AZ NFSR 289 Tonto Creek Bridge Pavement Report.pdf

Project No. -110781-002 110781_002_L1_250731_v2

5900 W 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80212 303 825-3800 www.shannonwilson.com

July 31, 2025

Mr. Berwyn Wilbrink, PE Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

6312 South Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 300N Greenwood Village, CO 80111-4927

RE: PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT, AZ NFSR 289 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, TONTO

NATIONAL FOREST, GILA COUNTY, ARIZONA

This pavement design report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program and provides pavement design recommendations for National Forest Service Road 289 (NFSR 289) and the adjacent Horton Springs trailhead parking lot (the Project) in the Tonto National Forest, Gila County, Arizona (Figure 1). Our services were conducted in general accordance with our subcontract with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs), dated December 6, 2023, and the subcontract with Jacobs dated March 18, 2025.

If a service is not specifically indicated in this letter, do not assume that it was performed.

This report supersedes our pavement design report for the Project dated June 11, 2025.

PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

Based on discussions with Jacobs, the Project consists of realigning NFSR 289 in the area of the existing bridge to improve pedestrian and vehicular safety. NFSR 289 is a two-lane, asphalt paved roadway providing access to residential homes, the Tonto Creek fish hatchery, a summer camp, a campground, and the Horton Springs trailhead.

The existing single-lane Tonto Creek bridge was constructed in 1956 and is a safety concern due to the narrow structure width with limited sight distance with sharp curves in the approach roadway in both directions. The existing asphalt pavement is generally in poor to fair condition, with transverse and fatigue cracking, as shown in Exhibit 1.

http://www.shannonwilson.com/

Mr. Berwyn Wilbrink, PE Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

July 31, 2025

110781_002_L1_250731_v2 110781-002

Exhibit 1: Existing NFSR 289 pavement conditions during the subsurface exploration program (looking Project west)

Approximately 1,100 feet of roadway realignment is planned to improve sight distance. The adjacent Horton Springs parking lot will be expanded to provide additional visitor parking and to tie into the new roadway alignment. Based on discussions with the Project team, we expect the pavement improvements will consist of full depth reconstruction with Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (HACP) in most areas. Pavement improvements in the parking lot will also include repairing an area with a failing pavement patch that continues to settle, despite previous repairs, as shown in Exhibit 2.

July 31, 2025

110781_002_L1_250731_v2 110781-002

Exhibit 2: View of settling pavement patch in Horton Springs trailhead parking lot (looking Project northeast)

Subsurface Exploration and Laboratory Testing Programs

Shannon & Wilson conducted a subsurface exploration program from December 18 to 21, 2023, to explore the subsurface conditions in the Project area. Our subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling and sampling seven borings. Borings SW-B-01 and SW-B-02 were drilled to approximately 27 feet and 13 feet below the ground surface (bgs), respectively, for bridge foundation design information; boring SW-C-01 was drilled to approximately 19 feet bgs to obtain subsurface information for a potential slope cut; and four borings, designated SW-P-01 through SW-P-04, were drilled from approximately 5.5 to

12.5 feet bgs for pavement design information. The results of borings SW-B-01, SW-B-02, and SW-C-01 are addressed in a separate report (Shannon & Wilson, 2025). Refer to Figure 2 for the approximate boring locations.

The drilling was coordinated (including subcontractor coordination, utility locates and permitting) and observed by a Shannon & Wilson field representative. Our soil and rock classification systems are shown on the Log Key in Appendix A. The exploration logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and results of select laboratory

July 31, 2025

110781_002_L1_250731_v2 110781-002 testing. The boring logs and laboratory test results for the bridge and slope borings are included herein; subsurface characterization and geotechnical recommendations for those features are included in the before-mentioned companion report.

The borings were drilled by Vine Laboratories, Inc. of Commerce City, Colorado (under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson). The borings were advanced using a track-mounted CME 55 drill rig utilizing 4-inch diameter solid-stem-augers. After drilling, the borings were backfilled with flow-fill and the pavement surface was repaired using hot-mix asphalt.

We completed geotechnical laboratory tests on selected samples retrieved from the borings to estimate index and engineering properties. The testing included visual classification, natural water content, unit weight, Atterberg limits, grain size distribution, swell/collapse, and Hveem stabilometer (R-value) tests. The laboratory test results are provided in Appendix B and the natural water content, fines content, Atterberg limits and unconfined compressive strength test results are also shown on the boring logs in Appendix A.

Regional Geology and Subsurface Conditions

The Project area is located on the southwest slope of the Mogollon Rim, downstream of the confluence of Tonto Creek and Horton Creek. Mapping completed by Wilson et al. (1959) shows the Project area is underlain by limestone, shale, and sandstone of the Pennsylvanian Naco Formation, Mississippian Redwall Limestone, and Devonian limestone and sandstone.

The top of the Redwall Limestone unit is described as “karstic” (Weisman and Wier, 1990).

Borings SW-P-01 through SW-P-04 were drilled from the NFSR 289 roadway and the Horton Springs trailhead parking lot and encountered a layer of asphalt pavement at the surface, as summarized in Exhibit 3. Aggregate Base Course (ABC) material was not encountered in the borings.

Exhibit 3: Existing Pavement Thicknesses

Boring Location Asphalt Thickness

(inches)

SW-P-01 NFSR 289 4½

SW-P-02 NFSR 289 3½

SW-P-03 Parking Lot 4½

SW-P-04 NFSR 289 4¼

NOTE:

1 Pavement thickness was measured from the borehole annulus.

July 31, 2025

110781_002_L1_250731_v2 110781-002

Below the pavement, the borings drilled along NFSR 289 encountered medium dense to very dense, silty to clayey sand and gravel or sandy silt. Boring SW-P-03, drilled near the pavement patch in the Horton Springs parking lot, encountered very loose to loose, silty sand and clayey gravel with sand to a depth of 6 feet followed by organic material from approximately 6 to 12 feet bgs. A possible void was inferred from drill action at approximately 7 feet bgs.

Groundwater was not encountered in the pavement borings at the time of drilling. It should be noted that groundwater level fluctuations are possible and depend on many factors, including seasonal variations and local precipitation.

PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Performance of a pavement system depends on the pavement material and thicknesses, subgrade strength, traffic loads and repetitions, design life, and subgrade drainage characteristics. The following sections discuss each of these aspects as they relate to the NFSR 289 pavement reconstruction and widening.

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 2008 U.S.

Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), and the 2017 Arizona Department of Transportation Pavement Design Manual. Based on discussions with the Project team, we expect the pavement section will consist of full depth reconstruction with hot-mix asphalt (HMA) in most areas. New pavements are expected in widening areas along NFSR 289 and for the extension of the Horton Springs trailhead parking area.

Pavement design inputs and calculations are presented in Appendix D.

Design Subgrade Conditions

Based on our explorations, pavement subgrade soils vary in the Project area but predominantly consist of sand and gravel with variable silt and clay (AASTHO A-1-b to A-6 soils) in the areas to receive new pavement. Laboratory test results summarized in Table B- 1, indicate an R-value of 62 for the clayey sand (AASHTO A-6) sample tested from boring SW-P-01. However, variable subgrade support conditions are expected along the Project alignment. The 2017 Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Pavement Design Manual (ADOT, 2017) provides correlations for R-value based on the percent passing the #200 sieve and plasticity index. Considering the laboratory test results and the ADOT correlation, we assumed a design R-value of 35 to calculate subgrade resilient modulus of

July 31, 2025

110781_002_L1_250731_v2 110781-002

9,449 pounds per square inch (psi), using the ADOT (2017) R-value to resilient modulus correlation.

Traffic Loading

The Scoping Report provided by Jacobs (2023) contained traffic information for NFSR 289, including a 2023 average daily traffic volume (ADT) of 336 vehicles per day with approximately 1% buses and 1% truck traffic (Jacobs, 2023). A 1.8% annual growth rate for future traffic was provided by Jacobs.

Using the mean value of the flexible pavement equivalency factors provided in the PDDM for each vehicle class and a 20-year design life for a 3R project, we calculated an 18-kip equivalent single axle loading (ESAL) of approximately 50,000, which is the minimum recommended ESAL in the PDDM. The ESAL calculations are provided in Appendix D.

Recommended Pavement Sections

Using the PDDM procedures, discussions with Jacobs, the parameters outlined in Appendix D, and considering the desired design life and existing conditions, we recommend the following pavement section alternatives for the Project. We understand that HACP will be used to match the existing adjacent pavement, and we understand that a single pavement option is being considered for the roadway and the parking lot.

Exhibit 4: Pavement Thickness Design Results

Pavement Alternative HACP Thickness

(inches) Base Course Thickness

(inches)

Full Depth HACP 4.0 -NA-

Composite HACP over UTBC 3.0 4.0

Composite HACP over Asphalt Millings 3.0 5.0 HACP = Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement, UTBC = Untreated Base Course

While the new roadway alignment will not allow for a full-depth reclamation alternative, we have provided an alternative that uses millings from the existing asphalt roadway as a base material. For this case, the millings may need to be temporarily stockpiled and relocated in the areas to receive new pavement due to the realignment of the roadway.

July 31, 2025

110781_002_L1_250731_v2 110781-002

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

The applicability of the pavement design recommendations provided herein is contingent on good construction practices. Poor construction techniques may alter conditions from those on which our recommendations are based, resulting in reduced pavement performance and service life. Our analyses assumed that the Project is constructed according to FP-24 U.S. Customary Units (U.S. Department of Transportation [USDOT] and FHWA, 2024) construction standards. The following sections present additional construction and material considerations for this Project.

Earthwork

Clearing and Stripping

We recommend that any debris, vegetation, or otherwise unsuitable material be cleared, and roots and stumps be removed in accordance with FP-24 Sections 201 and 203. All surface and subsurface structures associated with the current development of the site, including pavements, underground utilities, structure foundations, and other deleterious material, should also be removed. Further, any existing surficial topsoil and soil containing organics should be stripped and removed from all areas. Topsoil and organic-rich soils are not considered suitable for reuse as fill and should be removed from the site or stockpiled for use as topsoil material.

Subgrade Preparation and Proof Roll

Proper subgrade preparation is required for adequate pavement performance. The subgrade should be prepared in accordance with FP-24 Section 204.11.

Fill Materials, Placement, 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 30 percent fines. It should be noted that as the amount of fines increases (portion of soil particles passing the U.S.

Standard No. 200 sieve), soil becomes more sensitive to small changes in moisture content, and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Imported fill should consist of Common Backfill Material in accordance with FP-24 Section 704.01 with a minimum R-value of 35. We anticipate that any cuts in the Project area will meet these criteria.

Fill should be compacted to a dense/firm and unyielding condition in accordance with FP-24 section 204.11. Fill materials should be moisture conditioned at or above optimum moisture

July 31, 2025

110781_002_L1_250731_v2 110781-002 content and compacted to at least 95% maximum density, as determined by AASHTO T180 or T99, as presented in FP-24 Section 204.

Paving Materials

The following exhibit summarizes our recommendations for pavement material selection using the FP-24 specifications. We anticipate that a single HACP mix design will be used for the pavements.

Exhibit 5: Recommended Materials for Pavements

Material FP-24 Specification Additional Requirements/Comments

UTBC Section 302 Use Gradation C, D, or E

HACP Section 403 ½-inch or ¾-inch Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size (NMAS)

PG Binder: PG 64-22 Gyratory Number (N): 75

NOTE:

HACP = Asphalt Concrete Pavement; UTBC = Untreated Base Course; PG = Performance Grade

To determine an appropriate HACP binder for the site, we used software developed by the FHWA Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Bind (2008). The LTPP Bind software indicated a performance grade (PG) of PG 64-22 for a 95% reliability for the top lift of HACP for the site and anticipated traffic loading. We recommend a gyratory number of 75 be used for the mix design. HACP lift thicknesses should be between 3 and 4 times the maximum aggregate thickness (i.e. a 3-inch HACP section may consist of a single lift of ¾-inch NMAS aggregate; a 4-inch HACP section should consist of 2 lifts with a ½-inch NMAS aggregate).

We recommend using the same binder for both lifts for constructability purposes. A tack coat should be placed between subsequent lifts.

CLOSURE

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Jacobs and Central Federal Lands Highway Division for the purpose of providing pavement design recommendations for the Project. This 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 analysis and recommendations may be affected.

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

July 31, 2025

110781_002_L1_250731.docx 110781-002

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.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you for this project. If you have questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact me at (303) 825 3800.

Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON

Walter J. Zitz Gregory R. Fischer, P.E., PhD Senior Geotechnical Staff President

WJZ:GRF/azm

Enc. Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Figure 2 – Site and Exploration Plan Appendix A – Subsurface Explorations Appendix B – Laboratory Test Results Appendix C – Drilling Photographs Appendix D – Pavement Design Calculations

Digitally signed by Gregory R Fischer DN: cn=Gregory R Fischer, o=Colorado, email=grf@shanwil.com Date: 2025.07.31 13:21:43 -06'00'

Gregory R Fischer

July 31, 2025

110781_002_L1_250731_v2 110781-002

REFERENCES

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

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), 2017, Pavement Design Manual, available to download at: https://apps.azdot.gov/files/materials-manuals/Preliminary- Engineering-Design/PavementDesignManual.pdf

Jacobs, 2023, Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA-CFLHD), Scoping Report: AZ FS 289(1), AZ NFSR 289 Bridge Replacement, June 20.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2005, LTPPBind Version 3.1 Beta, dated September 15, 2021; available: https://infopave.fhwa.dot.gov/Page/Index/LTPP_BIND.

Shannon & Wilson, 2025, Geotechnical Report, AZ NFSR 289 Bridge Replacement, Tonto National Forest, Gila County, Arizona; prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Wheat Ridge, Colorado for Jacobs, Project No. 110781-002, dated June.

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/.

USDOT, Federal Highway Administration, 2024, Federal standard specifications for construction of roads and bridges on Federal Highway projects, FP-24 English Units: U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.

Available from: http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/.

Weisman, M. K., and Weir, G. W., 1990, Geologic Map of the Pine 7.5’ Quadrangle, Coconino and Gila Counties, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2123.

Wilson, E. D., Moore, R. T., and Peirce, W. H., 1959, Geologic Map of Gila County, Arizona, 1:375,000 scale, Arizona Bureau of Mines, University of Arizona.

https://apps.azdot.gov/files/materials-manuals/Preliminary-Engineering-Design/PavementDesignManual.pdf https://apps.azdot.gov/files/materials-manuals/Preliminary-Engineering-Design/PavementDesignManual.pdf https://infopave.fhwa.dot.gov/Page/Index/LTPP_BIND http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/

N

July

July

AZ NFSR 289 Bridge Replacement Pavement Design Report

110781-002 July 2025 6/10/2025-110781-002_AA.docx A-i

AP

PE

N D

IX

A

: S U

BS

U

R

FA

C E

EX

PL

O R

AT

IO

S

Appendix A: Subsurface Explorations

Appendix A

Subsurface Explorations

CONTENTS

A.1 Introduction

A.2 Explorations

A.3 Soil and Rock Classification System

A.3.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

A.3.2 Modified California (MC) Test and Sampling

A.3.3 Bulk Sampling

Figures Log Key

Logs of Borings SW‐P‐01, SW‐P‐02, SW‐P‐03, and SW‐P‐04

A-1

AP

PE

N D

IX

A

: S U

BS

U

R

FA

C E

EX

PL

O R

AT

IO

N S

A.1 INTRODUCTION

Shannon & Wilsonʹs field exploration program was conducted between from December 18, 2023 through December 21, 2023 and consisted of drilling and sampling seven borings

(designated SW‐B‐01, SW‐B‐02, SW‐C‐01, and SW‐P‐01 to SW‐P‐04). Borings SW‐B‐01, SW‐

B‐02, and SW‐C‐01 were drilled for bridge design information and for a potential cut slope, and our recommendations for these features are provided in a separate report. The approximate boring locations are indicated on Figure 2. The methods used to conduct the field exploration program and details regarding the individual explorations are described below.

A.2 EXPLORATIONS

The drilling was coordinated (including site access, subcontractor coordination, utility locates, permitting, and traffic control) and observed by Shannon & Wilson. Individual boring logs are presented in this appendix. These exploration logs represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions encountered at the time of drilling and the results of laboratory testing. The borings were drilled by Vine Laboratories, Inc. (Vine) of

Commerce City, Colorado (under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson) using a track‐mounted

CME 55 drill rig. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 5.5 to 12.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) using 4‐inch outside diameter solid‐stem augers. Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with flow fill and the pavement surface was repaired with hot‐patch asphalt.

A.3 SOIL AND ROCK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

During drilling, our representative collected soil/bedrock samples and prepared a field log of each boring. Soil classifications were based on ASTM International (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 (USCS) is summarized on the attached Log Key.

The Shannon & Wilson representative classified rock samples in general accordance with the International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) classification method. According to this system, rocks are classified based on the stratigraphic structure, rock strength, degree of weathering, and other properties. The rock classification system is summarized on the attached Log Key. Residuum (completed weathered bedrock) and highly weathered

A-2

AP

PE

N D

IX

A

: S U

BS

U

R

FA

C E

EX

PL

O R

AT

IO

N S bedrock was encountered in some of the borings. Using the ISRM classification of rock strength, this material resembles a soil or very low strength rock. Therefore, for completeness, the boring logs contain dual descriptions using the USCS and rock classification systems, where appropriate.

A.3.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Disturbed samples were obtained 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 penetration resistance number, or N‐value. If high penetration resistance prevented driving the total length of the sampler, 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 (refer to the Log Key). The 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.3.2 Modified California (MC) Test and Sampling

Samples were also obtained using a Modified California (MC) barrel sampler. The MC test procedure is similar to the SPT, except the sample barrel is larger (2½‐inch O.D.) and lined with 2‐inch‐diameter brass tubing. The MC sampler is only driven 12 inches. During sampling, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the number of blows for each

6‐inch increment of penetration. As a result of the larger diameter, the MC sampler yields slightly higher raw blow count numbers when compared to SPT N‐values for similar soils.

However, this is counted by not ignoring a seating depth like is done for SPT. Because the difference in blow counts does not significantly impact our evaluation, we used the field

MC blow counts over the 12‐inch increment to define the relative density and consistency/stiffness of the subsurface materials following SPT terminology. Representative samples were sealed in the brass liner tubes with plastic caps and transported to our laboratory for further testing.

A-3

AP

PE

N D

IX

A

: S U

BS

U

R

FA

C E

EX

PL

O R

AT

IO

N S

A.3.3 Bulk Sampling

Bulk soil samples were obtained from four pavement borings (borings SW‐P‐01 through

SW‐P‐04) by collecting the drill cuttings from the borings. Approximately 10 to 20 pounds of cuttings from each boring were placed in a sealed plastic bag. The samples were transported to our laboratory for further analysis

SHANNON & WILSON | 5900 WEST 38TH AVENUE | WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80212 | 303-825-3800 | www.shannonwilson.com

Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

Well-graded Gravel; Well-Graded Gravel with Sand

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

Fi le

: 1

1_

C

FL

_A Z_

B R

ID

G

E .G

P J

| L ib ra ry

: S W

G

IN

T

LI

BR

A

R Y

.G

LB

D at e:

/1

/2

Description

Term

LOG KEY

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Organic

Inorganic

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

Symbol / Graphic

Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel

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

Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel

Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand

Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Sand

<5 5 to 10 15 to 25 30 to 45

>50

Term

Well-graded Sand; Well-graded Sand with Gravel

Organic

Major Divisions

Gravel (< 5% fines3)

Silty or Clayey Gravel (> 12% fines3)

Sand (< 5% fines3)

Silty or Clayey Sand (> 12% fines3)

SILTS AND CLAYS

(liquid limit > 50)

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT

Shannon & Wilson uses a soil identification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) as described on this Key.

Soil descriptions are based on visual-manual procedures (ASTM D2488) and available laboratory index test results (ASTM D2487).

SILTS AND CLAYS

(liquid limit < 50)

NOTE: For gravels and sands with 5 to 12% fines3, the following are added to the Group Name:

with Silt and/or Clay or Silty Clay.

Dual Symbols are used:

GW-GM, GP-GM, SW-SM, SP-SM

GW-GC, GP-GC, SW-SC, SP-SC

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

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

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

(> 50% of soil is retained on the No. 200 sieve3)

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

(> 50% of soil passes the No. 200 sieve3)

Typical Identifications (USCS Group Names)2,4

Sum of the count of hammer blows to penetrate the second and third 6-inch increments in blows per foot (bpf).

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

Percent1

Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure.

Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure.

Will not crumble or break with finger pressure.

Description

GRAVELS

(> 50% of coarse fraction retained on the No. 4 sieve3)

Inorganic

Peat or other Highly Organic Soils (see ASTM D4427)

Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel

Dry

Moist

Wet

Term

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch.

Damp but no visible water.

Visible free water, from below water table.

Term140-pound weight with a 30-inch free fall. Hammer types vary (e.g., automatic, rope and cathead). If available, the hammer type and energy ratio (E-ratio) is noted on the boring log.

Description Term

Nonplastic

Low Plasticity

Medium Plasticity

Slickensided

Lensed

Laminated

Interbedded

Homogeneous

Fissured

Description

Barrel I.D. / O.D. = 1.5 inches / 2 inches (liner not used) Barrel Length = 30 inches; Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches

Blocky Cannot roll a 1/8-inch thread 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 in rolling 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.

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

Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance.

Same color and appearance throughout.

Alternating layers at least 1/4 inch thick of varying material or color.

Singular: bed

Alternating layers less than 1/4 inch thick of varying material or color.

Singular: lamination

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

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.

High Plasticity

Term

Sampler

N-Value (N)1

Term

Hammer Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard

Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense

N2 (bpf)

0 - 4 4 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 50

> 50

TV3 (tsf)

0 - 0.12

0.12 - 0.25

0.25 - 0.5

0.5 - 1 1 - 2 > 2

N2 (bpf)

0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 8 8 - 15 15 - 30

> 30

PP3 (tsf)

0 - 0.25

0.25 - 0.5

0.5 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 4 > 4

Description

Trace Few Little Some Mostly

Weak

Moderate

Strong

Term

SANDS

(> 50% of coarse fraction passes the No. 4 sieve3)

Exhibit A: Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)1

Exhibit G: Percentages

Exhibit E: Soil Moisture Content1

EXHIBIT A NOTES:

1. Adapted, with permission, from USACE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488.

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

3. No. 4 size = 4.75 millimeters (mm) = 0.187 inch; No. 200 sieve size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 inch. Particles smaller 0.075 mm are termed "fines".

4. Poorly graded indicates a narrow range or missing grain sizes. Well-graded indicates a full-range and even distribution of grain sizes.

5. If cobbles and/or boulders are observed, "with cobbles" or "with boulders" or "with cobbles and boulders" is added to the Group Name.

EXHIBIT E NOTE:

1. Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 (Figure 2).

EXHIBIT G NOTE:

1. Percent estimated by weight for sand and gravel, and by volume for cobbles, organics, and other non-soil material (e.g., rubble, debris).

EXHIBIT D NOTE:

1. Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488.

Exhibit C: Soil Structure1 Exhibit D: Soil Plasticity1

EXHIBIT C NOTE:

1. Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488.

Exhibit B-3: Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils

Exhibit B-1: Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

EXHIBIT B NOTES:

1. N-values shown on boring logs are as recorded in the field and have not been corrected for hammer energy, overburden, or other factors. Where the hammer E-ratio is available, the N-value normalized to a ratio of 60% (N60) is listed.

2. Based on ASTM Standard D1586. Relative densities/consistencies noted on the boring logs are based on uncorrected N-values.

3. PP = pocket penetrometer; TV = torvane, tsf = tons per square foot. Correlations based on experience and multiple published references.

Exhibit B-2: Relative Consistency of Cohesive Soils

EXHIBIT F NOTE:

1. Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488.

Exhibit F: Soil Cementation1

SHANNON & WILSON | 5900 WEST 38TH AVENUE | WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80212 | 303-825-3800 | www.shannonwilson.com

ATD

bpf dia, diam Elev.

ENV

ETR

FC

FeO ft or ' gal

GP

GWT

HSA

ID

in or " incl ksf lbs

LL

mm

N N60

NA, n/a

NE

NP

NR

NW

OC

OD

OW

pcf

PI

PID

PL

PMT

PP

ppm psi

PT

REC

REF

RQD

SC

SE

SPT

SW

TP

tsf

TV

UCS, qu

USCS

VST

VWP

WC

WOH

WOR

at time of drilling blows per foot diameter elevation environmental sample energy transfer ratio (hammer) fines content (< 0.075 mm) iron oxide foot or feet gallons geoprobe groundwater table hollow-stem auger inside diameter or identification inch inclinometer kips per square foot pounds liquid limit millimeter field (uncorrected) SPT N-value SPT N-value corrected for 60% ETR not applicable or not available northeast nonplastic no recovery northwest organic content outside diameter observation well pounds per cubic foot plasticity index photoionization detector plastic limit pressuremeter test pocket penetrometer reading parts per million pounds per square inch nonstandard penetration test N-value recovery refusal rock quality designation (ASTM D6032) sonic core southeast Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586) southwest test pit tons per square foot tor vane reading unconfined compressive strength Unified Soil Classification System vane shear test vibrating wire piezometer natural water content weight of hammer weight of rods

REFERENCE: Brown, E. T., ed., 1981, Rock characterization, testing & monitoring: International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) suggested methods: Oxford, Pergamon Press, 211 p.

Fi le

: 1

1_

C

FL

_A Z_

B R

ID

G

E .G

P J

| L ib ra ry

: S W

G

IN

T

LI

BR

A

R Y

.G

LB

D at e:

/1

/2

LOG KEY

Sample Number Sample Type

Water Level Measured at Date in Well or VWP

Well/VWP ID No.

Water Level During Drilling

Measurement Date (M-D-YY)

Blank pipe or instrument casing

Perforated or slotted pipe

VWP and electric lead

Environmental Sample Taken

Split spoon (SS) (diameters vary)

Modified California (MC) sampler

Sonic core (SC) run (typically soil)

Other

REFERENCE: Loehr, J. E.; Lutenegger, A.; Rosenblad, B.; and Boeckmann, A., 2016, Geotechnical site characterization: U.S. Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA NHI-16-072, Geotechnical Engineering Circular no. 5, 1 v.

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) in %

Core Recovery (REC) in %

ROCK CLASSIFICATION

Graphic Description

Description

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 action.

Material that caved from sides of borehole.

Disturbed texture, mix of strengths.

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 to thickness ratio > 3.

Width to thickness ratio < 3.

Term

Angular

Subangular

Subrounded

Rounded

Flat

Elongated

Term

Mottled

Bioturbated

Diamict

Cuttings

Slough

Sheared

Core run (typically rock)

Sheath (SH) (used for geoprobes)

Graphic Description

SYMBOLOGY AND GRAPHICS

Graphic Description Graphic Description

S-5

(SPT)

Description

Graphic Description Graphic Description

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Gray bar indicates percent of sample length recovered.

Bentonite-cement grout

Bentonite grout

Bentonite chips

Surface cement seal

Sand filter pack

Slough (hole caved)

Shannon & Wilson uses a rock classification system modified from the system recommended by the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM).

Copyright limitations prevent us from reproducing summary tables from the ISRM system on this Key. General descriptions are provided in Exhibit M.

(continued)

Term

Strength

General Description

Weathering

Fabric

Ranges from extremely weak (qu = 36 to 135 psi) to extremely strong (qu > 36,250 psi), and is based on the ability to break the rock with a hammer or scrape the rock with a knife.

Ranges from fresh (no visible signs of weathering) to completely weathered, based on observed degree of discoloration, decomposition, and/or disintegration. When the rock material has completely converted to soil, it is termed a residual soil.

Describes the rock structure based on observed layering, tendency to break, and distribution of minerals (e.g., massive, bedded, foliated).

For discontinuities: Includes rough, smooth, and slickensided, and includes other descriptive terms (e.g., stepped, undular, irregular, planar).

For discontinuities: Ranges from extremely close (< 1 inch) to extremely wide (> 20 feet).

For discontinuities: Ranges from very low to very high.

Description of discontinuities (joints, fractures, bedding planes, etc.), observations of potential displacement, gouge, shear, etc.

Persistence

Roughness

Spacing

Term Equation

SPT split spoon (2-inch OD)

Grab (GB) from cuttings or excavation

Tube (TB) (e.g., Shelby, piston)

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Sandstone

Dolomite

Graphic Description Graphic Description

Length of Core in Pieces > 4 in Length of Core Run

100% x

100% x

Exhibit H: Particle Angularity and Shape1

EXHIBIT H NOTE:

1. Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488.

Length of Core Recovered Length of Core Run

Exhibit I: Additional Descriptive Terms

SOIL CLASSIFICATION REFERENCES:

ASTM International, [current edition], Annual book of standards, v. 04.08, soil and rock (I): D420 - D5876, available:

www.astm.org.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1953, The unified soil classification system: Vicksburg, Miss., Waterways Experiment

Station, Technical Memorandum 3-357, 2 v., March.

See Page 1 for Soil Classification Exhibits A through G

Exhibit M: General Rock Descriptive Terms - ISRM

Exhibit L: Other Log Symbols

Exhibit J: Sample and Run Graphics

Exhibit K: Hole Backfill and Instrument Graphics

Exhibit N: Rock Name Graphics

Exhibit O: Recovery and RQD Equations1

D Swell at 200 psf inundation pressureSwell moist unit weight (density)

S-1

(SPT)

G-1

(GB)

S-2

(SPT)

5.5

N = 27,28,18

N = 9,9,9

N o

O bs er ve d G ou nd w a te r

DRILLING INFORMATION

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Hole Size:

SSA

Vine Laboratories

CME 55 Track

4 inch

EXPLORATION INFORMATION

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vertical Datum:

Latitude:

Longitude:

Horizontal Datum:

5.5 feet n/a n/a

WGS [GCS1984]

~ 34.3420 degrees

~ -111.0965 degrees

FINAL

Logged by:

Review by:

Version:

KCR

WJZ

= WC% = FC%

Uncorrected N-value, bpf Uncorrected, Penetration N-value, bpf

Liquid LimitPlastic Limit

NOTES:

- Refer to LOG KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations, and definitions.

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

- Group symbol is based on visual-manual identification and selected lab testing.

- Report text contains limitations and information needed to contextually understand this log.

Sample Number Sample Type

Symbols

(See separate LOG KEY for additional symbols, acronyms, and definitions)

Abbreviations

BASIC LEGEND

S-5

(SPT)

Water Level During Drilling

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blows per 6-inch increment Penetration test (not SPT) blows per 6-inch increment Blows per foot for penetration test Natural water content (%) Fines content (% grains smaller than 0.075 mm) Plasticity index (Atterberg Limits)

N

PT

bpf

WC

FC

PI

Gray bar indicates percent of sample length recovered.

AWJ 1.75 inch

140 lbs/30 inches

92.7%

Rod Type/Dia.:

Hammer Wt. / Drop:

Hammer ETR:Hole Start Date:

Hole Finish Date:

December 19, 2023

December 19, 2023

BORING LOG

D ep th (f ee t)

D ep th (f ee t)

Lab Data

Multiple Items Plotted (see bottom legend on Page 1)

500 100G ra ph ic

Field Data

Jo b#

: 1

1-

| T em pl at e Ve r:1

Fi le

: 1

1_

C

FL

_A Z_

B R

ID

G

E .G

P J

| R pt

: B O

R

IN

G L

O G

Li br ar y:

S

W G

IN

T

LI

BR

A R

Y .G

LB

D at e:

/1 5/

SHANNON & WILSON | 5900 WEST 38TH AVENUE | WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80212 | 303-825-3800 | www.shannonwilson.com

AZ NFSR 289 Bridge Replacement Gila County, Arizona

WC=5%

FC=41%

LL/PI=23/12

WC=4%

WC=6%

SW-P-01

4.5 inches of asphalt.

Medium dense to dense, red to red-brown, CLAYEY SAND (SC); moist; few gravel; roots. [A-6] Alluvium

BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 5.5 FEET

0.4

5.5

Material Description and Other Observations

S am pl es

D ep th (f ee t)

500 100

(MC12)

G-1

(GB)

S-2

(SPT)

5.5

PT = 13,12

N = 37,28,43

N o

O bs er ve d G ro un dw a te r

DRILLING INFORMATION

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Hole Size:

SSA

Vine Laboratories

CME 55 Track

4 inch

EXPLORATION INFORMATION

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vertical Datum:

Latitude:

Longitude:

Horizontal Datum:

5.5 feet n/a n/a

WGS [GCS1984]

~ 34.3407 degrees

~ -111.0962 degrees

FINAL

Logged by:

Review by:

Version:

KCR

WJZ

= WC% = FC%

Uncorrected N-value, bpf Uncorrected, Penetration N-value, bpf

Liquid LimitPlastic Limit

NOTES:

- Refer to LOG KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations, and definitions.

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

- Group symbol is based on visual-manual identification and selected lab testing.

- Report text contains limitations and information needed to contextually understand this log.

Sample Number Sample Type

Symbols

(See separate LOG KEY for additional symbols, acronyms, and definitions)

Abbreviations

BASIC LEGEND

S-5

(SPT)

Water Level During Drilling

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blows per 6-inch increment Penetration test (not SPT) blows per 6-inch increment Blows per foot for penetration test Natural water content (%) Fines content (% grains smaller than 0.075 mm) Plasticity index (Atterberg Limits)

N

PT

bpf

WC

FC

PI

Gray bar indicates percent of sample length recovered.

AWJ 1.75 inch

140 lbs/30 inches

92.7%

Rod Type/Dia.:

Hammer Wt. / Drop:

Hammer ETR:Hole Start Date:

Hole Finish Date:

December 19, 2023

December 19, 2023

BORING LOG

D ep th (f ee t)

D ep th (f ee t)

Lab Data

Multiple Items Plotted (see bottom legend on Page 1)

500 100G ra ph ic

Field Data

Jo b#

: 1

1-

| T em pl at e Ve r:1

Fi le

: 1

1_

C

FL

_A Z_

B R

ID

G

E .G

P J

| R pt

: B O

R

IN

G L

O G

Li br ar y:

S

W G

IN

T

LI

BR

A R

Y .G

LB

D at e:

/1 5/

SHANNON & WILSON | 5900 WEST 38TH AVENUE | WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80212 | 303-825-3800 | www.shannonwilson.com

AZ NFSR 289 Bridge Replacement Gila County, Arizona

WC=7%

FC=43%

LL/PI=26/13

WC=6%

SW-P-02

3.5 inches of asphalt.

Medium dense to very dense, red, CLAYEY SAND (SC); moist. [A-6] Residuum [SANDSTONE: extremely weak to weak; completely to highly weathered (Naco Formation).]

BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 5.5 FEET

0.3

5.5

Material Description and Other Observations

S am pl es

D ep th (f ee t)

G-1

(GB)

S-2

(SPT)

S-3

(SPT)

S-4

(SPT)

S-5

(SPT)12.5

PT = 3,6

N = 1,2,2

N = 1,0,1

N = 6,6,2

N = 10/0"

N o

O bs er ve d G ro un dw a te r

DRILLING INFORMATION

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Hole Size:

SSA

Vine Laboratories

CME 55 Track

4 inch

EXPLORATION INFORMATION

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vertical Datum:

Latitude:

Longitude:

Horizontal Datum:

12.5 feet n/a n/a

WGS [GCS1984]

~ 34.3399 degrees

~ -111.0962 degrees

FINAL

Logged by:

Review by:

Version:

KCR

WJZ

= WC% = FC%

Uncorrected N-value, bpf Uncorrected, Penetration N-value, bpf

Liquid LimitPlastic Limit

NOTES:

- Refer to LOG KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations, and definitions.

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

- Group symbol is based on visual-manual identification and selected lab testing.

- Report text contains limitations and information needed to contextually understand this log.

Sample Number Sample Type

Symbols

(See separate LOG KEY for additional symbols, acronyms, and definitions)

Abbreviations

BASIC LEGEND

S-5

(SPT)

Water Level During Drilling

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blows per 6-inch increment Penetration test (not SPT) blows per 6-inch increment Blows per foot for penetration test Natural water content (%) Fines content (% grains smaller than 0.075 mm) Plasticity index (Atterberg Limits)

N

PT

bpf

WC

FC

PI

Gray bar indicates percent of sample length recovered.

AWJ 1.75 inch

140 lbs/30 inches

92.7%

Rod Type/Dia.:

Hammer Wt. / Drop:

Hammer ETR:Hole Start Date:

Hole Finish Date:

December 18, 2023

December 18, 2023

BORING LOG

D ep th (f ee t)

D ep th (f ee t)

Lab Data

Multiple Items Plotted (see bottom legend on Page 1)

500 100G ra ph ic

Field Data

Jo b#

: 1

1-

| T em pl at e Ve r:1

Fi le

: 1

1_

C

FL

_A Z_

B R

ID

G

E .G

P J

| R pt

: B O

R

IN

G L

O G

Li br ar y:

S

W G

IN

T

LI

BR

A R

Y .G

LB

D at e:

/1 5/

SHANNON & WILSON | 5900 WEST 38TH AVENUE | WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80212 | 303-825-3800 | www.shannonwilson.com

AZ NFSR 289 Bridge Replacement Gila County, Arizona

WC=3%

WC=5%

WC=26%

FC=27%

LL/PI=NP/NP

WC=18%

SW-P-03

4.5 inches of asphalt concrete.

Loose, red red-brown, CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC); moist; fine to medium, subrounded to subangular gravel. [A-6] Alluvium

Very loose to loose, red-brown dark brown, SILTY SAND (SM); moist; few to little gravel. [A-2-4] Alluvium

-Dark brown to black fibrous organic debris encountered from 6.0 to 12.0 feet.

-Driller remarks a possible void at approximately 7.0 feet.

-Auger refusal at 12.5 feet.

BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 12.5 FEET

0.4

2.3

12.5

Material Description and Other Observations

S am pl es

D ep th (f ee t)

G-1

(GB)

S-2

(SPT)

5.5

PT = 29,50/4"

N = 17,18,25

N o

O bs er ve d G ro un dw a te r

DRILLING INFORMATION

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Hole Size:

SSA

Vine Laboratories

CME 55 Track

4 inch

EXPLORATION INFORMATION

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vertical Datum:

Latitude:

Longitude:

Horizontal Datum:

5.5 feet n/a n/a

WGS [GCS1984]

~ 34.3395 degrees

~ -111.0955 degrees

FINAL

Logged by:

Review by:

Version:

KCR

WJZ

= WC% = FC%

Uncorrected N-value, bpf Uncorrected, Penetration N-value, bpf

Liquid LimitPlastic Limit

NOTES:

- Refer to LOG KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations, and definitions.

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

- Group symbol is based on visual-manual identification and selected lab testing.

- Report text contains limitations and information needed to contextually understand this log.

Sample Number Sample Type

Symbols

(See separate LOG KEY for additional symbols, acronyms, and definitions)

Abbreviations

BASIC LEGEND

S-5

(SPT)

Water Level During Drilling

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blows per 6-inch increment Penetration test (not SPT) blows per 6-inch increment Blows per foot for penetration test Natural water content (%) Fines content (% grains smaller than 0.075 mm) Plasticity index (Atterberg Limits)

N

PT

bpf

WC

FC

PI

Gray bar indicates percent of sample length recovered.

AWJ 1.75 inch

140 lbs/30 inches

92.7%

Rod Type/Dia.:

Hammer Wt. / Drop:

Hammer ETR:Hole Start Date:

Hole Finish Date:

December 19, 2023

December 19, 2023

BORING LOG

D ep th (f ee t)

D ep th (f ee t)

Lab Data

Multiple Items Plotted (see bottom legend on Page 1)

500 100G ra ph ic

Field Data

Jo b#

: 1

1-

| T em pl at e Ve r:1

Fi le

: 1

1_

C

FL

_A Z_

B R

ID

G

E .G

P J

| R pt

: B O

R

IN

G L

O G

Li br ar y:

S

W G

IN

T

LI

BR

A R

Y .G

LB

D at e:

/1 5/

SHANNON & WILSON | 5900 WEST 38TH AVENUE | WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80212 | 303-825-3800 | www.shannonwilson.com

AZ NFSR 289 Bridge Replacement Gila County, Arizona

WC=7%

WC=12%

FC=51%

LL/PI=NP/NP

SW-P-04

4.25 inches of asphalt concrete.

Very dense, red-brown yellow, CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC); moist. [A-6] Alluvium

Hard, red-brown, SANDY SILT (ML); moist. [A-4] Residuum [SANDSTONE: extremely weak; completely weathered (Naco Formation).]

BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 5.5 FEET

0.4

3.0

5.5

Material Description and Other Observations

S am pl es

D ep th (f ee t)

110781-002 July 2005 6/10/2025-110781-002_R1_AB.docx B-i

AP

PE

ND

IX

B : L

AB

OR

AT

OR

Y

TE

ST

R

ES

UL

TS

Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results

Appendix B

Laboratory Test Results

CONTENTS

B.1 Introduction

B.2 Geotechnical Index Tests

Water Content

Unit Weight

Grain Size Analysis

Atterberg Limits

B.3 Geotechnical Engineering Property Tests

One‐Dimensional Swell/Collapse

R‐Value

Table Table B‐1: Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Figures Grain Size Distribution

Plasticity Chart

Consolidation/Swell Test Report for Boring SW‐P‐02

R‐value Test Report

110781-002 July 2005 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 and bedrock samples retrieved from the borings in general accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO), and the American Society of Testing and Materials International

(ASTM) 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 completed at our in‐house laboratory in

Wheat Ridge, Colorado and included index tests and geotechnical engineering property tests. A summary of the laboratory test results by borings is presented in Table B‐1. The following sections describe the laboratory testing procedures.

B.2 GEOTECHNICAL INDEX 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.

Unit Weight

Unit weights were determined from a soil sample as part of the one‐dimensional swell/collapse testing (see Section B.3.1). To perform these tests, the dimensions of the sample were measured, the sample was weighed, and the moist unit weight was calculated.

Results are summarized in Table B‐1.

Grain Size Analysis

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 on the attached grain size distribution curves 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 ASTM D1140, Standard Test Method for Amount of

Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 (75‐μm) Sieve. The percent fines (silt‐ and clay‐sized particles passing the No. 200 sieve) are shown graphically on the boring logs in Appendix A and are also summarized in Table B‐1.

110781-002 July 2005 B-2

AP

PE

ND

IX

B : L

AB

OR

AT

OR

Y

TE

ST

R

ES

Atterberg Limits

Soil plasticity was determined by performing Atterberg limits tests on selected fine‐grained samples. The tests were completed in general accordance with AASHTO T89, Standard Test

Method for Determining the Liquid Limit of Soils and AASHTO T90, Standard Test Method for Determining the Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils. The Atterberg limits include liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), and plasticity index (PI equals LL minus PL) and are generally used to assist in classification of soils, to indicate soil consistency (when compared to natural water content), and to provide correlation to soil properties. The results of the

Atterberg limits tests are plotted on the attached plasticity chart, shown graphically on the boring logs in Appendix A, and summarized in Table B‐1.

B.3 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PROPERTY TESTS

One-Dimensional Swell/Collapse

One‐dimensional swell/consolidation test was performed on a sample from Boring SW‐P‐02 and performed in general accordance with ASTM D4546, Standard Test Methods for One‐

Dimensional Swell or Collapse of Soils. The sample were loaded at field moisture conditions in a fixed‐ring consolidometer that measures vertical changes in volume for different loading conditions. During loading, the sample’s pore pressures are allowed to drain from both the top and bottom of the sample.