AZ FLAP SR181(1)_FINAL Geotech Pavement Report.pdf

FINAL

Geotechnical / Pavement Report

AZ FLAP SR 181(1) Chiricahua Access Road

Cochise County, Arizona

Yeh Project No.: 217-419

February 24, 2020

Prepared for:

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

Attn: Berwyn Wilbrink, P.E.

101 N 1st Avenue, Suite 2600

Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Prepared by:

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

570 Turner Drive, Suite D Durango, Colorado 81303

Phone: 970-382-9590 Fax: 970-382-9583 i

Table Of Contents

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

1.1 PURPOSE OF WORK

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

2. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

3. SITE CONDITIONS AND GEOLOGIC SETTING

3.1 CLIMATE AND TERRAIN

3.2 PAVEMENT CONDITION

3.3 GEOLOGY

4. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

4.2 LABORATORY TESTING

5. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 PAVEMENT AND BASE COURSE

5.2 SUBGRADE SOILS

5.2.1 PENETRATION RESISTANCE

5.2.2 CLASSIFICATION

5.2.3 CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

5.2.4 SWELL / CONSOLIDATION

5.2.5 RESISTANCE “R”-VALUE

5.3 STRUCTURE BORINGS

6. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 FOUNDATION PREPARATION FOR CULVERT PIPES, HEADWALLS AND WINGWALLS

6.2 CORROSION PROPERTIES OF ON-SITE SOILS

7. PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 DESIGN TRAFFIC VOLUME

7.2 STRUCTURAL SECTION

7.3 HOT ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT MIX AND BINDER

8. LIMITATIONS

9. REFERENCES

i i

APPENDICES

List Of Figures

FIGURE 2-1 PROJECT LOCATION - OVERVIEW

FIGURE 2-2 PROJECT LOCATION

FIGURE 3-1 - PROJECT AREA GEOLOGIC MAP

List Of Tables

TABLE 4-1 SUMMARY OF BORINGS

TABLE 7-1 SUMMARY OF PAVEMENT REHABILITATION OPTIONS

List Of Appendices

BORING LOCATION MAP ........................................................................................................ A

BORING LOGS ........................................................................................................................ B

LABORATORY TEST METHODS AND RESULTS .......................................................................... C

PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS ....................................................................................... D

NRCS SOILS MAPS AND SOIL DESCRIPTIONS ........................................................................... E

PHOTOS OF DRILLING OPERATIONS ....................................................................................... F

AZ FLAP SR 181 (1) Chiricahua Access Road YA Project No. 217-419 Final Geotechnical / Pavement Report February 24, 2020

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

This report presents the results of the Yeh and Associates, Inc. (Yeh) geotechnical engineering investigation and pavement design analysis for the proposed rehabilitation of approximately three (3) miles of Arizona State Route (SR) 181 in Cochise County, Arizona. The study was performed in accordance with our Scope of Work (SOW) dated August 23, 2017, and with our

Geotechnical Investigation Plan, submitted to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs), dated

January 24, 2019.

1.1 Purpose of Work

The purpose of this report is to provide the results of the geotechnical investigation and engineering recommendations for use by Jacobs and the project design team for the proposed rehabilitation of 3 miles of SR 181 at the entrance to Chiricahua National Monument. The project is generally described as a 3R rehabilitation project; resurfacing, minor widening and drainage improvements are planned.

1.2 Scope of Work

Our scope of work included the following:

• Geotechnical investigation including pavement and subgrade borings

• Laboratory testing of select samples from the borings

• Pavement cost analyses – relative cost assessments of viable options

• Preliminary Pavement Selection Memorandum

• Draft Final Geotechnical and Pavement Engineering Report

• Final Geotechnical and Pavement Engineering Report

• Plan notes and Special Contract Requirements, as needed

Subsequent to the execution of Yeh’s contract and SOW, certain sites along SR 181 within the project limits were identified as having potential cultural significance. This determination precluded Yeh from being able to drill in those areas to obtain subsurface information. Some proposed boring locations were therefore shifted east or west to avoid disturbing these sensitive locations. Non-destructive testing (NDT) methods, such as a falling weight deflectometer

(FWD), as described in the Federal Lands Highway 2008 Project Development and Design

Manual (PDDM) and the AASHTO (1993) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (AGDPS), may have been useful in analyzing subsurface conditions in those areas where drilling was prohibited; NDT methods were not included in Yeh’s SOW and fee estimate.

2. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

This project consists of rehabilitation and minor widening of 3 miles of Arizona SR 181 at the entrance to Chiricahua National Monument. The project site is located in Cochise County, Arizona, approximately 31 miles southeast of the town of Willcox, as illustrated in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1 Project Location - Overview

The project begins at the intersection of SR 181 with the southern terminus of SR 186 and extends eastward to the entrance of Chiricahua National Monument. Project limits are shown in

Figure 2-2. Existing SR 181 consists of two lanes surfaced with asphalt pavement, and is approximately 22 feet in width. Proposed improvements, based on the 95% design plans dated

January, 2020; generally include full depth reclamation of the existing surface, supplemented with aggregate base to accommodate widening so as to provide two 12-foot lanes and 2-foot shoulders for a net increase in width of approximately 6 feet. Several drainage culverts will be replaced and one multi-pipe crossing will be extended. An existing bridge crosses Pinery Creek, an ephemeral stream that flows from southeast to northwest. The bridge is not proposed for replacement.

Figure 2-2 Project Location

3. SITE CONDITIONS AND GEOLOGIC SETTING

3.1 Climate and Terrain

SR 181 runs due east-west within the project area, crossing very gently rolling terrain with elevations ranging from 4920 to 5038 feet above mean sea level. Weather information posted by Chiricahua National Monument indicates monthly average high temperatures range from

56.1F in January to 90.5F in June. Monthly average lows range from 29.7F in January to 59.9F in July. The monument receives an annual average of 19.30 inches of rainfall and 10.83 inches of snow. Summer monsoons favor the area from July into September. The greatest amount of precipitation falls during July (3.98 inches on average) and August (an average of 4.16 inches).

Runoff from the Chiricahua Mountains passes through the project area via Pinery Creek, an ephemeral stream, and its tributaries.

3.2 Pavement Condition

The asphalt paved surface exhibits fatigue, or “alligator”, cracking throughout the length of the project. The cracking is not confined to the wheel paths, and generally extends across the full width of the roadway, indicating that the pavement has essentially outlived its service life.

Transverse, or “thermal”, cracks at approximately 14 foot spacing are also prevalent. Rutting and surface deformations were relatively minor. Our site investigation and a review of historical aerial photographic records found that the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has performed a series of maintenance activities in recent years in an effort to keep the driving surface intact. These activities appear to have included crack filling, chip sealing, blade patching, and thin Hot Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (HACP) overlay. Photographs of the pavement surface are presented in Appendix F.

3.3 Geology

The project area abuts the western flank of the northern Chiricahua Mountains, a range dominated by volcanic deposits, especially the Tertiary (Miocene or Oligocene) Rhyolite Canyon

Tuff, which was spewed from the Turkey Creek Caldera located south of the Monument.

Erosion of the mountains by water and wind has produced a spectacular landscape of columns and cliffs. Within the project limits, surficial deposits are Quaternary in age, and are delineated and described in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Map and Sections of the Bowie Mountain South Quadrangle (Drewes, 1981). Figure 3-1 shows the geologic map for the project area; unit descriptions follow.

Figure 3-1 - Project Area Geologic Map.

Qgt Gravel and sand (Pleistocene) – Unconsolidated to weakly indurated, poorly to moderately sorted and bedded alluvial deposits of high stream terraces, alluvial aprons, or pediments. Upslope deposits grade into coarser detritus and into colluvium; downslope they grade into finer detritus and particularly silt.

Includes some eolian sand and silt, younger alluvial deposits (Qg) along watercourses too small to be mapped, and surface deposits of younger sheetwash origin. Terrace deposits are mostly 1-10 m thick; alluvial aprons may be a few hundred meters thick.

QTg Gravel (Pleistocene and Pliocene) – Unconsolidated to moderately consolidated, moderately sorted and bedded gravel and minor sand that weather to gently rounded hills. Locally capped by red soil.

Tc Conglomerate (Miocene) – Weakly indurated, mostly poorly sorted, very light gray to light-brownish-gray tuffaceous conglomerate and gritty sandstone. Rich in clasts derived from the Miocene Rhyolite Canyon Formation.

The western end of the project is mapped as QTg Gravel, which may be underlain by the Tc

Conglomerate. For the remainder of the project extent, to the east, the surface is mapped as

Qgt, Gravel and sand.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps for the project area indicate that three soil assemblages, or map units, are present. Elevated areas between the stream channels are generally identified as Map Unit 45, White House-Forrest association. A small zone of Map

Unit 30, Kimbrough gravelly fine sandy loam, appears to underlie SR 181 approximately 1000 feet west of the Pinery Creek bridge. Map Unit 34, Pima-Grabe association, is shown where SR

181 is located with the stream valleys. Map unit descriptions are provided in Appendix E. Soil properties and chemical characteristics are discussed in Sections 5 and 6.2 of this report.

4. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

4.1 Field Exploration

Yeh conducted a geotechnical investigation for the Chiricahua Access Road project on March

12 and 13, 2019. Fifteen (15) borings were drilled through the existing pavement and road base and into the subgrade below. A truck-mounted CME 75 drill rig was used to advance the borings into the existing roadway prism using an 8-inch hollow-stem auger (HSA). Enviro-Drill, Inc. of

Phoenix, Arizona, was the drilling services vendor; traffic control for the drilling operations was provided by Quail Construction of Tucson, Arizona.

Approximate coordinates and elevations for the borings were recorded using a hand-held GPS unit. Locations of the borings are shown in Appendix A, with the site geology, overlaid on a

Google Earth image. Boring Logs are included in Appendix B, and photographs of the drilling operations are provided in Appendix F.

Fifteen (15) borings, CH-01 through CH-15, were drilled into the existing roadway prism using the HSA. Borings locations were selected in order to avoid disturbing areas of potential cultural significance. Thirteen pavement / subgrade borings, CH-01 through CH-12 and CH-15, were advanced to depths ranging from 7.0 to 11.0 feet. Two structure borings, CH-13 and CH-14, were each drilled to a depth of 16.0 feet. No groundwater was encountered in any of the borings. Results of the subsurface investigation are summarized in Table 4-1:

Table 4-1 Summary of Borings

Boring No.

Depth (feet)

Station (Approx.) Location

Asphalt Pavement

(in.)

Aggregate Base (in.)

Combined Thickness

(in.)

CH-01 8.4 Ramp North Ramp 4.0 10.0 14.0 CH-02 9.8 Ramp South Ramp 4.5 9.0 13.5 CH-03 9.5 1009+00 WB Lane 5.5 0 5.5 CH-04 11.0 1015+50 EB Lane 3.5 8.0 11.5 CH-05 9.5 1035+65 WB Lane 4.0 0 4.0 CH-06 11.0 1047+25 EB Lane 3.0 8.0 11.0 CH-07 9.5 1060+00 WB Lane 5.5 12.0 17.5 CH-08 9.0 1074+70 EB Lane 4.0 4.0 8.0 CH-09 9.5 1087+25 WB Lane 5.0 19.0 24.0 CH-10 7.0 1099+65 EB Lane 3.5 3.0 6.5 CH-11 9.5 1112+85 WB Lane 6.0 8.0 14.0 CH-12 9.5 1126+25 EB Lane 4.0 8.0 12.0 CH-13 16.0 1149+30 EB Lane, W of CMP 3.0 8.0 11.0 CH-14 16.0 1150+10 WB Lane, E of CMP 4.5 10.0 14.5 CH-15 9.5 1154+50 EB Lane 3.5 8.0 11.5

Soil samples were collected from each of the borings during drilling. Samples were collected from auger cuttings and at intermittent depths from HSA borings utilizing either a standard 2 inch outside diameter (O.D.) split spoon sampler or a 2.5 inch O.D. “Modified California” sampler. The samplers were advanced by a 140 pound automatic (or “auto”) hammer with a 30 inch drop height. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches, or a fraction thereof, after an initial penetration of 6 inches for the standard sampler, constitutes the N-value as shown on the boring logs. N-values can be correlated to the relative density of cohesionless soils.

4.2 Laboratory Testing

Samples recovered during the subsurface investigation were transported to Yeh’s laboratory in

Durango, Colorado. The samples and field logs of the borings were reviewed by the Project

Engineer and a program of laboratory testing was assigned. Specialized testing for chloride content was provided by Green Analytical Laboratories of Durango, Colorado. Hveem

Resistance “R” Value testing was performed at Yeh’s Denver laboratory.

The laboratory tests were performed on selected samples from the borings in general accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) and American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures. Laboratory tests on samples included sieve analysis, Atterberg limits, natural moisture content, and R-Value. In addition, selected samples were subjected to chemical analyses to evaluate soil corrosivity: pH, water-soluble sulfate content, water-soluble chloride content, and resistivity. The laboratory test results and soil classifications are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B and are included in

Appendix C, Laboratory Test Results.

Results from the Atterberg limits determination and sieve analysis were used to classify the soils according to AASHTO and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) standards. Atterberg limits were performed in general accordance with AASHTO T89 and T90, and sieve analyses were performed in general accordance with ASTM D421.

The moisture content and density of a soil can be useful for characterizing a soil’s in situ consistency, compressibility, and structural adequacy. High moisture contents can also be an indicator of the recent depth to groundwater. Dry density tests and moisture content tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D2937 and ASTM D2216, respectively.

Three (3) swell/consolidation tests were performed to determine the swell or collapse potential of selected samples of the subsurface materials in general accordance with ASTM D4546

Procedure B. The swell was measured by applying a surcharge of either 200 pounds per square foot (psf), 500 psf or 1,000 psf to the samples and adding water.

Hveem Resistance “R”-value tests were performed on four (4) bulk samples of subgrade. The tests were performed in general conformance with ASTM D 2844. Results of the R-value test are converted to resilient modulus, Mr, the property which characterizes soil stiffness in flexible pavement design. R-value test results are provided in Appendix C.

Three (3) samples were tested for chemical properties to evaluate the potential of the soil to be aggressive to concrete and to corrode buried metal. The tests included pH (ASTM D 4972 /

AASHTO T 289), soluble sulfate content (AASHTO T 290), and soil resistivity (AASHTO T 288).

Water-soluble chloride measurements (EPA 300.0) were performed by Green Analytical

Laboratories, Inc.

5. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Pavement and Base Course

The thickness of asphalt pavement encountered in the exploratory borings ranged from 3 to 6 inches. Aggregate base course (ABC) was present immediately beneath the asphalt layer in most, though not all, of the borings, as shown in Table 4-1. The thickness of the base course layer ranged from 0 to 19 inches.

ABC samples collected from 4 borings were tested in the laboratory for purposes of classification. Gradation test results show the ABC to have 9 to 17 percent fines (passing the

No. 200 sieve), with 34 to 60 percent sand and 23 to 57 percent gravel (retained on the #4 standard sieve). Atterberg limits testing determined the samples were non-plastic (NP) or had a

Plasticity Index (PI) of 1. Liquid Limits (LL) for the two samples with plasticity were 19 and 21.

Using the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) method, the ABC was classified as A-1-a (0) or A-1-b (0). Under the Unified Soil Classification

System (USCS), the ABC was categorized as GP-GM (poorly graded gravel with silt and sand);

SP-SM (poorly graded sand with silt and gravel); and SM (silty sand with gravel).

5.2 Subgrade Soils

Subsurface conditions encountered to the depths of exploration generally consist of silty and clayey sands or sandy clays having medium to high plasticity. No groundwater was encountered in the borings. Sandstone bedrock, or moderately consolidated sediment of the QTg geologic unit, was encountered in Borings CH-01, CH-02 and CH-06 at depths of 2.0, 9.5 and 10.0 feet, respectively. The sandstone is exposed in the cut slope above the access ramp in the northeast corner of the SR 181/SR 186 intersection (North Ramp). Bedrock was not encountered in any of the other borings.

5.2.1 Penetration Resistance

Penetration Resistance N-values in the upper 6 feet of the soil encountered in Borings CH-01 through CH-05 and CH-07 through CH-09, at the western end of the project, ranged from 12 blows per foot (bpf) to 45 bpf. Locations of these borings appear to correspond with NRCS soil map unit 45, White House-Forrest association. At Boring CH-06, N values of 4 bpf and 9 bpf were recorded in the soil above bedrock; this boring appears to fall within the limits soil map unit

30, Kimbrough gravelly fine sandy loam. Borings CH-10 through CH-15 are located within

NRCS soil map unit 34, Pima-Grabe association. N-Values for the soils encountered in these borings were lower than those for map unit 45, and ranged from 4 bpf to 22 bpf in the upper 6 feet of the drilled depth.

5.2.2 Classification

Ten (10) samples of subgrade soils collected from depths of less than 5 feet below the ground surface were tested for purposes of classification. Gradation test results show the soils to have between 24 and 62 percent fines (passing the No. 200 standard sieve). Sand portions ranged from 34 to 67 percent, while the gravel content (retained on the #4 standard sieve) ranged from

4 to 18 percent. Atterberg limits testing showed Liquid Limit (LL) values of 24 to 51 percent and

Plasticity Index (PI) values of 6 to 36. Under the AASHTO system, the soils were classified as follows: A-4 with group indexes (G.I.) of (0) and (1); A-2-6 (0) and (1); A-2-7 (0); A-6 with G.I.

from (3) to (6); and A-7-6 (11) and (14). In the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), the soils were: SC (clayey sand); SM-SC (silty clayey sand with gravel); SM (poorly graded sand with silt and gravel); ML-CL (sandy silty clay); CL (medium plasticity sandy clay); and CH (sandy high plasticity clay).

5.2.3 Chemical Properties

Chemical properties were measured for three samples of subgrade soil. The pH values ranged from 7.43 to 8.19 and indicate the soil samples were mildly alkaline . Water-soluble sulfates were low, ranging from none detected to 0.024 percent. If water-soluble chlorides were present, they were at concentrations too low to be detected in the laboratory. Resistivity values between

1200 and 4000 Ohm-cm were measured.

5.2.4 Swell / Consolidation

Swell/consolidation testing was performed on three subgrade samples collected using the modified California sampler. One sample exhibited consolidation of 0.3 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 500 psf. This sample had a natural moisture content of 27.0 percent and a natural dry density of 92.8 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). A second sample did not exhibit swell or consolidation under 500 psf. The natural moisture content and density of this sample were 15.1 percent and 112.9 pcf. The third sample exhibited consolidation of 0.2 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 500 psf. This sample had a natural moisture content of 17.0 percent and a natural dry density of 98.2 pcf.

1 0

5.2.5 Resistance “R”-Value

R-values were measured for four samples of subgrade soils. The lowest value, an R-value of 6, was obtained from Boring CH-04. The soil at this location was a high plasticity clay, classified as

A-7-6 (14) under AASHTO and CH using USCS. Medium plasticity clay from Boring CH-09 produced an R-value of 7. Soils from Borings CH-06 and CH-14, (AASHTO classifications of A-

6 (3) and A-6 (5) and USCS classification of SC, clayey sand) produced R-values of 13 and 9, respectively.

5.3 Structure Borings

Borings CH-13 and CH-14 were each drilled to a depth of 16 feet below the roadway surface, adjacent to the existing culvert pipes and headwalls at Station 1149+72. At CH-13, roadway surfacing consisted of 3 inches of asphalt pavement and 8 inches of aggregate base. Beneath these materials the HSA encountered clayey sand with gravel to a depth of 9 feet. This layer was underlain by a layer of dense to very dense clayey gravel with some sand. Boring CH-14 encountered 4.5 inches of asphalt pavement and 10 inches of aggregate base. A layer of clayey sand extended to a depth of 9 feet, where the material coarsened to include more gravel sized aggregate.

6. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations of this report assume that grading, paving and fill materials will be placed and constructed in general accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s Standard

Specifications (FP-14). Compliance with these specifications is needed for the recommendations in this report to remain applicable.

6.1 Foundation Preparation for Culvert Pipes, Headwalls and Wingwalls

Based on 95% Design Plans for the proposed project, developed in January, 2020, existing pipe culverts are generally proposed to be replaced with new corrugated metal pipes and end sections. Bedding and backfill for the new culverts should be accomplished in accordance with

FLH Standard Plan 602-3 and FP-14 Sections 209 and 704.

The existing adjacent 30 inch and 36 inch corrugated metal pipes with headwalls at Station

1149+72 are proposed to be extended in kind, with the addition of new headwalls and wingwalls. The headwalls and wingwalls will have relatively light foundation loads.

Recommendations for shallow foundations are presented below.

1 1

1. Headwalls should be constructed in accordance with FLH Standard Plan 601-3.

Wingwalls should be constructed in accordance with FLH Standard Plans 601-1 and

601-4.

2. Shallow spread footing foundations for the wingwalls should be protected from frost action. Footings should be placed a minimum of 2.0 feet below final grade to provide adequate frost protection.

3. Spread footings for wingwalls can be placed on the native clayey sand soil. The foundation soil should be prepared in accordance with Sections 208 and 209 of FP-14.

Soft or wet soils should be removed from foundation areas and replaced with compacted

Structural Backfill in accordance with FP-14. Wingwall and headwall footings placed on native soils or Structural Backfill can be designed for a nominal bearing resistance qn of

6 ksf. A resistance factor ϕb of 0.45 should be used per Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 of AASHTO

LRFD.

4. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures resulting from flows in the washes, adjacent roadways, construction materials, and equipment.

5. All backfill material should meet the requirements for Structural Backfill in accordance with Section 704 of FP-14. All backfill adjacent to the wingwalls shall be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 208 of FP-14.

6. Earth pressure loading within and along the backs of the wingwalls will be controlled by the Structural Backfill. We recommend that at-rest, active and passive lateral earth pressures used for the design of the structures be based on an effective angle of internal friction of 34 degrees and a soil unit weight of 130 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for

Structural Backfill. The following coefficients can be used for design assuming a horizontal backslope:

• At-rest lateral earth pressure coefficient (ko) of 0.44

• Active lateral earth pressure coefficient (ka) of 0.43

• Passive lateral earth pressure coefficient (kp) of 9.0

1 2

Lateral earth pressures for a non-horizontal backslope can be estimated using Section

3.11.5 in AASHTO LRFD. A resistance factor of 0.50 should be used when considering passive earth pressure from Structural Backfill to resist sliding or overturning.

6.2 Corrosion Properties of On-site Soils

The chemical properties of on-site soils may make them unacceptable for use as Structural

Backfill in contact with steel structures. Water-soluble sulfate and chloride levels are low;

however, the low resistivity level (1200 Ohm-cm) measured in one sample should be taken into consideration. The ADOT specifications include the following: “Backfill material shall have a value of resistivity not less than 2,000 ohm-centimeters.” (Arizona DOT, 2008). NRCS Soils

Maps and maps addressing Corrosion of Steel and Concrete are provided in Appendix E. The maps indicate that all of the map units are rated “Low” for risk of corrosion of concrete. For steel, however, corrosion risk is predicted to be “Moderate” and “High”.

When applicable, a layer of Structural Backfill or aggregate base course should be used as a separator between buried steel and native material. Other options for corrosion mitigation could include sacrificial metal (heavier gauge construction material) in design of structural elements and use of materials resistant to corrosion such as galvanized or epoxy coatings or cathodic protection systems. A qualified corrosion engineer should review this data to evaluate the appropriate level of corrosion protection for subgrade utilities and buried metal and concrete structures proposed for the area.

7. PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Design Traffic Volume

The design traffic volume was estimated using the average daily traffic (ADT) provided by

Jacobs in 95% Design Plans dated January, 2020 and procedures in the PDDM. Jacobs reported that the current (2018) ADT for SR 181 is 191 vehicles per day (vpd). The projected

ADT for 2038 was 251 vpd. These data were used to estimate the number of 18-kip equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) considering a design life of 20 years, beginning with anticipated completion in 2021. The FHWA/CFL pavement engineer recommended the assumed vehicle mix to include: 90% Class 2 and 3 passenger vehicles and pickup trucks, with a load equivalence of 0.004; 9% Class 5 vehicles (RVs and buses) with a 0.5 load equivalence; and

1% Class 9 trucks, with a load equivalence of 2.0. The resulting Design ESAL value is 57,000.

1 3

7.2 Structural Section

As reported in Yeh’s May 14, 2019 Preliminary Pavement Design Options memo; included in

Appendix D, for reference; results of 15 borings show that the existing pavement thickness ranges from 3 to 6 inches. Base course was encountered beneath the pavement in most, but not all, of the borings; borings CH-03 and CH-05 encountered 5.5 and 4.0 inches of asphalt pavement, respectively, which was directly underlain by native sandy clay to depths of 2 feet or greater. Natural subgrade materials generally consist of clayey sand and sandy clay. Measured

Hveem Resistance “R” values for the subgrade were low, ranging between 6 and 13. To be conservative, and given the lack of data from areas of cultural sensitivity, an R-value of 6 was used in Yeh’s pavement structural section design analysis. Using equation 1.5.3 from the

AGDPS, the R-value of 6 was used to calculate a resilient modulus, MR = 4300 psi.

Full depth reclamation (FDR) of the existing pavement with a portion of the underlying road base, followed by a structural HACP overlay, is the preferred rehabilitation method, as noted in the preliminary pavement memo. Since widening has been proposed, additional aggregate base will need to be incorporated.

FDR options for SR 181 were developed using PAVExpress, an online software program based upon the 1993 AGDPS for flexible pavements. Parameters, set in accordance with Chapter 11 of the FLH PDDM, are as follows:

• Design Period: 20 years

• Reliability Level (R): 75

• Combined Standard Error (SO): 0.49

• Serviceability: Initial = 4.2; Terminal = 2.0

• Design ESALs (W18) = 57,000

• R = 6; MR = 4300 psi

The resulting minimum required Structural Number (SN), given these input parameters, is 2.45.

Structural Coefficients of 0.11 for the FDR/aggregate base and 0.44 for HACP were assigned.

The resulting designs, presented in Appendix D, achieve a SN of 2.48 and 2.53.

Results for three options, 1 through 3, with varying depths of FDR, Aggregate Base and HACP overlay, were considered for our preliminary pavement design memo. Two additional options, numbered 4 and 5, take into account the updated traffic loading projections made since Yeh’s preliminary memo. The five alternatives are summarized in Table 7-1. Options 4 or 5 are recommended for design.

1 4

Table 7-1 Summary of Pavement Rehabilitation Options

Option

22’ Wide

FDR

Depth (in.)

Aggregate Added?

Aggregate Base HACP Structural Number

(SN) Str. Coef. Thickness (in.) Str Coef. Thickness

(in.)

1 6 No 0.09 3-4 0.44 5.0 2.47 2 6 Yes 0.11 6 0.44 4.0 2.42 3 4 Yes 0.11 4 0.44 4.5 2.42 4 6 Yes 0.11 6.5 0.44 4.0 2.48 5 5 Yes 0.11 >5.0 0.44 4.5 2.53

Our preliminary pavement memo concluded that Option 2 would be preferred for rehabilitation of

SR 181 at this location. With the subsequent increase in Design ESALs, Option 2 fails to produce a sufficient SN. Option 4 is similar to Option 2, with a small increase in FDR/base thickness from 6 to 6.5 inches. Option 5 increases the thickness of HACP from 4 to 4.5 inches, with a reduction in the allowable minimum FDR/base thickness to 5 inches.

With Option 4, the ½ inch increase in depth of FDR may increase the likelihood of incorporating undesirable subgrade materials into the reclaimed layer. Our subsurface investigation encountered a combined pavement / base course thickness of less than 6.5 inches in only two of 15 borings, but close monitoring of the reclamation process will be required during construction to ensure that subgrade materials are not incorporated. The addition of extra aggregate base course may be required at some locations in order to ensure that the full 6.5 inches of FDR/base course is provided. Benefits of Option 4 include the relatively minor change required, compared with the originally recommended Option 2. Increased costs compared to

Option 2 will include the increased depth of FDR (from 6 to 6.5 inches) and the comparable increase in the thickness of aggregate base course placed for the shoulder widening.

Option 5 would result in a reduced depth of disturbance for the FDR process as compared to

Option 2, except where the existing pavement is greater than 5 inches thick. Up to 1 additional inch would need to be pulverized at some locations to remove pavement remnants that can impede drainage of the base course. The increased HACP thickness (4.5 versus 4) is likely to improve the long-term performance of the pavement, and the thinner FDR/base layer (reduced from 6 to 5 inches minimum) will reduce the chance of incorporating undesirable materials where present beneath the pavement / base course. Additionally, the amount of aggregate base required for shoulder widening and supplementation of the FDR will be reduced.

1 5

7.3 Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement Mix and Binder

For this project we recommend two (2) lifts of either a nominal 3/4 inch or 1/2 inch gradation

Superpave mix composed of aggregates meeting the requirements presented in Table 703-4 of

FP-14. The compactive effort should address traffic loadings of less than 3 million ESALs, 75 gyrations. If surfacing Option 5 is selected, the bottom lift should be 2.5 inches thick, and the top mat 2.0 inches in thickness.

The preferred asphalt binder for all lifts recommended by the LTPPBind program for the

Chiricahua National Monument Weather Station is PG 64-16. Based on research conducted by the Arizona DOT (Kaloush, et al., 2019), we recommend that the binder be PG 64-22. This binder is readily available in Arizona and will provide additional insurance against transverse

(“thermal”) cracking. A printout of the LTPPBind data is presented in Appendix D following the pavement design program output.

8. LIMITATIONS

This study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this area for use by the client for design of the proposed roadway reconstruction project. Recommendations herein are intended to be used for design by a qualified transportation engineer. The preliminary analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based upon our data obtained from limited field observations, widely spaced borings, laboratory testing, our understanding of the proposed construction and other information as discussed in this report. It is possible and likely that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered in the borings. We should also review the design for conformance to the recommendations in the report when the scope of the proposed construction becomes established.

The scope of services for this project did not include, specifically or by implication, any environmental or biological (e.g. mold, fungi, and bacteria) assessment of the site or identification of prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions or biological conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, conditions or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

This report was prepared in substantial accordance with the generally accepted standards of practice for geotechnical engineering as exist in the site area at the time of our investigation. No

1 6 warranties, express or implied, are intended or made. The recommendations in this report are based on the assumption that the Contracting Officer will conduct an adequate program of construction testing and observation to evaluate compliance with our recommendations.

1 7

9. REFERENCES

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, Washington, D.C., 1993.

AASHTO Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications, Eighth Edition.

Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2017.

Arizona Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 2008.

Drewes, H., 1981, Geologic Map and Sections of the Bowie Mountain South Quadrangle, Cochise County, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Map I-1363.

FP-14, Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Lands Highway, 2014.

Kaloush, K.E.; Underwood, B.S.; Salim, R. and Gundla, A., Evaluation of MSCR Testing for Adoption in ADOT Asphalt Binder Specifications, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona, August 2019.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), Chapter 11 – Pavements, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., December 2014.

1 8

APPENDICES

BORING LOCATION MAP ........................................................................................................ A

BORING LOGS ........................................................................................................................ B

LABORATORY TEST METHODS AND RESULTS .......................................................................... C

PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS ....................................................................................... D

NRCS SOILS MAPS AND SOIL DESCRIPTIONS ........................................................................... E

PHOTOS OF DRILLING OPERATIONS ....................................................................................... F

Appendix A

BORING LOCATION MAP

Oblique Aerial Image with Geologic Map Overlay and Boring Locations

Appendix B

BORING LOGS

Project Number: 217-419

AZ FLAP SR 181 (1) Chiricahua

Lithology Symbols(see Boring Logs for complete descriptions)

Sandstone

Asphalt USCS High Plasticity Clay

USCS Low Plasticity Clay

USCS Low Plasticity Silty Clay

USCS Low Plasticity Sandy Clay

Fill with Gravel as major soil

Fill with Sand as major soil USCS Clayey Gravel

Sandstone USCS Clayey Sand USCS Clayey Sand

Lab Test Standards Other Lab Test Abbreviations pH Soil pH (AASHTO T289-91) S Water-Soluble Sulfate Content (AASHTO T290-91, ASTM D4327)

Chl Water-Soluble Chloride Content (AASHTO T291-91, ASTM D4327)

S/C Swell/Consolidation (ASTM D4546) UCCS Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM D2166) R-Value Resistance R-Value (ASTM D2844) DS (C) Direct Shear cohesion (ASTM D3080) DS (phi) Direct Shear friction angle (ASTM D3080) Re Electrical Resistivity (AASHTO T288-91) PtL Point Load Strength Index (ASTM D5731)

Notes

Moisture Content ASTM D2216 Dry Density ASTM D7263 Sand/Fines Content ASTM D421, ASTM C136, ASTM D1140

Atterberg Limits ASTM D4318 AASHTO Class. AASHTO M145, ASTM D3282

USCS Class. ASTM D2487 (Fines = % Passing #200 Sieve Sand = % Passing #4 Sieve, but not passing #200 Sieve)

Auger Cuttings

Modified California Sampler (2.5 inch OD, 2.0 inch ID)

Standard Penetration Test

(ASTM D1586)

Sample Types

Legend for Symbols Used on Borehole Logs

Project:

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s

1. "Penetration Resistance" on the Boring Logs refers to the uncorrected N value for SPT samples only, as per ASTM D1586. For samples obtained with a Modified California sampler, drive depth is 12 inches, and "Penetration Resistance" refers to the sum of all blows. Where blow counts were > 50 for the 3rd increment (SPT) or 2nd increment (MC), "Penetration Resistance" combines the last and 2nd-to-last blows and lengths; for other increments with > 50 blows, the blows for the last increment are reported.

2. The Modified California sampler used to obtain samples is a 2.5-inch OD, 2.0-inch ID (1.95-inch ID with liners), split-barrel sampler with internal liners, as per ASTM D3550. Sampler is driven with a 140-pound hammer, dropped 30 inches per blow.

3. "ER" for the hammer is the Reported Calibrated Energy Transfer Ratio for that specific hammer, as provided by the drilling company.

A-1-a (0)

GP-GM9 11934572.9

50/5"

50/5"

50/5"

0.0 - 0.3 ft. 4 inches Asphalt.

0.3 - 1.1 ft. GRAVEL poorly graded, with silt and sand: 10" Aggregate Base Course.

1.1 - 2.0 ft. clayey SAND trace gravel, tan-brown, damp, medium dense.

2.0 - 8.4 ft. CONGLOMERATIC SANDSTONE, brown, moderately weathered, hard.

Bottom of Hole at 8.4 ft.

50/5"

50/5"

50/5"

Total Depth: 8.4 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location: North ramp to AZ 186

Groundwater Levels:

Logged By: B. Bunker

Final By: B. Bunker

Symbol Depth Date

Weather Notes: cold, rainy

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Night Work:

Boring Began: 3/12/2019

Boring Completed: 3/12/2019

Drilling Method(s): Hollow-Stem Auger (8" OD)

Driller: Enviro Drill

Drill Rig: CME 75

Hammer: Automatic (hydraulic), ER: %

Project Name:

PAGE

AASHTO

& USCS

Classifi-cations

F in es C on te nt

P la st ic ity In de x

Project Number: 217-419 C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s

Li qu id Li m it

Field Notes and

Other Lab Tests

AZ FLAP SR 181 (1) Chiricahua

Atterberg Limits

Boring No.: CH-01 Yeh and Associates, Inc.

E le va tio n (f ee t)

D ep th (f ee t)

S am pl e

T yp e/ A dv an ce m en t M et ho d

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S P

T C

D O

T S

T Y

LE

-4

A

Z

C

H

IR

IC

A

H U

A .G

P J

Y

E H

A S

S O

C

IA

T E

S T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

LB

0/

/1

S an d C on te nt

G ra ve l C on te nt

M oi st ur e C on te nt

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

)Blows per 6 in Li th ol o gy

Soil Samples

Material Description

P en et ra tio n

R es is ta nc e

A-4 (0)

SM-SC40 624461413.1

6-5-8

9-9-12

50/4"

0.0 - 0.4 ft. 4.5 inches Asphalt.

0.4 - 1.1 ft. silty SAND and gravel. 9 inches Aggregate Base Course.

1.1 - 8.0 ft. silty SAND clayey, with gravel, red-brown, moist, medium dense, Embankment fill.

8.0 - 9.5 ft. clayey SAND trace gravel, gray, moist, medium dense.

9.5 - 9.8 ft. CONGLOMERATIC SANDSTONE, brown, moderately weathered, hard.

Bottom of Hole at 9.8 ft.

50/4"

Total Depth: 9.8 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location: South ramp to AZ 186

Groundwater Levels:

Logged By: B. Bunker

Final By: B. Bunker

Symbol Depth Date

Weather Notes: cold, rainy

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Night Work:

Boring Began: 3/12/2019

Boring Completed: 3/12/2019

Drilling Method(s): Hollow-Stem Auger (8" OD)

Driller: Enviro Drill

Drill Rig: CME 75

Hammer: Automatic (hydraulic), ER: %

Project Name:

PAGE

AASHTO

& USCS

Classifi-cations

F in es C on te nt

P la st ic ity In de x

Project Number: 217-419 C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s

Li qu id Li m it

Field Notes and

Other Lab Tests

AZ FLAP SR 181 (1) Chiricahua

Atterberg Limits

Boring No.: CH-02 Yeh and Associates, Inc.

E le va tio n (f ee t)

D ep th (f ee t)

S am pl e

T yp e/ A dv an ce m en t M et ho d

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S P

T C

D O

T S

T Y

LE

-4

A

Z

C

H

IR

IC

A

H U

A .G

P J

Y

E H

A S

S O

C

IA

T E

S T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

LB

0/

/1

S an d C on te nt

G ra ve l C on te nt

M oi st ur e C on te nt

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

)Blows per 6 in Li th ol o gy

Soil Samples

Material Description

P en et ra tio n

R es is ta

A-7-6 (11)

CL

A-1-b (0)

SM-SC

S/C=-0.3% pH=7.9 S=0.024% Re=1200ohm·cm34

27.0

18.5

7.2

92.87-14

12-12-11

16-15-20

0.0 - 0.5 ft. 5.5 inches Asphalt.

0.5 - 3.0 ft. sandy CLAY trace gravel, brown, moist, stiff.

3.0 - 7.0 ft. sandy CLAY, red-brown, medium plasticity, moist, medium dense.

7.0 - 9.5 ft. silty SAND clayey, with gravel, brown rust, moist, medium dense.

Bottom of Hole at 9.5 ft.

Total Depth: 9.5 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location: Sta. 1009+00, west bound lane

Groundwater Levels:

Logged By: B. Bunker

Final By: B. Bunker

Symbol Depth Date

Weather Notes: cold, windy

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Night Work:

Boring Began: 3/13/2019

Boring Completed: 3/13/2019

Drilling Method(s): Hollow-Stem Auger (8" OD)

Driller: Enviro Drill

Drill Rig: CME 75

Hammer: Automatic (hydraulic), ER: %

Project Name:

PAGE

AASHTO

& USCS

Classifi-cations

F in es C on te nt

P la st ic ity In de x

Project Number: 217-419 C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s

Li qu id Li m it

Field Notes and

Other Lab Tests

AZ FLAP SR 181 (1) Chiricahua

Atterberg Limits

Boring No.: CH-03 Yeh and Associates, Inc.

E le va tio n (f ee t)

D ep th (f ee t)

S am pl e

T yp e/ A dv an ce m en t M et ho d

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S P

T C

D O

T S

T Y

LE

-4

A

Z

C

H

IR

IC

A

H U

A .G

P J

Y

E H

A S

S O

C

IA

T E

S T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

LB

0/

/1

S an d C on te nt

G ra ve l C on te nt

M oi st ur e C on te nt

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

)Blows per 6 in Li th ol o gy

Soil Samples

Material Description

P en et ra tio n

R es is ta

A-1-b (0)

SP-SM

A-7-6 (14)

CH

NP

NV

51 R-Value=6

6.3

8-10-11

12-8-16

17-19-33

0.0 - 0.3 ft. 3.5 inches Asphalt.

0.3 - 1.1 ft. SAND poorly graded, with silt and gravel: 8 inches Aggregate Base Course.

1.1 - 4.0 ft. sandy CLAY trace gravel, brown, high plasticity, moist, very stiff.

4.0 - 11.0 ft. tan-brown.

Bottom of Hole at 11.0 ft.

Total Depth: 11.0 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location: Sta. 1015+50, east bound lane

Groundwater Levels:

Logged By: B. Bunker

Final By: B. Bunker

Symbol Depth Date

Weather Notes: cold, rainy

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Night Work:

Boring Began: 3/12/2019

Boring Completed: 3/12/2019

Drilling Method(s): Hollow-Stem Auger (8" OD)

Driller: Enviro Drill

Drill Rig: CME 75

Hammer: Automatic (hydraulic), ER: %

Project Name:

PAGE

AASHTO

& USCS

Classifi-cations

F in es C on te nt

P la st ic ity In de x

Project Number: 217-419 C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s

Li qu id Li m it

Field Notes and

Other Lab Tests

AZ FLAP SR 181 (1) Chiricahua

Atterberg Limits

Boring No.: CH-04 Yeh and Associates, Inc.

E le va tio n (f ee t)

D ep th (f ee t)

S am pl e

T yp e/ A dv an ce m en t M et ho d

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S P

T C

D O

T S

T Y

LE

-4

A

Z

C

H

IR

IC

A

H U

A .G

P J

Y

E H

A S

S O

C

IA

T E

S T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

LB

0/

/1

S an d C on te nt

G ra ve l C on te nt

M oi st ur e C on te nt

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

)Blows per 6 in Li th ol o gy

Soil Samples

Material Description

P en et ra tio n

R es is ta

A-7-6 (6)

SC44 244247914.2

9-12

12-10-11

12-17-21

0.0 - 0.3 ft. 4 inches Asphalt.

0.3 - 2.0 ft. sandy CLAY, brown, moist, stiff.

2.0 - 7.0 ft. clayey SAND trace gravel, brown rust, moist, very stiff.

7.0 - 9.5 ft. clayey SAND some gravel, brown rust, moist, dense.

Bottom of Hole at 9.5 ft.

Total Depth: 9.5 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location: Sta. 1035+65, west bound lane

Groundwater Levels:

Logged By: B. Bunker

Final By: B. Bunker

Symbol Depth Date

Weather Notes: cold, windy

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Night Work:

Boring Began: 3/13/2019

Boring Completed: 3/13/2019

Drilling Method(s): Hollow-Stem Auger (8" OD)

Driller: Enviro Drill

Drill Rig: CME 75

Hammer: Automatic (hydraulic), ER: %

Project Name:

PAGE

AASHTO

& USCS

Classifi-cations

F in es C on te nt

P la st ic ity In de x

Project Number: 217-419 C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s

Li qu id Li m it

Field Notes and

Other Lab Tests

AZ FLAP SR 181 (1) Chiricahua

Atterberg Limits

Boring No.: CH-05 Yeh and Associates, Inc.

E le va tio n (f ee t)

D ep th (f ee t)

S am pl e

T yp e/ A dv an ce m en t M et ho d

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S P

T C

D O

T S

T Y

LE

-4

A

Z

C

H

IR

IC

A

H U

A .G

P J

Y

E H

A S

S O

C

IA

T E

S T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

LB

0/

/1

S an d C on te nt

G ra ve l C on te nt

M oi st ur e C on te nt

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

)Blows per 6 in Li th ol o gy

Soil Samples

Material Description

P en et ra tio n

R es is ta

A-6 (3)

SC45 1425

S/C=0%

R-Value=13

15.1 112.92-2

4-5

7-15-19

0.0 - 0.3 ft. 3 inches Asphalt.

0.3 - 1.0 ft. silty SAND some gravel. 8 inches Aggregate Base Course.

1.0 - 7.0 ft. clayey SAND, brown, moist, loose.

7.0 - 10.0 ft. tan-brown, loose to medium dense.

10.0 - 11.0 ft. weathered bedrock / cemented sands.

Bottom of Hole at 11.0 ft.

Total Depth: 11.0 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location: Sta. 1047+25, east bound lane

Groundwater Levels:

Logged By: B. Bunker

Final By: B. Bunker

Symbol Depth Date

Weather Notes: cold, rainy

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Night Work:

Boring Began: 3/12/2019

Boring Completed: 3/12/2019

Drilling Method(s): Hollow-Stem Auger (8" OD)

Driller: Enviro Drill

Drill Rig: CME 75

Hammer: Automatic (hydraulic), ER: %

Project Name:

PAGE

AASHTO

& USCS

Classifi-cations

F in es C on te nt

P la st ic ity In de x

Project Number: 217-419 C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s

Li qu id Li m it

Field Notes and

Other Lab Tests

AZ FLAP SR 181 (1) Chiricahua

Atterberg Limits

Boring No.: CH-06 Yeh and Associates, Inc.

E le va tio n (f ee t)

D ep th (f ee t)

S am pl e

T yp e/ A dv an ce m en t M et ho d

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S P

T C

D O

T S

T Y

LE

-4

A

Z

C

H

IR

IC

A

H U

A .G

P J

Y

E H

A S

S O

C

IA

T E

S T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

LB

0/

/1

S an d C on te nt

G ra ve l C on te nt

M oi st ur e C on te nt

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

)Blows per 6 in Li th ol o gy

Soil Samples

Material Description

P en et ra tio n

R es is ta

A-2-6 (1) SC34 1530 pH=8.2

S=0.015% Re=2200ohm·cm

48188.2 11-7-7

16-25-20

17-23-34

0.0 - 0.5 ft. 5.5 inches Asphalt.

0.5 - 1.5 ft. silty GRAVEL 12 inches Aggregate Base Course.

1.5 - 4.0 ft. clayey SAND with gravel, brown rust, damp, stiff.

4.0 - 9.5 ft. clayey GRAVEL sandy, brown, moist, dense.

Bottom of Hole at 9.5 ft.

Total Depth: 9.5 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location: Sta. 1060+00, west bound lane

Groundwater Levels:

Logged By: B. Bunker

Final By: B. Bunker

Symbol Depth Date

Weather Notes: cold, windy

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Night Work:

Boring Began: 3/13/2019

Boring Completed: 3/13/2019

Drilling Method(s): Hollow-Stem Auger (8" OD)

Driller: Enviro Drill

Drill Rig: CME 75

Hammer: Automatic (hydraulic), ER: %

Project Name:

PAGE

AASHTO

& USCS

Classifi-cations

F in es C on te nt

P la st ic ity In de x

Project Number: 217-419 C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s

Li qu id Li m it

Field Notes and

Other Lab Tests

AZ FLAP SR 181 (1) Chiricahua

Atterberg Limits

Boring No.: CH-07 Yeh and Associates, Inc.

E le va tio n (f ee t)

D ep th (f ee t)

S am pl e

T yp e/ A dv an ce m en t M et ho d

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S P

T C

D O

T S

T Y

LE

-4

A

Z

C

H

IR

IC

A

H U

A .G

P J

Y

E H

A S

S O

C

IA

T E

S T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

LB

0/

/1

S an d C on te nt

G ra ve l C on te nt

M oi st ur e C on te nt

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

)Blows per 6 in Li th ol o gy

Soil Samples

Material Description

P en et ra tio n

R es is ta

5-4-8

6-10-11

5-10

0.0 - 0.3 ft. 4 inches Asphalt.

0.3 - 0.6 ft. silty SAND 4 inches Aggregate Base Course.

0.6 - 9.0 ft. sandy CLAY trace gravel, brown, moist, stiff.

Bottom of Hole at 9.0 ft.

Total Depth: 9.0 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location: 1074+70, east bound lane

Groundwater Levels:

Logged By: B. Bunker

Final By: B. Bunker

Symbol Depth Date

Weather Notes: cold, rainy

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Night Work:

Boring Began: 3/12/2019

Boring Completed: 3/12/2019

Drilling Method(s): Hollow-Stem Auger (8" OD)

Driller: Enviro Drill

Drill Rig: CME 75

Hammer: Automatic (hydraulic), ER: %

Project Name:

PAGE

AASHTO

& USCS

Classifi-cations

F in es C on te nt

P la st ic ity In de x

Project Number: 217-419 C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s

Li qu id Li m it

Field Notes and

Other Lab Tests

AZ FLAP SR 181 (1) Chiricahua

Atterberg Limits

Boring No.: CH-08 Yeh and Associates, Inc.

E le va tio n (f ee t)

D ep th (f ee t)

S am pl e

T yp e/ A dv an ce m en t M et ho d

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S P

T C

D O

T S

T Y

LE

-4

A

Z

C

H

IR

IC

A

H U

A .G

P J

Y

E H

A S

S O

C

IA

T E

S T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

LB

0/

/1

M oi st ur e C on te nt

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

)Blows per 6 in Li th ol o gy

Soil Samples

Material Description

P en et ra tio n

R es is ta

A-1-b (0)

SM

A-6 (6)

CL

31 R-Value=7

5.1

5-7-12

17-14

5-8-5

4-5-6

0.0 - 0.4 ft. 5 inches Asphalt.

0.4 - 2.0 ft. silty SAND with gravel. 19 inches Aggregate Base Course, large gravel to cobble sized rock fragments.

2.0 - 6.0 ft. sandy CLAY trace gravel, red-brown, medium plasticity, moist, stiff.

6.0 - 8.0 ft. clayey SAND, brown rust, damp, medium dense.

8.0 - 9.5 ft. sandy CLAY,…