AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) Pavement_Report_Sealed.pdf

SUBMITTED TO:

Jacobs Engineering Group 717 17th Street Denver, Colorado 80202

BY:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

1321 Bannock St., Suite 200 Denver, CO 80204

(303) 825-3800 www.shannonwilson.com

PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

AZ FTBR Levee Road (1)

YUMA COUNTY, ARIZONA

July 2020

Shannon & Wilson No: 104647-001

Pavement Design Report

104647-001 July 2020 ii

CO

NT

EN

TS

CONTENTS

1 Introduction

2 Project and Site Description

3 Subsurface Explorations and Laboratory Testing

4 Regional Geology and Subsurface Conditions

5 Pavement Reccomendations

5.1 Design Methodology

5.2 Traffic Loading

5.3 Subgrade Soils

5.4 Sulfates

5.5 Recommended Pavement Section

6 Construction and Materials Specifications

6.1 Site Preparation

6.2 Earthwork

6.2.1 Proof Rolling and Subgrade Preparation

6.2.2 Fill Placement, Moisture Conditioning, and Compaction

6.3 Paving Materials

7 Closure

8 References

Exhibits Exhibit 6-1: Recommended Materials for Pavements

Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Site and Exploration Plan

Appendices

Appendix A: Subsurface Explorations Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results Appendix C: Pavement Design Calculations Important Information

104647-001 July 2020

1 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program and presents pavement design recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) project (the Project) in Yuma County, Arizona.

Our services were completed in general accordance with our Task Order Agreement No.

148013950 with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs) dated May 12, 2020. Our conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on:

The limitations of our approved scope, schedule, and budget described in our contract;

Our understanding of the Project and information provided by Jacobs;

Subsurface conditions observed in the borings at the time our explorations were completed; and

The results of testing performed on samples collected from the explorations.

The objective of our geotechnical study was to provide recommendations and construction considerations, as presented herein, for the proposed roadway reconstruction. The authorized scope of services was based on this objective and this report should not be used for other purposes without Shannon & Wilson’s review. If a service is not specifically indicated in this report, do not assume that it was performed

2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

The Project is located in Yuma County, Arizona (Figure 1) along the Yuma Valley Levee approximately 1,500 to 4,500 feet south of the Colorado River. Levee Road (constructed on the Yuma Valley Levee) serves as an access road to a Bureau of Land Management boat ramp and recreation site (Paradise Cove) along with a Bureau of Reclamation desalting plant, Cocopah tribal land, and agricultural sites adjacent to the levee. The levee was built between 1905 and 1912 and supported the Yuma Valley Railroad until the early 1950’s. The alignment of Levee Road is adjacent to a single-track rail corridor. To the south of the rail corridor is the Cooper Lateral a canal that parallels the Yuma Valley Levee for the western 1-1/2 mile. North of Levee Road is the Main Outlet Drain, which parallels the Yuma Valley Levee for the entirety of the project.

Levee Road is currently surfaced with an aggregate road surfacing. The project includes paving approximately 2.6 miles of Levee Road between Strand Avenue and North 22nd Avenue with asphalt concrete pavement (ACP). Project elements also include safety and road alignment improvements to accommodate an increase in public use of the road. We

104647-001 July 2020 understand that the roadway will not require widening or realignment from its current configuration.

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY

TESTING

Shannon & Wilson conducted a field exploration program on June 1, 2020, to explore subsurface conditions along the proposed roadway alignment. The subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling and sampling six borings (designated SW-01 through SW-06) along Levee Road, as shown in Figure 2. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 4 to 5 feet below the ground surface.

Appendix A presents a discussion of the drilling and sampling procedures used to complete the borings. Appendix A also presents the individual exploration logs and an explanation of the symbols and terminology used. Photographs of the drilling locations are included in Appendix A.

Geotechnical laboratory tests were completed on selected samples retrieved from the borings to estimate index and engineering properties. Index tests included natural water content, grain size analysis, and Atterberg limits. Engineering properties tests included sulfate content and a Hveem Stabilometer (R-Value) test. Laboratory test results and a discussion of the testing procedures are included in Appendix B. The natural water content, fines content, and Atterberg limits are also shown on the individual boring logs included in Appendix A.

4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE

CONDITIONS

Based on our review of the Geologic map of the Yuma East 7 1/2' Quadrangle, Yuma County, Arizona (Youberg and others, 2011) and the Geologic map of Yuma County, Arizona (Wilson, 1960), the surficial geology of the site consists of Quaternary fluvial deposits, but because the Project is located on an existing levee, we anticipate the roadway subgrade to correspond with the levee construction.

The existing aggregate road surfacing ranged in thickness from approximately 5 to 24 inches as measured in the six borings along the Project. Below the surfacing, the borings encountered very loose to loose, silty sand and medium stiff to very stiff, silty clay with varying amounts of clay and sand (American Association of State Highway and

104647-001 July 2020

Transportation Officials [AASHTO] soil classification A-4), and loose, clayey sand with gravel (AASHTO designation A-2-6).

Groundwater was not encountered in any of our borings during drilling. While fluctuations of groundwater levels at the site are likely and will depend on many factors, including seasonal variations, local precipitation and flood events, groundwater is not anticipated to affect the design or construction of the Project.

Our observations are specific to the locations, depths, and dates noted on the exploration logs in Appendix A and may not be applicable to all areas of the site. There is no amount of exploration or laboratory testing that can precisely predict the characteristics, quality, or distribution of subsurface conditions at every location throughout the site. Variations in the subsurface conditions may occur between and below the borings. Also, the passage of time or intervening causes (natural and manmade) may result in changes to the conditions of the site and subsurface conditions.

5 PAVEMENT RECCOMENDATIONS

Performance of a pavement system depends on multiple factors including pavement material and thickness, subgrade strength, traffic loads and repetition, design life, and drainage characteristics. The following sections discuss each factor as they relate to the Project.

5.1 Design Methodology

Our pavement design and results are based on the design procedures presented in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures with guidance from the U.S.

Department of Transportation (USDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), dated March 2008. Pavement design inputs and calculations are presented in Appendix C.

5.2 Traffic Loading

The traffic study consisted of average daily traffic (ADT) and assumptions for vehicle distribution. Jacobs indicated an ADT of less than 400 vehicles per day (vpd) and 1500 vpd, for 2020 and 2040, respectively. No formal traffic study was performed. Based on discussions with Jacobs, we assumed that the vehicle traffic distribution consists predominantly of passenger cars and pickup trucks, but we understand that the road is occasionally traversed with large farm equipment. Jacobs also indicated the anticipated design vehicle for the farm equipment consists of a combine harvester.

104647-001 July 2020

As a result of insufficient data, actual farm equipment traffic volumes cannot be determined with any accuracy. We understand that the project budget consists of 3 inches of ACP overlying 2 inches of new untreated base course (UTBC). For this pavement section, our analyses indicate a traffic loading capacity of approximately 4 combine harvesters per day.

Our estimated ESAL calculations are provided in Appendix C.

5.3 Subgrade Soils

As discussed in the subsurface condition section, the explorations completed along The Project generally consisted of silty sand and silty clay with varying amounts of gravel (AASHTO A-4) and clayey sand (AASHTO A-2-6). To estimate the strength of the subgrade material, an R-value test was completed on a bulk sample collected from boring SW-04 resulting in an R-Value of 48. We also used correlation tables from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) that correlates plasticity index and fines content to R-value (ADOT, 2017). We averaged the laboratory tested R-value with the correlated R-value from ADOT to determine an average R-value to use for design. This average R-Value of 37.5 was assumed for the subgrade and was used as the design subgrade strength for all pavement areas. We used an AASHTO correlation between R-value and resilient modulus, which calculates a resilient modulus value of 14,600 pounds per square inch.

5.4 Sulfates

The subgrade materials encountered at the project site can be corrosive to substructure elements. To assist in estimating the corrosion potential at the site, subgrade samples were tested for water soluble sulfates. The results are presented in Table B-1 in Appendix B.

The concentration of water-soluble sulfates measured in the samples was 0.129% and 0.193% by weight. Based on classifications as defined by ACI-318-19 (ACI, 2019), these test results suggest a moderate degree of sulfate attack is possible on concrete exposed to site soils (exposure class S1).

The test results and the above discussion are provided to assist the designer in the selection of project materials, concrete type, or other features with respect to corrosion. As appropriate, the designer should consider protective measures, such as coatings, upsizing for section loss, or using alternative materials to reduce the corrosion potential.

104647-001 July 2020

5.5 Recommended Pavement Section

As indicated in Section 5.2, the design pavement section for Levee Road consists of:

3.0 inches of ACP overlying 2.0 inches of untreated base course (UTBC) over the existing aggregate roadway surfacing.

Using the PDDM procedures and the parameters outlined in Appendix C, this section is adequate for the traffic loading indicated in Section 5.2. Based on discussions with Jacobs, we understand the 2-inch layer of new UTBC will be scarified, mixed, and recompacted with the existing underlying roadway surfacing.

6 CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS

The applicability of the design parameters in Section 5 is contingent on good construction practice. Poor construction techniques may alter conditions from those upon which our recommendations are based, and therefore result in poor performance. Our analyses assumed that this project is constructed according to FP-14 U.S. Customary Units (USDOT and FHWA, 2014) construction standards. The following sections provide additional construction considerations for this project.

6.1 Site Preparation

We recommend that brush and other vegetation be cleared and roots and stumps be removed from all areas to be graded in accordance with FP-14 Sections 201 and 203. All surface and subsurface structures associated with current development of the site, including any existing pavements, utility poles, fence poles, underground utilities and other deleterious material, should also be removed. Any existing surficial topsoil and soil containing visible organics should be stripped and removed from all areas.

6.2 Earthwork

Earthwork, including placement of fill and subgrade preparation, should conform to the requirements provided in the FP-14 U.S. Customary Units, (USDOT and FHWA, 2014) and the recommendations provided in the following sections.

6.2.1 Proof Rolling and Subgrade Preparation

The subgrade should be prepared in accordance with FP-14 Section 204.09. If during grading operations the sandy, silty clay subgrade is exposed, the subgrade material may be

104647-001 July 2020 prone to pumping is exposed to elevated water levels. If forecasted rain is anticipated, a delay in earthwork and paving operations should be considered.

6.2.2 Fill Placement, Moisture Conditioning, and Compaction

Granular fill should consist of onsite soils that are free of organics, contaminants, debris, rock fragments larger than 3 inches and should contain less than 20% fines. It should be noted that as the fines content of the soil increases (portion of soil particles passing a U.S.

Standard No. 200 sieve), soil becomes more sensitive to small changes in moisture content, and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Import fill used within the roadway section should consist of Backfill Material (FP 704.03) with a minimum R-value of 38.

All fill should be compacted to a dense/firm and unyielding condition in accordance with FP-14 Section 204.11. Fill materials should be moisture conditioned to within 2% of the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% maximum density, as determined by AASHTO T180 as presented in FP-14 Section 204.

6.3 Paving Materials

Exhibit 6-1 summarizes our recommendations for pavement materials. All specification sections reference FP-14 U.S. Customary Units, (USDOT and FHWA, 2014). We understand that the roadways will be constructed using ACP using a hot or warm mix asphalt in accordance with FP-14 Section 403. We understand that local practice for determining asphalt mix designs is based on Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) mix design criteria. As such, the roadway should be constructed in accordance with Section 407 of the ADOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction for Asphaltic Concrete

(ADOT, 2008).

Exhibit 6-1: Recommended Materials for Pavements

Material Specification Additional Requirements/Comments

UTBC FP-14 Section 302 Use Gradation C, D, or E

ACP FP-14 Section 403 Conform to current approved ADOT mx design criteria ACP gradation:

1.5-inch lift of Class 1 cover material 2.5-inch lift of ¾” NMAS hot mix asphalt Binder:

Top Lift: PG 76-16, Lower Lift: PG 70-10 or PG 76-16

NOTES:

NMAS = Nominal Max Aggregate Size; PG = Performance Grade

104647-001 July 2020

The binder selection procedure is based on the anticipated pavement temperatures, traffic patterns, and local availability. The PDDM specifies the use of software developed by the FHWA Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Bind (2019) to determine an appropriate binder for both high and low temperature ranges. The PDDM also specifies a reliability of 95% be achieved for binder performance. Based on the output from the LTPP Bind software and the report titled, Evaluation of MSCR Testing for Adoption in ADOT Binder Specifications (ADOT, 2019), we recommend PG 76-16 binder for the upper lift and PG 70-10 (or PG 76-16) for the lower lift. A tack coat should be placed between subsequent lifts if the underlying lift will be used for traffic or left uncovered for a 24-hour period.

7 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Jacobs and Central Federal Lands Highway Division for the purpose of providing pavement recommendations for the Senator Wash Roadway Improvements Project. This pavement design report should not be used without our approval if any of the following occurs:

Assumptions stated in this report have changed.

Project details change or new information becomes available such that our analyses and recommendations may be affected.

A substantial period of time has passed since the date of this report.

If any of these occur, we should be retained to review the applicability of our analyses and recommendations.

Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, the analyses, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical and geological principles and practice in this area at the time this report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied.

Shannon & Wilson, has prepared “Important Information about Your Geotechnical Report,” to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our reports.

104647-001 July 2020

8 REFERENCES

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993, AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures: Washington, D.C., AASHTO, 2 v.

American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2019, Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary, Farmington Hills, Mich., ACI 318-19.

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), 2017, Pavement Design Manual.

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), 2008, Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction.

Arizona Department of Transpiration Research Center, 2019, Evaluation of MSCR Testing for Adoption in ADOT Binder Specifications

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2019, LTPP InfoPave: Tools: LTPPBind Online, available at: https://infopave.fhwa.dot.gov/Tools/LTPPBindOnline.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2008, Federal Lands Highway project development and design manual (PDDM):

U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.

Available from: http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/manuals/pddm/.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration, 2014, Federal standard specifications for construction of roads and bridges on Federal Highway projects, FP-14 English Units: U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, available from http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/.

Wilson, E.D., 1960, Geologic map of Yuma County, Arizona: Arizona Bureau of Mines, County Geologic Map Series M-3-11, scale 1:375,000.

Youberg, A., Spencer, J.E., and Pearthree, P.A., 2011, Geologic map of the Yuma East 7 1/2' Quadrangle, Yuma County, Arizona: Arizona Geological Survey, Digital Geologic Map DGM-86, scale 1:24,000.

https://infopave.fhwa.dot.gov/Tools/LTPPBindOnline http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/manuals/pddm/ http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/

Sheet 1

Sheet 1 Sheet 2

Sheet 2 Sheet 3

Sheet 3

Colorado River

0 3,000 6,000

Scale in Feet

AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) Yuma County, Arizona

VICINITY MAP

FIG. 1

N

July 2020 104647-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

LEGEND

Sections of Alignment Shown on Designated Sheet Number of Figure 2

Yuma

Las Vegas o

Arizona N

Tucson

Phoenix

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Project Location

0 200 400

Scale in Feet

AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) Yuma County, Arizona

SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN

FIG. 2

July 2020 104647-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 3

Levee Rd

M atch Line (below

St ra nd A ve

SW-01

Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

Levee Rd

S.

A ve nu e D

M atch Line (above) M at ch

L in e (s he et

)SW-02

Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

LEGEND

Boring Designation and Approximate Location

Main Outlet Drain

Cooper Lateral

Yuma Valley Railroad

Yuma Valley Railroad

Cooper Lateral

Main Outlet Drain

SW-01

AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) Yuma County, Arizona

SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN

FIG. 2

July 2020 104647-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 2 of 3

Levee Rd

M at ch L in e

(s he et

) M atch Line (below

SW-03

Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

Levee Rd

N. Figueroa Ave.

M atch Line (above) M at ch

L in e (s he et

SW-04

Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

LEGEND

Boring Designation and Approximate Location

Main Outlet Drain

Cooper Lateral

Yuma Valley Railroad

Yuma Valley RailroadCooper Lateral

Main Outlet Drain

SW-01

AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) Yuma County, Arizona

SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN

FIG. 2

July 2020 104647-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 3

Levee Rd

M at ch L in e

(s he et

M at ch L in e

(b el ow

SW-05

Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

Levee Rd

N. 22nd Ave.M at ch L in e

(a bo ve

SW-06

Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

LEGEND

Boring Designation and Approximate Location

Main Outlet Drain

Yuma Valley Railroad

Yuma Valley Railroad

Main Outlet Drain

SW-01

Yuma Crossing Bike Path

7/29/2020-104647-001_AA.docx A-i

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

IO

NS

Appendix A: Subsurface Ex plorations

Appendix A

Subsurface Explorations

A.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... A-1

A.2 Explorations ........................................................................................................................... A-1

A.2.1 Soil Classification System........................................................................................ A-1

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ............................................................................ A-1

A.2.3 Bulk Sampling .......................................................................................................... A-2

Figures Figure A-1: Soil Description and Log Key Figure A-2 through A-7: Log of Boring SW-01 through SW-06 Figure A-8 Exploration Photographs

A-1

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

A.1 INTRODUCTION

Shannon & Wilson’s field exploration program was conducted on June 1, 2020, and consisted of drilling six borings designated SW-01 through SW-06 at the locations shown on Figure 2. Photographs of boring locations are provided in Figure A-8. The methods used to conduct the field exploration program are described below.

A.2 EXPLORATIONS

The borings were coordinated (including subcontractor coordination and utility locates) and observed by Shannon & Wilson. Individual boring logs are presented in Figures A-2 through A-7. These exploration logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and select results of laboratory testing. The borings were drilled by 2R Drilling (2R) of Chino, California (under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson) using a truck-mounted CME 75 drill rig. The borings were advanced to a depth of 4.0 to 5.0 feet using 8-inch diameter hollow-stem-auger techniques. On completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with flowfill mixed onsite and used to restore the boring to the existing road surface elevation.

A.2.1 Soil Classification System

During exploration, our representative collected samples and prepared field logs of the explorations. Soil classification for this project was based on ASTM Designation: D2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), and ASTM Designation: D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The Unified Soil Classification System is summarized in Figure A-1. In addition, samples were classified based on American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Designation M-145, Standard Specification for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes.

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Disturbed samples were obtained in the borings in general accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM Designation: D1586). The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter, 1.375-inch inside diameter split-spoon sampler a distance of 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. An automatic hammer system was used to advance the samplers. During sampling, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the number of blows for each 6-inch increment of penetration and summed the blow counts for the last two 6-inch increments. This sum is recorded as the

A-2

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

penetration resistance number, or N-value. If high penetration resistance prevented driving the entire 18 inches, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the partial penetration depth and blow count. The N-values provide a means for evaluating the relative density or compactness of cohesionless (granular) soils and consistency or stiffness of cohesive (fine-grained) soils (see Figure A-1). The raw N-values are shown on the individual boring logs. Representative portions of the split-spoon sample obtained in conjunction with the SPT were placed in a screw-top plastic jar and transported to our laboratory.

A.2.3 Bulk Sampling

Bulk soil samples were obtained by collecting drill cuttings from below the aggregate road surfacing in borings SW-01, SW-03, and SW-04. Approximately 20 to 30 pounds of cuttings were placed in a plastic bag and transported to our laboratory for further analysis and testing.

July 2020 104647-001

Yuma County, Arizona

1Gravel, sand, and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents, such as organics, cobbles, and boulders, estimated by volume.

2Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall.

Rope on 6- to 10-inch-diam. cathead 2-1/4 rope turns, > 100 rpm

NOTE: If automatic hammers are used, blow counts shown on boring logs should be adjusted to account for efficiency of hammer.

10 to 30 inches long Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches Barrel O.D. = 2 inches

Sum blow counts for second and third 6-inch increments.

Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or less; 10 blows for 0 inches.

RELATIVE

CONSISTENCY

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

5% to 12% fine-grained:

with Silt or with Clay 3

15% or more of a second coarse-grained constituent:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

< 5%

5 to 10%

15 to 25%

30 to 45%

50 to 100%

Surface Cement Seal

Asphalt or Cap

Slough

Inclinometer or Non-perforated Casing

Vibrating Wire Piezometer

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

< 4 4 - 10

10 - 30 30 - 50

> 50

DESCRIPTION

< #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)

#200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.)

#40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.)

#10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.)

SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE

#4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.)

3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm)

3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)

> 12 in. (305 mm)

Fine Coarse

Fine Medium Coarse

BOULDERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

FINES

SAND

Sheet 1 of 3

CONSTITUENT2

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, from below water table

FIG. A-1

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&W), uses a soil identification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on this and the following pages. Soil descriptions are based on visual-manual procedures (ASTM D2488) and laboratory testing procedures (ASTM D2487), if performed.

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

SPECIFICATIONS

Hammer:

Sampler:

N-Value:

Dry

Moist

Wet

MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS

Modifying (Secondary)

Precedes major constituent

Major

Minor Follows major constituent

1All percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3-inch sieve.

2The order of terms is: Modifying Major with Minor.

3Determined based on behavior.

4Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage.

5Whichever is the lesser constituent.

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

(less than 50% fines)1

NOTE: Penetration resistances (N-values) shown on boring logs are as recorded in the field and have not been corrected for hammer efficiency, overburden, or other factors.

PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS

RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY

Sand or Gravel 4

30% or more coarse-grained:

Sandy or Gravelly 4

More than 12% fine-grained:

Silty or Clayey 3

15% to 30% coarse-grained:

with Sand or with Gravel 4

30% or more total coarse-grained and lesser coarse-grained constituent is 15% or more:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard

Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense

RELATIVE

DENSITY

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more fines)1

COHESIVE SOILS

< 2 2 - 4 4 - 8

8 - 15 15 - 30

> 30

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Silt, Lean Clay, Elastic Silt, or

Fat Clay 3

PERCENTAGES TERMS 1, 2

Trace

Few

Little

Some

Mostly

WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS

Bentonite Cement Grout

Bentonite Grout

Bentonite Chips

Silica Sand

Perforated or Screened Casing

S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS

S O

IL

_C

LA

S

S _K

E Y

_P G

7_ A

Z F

T B

R L

E V

E E

R D

.G P

J S

H A

N _W

IL

.G

D T

/7

/2

Yuma County, Arizona

GC

SC

Inorganic

Organic

(more than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve)

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC

SYMBOL

CH

OH

ML

CL

TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

Gravel

Sand

Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel

Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel

Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Sand

Sheet 2 of 3

Gravels

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

SW

(more than 12% fines)

Silts and Clays

Silts and Clays

(more than 50% retained on No.

200 sieve)

(50% or more of coarse fraction passes the No. 4 sieve)

(liquid limit less than 50)

(liquid limit 50 or more)

Organic

Inorganic

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

SM

Sands

Silty or Clayey Gravel

Silt; Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Silt

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay

HIGHLY-

ORGANIC

SOILS

COARSE-

GRAINED

SOILS

OL

(less than 5% fines)

GW

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

(less than 5% fines)

PT

FIG. A-1

(more than 12% fines)

MH

SP

GP

GM

Silty or Clayey Sand

Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand

(50% or more passes the No.

200 sieve)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

Elastic Silt; Elastic Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt

Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel;

Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay

Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Sand; Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Gravel; Well-Graded Gravel with Sand

Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay

Peat or other highly organic soils (see

ASTM D4427)

NOTES

1. Dual symbols (symbols separated by a hyphen, i.e., SP-SM, Sand with Silt) are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart. Graphics shown on the logs for these soil types are a combination of the two graphic symbols (e.g., SP and SM).

2. Borderline symbols (symbols separated by a slash, i.e., CL/ML, Lean Clay to Silt; SP-SM/SM, Sand with Silt to Silty Sand) indicate that the soil properties are close to the defining boundary between two groups.

S O

IL

_C

LA

S

S _K

E Y

_P G

7_ A

Z F

T B

R L

E V

E E

R D

.G P

J S

H A

N _W

IL

.G

D T

/7

/2

NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

(Modified From USACE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488)

Yuma County, Arizona

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

FIG. A-1

Sheet 3 of 3

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

1Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

2Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

Interbedded

Laminated

Fissured

Slickensided

Blocky

Lensed

Homogeneous

ATD

Diam.

Elev.

ft.

FeO gal.

Horiz.

HSA

I.D.

in.

lbs.

MgO mm

MnO

NA

NP

O.D.

OW

pcf

PID

PMT

ppm psi

PVC

rpm

SPT

USCS

qu

VWP

Vert.

WOH

WOR

Wt.

Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure.

Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure.

Will not crumble or break with finger pressure.

PLASTICITY2

CEMENTATION TERMS1

GRADATION TERMS

STRUCTURE TERMS1

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-inch thick;

singular: bed.

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 1/4-inch thick;

singular: lamination.

Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance.

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy; sometimes striated.

Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps that resist further breakdown.

Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay.

Same color and appearance throughout.

Narrow range of grain sizes present or, within the range of grain sizes present, one or more sizes are missing (Gap Graded). Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.

Full range and even distribution of grain sizes present. Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.

Poorly Graded

Well-Graded

Weak

Moderate

Strong

Irregular patches of different colors.

Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or animals.

Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel in silt and/or clay matrix.

Material brought to surface by drilling.

Material that caved from sides of borehole.

Disturbed texture, mix of strengths.

VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA

A 1/8-in. thread cannot be rolled at any water content.

A thread can barely be rolled and a lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit.

A thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. A lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.

It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. A thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. A lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.

Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces.

Similar to angular, but with rounded edges.

Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.

Smoothly curved sides with no edges.

Width/thickness ratio > 3.

Length/width ratio > 3.

PARTICLE ANGULARITY AND SHAPE TERMS1

ADDITIONAL TERMS

Angular

Subangular

Subrounded

Rounded

Flat

Elongated

DESCRIPTION

Nonplastic

Low

Medium

High

At Time of Drilling Diameter Elevation Feet Iron Oxide Gallons Horizontal Hollow Stem Auger Inside Diameter Inches Pounds Magnesium Oxide Millimeter Manganese Oxide Not Applicable or Not Available Nonplastic Outside Diameter Observation Well Pounds per Cubic Foot Photo-Ionization Detector Pressuremeter Test Parts per Million Pounds per Square Inch Polyvinyl Chloride Rotations per Minute Standard Penetration Test Unified Soil Classification System Unconfined Compressive Strength Vibrating Wire Piezometer Vertical Weight of Hammer Weight of Rods Weight

Mottled

Bioturbated

Diamict

Cuttings

Slough

Sheared

APPROX.

PLASITICITY

INDEX

RANGE

< 4

4 to 10

10 to 20

> 20

S O

IL

_C

LA

S

S _K

E Y

_P G

7_ A

Z F

T B

R L

E V

E E

R D

.G P

J S

H A

N _W

IL

.G

D T

/7

/2

S -1

S -2

B -1

S -3

Gray, Well-Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GW-GM); dry. [A-3/A-2-4] Aggregate Road Surfacing

Very loose to loose, brown, Silty Sand (SM);

moist; few gravel. [A-4] Fill

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 06/01/2020

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng0.4

4.5

July 2020

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

4.5 ft.

FIG. A-2

S am pl es

LOG OF BORING SW-01

8 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

1. Refer to Figures A-1 and A-2 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations, and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

3. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) Yuma County, Arizona

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

104647-001

Hollow-Stem Auger 2R Drilling CME 75 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Grab Sample

Standard Penetration Test

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

QCL 3

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

7_

A Z

F T

B R

L E

V E

E R

D .G

P J

/7

/2

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

(blows/foot)PENETRATION RESISTANCE Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

S -2

S -3

Gray, Well-Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GW-GM); dry; occasional cobbles. [A-3/A-2-4] Aggregate Road Surfacing

Medium stiff to stiff, brown, Silty Clay with Sand (CL-ML); moist; trace gravel. [A-4] Fill

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 06/01/2020

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

1.5

4.5

July 2020

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

4.5 ft.

FIG. A-3

S am pl es

LOG OF BORING SW-02

8 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

1. Refer to Figures A-1 and A-2 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations, and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

3. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) Yuma County, Arizona

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

104647-001

Hollow-Stem Auger 2R Drilling CME 75 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Grab Sample

Standard Penetration Test

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

QCL 3

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

7_

A Z

F T

B R

L E

V E

E R

D .G

P J

/7

/2

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

(blows/foot)PENETRATION RESISTANCE

S -2

B -1

S -3

Gray, Well-Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GW-GM); dry. [A-3/A-2-4] Aggregate Road Surfacing

Very stiff to hard, brown, Sandy Silty Clay with Gravel (CL-ML); moist. [A-4] Fill

-Occasional cobbles from 3.0 feet to 4.5 feet.

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 06/01/2020

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

1.0

4.5

July 2020

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

4.5 ft.

FIG. A-4

S am pl es

LOG OF BORING SW-03

8 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

1. Refer to Figures A-1 and A-2 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations, and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

3. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) Yuma County, Arizona

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

104647-001

Hollow-Stem Auger 2R Drilling CME 75 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Grab Sample

Standard Penetration Test

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

QCL 3

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

7_

A Z

F T

B R

L E

V E

E R

D .G

P J

/7

/2

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

S -2

B -1

S -3

Gray, Well-Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GW-GM); dry. [A-3/A-2-4] Aggregate Road Surfacing

Medium stiff to stiff, brown, Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML); moist; trace gravel. [A-4] Fill

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 06/01/2020

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

1.0

4.5

July 2020

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

4.5 ft.

FIG. A-5

S am pl es

LOG OF BORING SW-04

8 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

1. Refer to Figures A-1 and A-2 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations, and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

3. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) Yuma County, Arizona

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

104647-001

Hollow-Stem Auger 2R Drilling CME 75 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Grab Sample

Standard Penetration Test

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

QCL 3

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

7_

A Z

F T

B R

L E

V E

E R

D .G

P J

/7

/2

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

(blows/foot)PENETRATION RESISTANCE

S -2

S -3

Gray, Well-Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GW-GM); dry. [A-3/A-2-4] Aggregate Road Surfacing

Stiff to very stiff, brown, Silty Clay (CL-ML);

moist; few sand. [A-4] Fill

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 06/01/2020

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

0.7

4.0

July 2020

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

4 ft.

FIG. A-6

S am pl es

LOG OF BORING SW-05

8 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

1. Refer to Figures A-1 and A-2 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations, and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

3. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) Yuma County, Arizona

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

104647-001

Hollow-Stem Auger 2R Drilling CME 75 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Grab Sample

Standard Penetration Test

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

QCL 3

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

7_

A Z

F T

B R

L E

V E

E R

D .G

P J

/7

/2

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

(blows/foot)PENETRATION RESISTANCE

-2

S -3

Gray, Well-Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GW-GM); dry; occasional cobbles. [A-3/A-2-4] Aggregate Road Surfacing

Loose, brown, Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC);

moist. [A-2-6] Fill

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 06/01/2020

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

2.0

5.0

July 2020

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

5 ft.

FIG. A-7

S am pl es

LOG OF BORING SW-06

8 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

1. Refer to Figures A-1 and A-2 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations, and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

3. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) Yuma County, Arizona

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

104647-001

Hollow-Stem Auger 2R Drilling CME 75 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

QCL 3

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

7_

A Z

F T

B R

L E

V E

E R

D .G

P J

/7

/2

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Sheet 1 of 6

AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) Yuma County, Arizona

Boring Location SW-01

BORING LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS

104647-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

View looking east.

FIG. A-8

Sheet 2 of 6

AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) Yuma County, Arizona

BORING LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS

104647-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Boring Location SW-02 View looking east.

Sheet 3 of 6

AZ FTBR Levee Road (1) Yuma County, Arizona

Boring Location SW-03

BORING LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS

104647-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

View looking west.

Yuma County, Arizona

Boring Location SW-04 View looking east.

BORING LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS

104647-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Sheet 4 of 6

Yuma County, Arizona

Boring Location SW-05 View looking east.

BORING LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS

104647-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Sheet 5 of 6

Yuma County, Arizona

Boring Location SW-06 View looking east.

BORING LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS

104647-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Sheet 6 of 6

7/29/2020-104647-001_AB.docx B-i

ND

IX

B : L

AB

OR

AT

OR

Y

TE

ST

R

ES

UL

Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results

Appendix B

Laboratory Test Results

B.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ B-1

B.2 Geotechnical Tests .................................................................................................................. B-1

Water Content ............................................................................................................ B-1

Grain Size Distribution ............................................................................................. B-1

Atterberg Limits ........................................................................................................ B-1

Sulfates ........................................................................................................................ B-2

R-Value ....................................................................................................................... B-2

Table Table B-1: Summary of Laboratory Test Results by Boring

Figures Figure B-1: Grain Size Distribution Figure B-2: Plasticity Chart Figure B-3: R-Value Test Report for Boring SW-04, Sample B-1

B-1

AP

PE

ND

IX

B : L

AB

OR

AT

OR

Y

TE

ST

R

ES

B.1 INTRODUCTION

Laboratory tests were completed on soil samples retrieved from the borings in general accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) testing methods. The laboratory testing program was performed to classify the materials into similar geologic groups and provide data that can be used for design of the project. The geotechnical laboratory testing was performed at our laboratory in Denver, Colorado; Colorado Analytical Laboratories of Lakewood, Colorado; and Vine Laboratories of Commerce City, Colorado. A summary of the laboratory test results is presented in Table B-1. The following sections describe the laboratory testing procedures.

B.2 GEOTECHNICAL TESTS

Water Content

Water content was determined for selected samples in general accordance with AASHTO T265, Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content in Soils. To perform this test, a sample was weighed before and after oven-drying, and the water content was calculated. Water content determinations are shown graphically on the boring logs and are also summarized in Table B-1.

Grain Size Distribution

The grain size distribution of selected samples was determined in general accordance with AASHTO T88, Standard Method of Test for Particle Size Analysis of Soils. Results of these analyses are presented as grain size distribution curves on Figure B-1 and summarized in Table B-1. Selected samples were also tested for the percentage of material passing the No.

200 sieve in general accordance with AASHTO T11, Standard Method of Test for Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing. The percent fines (silt-and clay-sized particles passing the No.