2017 automatic hammer with a 30-inch drop. Blow counts were recorded in accordance with ASTM D1586 to determine the SPT resistance “N” values. Generally, continuous representative soil samples were collected to a depth of 10 feet and then after every five (5)-foot interval for examination and laboratory testing. The recovered split-spoon soil samples were visually classified and placed in protective glass jars, which were labeled with the project name and number, boring number, sample number and depth, and SPT blow counts. The test boring logs are included in Appendix B.

2.3 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

The geotechnical laboratory testing program for this project consisted of sieve analyses due to the granular nature of the subsurface.

The following laboratory tests were conducted:

Grain size distribution (sieve analysis) in accordance with ASTM D421, D422;

Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No.200 Sieve, in accordance with the ASTM

D 1140

Specifically, the following representative samples were submitted to ESS Laboratory of Cranston, Rhode Island for laboratory analysis:

• LB-02

• SS2 (2’-4’ bgs)

• SS5 (8’-10’ bgs)

• SS6 (13’-15’ bgs)

• SS7 (18’-20’ bgs)

Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C.

Louis Berger 7 October 2017

2.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA

The project area lies within the Atlantic Plain physiographic province. According to the United States Geologic Service (USGS) Geologic Map of Cape Cod and the Islands, Massachusetts1 the site lies within an area mapped as Qd, Dune Deposits. Dune deposits are composed of moderately to well sorted, fine to medium sand, variably massive, laminated, and crossbedded.

Dune deposits are as much as 100 ft. thick. Unit includes artificial sand deposits in locally replenished beaches. Below beach and dune deposits are the nonlithified earth materials; these materials range from a few feet to more than 500 ft. in thickness. Most of the surficial materials in Massachusetts are deposits of the last two continental ice sheets that covered all of New England in the latter part of the Pleistocene ice age (Stone and DiGiacomo-Cohen, 2009).

Although not observed and present within the project site, in the Cape Cod and islands region, the glacial deposits are divided into three broad categories: glacial till, glacial moraine deposits, and glacial stratified deposits. Glacial till, the most widespread glacial deposit in the subsurface, was laid down directly on bedrock by glacier ice. Glacial moraine deposits accumulated in ice-walled lakes and streams and on stagnant, buried ice in front of the receding edge of the ice sheet. Glacial stratified deposits in the Cape Cod region were laid down by glacial meltwater in streams and lakes adjacent to large moraines in front of the retreating ice margin during the last deglaciation. Elsewhere in Massachusetts, stratified deposits are concentrated in valleys, lowland areas, and in marine embayment. Postglacial sediments, primarily swamp and marsh deposits, and valley-floor fluvial deposits, make up a lesser proportion of the unconsolidated materials

2.5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Subsurface conditions are summarized from the recently completed DCPTs and borings. Based on the information collected from four (4) borings and twenty-one (21) DCPTs, there are two (2) different strata with different elevations and characteristics underlying the ground surface:

Stratum 1- Dune Sand, loose to medium dense medium Sand in an average thickness of 16 feet below grade, Stratum 2- Terrace Sand, dense to very dense sand in thickness in excess of 18 feet.

A summary of the subsurface conditions, including a brief description of the earth materials and geologic units identified in the record of borings, is presented below.

Stratum 1 Dune Sand: This stratum was observed in all boreholes below the existing grade and consist exclusively of light brown to yellow brown to brown-gray, medium Sand, trace fine Gravel, trace silt, generally moist. The observed thickness of sand ranged from 12 feet in LB-02 to as much as 24 feet in LB-01. The SPT resistance “N” values (ASTM Standard D1586) in this stratum ranged from 2 blows/foot to 25 blows/foot with an average 12 blows/foot indicating loose to medium (dense)

1 USGS. Geologic Map of Cape Cod and the Islands, Massachusetts, 1763 [map]. Scale not given. Department of the Interior, USGS, 1986.

Louis Berger 8 October 2017 compactness. In LB-01 the upper three feet has dense compactness due to controlled subgrade preparation for Province Lands Road embankment.

Laboratory tests conducted on selected representative dune sand soils indicated the following classification limits:

• Gravel Content (%): 0

• Sand Content (%): 98.5-98.9

• Fines Content (%): 1.1-1.5

Stratum 2 Old Terrace Sand: This stratum was observed in all borings in depths 14 and 24 feet below the existing grade. Its thickness is in excess of 18 feet. Old Terrace Sand has very similar characteristics of sand dune except sand generally becomes medium to coarse, and locally transits into gravel as in LB-04 at 28 feet. This stratum is described as light brown to brown to gray medium to locally coarse sand, trace silt, and trace gravels, moist with depth wet. The SPT resistance “N” values (ASTM Standard D1586) in this stratum ranged from 35 blows/foot to 89 blows/foot with an average 50 blows/foot indicating dense to very dense compactness.

Laboratory tests conducted on selected representative dune sand soils indicated the following classification limits:

• Gravel Content (%): 0

• Sand Content (%): 96.6-98.1

• Fines Content (%): 1.9-3.4

2.6 GROUNDWATER

Based on the wetness of the samples and observations during drilling, groundwater is anticipated to be at an approximate elevation of El. +10 feet, and below and is strongly controlled by tidal movements. Therefore, it should be noted that the groundwater table is expected to fluctuate depending on climatic factors, surface drainage conditions, as well as tidal influences and other factors.

Louis Berger 9 October 2017

3.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 GENERAL

This section presents a geotechnical evaluation and recommendations for the design of relocating the existing parking lot and a portion of the existing roadway as well as foundations for the fee booth and vault toilets.

3.2 FOUNDATIONS

Data obtained from this investigation indicate that the uppermost soil stratum, Dune Sand (Stratum 1) ranges in thickness from 12 feet to 24 feet and has loose to medium dense compactness while the underlying sand (Stratum 2) has dense to very dense compactness. For the fee booth and vault toilet a shallow foundation system consisting of spread footings is selected and recommended after preparing the subgrades recommended in this report.

In line with Massachusetts Building Code, the bottom of the foundation should be selected 4 feet below the finished grade. At this depth exposed subgrade will need to be compacted using a vibratory roller with a minimum contact pressure of 65 psi to 95 percent of the maximum dry density of dune sand as observed in ASTM D 1557. After preparing the subgrade in this manner, the foundations can be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 2.0 ksf (kips square foot). Any settlement under this magnitude of stress will be less than 1.0 inch and will mostly be completed during construction.

3.3 PAVEMENT DESIGN

A conventional flexible pavement system is evaluated below, and recommended both for the parking lot and the relocated segment of the Province Lands Road.

This pavement design recommendation is based on the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. The pavement box materials were selected in accordance with the requirements and definitions given in the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD), Section 450 Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement. The following design assumptions were made and the design principles were selected:

1. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was taken to be 1,000 vehicles per day for both directions (entering and existing) for the parking lot and 2,000 vehicles per day for the relocated segment of Province Lands Road. The traffic mix is assumed to be mainly consisting of cars, SUVs and light trucks, very limited number of RVs or camper wagons.

The only large vehicles that will normally be on the pavement are maintenance and emergency vehicles.

2. Because of parking space limitations, no growth rate is assumed during design and service life of the pavement. A growth rate of 0.5% was assumed for the relocated segment of the Province Lands Road.

3. The roadway classification was selected as a “heavy duty pavement” for the parking lot and “local road” for the relocated segment of the Province Lands Road.

Louis Berger 10 October 2017

4. Design period: 50 years for the parking lot and 20 years for the relocated segment of the Province Lands Road (because the remaining sections of this road has likely similar life span and the entire road would be maintained together).

5. For the “large vehicle (i.e. maintenance, emergency)” a total of 0.1 percent of traffic with an Axle Load Equivalency of 1.00 was assumed.

6. Of the remaining 99.9 percent of traffic, an 18-kip equivalency factors (ESALs/vehicle) of 0.4 was selected for light truck, camper vans, etc., and 0.0001 for the remaining 99.5 percent of traffic.

7. All 18-kip equivalency factors were considered constant throughout the performance period.

8. Based on the borehole and DCPT data, a CBR value of 5 and an effective roadbed soil resilient modulus of 7,200 psi was estimated using the serviceability data, and corresponding effective subgrade resilient modulus.

9. Drainage Coefficient of 1 (Good drainage) is used.

10. Reliability level: 70% (Slightly over the recommended average for local roads).

11. Overall standard deviation: 0.50

12. Initial Serviceability Index: 4.2

13. Terminal Serviceability Index: 2.0

14. The change of serviceability Index: 2.2

15. Pavement layer structural coefficients:

o Hot Mix Asphalt Surface course: 0.44 o Granular Base Course: 0.14 o Subbase: 0.08 (For simplicity not used in this design)

Using the design parameters and criteria discussed above, a pavement design for the new pavement for a heavy duty parking lot and access road was developed. Accordingly, the following pavement box section was evaluated and recommended (Appendix D):

Table 1: Pavement Section for the Relocated Parking Lot for 50 years design life

For the relocated segment of the Province Lands Road, the following pavement box section was evaluated and recommended (Appendix D):

Material Thickness (inches) MHD Designation

Superpave-HMA 2 Surface course, 9.5 SSC 9.5 2 Intermediate Course-12.5 SIC-12.5

Aggregate Base 4 Soil aggregate

Louis Berger 11 October 2017

Table 2: Pavement Section for the Relocated Segment of the Province Lands Road (20 years design life):

However, the same pavement box section as recommended in Table 1 should be used both for the relocated parking lot and also the relocated segment of the Province Land Road.

3.4 EARTHWORK

Relocation of the parking lot and part of the Province Lands Road would require localized excavations, re-grading, and fill. Excavations for storm-drains, manholes, light poles, etc. would also be required. For excavations deeper than five feet, for safety and stability, sloped excavations with sides slopes 1.0:1.0 can be used and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) open/sheeted excavation measures should be fully observed.

The existing parking lot and the asphalt pavement will require removal, which can be excavated or saw cut. The existing asphalt pavement should be sent to an asphalt plant for recycling to be used as Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP); up to 20% in the intermediate Course and 10% in the Surface Course.

Re-grading may require cuts and fills. The soils at the project site do not have a potential for heaving. Therefore, the cut grade would also be the final finished grade. Fill placement would cause negligible “immediate” settlement, thus, no long-term settlement or ground heave should be anticipated.

A review of the borehole data indicate the soils below and surrounding the project area have “semi-pervious” characteristics with Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) B of USDA classification, or “fair to good” drainage ability when compared to the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) permeability criteria. During site civil drainage design improvements/ redesigns, a coefficient of permeability of 1.5E-03 cm/s (2.0 in./hr.) can be used for drainage through dune sand (Stratum 1) and terrace sand (Stratum 2).

In design of the earthwork and excavation support systems the following design parameters may be used:

Material Thickness (inches) MHD Designation

Superpave-HMA 1 Surface course, 9.5 SSC 9.5 2 Intermediate Course-12.5 SIC-12.5

Aggregate Base 4 Soil aggregate Total Thickness 7

Louis Berger 12 October 2017

Table 3: Geotechnical Design Parameters

Soil/Parameters Stratum 1- Dune Sand

Stratum 2- Terrace Sand

Approximate depth below grade, ft. 0-16 >16 Angle of internal friction (φ0) 30 36 Unit weight (pcf) 110 120 Submerged Unit weight (pcf) 60 65 Coefficient of passive resistance Kp 3.00 3.83 Coefficient of active pressure, Ka 0.33 0.26 Coefficient of at-rest earth pressure K0 0.50 0.41 Lateral bearing Pressure, psf/ft. 100 130 Coefficient of interface friction-ultimate 0.40 0.45

The excavated soils can be used as structural fill, common fill, and grading fill but would require additional compaction efforts to bring it the desired density. In compaction, vibratory rollers should be used and the maximum lift thickness should be reduced to eight inches. The suitability of the excavated material for utilities backfill, however, will need to be checked against the manufacturer’s specifications.

3.5 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The proposed structures should be designed with seismic considerations according to the State Board of Building Regulations and Standards, which has been modified from International Building Code (IBC, 2009). From a probabilistic standpoint, the Maximum Considered Earthquake ground motion (per NEHRP 2000) is defined as the ground motion having a two (2) percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (an approximately 2,500-year return period). It is defined by the spectral accelerations at a 0.2-second period (Ss) and at a one (1)-second period (S1). Based on the national seismic hazard maps prepared by the United States Geological Survey (USGS, 2002), as well as the site location in southeast Massachusetts, the potential for damage due to seismic effect is low. For the seismic design, site class “Type D: Stiff Soil Profile” with the following parameters obtained from USGS seismic design output (Appendix E) can be used.

Table 4: USGS seismic report for seismic design parameters (also see Appendix E)

Factor/Class Value Site Class D Ss, Short Period Spectral Acceleration 0.218g S1, 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration 0.057g Fa 1.6 Fv 2.4

The site does not have a potential for liquefaction.

Louis Berger 13 October 2017

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The NPS has selected Louis Berger to conduct a geotechnical investigation and evaluation of the data with respect to the proposed relocation of the existing Herring Cove Beach parking lot. Herring Cove Beach is located on the westernmost boundary of Provincetown, Massachusetts. The proposed development consists of removal of the existing asphalt revetment, parking lot, and fee booth, as well as relocating a portion of Province Lands Road. The project also includes construction of a new parking lot with a defined bicycle path, new relocated fee booth, relocated vault toilets, ADA accessible pedestrian paths with mobi-mats, new bike racks and benches, and dune stabilization and plantings. The project is part of rebuilding the deteriorated Herring Cove Parking Lot to improve accessibility and safety as well as protect from sea level rise.

2. This report presents a factual account of the subsurface conditions and our geotechnical analysis and geotechnical evaluations, including conclusions and recommendations to assist the design team in design of the fee booth, vault toilet, at-grade parking and also including fill and grading operations.

3. This investigation consisted of conducting twenty-one (21) DCPTs four (4) boreholes drilled a depth of 30 feet below the existing grade, field and laboratory tests. Based on the data collected there are two (2) different strata with different elevations and characteristics underlying the ground surface. These strata area: 1) Dune Sand (Stratum 1), loose to medium dense medium Sand in an average thickness of 16 feet below grade, underlain by 2) Terrace Sand (Stratum 2), dense to very dense sand in thickness in excess of 18 feet. The characteristics of these soils were discussed in Section 2.5 of the report.

Groundwater is anticipated to be at an approximate elevation of El. +10 feet, and below and is strongly controlled by tidal movements. Therefore, it should be noted that the groundwater table is expected to fluctuate depending on climatic factors, surface drainage conditions, as well as tidal influences and other factors.

4. For the fee booth and vault toilet a shallow foundation system consisting of spread footings to be located four feet below the finished grade is selected and recommended after preparing the subgrades recommended in Section 3.2 of this this report, after which the foundations can be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 2.0 ksf. Any settlement under this magnitude of stress will be less than 1.0 inch and will mostly be completed during construction.

5. A flexible pavement system both for the relocated parking lot, and also relocated segment of the Province Lands Road were evaluated and recommended in line with the directives provided in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures and Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD). A design period of 50 years for the parking lot and 20 years for the relocated segment of the Province Lands Road were selected. The following pavement box section was evaluated and recommended for both the parking lot and Province Lands Road relocated segment.

Louis Berger 14 October 2017

6. In Section 3.4., earthwork, potential settlement and ground heave, subgrade infiltration, and subgrade preparations were discussed and geotechnical design parameters were recommended. It was identified that the excavated soils can be used as structural fill, common fill, and grading fill but would require additional compaction efforts to bring it the desired density. In compaction, vibratory rollers should be used and the maximum lift thickness should be reduced to eight inches.

7. For the seismic design, site class “Type D: Stiff Soil Profile” with the parameters given in Section 3.5 can be used. The site does not have a potential for liquefaction.

Material Thickness (inches) MHD Designation

Superpave-HMA 2 Surface course, 9.5 SSC 9.5 2 Intermediate Coure-12.5 SIC-12.5

Aggregate Base 4 Soil aggregate

Louis Berger 15 October 2017

5.0 LIMITATIONS

Professional judgments were necessary in relation to determining stratigraphy and subsurface conditions from the subsurface investigations. Therefore, the data presented and the opinions expressed in this report are qualified as follows:

1. This report has been prepared by Louis Berger for the NPS, to be used solely in the evaluation and performance of the proposed site development work at the site of the Herring Cove Beach Parking Lot, Provincetown, MA. The report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not necessarily contain sufficient information for the purposes of other parties or other uses. Any undisclosed and/or un-permitted alternate use shall be at that party’s own risk and without liability to Louis Berger.

2. The conclusions and recommendations provided in this report are preliminary and are based upon our understanding of the described project information and on our interpretation of the information, the visible conditions for accessible properties and the data that were available and/or collected during the performance of this study. Unless otherwise stated, the work performed by Louis Berger should be understood to be exploratory and interpretational in character. Any results, findings or recommendations contained in this report may be the result, at least in part, of professional judgment and not necessarily based solely on pure science and engineering.

3. Our professional geotechnical engineering services for this project have been performed using a degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice in this report.

4. In preparing this report, Louis Berger has relied upon and presumed accurate certain information (or the absence thereof) about the site and adjacent properties provided by governmental officials and agencies, the NPS, other consultants, and others identified herein. Except as otherwise stated, Louis Berger has not attempted to verify the accuracy or completeness of any such information. Louis Berger derived the data in this report primarily from visual inspections, examination of records in the public domain, and a limited number of tests. The passage of time, manifestation of latent conditions or occurrence of future events may require further exploration at the site, analysis of the data, and reevaluation of the findings, observations and conclusions expressed in the report.

5. No warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied, is made with respect to the data reported or findings, observations and conclusions expressed in this report. Further, such data, findings, observations and conclusions are based solely upon site conditions in existence at the time of investigation.

6. The data reported and the findings, observations and conclusions expressed in the report are limited by the Scope of Services, including the extent of subsurface exploration and other tests. The Scope of Services was defined by the requests of the NPS, and the availability of access to the site. This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of

Louis Berger 16 October 2017 the NPS, and is subject to and issued in connection with the Agreement and the provisions thereof.

Louis Berger 17 October 2017

6.0 REFERENCES

Byron D. Stone and Mary L. DiGiacomo-Cohen (2009): Surficial Geologic Map of the Pocasset- Provincetown Cuttyhunk-Nantucket 24-Quadrangle Area of Cape Cod and Islands, Southeast Massachusetts, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1997, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for

Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures: FEMA 302/303.

GSA (Geological Society of America), 1995, Rock Color Chart: with Genuine Munsell® Color Chips, Rock-color chart committee, Boulder Co, 1995, cop. 1991.

The Massachusetts State Building Code

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2002, National Hazard Maps, Conterminous Unites States, revised April 2003.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2006.

Louis Berger October 2017

FIGURE 1:

SITE LOCATION PLAN

USGS, MassGIS

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Source: ESRI, Louis Berger October 2017 µ

Herring Cove Beach Parking Lot

1 inch = 300 feet

Herring Cove Beach

Province Lands Road

Legend Project Boundary

FIGURE 2:

Investigation Site Plan

@A

@A

@A

@A

D-021

D-020

D-019

D-018

D-017

D-016

D-015

D-014 D-013

D-012

D-011 D-010

D-009 D-008

D-007 D-006

D-005 D-004

D-003 D-002

D-001

USGS, MassGIS

LB-01

LB-04

LB-03

LB-02

Figure 2: Investigation Location Plan

Source: ESRI, Louis Berger October 2017 µ

Herring Cove Beach Parking Lot

1 inch = 300 feet

Herring Cove Beach

Province Lands Road

Legend Project Boundary

@A Boring

! DCPT

APPENDIX A

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TESTS (DCPT) DATA

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

Layer Strength Diagram D-001

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-002

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-003

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-004

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-005

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-006

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-007

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-008

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-009

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-010

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-011

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-012

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-013

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-014

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-015

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-016

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-017

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-018

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-019

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-020

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

De pt h Be lo w

S ur fa ce

(i nc he s)

Penetration Index (inches/blow)

D-021

HERRING COVE BEACH PARKING LOT

DCPT Results Summary

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow) (in/blow) (%) (%) 1 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 1 304.8 12 152 6 152 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 2 457.2 18 305 12 152 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 7 609.6 24 152 6 21.8 0.86 1 21.8 0.9 9.3 8 762 30 152 6 19.1 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8 8 914.4 36 152 6 19.1 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8 9 1066.8 42 152 6 16.9 0.67 1 16.9 0.7 12.3

11 1219.2 48 152 6 13.9 0.55 1 13.9 0.5 15.4 6 1371.6 54 152 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 5 1524 60 152 6 30.5 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4 5 1676.4 66 152 6 30.5 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4 3 1828.8 72 152 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow) (in/blow) (%) (%) 1 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 2 304.8 12 152 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 4 457.2 18 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 2 609.6 24 152 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 1 762 30 152 6 152 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 4 914.4 36 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 2 1066.8 42 152 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 2 1219.2 48 152 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 3 1371.6 54 152 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 5 1524 60 152 6 30.5 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4

12 1676.4 66 152 6 12.7 0.5 1 12.7 0.5 16.9 10 1828.8 72 152 6 15.2 0.6 1 15.2 0.6 13.8

Cummulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration per Blow DCP Index

D-002

A Number of hammer blows between test readings.

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

A Number of hammer blows between test readings.

D-001

Cummulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration per Blow DCP Index

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow) (in/blow) (%) (%) 0 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 1 304.8 12 152 6 152 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 1 457.2 18 152 6 152 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 2 609.6 24 152 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 3 762 30 152 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 4 914.4 36 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 3 1066.8 42 152 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 2 1219.2 48 152 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 3 1371.6 54 152 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 3 1524 60 152 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 2 1676.4 66 152 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 4 1828.8 72 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow) (in/blow) (%) (%) 0 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 1 304.8 12 152 6 152 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 3 457.2 18 152 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 4 609.6 24 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 4 762 30 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 4 914.4 36 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 5 1066.8 42 152 6 30.5 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4 4 1219.2 48 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 6 1371.6 54 152 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 4 1524 60 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 6 1676.4 66 152 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 4 1828.8 72 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0

D-003

Cummulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration per Blow DCP Index

A Number of hammer blows between test readings.

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

D-004

A Number of hammer blows between test readings.

Cummulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow) (in/blow) (%) (%) 0 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 1 304.8 12 152 6 152 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 2 457.2 18 152 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 2 609.6 24 152 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 7 762 30 152 6 21.8 0.86 1 21.8 0.9 9.3 8 914.4 36 152 6 19.1 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8 6 1066.8 42 152 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 5 1219.2 48 152 6 30.5 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4

10 1371.6 54 152 6 15.2 0.6 1 15.2 0.6 13.8 10 1524 60 152 6 15.2 0.6 1 15.2 0.6 13.8 8 1676.4 66 152 6 19.1 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8 6 1828.8 72 152 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow) (in/blow) (%) (%) 0 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 1 304.8 12 152 6 152 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 2 457.2 18 152 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 2 609.6 24 152 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 4 762 30 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 6 914.4 36 152 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 5 1066.8 42 152 6 30.5 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4 6 1219.2 48 152 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 2 1371.6 54 152 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 8 1524 60 152 6 19.1 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8 4 1676.4 66 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0

10 1828.8 72 152 6 15.2 0.6 1 15.2 0.6 13.8

A Number of hammer blows between test readings.

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

D-005

Cummulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration per Blow DCP Index

D-006

Cummulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration per Blow DCP Index

A Number of hammer blows between test readings.

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow) (in/blow) (%) (%) 0 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 1 304.8 12 152 6 152 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 2 457.2 18 152 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 2 609.6 24 152 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 4 762 30 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 6 914.4 36 152 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 6 1066.8 42 152 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 9 1219.2 48 152 6 16.9 0.67 1 16.9 0.7 12.3 9 1371.6 54 152 6 16.9 0.67 1 16.9 0.7 12.3 5 1524 60 152 6 30.5 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4 4 1676.4 66 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 7 1828.8 72 152 6 21.8 0.86 1 21.8 0.9 9.3

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow) (in/blow) (%) (%) 0 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 1 304.8 12 152 6 152 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 3 457.2 18 152 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 3 609.6 24 152 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 7 762 30 152 6 21.8 0.86 1 21.8 0.9 9.3 8 914.4 36 152 6 19.1 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8

10 1066.8 42 152 6 15.2 0.6 1 15.2 0.6 13.8 9 1219.2 48 152 6 16.9 0.67 1 16.9 0.7 12.3 8 1371.6 54 152 6 19.1 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8 8 1524 60 152 6 19.1 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8 4 1676.4 66 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 4 1828.8 72 152 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

Cummulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration per Blow DCP Index

A Number of hammer blows between test readings.

A Number of hammer blows between test readings.

D-008

D-007

Cummulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow)(in/blow) (%) (%) 0 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 1 304.8 12 152.4 6 152.4 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 1 457.2 18 152.4 6 152.4 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 2 609.6 24 152.4 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 4 762 30 152.4 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 4 914.4 36 152.4 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 6 1066.8 42 152.4 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 4 1219.2 48 152.4 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 1 1371.6 54 152.4 6 152.4 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 2 1524 60 152.4 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 1 1676.4 66 152.4 6 152.4 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 3 1828.8 72 152.4 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow)(in/blow) (%) (%) 0 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 1 304.8 12 152.4 6 152.4 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 1 457.2 18 152.4 6 152.4 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 2 609.6 24 152.4 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 2 762 30 152.4 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 3 914.4 36 152.4 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 5 1066.8 42 152.4 6 30.48 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4 6 1219.2 48 152.4 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 5 1371.6 54 152.4 6 30.48 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4 5 1524 60 152.4 6 30.48 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4 6 1676.4 66 152.4 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 8 1828.8 72 152.4 6 19.05 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8

Cummulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration per Blow DCP Index

Cummulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration per Blow DCP Index

D-009

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

A Number of hammer blows between test readings.

D-0010

A Number of hammer blows between test readings.

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow)(in/blow) (%) (%) 0 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 1 304.8 12 152.4 6 152.4 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 2 457.2 18 152.4 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 2 609.6 24 152.4 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 4 762 30 152.4 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 3 914.4 36 152.4 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 3 1066.8 42 152.4 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 3 1219.2 48 152.4 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 6 1371.6 54 152.4 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 5 1524 60 152.4 6 30.48 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4 6 1676.4 66 152.4 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 8 1828.8 72 152.4 6 19.05 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow)(in/blow) (%) (%) 0 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 1 304.8 12 152.4 6 152.4 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 3 457.2 18 152.4 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 4 609.6 24 152.4 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 4 762 30 152.4 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 5 914.4 36 152.4 6 30.48 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4 6 1066.8 42 152.4 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 6 1219.2 48 152.4 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 8 1371.6 54 152.4 6 19.05 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8 9 1524 60 152.4 6 16.9333 0.6667 1 16.9 0.7 12.3 6 1676.4 66 152.4 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 5 1828.8 72 152.4 6 30.48 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4

Cummulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration per Blow DCP Index

D-011

A Number of hammer blows between test readings.

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

A Number of hammer blows between test readings.

Cummulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration per Blow DCP Index

D-0012

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow)(in/blow) (%) (%) 0 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 1 304.8 12 152.4 6 152.4 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 2 457.2 18 152.4 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 2 609.6 24 152.4 6 76.2 3 1 76.2 3.0 2.3 3 762 30 152.4 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 6 914.4 36 152.4 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 6 1066.8 42 152.4 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 4 1219.2 48 152.4 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 4 1371.6 54 152.4 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 4 1524 60 152.4 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 6 1676.4 66 152.4 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 5 1828.8 72 152.4 6 30.48 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow)(in/blow) (%) (%) 2 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 5 304.8 12 152.4 6 30.48 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4 8 457.2 18 152.4 6 19.05 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8

10 609.6 24 152.4 6 15.24 0.6 1 15.2 0.6 13.8 12 762 30 152.4 6 12.7 0.5 1 12.7 0.5 16.9 11 914.4 36 152.4 6 13.8545 0.5455 1 13.9 0.5 15.4 13 1066.8 42 152.4 6 11.7231 0.4615 1 11.7 0.5 18.5 8 1219.2 48 152.4 6 19.05 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8 9 1371.6 54 152.4 6 16.9333 0.6667 1 16.9 0.7 12.3 8 1524 60 152.4 6 19.05 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8 9 1676.4 66 152.4 6 16.9333 0.6667 1 16.9 0.7 12.3

11 1828.8 72 152.4 6 13.8545 0.5455 1 13.9 0.5 15.4

A Number of hammer blows between test readings.

Cummulative Penetration

Penetration Between Readings

Penetration per Blow DCP Index

D-013

D-0014

A Number of hammer blows between test readings.

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

DCP IndexPenetration per Blow

Penetration Between Readings

Cummulative Penetration

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm/blow)(in/blow) (%) (%) 0 152.4 6 - - - - 1 - - - 1 304.8 12 152.4 6 152.4 6 1 152.4 6.0 1.0 3 457.2 18 152.4 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 3 609.6 24 152.4 6 50.8 2 1 50.8 2.0 3.6 4 762 30 152.4 6 38.1 1.5 1 38.1 1.5 5.0 6 914.4 36 152.4 6 25.4 1 1 25.4 1.0 7.8 8 1066.8 42 152.4 6 19.05 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8

10 1219.2 48 152.4 6 15.24 0.6 1 15.2 0.6 13.8 8 1371.6 54 152.4 6 19.05 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8 8 1524 60 152.4 6 19.05 0.75 1 19.1 0.8 10.8 5 1676.4 66 152.4 6 30.48 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4 5 1828.8 72 152.4 6 30.48 1.2 1 30.5 1.2 6.4

B 1 = 8-kg [17.6-lb] hammer; 2 = 4.6-kg [10.1-lb] hammer.

Number of BlowsA

Hammer FactorB CBR Moisture

(mm) (in) (mm) (in) (mm) (in)…