UT_FLAP_149(1)_Pavements_Report-FINAL-9-28-2015.pdf

STATE ROUTE 149 WIDENING

UT FLAP 149(1)

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - UINTAH COUNTY

DINOSAUR NATIONAL MONUMENT

PAVEMENT AND MATERIALS REPORT

Report # 15-06

SEPTEMBER 2015

Report prepared by:

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Central Federal Lands Highway Division Lakewood, Colorado

UT FLAP 149(1) State Route 149 Widening iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. CLIMATE

III. EXPLORATION

IV. EXISTING PAVEMENT & SOILS

V. PAVEMENT DESIGN INPUTS

VI. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & DISCUSSION

VII. MATERIALS RECOMMENDATIONS, SPECIAL CONTRACT

REQUIREMENTS (SCRs), and CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

APPENDICES

A – Location Map B – Laboratory Reports and Boring Log C – Photographs D – DARWin Pavement Design E – PG LTPPBIND Software F – Weather Data Information G – Preliminary Pavement Recommendation Memo and Life-Cycle Cost Memo H – MEPDG Pavement Design I – Culvert Pipe Selection Criteria

I. INTRODUCTION

This report is written to document the road conditions and provide pavement recommendations for the planned UT FLAP 149(1) SR 149 Widening project. The project is located near Jensen, UT approximately 17 miles west of the Colorado State line. The project begins at the intersection with the State Visitor Center, immediately adjacent to the intersection of SR 149 and US 40, and approximately 7 miles south of the Dinosaur National Monument Visitors Center. A pavement and subgrade soil investigation was conducted on September 23-24, 2014. The investigation began at the intersection of the visitor center and SR 149 and concluded approximately 4.2 miles north, at the cattle guard immediately south of the Dinosaur National Monument entrance sign. The Preliminary Pavement Recommendations Memo was issued in November of 2014. The memo provided the pavement recommendations as well as the proposed pay items. This memo, as well as an Addendum issued in February of 2015 is found in the Appendix. The pavement recommendations have been finalized and are discussed in Part VI of this report.

II. CLIMATE

Climate data was obtained from intellicast.com. This data is summarized in Table 1 below and is shown in the Appendix. The average precipitation for this area is approximately 8.44 inches. The project is located at an elevation that receives both snow and rain, dependent upon the time of year. The project ranges in elevation from ≈4,700 feet to ≈4,850 feet.

TABLE 1: Weather Data

Month Average

HIGH

Record

HIGH

Average

LOW

Record

LOW

Average

PRECIP.

January 30 58 4 -36 0.54”

February 38 67 11 -40 0.53”

March 53 82 23 -17 0.68”

April 64 87 31 8 0.82”

May 74 100 40 18 0.92”

June 85 106 47 25 0.53”

July 91 105 53 38 0.68”

August 89 102 51 27 0.62”

September 79 100 42 17 0.93”

October 66 87 31 0 1.14”

November 47 74 20 -12 0.59”

December 34 60 8 -36 0.46”

Temperatures are in °F and precipitations are in inches.

III. EXPLORATION

On September 23 & 24, 2014 CFLHD Pavements & Materials staff completed a field investigation which included boring, coring, and subgrade sampling. Vine Laboratories, Inc. was contracted to complete the boring and coring. A CME-55 truck-mounted drill rig with a 6.25” O.D. auger was used to complete the investigation. A total of 20 boring locations were logged; with 8 cores and 17 subgrade samples collected. Subgrade soil and borrow was sampled at various depths ranging from 1 to 5 feet. CFL personnel logged the borings; this included depth of boring, visual soil classification, pavement thickness, pavement distress, and road width. Boring locations, paved widths and other information is shown in the Appendix.

The primary objectives of this field investigation were to measure existing pavement and borrow depths; and gather subgrade soil samples for testing by the CFLHD lab to determine engineering properties. Additional purposes included evaluating and recording the existing pavement conditions and developing potential options to address the slightly wavy and rough pavement in the last mile of the project. The pavement depths, borrow depths, surface conditions, and soil property information was used to support rehabilitation and pavement recommendations.

The geotechnical investigation for the bridge foundations was conducted in February of 2015. During this investigation borings were also completed along the fore-slopes of shoulders to determine if the layer of granular borrow extended out from the roadway through the fore-slopes.

IV. EXISTING PAVEMENT & SOILS

The project has two distinct segments with differing pavement and subgrade conditions.

For the purpose of this report, Segment 1 is defined from MP 0.0 to 3.0 and Segment 2 is from MP 3.0 to 4.2.

•The average pavement depth for Segment 1 ≈ 6 inches.

•The average pavement depth for Segment 2 ≈ 8 inches.

•The range of pavement depth for Segment 1 ≈ 3 to 10 inches.

•The range of pavement depth for Segment 2 ≈ 4 to 11 inches.

The local UDOT region office indicated that localized areas along the route with pavement thickness of 18 inches have been encountered. A chart of the pavement and granular borrow layer depths is shown in Figure 1. The complete log and visual classifications is shown in the Appendix.

The overall pavement condition of the route is poor, due primarily to the severity and extent of transverse and block cracking. There are some locations, especially in Segment 2, where the pavement is in fair condition. It was also observed that Segment 2 has wavy and slightly rough pavement due to swelling/shrinking subgrade soils (e.g. expansive clays) See Table 2 below for a summary of conditions observed.

Table 2: Summary of Pavement Conditions

Segment Pavement Distress Surface Type / Pavement Layers Segment 1 – MP 0 to 3.0

•Regularly spaced medium and high severity transverse cracking (the predominant distress).

•Medium severity block cracking; not as prevalent as transverse cracking •Localized ½ to ¾ inch rutting •To a much lesser extent: raveling of the chip seal, longitudinal cracking along CL & edge, fatigue cracking

•Chip sealed surface (recent) •Multiple HACP overlays of varying ages. Evidence of stripping was noted.

•No aggregate base. Pavement is placed on good quality, granular borrow. Some boring locations had cobble sized material present.

Segment 2 – MP 3.0 to 4.2

•Noticeably less cracking & rutting than Segment 1.

•Low & medium severity transverse cracking (the predominant distress).

•The surface is noticeably wavy.

•To a much lesser extent: raveling of chip seal, ¼ to ½ inch rutting

•Chip sealed surface (recent, less than a year old) •Thin, 1 to 2 inch HACP overlay placed about 3 years ago.

•The rest of pavement layer is overlays of varying ages. Evidence of stripping was noted.

•No aggregate base. Pavement is placed on a fair to poor quality borrow with PI. Some boring locations had cobble sized material present.

In Segment 1, a relatively strong granular borrow layer was found below the pavement.

This layer averages about 34 inches in thickness, has an average R-value of 61, and cobbles were present in some locations. Beneath this borrow layer, most of the subgrade soil encountered classified as A-6 material (lean clay). Some A-4 (silty clay) material was also present. The average R-value of the subgrade was 12.

In Segment 2, a granular borrow layer was also found below the pavement, but it had lower strength and quality than Segment 1. The borrow layer has an average thickness of 41 inches, an average R-value of 28, and cobbles were present in some locations. The subgrade soils were not encountered until a depth of 4.5 to 5 feet from the pavement surface. Visually these soils appeared clayey and expansive.

Drilling efforts were generally easy. However, there were several locations where drilling was difficult due to the presence of cobbles in the borrow layer beneath the pavement. Auger refusal was not encountered in the shallow (5 feet deep) boring locations.

The geotechnical investigation completed in February, 2015 found that the layer of granular material beneath the pavement does extend into the fore slopes of the shoulder.

It is expected that this granular layer will provide the needed support for embankment construction.

Figure 1: SR 149 Visual Classification of Boring and Core Locations

0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.8 2.8 Mile Post

Segment 1 Depths

Borrow Depth (in.)

Pavement Depth (in.)

C o re o n ly

C o re o n ly

C o re o n ly

C o re o n ly

C o re o n ly

C o re o n ly

3.0 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 Mile Post

Segment 2 Depths

Borrow Depth (in.)

Pavement Depth (in.)

C o re o n ly

C o re o n ly

C o re o n ly

V. PAVEMENT DESIGN INPUTS

For both segment 1 and 2, the following criteria applies based on the project scope and traffic levels.

Table 3. Design Criteria – Segment 1 & 2 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Design Reliability Level 75% Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Performance Period (3R) 20 years

Traffic

SR 149 appears to have two primary generators of heavy traffic: 1) farming related activities, and 2) tourist traffic for Dinosaur National Monument (RVs, buses, concessionaires). The following is a summary of traffic data and statistics assembled by the Utah DOT:

2016 AADT = 806

2036 AADT = 1097 (1.54% growth rate) 2016 AADTT = 255 (18% single unit trucks, 13% trailer trucks)

2036 AADTT = 346

Directional factor = 50% Weighted truck factor = 0.52 Design Lane ESAL’s = 559,428

The 20-year 18-kip equivalent single axle load (ESAL) used for the Segment 1 design was 559,428, as calculated by UDOT.

For Segment 2, which connects to Dinosaur National Monument, an AADT and AADTT matching traffic conditions inside the monument were used for design. For the last mile of the project, nearly all traffic is expected to enter the monument as no significant side roads or farming activity exists within Segment 2. Design ESAL for Segment 2 was 217,717. This is similar to the value used for the 2006 project completed by CFLHD inside the monument and based on 500 ADT and 20% heavy vehicles.

The assumptions made in the ESAL calculations are included in the Appendix. Design factors used in the ESALs calculations were taken from the FLH Project Development Design Manual (PDDM), Chapter 11.

Subgrade Soil Resilient Modulus

The segment 1 average subgrade R-Value is 12.

The segment 2 average subgrade R-Value is 28.

Design resilient modulus values are shown in Table 4. The soil and base resilient modulus was calculated from the R-Value (AASHTO T 190) using the following correlation equation:

Resilient Modulus, MR (psi) = 10[ ( S

+ 18.72 ) / 6.24 ] where S1 = [(R-Value – 5) / 11.29] + 3

Table 4. Resilient Modulus Values

Segment 1 design MR (subgrade) 3826 psi Segment 2 design MR (subgrade) 6544 psi

Structural Layer Coefficients

Standard CFLHD structural layer coefficients were used for the AC layer (0.44), FDR layer (0.12), and the minor aggregate base layer (0.12). For the existing borrow/subbase layer in Segment 1, a structural coefficient of 0.08 was assigned to this layer based on an average R-Value of 61 and correlation guidance in the AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Guide.

VI. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS & DISCUSSION

Utilizing the 1993 AASHTO pavement design procedure, a 20 year pavement design requires a design structural number (SN) as follows:

Segment 1 SN = 3.72 Segment 2 SN = 2.58

After evaluating various alternatives the following pavement structural sections are recommended:

Segment 1 – Main Line

3.5 inches ACP, placed in two lifts

6.0 inches, typical, FDR – Pulverize (Note: there will be locations with more than 6 inches of existing pavement) 18 to 45 inches of existing borrow/subbase (this is good quality material and will remain in place)

SN = 3.80

Segment 1 – Widening / Embankment area

6.0 inches Aggregate base Existing borrow/subbase and imported embankment (18+ inches)

Segment 2 – Main Line

9.0 inches, typical, FDR – Pulverize (Note: there will be locations with more than 9 inches of existing pavement)

SN = 2.62

Segment 2 – Widening / Embankment area

9.0 inches Aggregate base

Discussion

A mill and overlay scope was assumed in the scoping report for Segment 1. However, full-depth reclamation (FDR) and overlay is recommended because medium to high severity transverse and block cracking is prevalent and the roadway will be substantially widened.

To avoid having to scab on shoulders and live with resulting reflective cracking, the FDR rehabilitation will provide a solid foundation for paving, eliminate reflective cracking from the existing pavement, and provide a longer life pavement.

The embankment construction for widening and placement of aggregate base should be completed prior to the FDR operation to allow for intermixing of the new aggregate base and pulverized FDR material. As stated previously, the average pavement thickness for Segment 1 is about 6 inches. A note should be included on the typical section plan sheets indicating that the FDR depth for this segment will be 6 inches or 1 inch below the thickness of the pavement whichever is greater.

The scoping report assumed 2 to 3 feet of subexcavation for Segment 2 as a way to address the expansive clay subgrade and the resulting wavy pavement. However, no clay was encountered above 4 feet in the 9 borings drilled in this segment. As a result, subexcavation at this shallow depth is not recommended. While deeper subexcavation (6+ feet) may improve long term performance, constructability and cost/benefit concerns preclude this approach.

One key with addressing expansive clay is keeping the moisture content of the clay layer at a relatively constant level. If the moisture content of the clay is not changing, it will not expand or contract. Improving drainage by eliminating ponding of water, cleaning culverts, adding sub-drains, or installing membranes would help reduce moisture fluctuation in the clay layer. These relatively low cost drainage improvements should be evaluated for their applicability and use on the project.

Similar to Segment 1, the embankment construction and aggregate placement on Segment 2 should be completed prior to the FDR operation to allow for intermixing of the new aggregate base and pulverized FDR material. As stated previously, the average pavement thickness for segment 2 is about 8 inches. A note for this segment should be included on the typical section plan sheets indicating that the FDR depth will be 9 inches or 1 inch below the thickness of the pavement whichever is greater.

Supporting Documentation

A life-cycle cost analysis was completed using RealCost. The associated Technical Memorandum and analysis are included in the Appendix. FDR and overlay was found to have a savings of over $1.2 million (present value method) when compared to the mill and overlay alternative.

A pavement design using the new AASHTO MEPDG, as required by UDOT, was also completed. The pavement design recommendations listed above were verified by the MEPDG design. These results are also included in the Appendix.

VII. MATERIALS RECOMMENDATIONS, SPECIAL CONTRACT

REQUIREMENTS (SCRs), AND CONSTRUCTION

CONSIDERATIONS

Selection of Asphalt Binder

LTPPBind software and PDDM standards were utilized for the selection of asphalt binder. Based on these standards a PG 64-28 was selected. This binder grade is used by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and is available in the project area.

Prime and Tack Coats, Fog Seal and Blotter

Prime, tack, fog, and blotter are recommended for this project.

It is important to note the UDOT region where this project is located has minimal experience with FDR construction and they have voiced concern about maintaining traffic on an unbound, pulverized surface for several weeks. Additionally, there are many residences along the route and a significant amount of local traffic. In order to mitigate dust, raveling, and wash-boarding potential, a prime coat, method 2 (inverted prime) is recommended.

A tack coat applied between pavement lifts is recommended. It is also recommended that fog seal and blotter be included as bid items for discretionary use by the CO for application to the final surfacing.

Drainage and Subexcavation

There is the potential that spot areas of saturated or soft subgrade will be encountered.

Suggest including 2000 cubic yards of subexcavation as contingency to be used at the discretion of the CO.

Within Segment 2 where the wavy pavement exists, deep excavation in excess of 6 feet has been deemed outside the scope of the current project as indicated in the discussion of Section VI. Lower cost and practical mitigation with the existing expansive clays could include drainage improvements such as cleaning culverts and grading to eliminate ponding of water.

Soil Corrosivity and Materials for Culvert Pipe and Concrete

Based on test results from 7 soil samples, the project location contains soils that are aggressive and corrosive for metal pipes. The area also contains soils that are aggressive (by sulfate attack) on buried concrete. The test results are summarized in the following table:

Table 5 Summary of Test Results for Corrosive Soils

Location Resistivity, ohm-cm pH Sulfate (% / ppm)

Chloride (% / ppm)

MP 0.5, B-20 520 7.9 0.158 / 1580 0.0296 / 296

MP 1.3, B-3 280 8.4 0.110 / 1100 0.0522 / 522

Location Resistivity, ohm-cm pH Sulfate (% / ppm)

Chloride (% / ppm)

MP 2.8, B-16 1000 8.9 0.017 / 170 0.0185 / 185

MP 0-3 (geotech) 390 7.8 0.321 / 3210 0.0480 / 480

MP 3.6, B-8 600 7.9 0.408 / 4080 0.0150 / 150

MP 3-4 (geotech) 540 7.4 0.667 / 6670 0.0178 / 178

Bridge 660 7.6 0.317 / 3170 0.0144 / 144

Using the test results in Table 5 and guidance in the PDDM the following types of culvert pipe is acceptable in order to achieve a 50 year service life:

Metallic-coated corrugated steel pipe with a minimum of thickness/gage of 10 (0.138 inches)

Polymer coated steel pipe Reinforced concrete pipe (Type V cement) Plastic pipe

Sulfate resistant Type V cement is recommended for all concrete exposed to soil on the project as 4 out of the 7 samples tested had sulfate contents above 0.2%, and 3 of the 7 samples tested had chloride contents of greater than 200 ppm. Per ACI 201.2R, Table 6.3, a maximum w/c ratio of 0.45 is also recommended.

Special contract requirements (SCRs) will be developed to address the above concerns.

Bid Items

Suggested FP-14 pay items for the proposed structural section are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 6: Recommended Pay Items Item

Number Item Description Unit Remarks.

20402-0000 Subexcavation CUYD Use at discretion of CO

30202-2000 Roadway Aggregate, Method 2 TON Placed only in shoulder areas

30402-5300 Full Depth Reclamation, Method 2, 6 inch depth

SQYD

Segment 1 only. There will be locations with pavement thickness greater than 6 inches

30402-5600 Full Depth Reclamation, Method 2, 9 inch depth

SQYD

Segment 2 only. There will be locations with pavement thickness greater than 9 inches

40101-5600

Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Gyratory Mix, ½ Inch or ¾ Inch Nominal maximum size aggregate,

0.3 to <3 million ESAL

TON

Around 16,000 tons anticipated.

Item Number

Item Description Unit Remarks.

40105-1000 Antistrip Additive, Type 1 TON 40601-0000 Fog Seal TON Use at discretion of CO 40605-0000 Blotter TON 41101-2000 Prime Coat, Method 2 TON Inverted prime 41105-0000 Blotter TON 41201-0000 Tack Coat TON

SCRs and Construction Concerns

CFLHD standard SCR’s related to pavements & materials are expected to be used.

However, UDOT standards may be incorporated with consultation with the pavements & materials group. Consideration should be given to the use of minimum weight/force requirements for the compression type compactors for FDR construction. Compacting 10 inches of FDR will be a struggle without the right equipment. At a minimum, the PE/CO should discuss the importance of minimum weight/force requirements for compression type compactors during the pre-con or pre-phase meeting. Suggest including this advice in the PE memo.

There is the potential that soft and saturated clayey subgrade material will be encountered during construction; especially during embankment construction or at culvert replacement locations. Although the project is in an arid region with little rainfall, the surrounding area is a heavily irrigated farming belt. Irrigation canals, leaky pipes, and watering activity appear to be keeping the subgrade moist and in some cases saturated, especially within Segment 1. Good grading practices which create positive drainage should be encouraged and used during construction.

APPENDICES

A – Location Map

B – Laboratory Reports and Boring Log

C – Photographs

D – DARWin Pavement Design

E – PG LTPPBind Software

F – Weather Data Information

G – Preliminary Pavement Recommendation Memo and Life-Cycle Cost Memo

H – MEPDG Pavement Design

I – Culvert Pipe Selection Criteria

APPENDIX A – Location Map

APPENDIX B – Laboratory Reports and Boring Log

MP Boring Pavement

Depth (in.)

Borrow

Depth (in.)

Subgrade

R‐

Value Class PI

Moist

Comments

0.0 B‐1 9 27 Moist Clay 3' to 5' 70 A‐1‐a 4 14.5 Test results on borrow/base material

0.0 C‐1 8.4 Core broke during drilling/removal

0.1 C‐8 9.6

Core broke during drilling/removal. May be thicker.

Mid layer showing signs of stripping.

0.5 B‐20 5.5 40 Moist clay 4' to 5' 59 A‐1‐b 4 16.4 Test results on borrow/base material

0.5 C‐7 3

Some material at bottom of core separated. May be thicker

0.6 B‐2 6.5 18

Wet clay 2' ‐ 3.5'. 3.5' to

5' drier gravelly soil 8 A‐6 (8) 15 Test results on clay sample

1.0 B‐19 5 40 Wet clay 4' to 5'. A‐6 (4) 11 15.7 Test results on clay sample

1.3 B‐3 4.2 26

Moist sandy clay 2.5' to

5' 14 A‐6 (4) 15

Test results on clay sample. Cobbles present at various depths.

1.3 C‐2 3.3

1.6 B‐18 5.5 35 Moist silty clay 3.5' to 5' A‐4 (1) 8

Test results on silty clay sample. Cobbles present in upper 3 feet.

1.6 C‐6 5.5

1.8 B‐4 4.5 30 Wet clay 3' to 5' 13 A‐6 (7) 14 Test results on clay sample.

2.2 B‐17 5.5 40 Drier clay 4' to 5' Not sampled

2.4 B‐5 10.2 35 Wet clay 4' to 5'. 13 A‐6 (4) 19 15.7

Test results on clay sample. A fatter, gray clay noted.

Gravel, 2‐inch minus material with silt/clay in the borrow material.

2.4 C‐3 6 Core broke during drilling/removal

2.8 B‐16 4.5 45 Wet clay 4.5' to 5' 53 A‐2‐4 4

Test results on borrow/base material. Borrow material is a sandy gravel with some 2" & 3" rounded gravel and some PI.

2.8 C‐5 4.5

Segment Break ~STA 169

Depth (in.)

Borrow

Depth (in.)

Subgrade

R‐

Value Class PI

Moist

Comments

3.0 B‐6 7 40 Moist clay 4.5' to 5'

Not sampled. Borrow is a sandy gravel material with

3" minus rounded gravel. Tough drilling.

3.3 B‐15 4.25 35

Moist, firm, clay 4.5' to

5' 20 A‐4 9

Test results on borrow/base material at 3.5' depth

(may have contained some clay subgrade material).

3.4 B‐7 9

Not sampled. A PCV irrigation line inside a CMP at 2 feet from surface of pavement. Similar gravelly sand borrow material in upper 2 feet as other holes.

3.5 B‐14 9.5 26

Moist, sandy gravel with some cobbles & PI A‐2‐4 4

Tests results from 3.5' depth and lower. In fill area;

no clay noted in 5' bore depth.

3.6 B‐8 7 40 Moist clay 4' to 5' 35 A‐2‐4 7

Test results on borrow material. Rounded cobbles present.

3.7 B‐13 6.5 50 n/a 19 A‐2‐4 9

Test results on sandy clay borrow material. Fill location.

3.8 B‐9 8.5 40 Drier, frim, clay 4' to 5' 21 A‐2‐4 10

Test results on sandy clay borrow material. Fill location.

3.9 B‐12 9.5 40 Moist clay, 4' to 5' 24 A‐2‐4 10 13.8

Test results on sandy clay borrow material with some of the clay subgrade, too.

4.0 B‐10 5.5 50 n/a 51 A‐2‐4 3

Test results on sandy clay borrow material. Some rounded cobbles present.

4.1 B‐11 9.5 50 n/a 27 A‐2‐4 5

Test results on sandy clay borrow material (relatively dry). 1" minus gravel present.

4.2 C‐4 10.8

Average 6.7 37.2 Ave. STA 169‐231 28

50th %tile 6.3 40.0 Ave. STA 10‐169 12

25th %tile 4.6

27 S1 (Segment 1) = 3.6364

Seg 2, 50th 8.5 38 S1 (Segment 2) = 5.1039

MR (Segment 1) = 3826

MR (Segment 2) = 6576

5/9/8

5/7/13

26/50-4"

41/50-2"

50-4"

50-3"

50-2"

0.0 - 0.8 ft ASPHALT PAVEMENT AR 1 Asphalt pavement, base course and gravelly sand fill.

0.8 - 1.5 ft BASE COURSE

1.5 - 17.0 ft GRAVELLY SAND AND COBBLES

SPT 1 Rec. 0.58 ft of red brown gravelly sand, moist.

AR 2 Brown silty sand gravelly, some cobbles. Loose from 9' to 12'. Wet at 11'.

SPT 2 Rec. 1 ft of tan gravelly sand, wet.

AR 3 Tan gravelly sand to 17'. Gray clay (weathered shale) from 17' to 18'.

17.0 - 18.0 ft GRAY CLAY

18.0 - 38.2 ft GRAY SHALE

SPT 3 Rec. 0.83 ft of gray predominantly decomposed to moderately weathered shale.

AR 4 Gray moderately to slightly weathered shale.

SPT 4 Rec. 0.67 ft of gray moderately to slightly weathered shale.

AR 5 Gray moderately to slightly weathered shale.

SPT 5 Rec. 0.33 ft of gray moderately to slightly weathered shale.

AR 6 Gray moderately to slightly weathered shale.

SPT 6 Rec. 0.25 ft of gray moderately to slightly weathered shale.

AR 7 Gray moderately to slightly weathered shale.

SPT 7 Rec. 0.17 ft of gray moderately to slightly weathered shale.

BHT at 38.2 ft

AR

SPT

AR

SPT

AR

SPT

AR

SPT

AR

SPT

AR

SPT

AR

SPT

4840.8

4824.5

4823.5

4803.3

0.58 39%

1.00 67%

0.83 100%

0.67 100%

0.33 100%

0.25 100%

0.17 100%

GW-GM

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 151+48, 7.5 ft RT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth Elevation

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

11ft

2/24/2015

12:30 PM

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-101

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/24/15

Ground Elev: 4841.5 ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/24/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2 9/

2/3/5

2/13/5

6/12/23

50-4"

50-4"

50-2"

0.0 - 0.8 ft ASPHALT PAVEMENT AR 1 Asphalt pavement, base course and gravelly sand fill.

0.8 - 1.5 ft BASE COURSE

1.5 - 17.0 ft GRAVELLY SAND AND COBBLES

AR 2 Cobbles, red brown gravelly sand, moist.

SPT 1 Rec. 1.25 ft of brown gravelly clay, moist.

AR 3 tan gravelly sand, wet at 10'.

SPT 2 Rec. 1.25 ft of brown gravelly sand, wet.

AR 4 Brown gravelly sand to 17'. Gray clay (weathered shale) from 17' to 18'.

17.0 - 18.8 ft GRAY CLAY

SPT 3 Rec. 1.5 ft of gray clay (9") and weathered shale (9").

18.8 - 33.2 ft GRAY SHALE

AR 5 Gray moderately to slightly weathered shale.

MC 4 Rec. 0.25 ft of gray moderately to slightly weathered shale.

AR 6 Gray moderately to slightly weathered shale.

SPT 4 Rec. 0.33 ft of gray moderately to slightly weathered shale.

AR 7 Gray moderately to slightly weathered shale.

SPT 5 Rec. 0.17 ft of gray moderately to slightly weathered shale.

BHT at 33.2 ft

AR

AR

SPT

AR

SPT

AR

SPT

AR

MC

AR

SPT

AR

SPT

4841.3 4840.5

4823.3

4808.8

1.25 83%

1.25 83%

1.50 100%

0.25 76%

0.33 100%

0.17 100%

CL

CL

CL

CL

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 152+08, 8.5 ft LT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth Elevation

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

10ft

2/24/2015

5 PM

11ft

2/24/2015

ATD

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-102

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/24/15

Ground Elev: 4842.0 ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/24/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2 9/

0.0 - 0.7 ft Brown BASE COURSE AR 1 Brown base course, red brown gravelly SAND, moist, and gray gravelly CLAY, moist, medium plasticity.

0.7 - 4.0 ft Red brown gravelly SAND

4.0 - 5.0 ft Gray gravelly CLAY

BHT at 5.0 ft

AR

0.7

5 5

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 18+50, 12.5 ft RT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-201

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/25/15

Ground Elev: ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/25/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2 7/

0.0 - 2.0 ft Red brown gravelly SAND AR 1 Red brown gravelly SAND, moist, gray gravelly CLAY, moist, medium plasticity. and olive brown CLAY, moist, medium plasticity.

2.0 - 4.0 ft Gray gravelly CLAY

4.0 - 5.0 ft Olive brown CLAY

BHT at 5.0 ft

AR

5 5

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 29+50, 12 ft LT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-202

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/25/15

Ground Elev: ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/25/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2

0.0 - 2.0 ft Red brown gravelly SAND AR 1 Red brown gravelly SAND, moist, gray gravelly CLAY, moist, medium plasticity, and olive brown CLAY, moist, medium plasticity.

2.0 - 4.0 ft Gray gravelly CLAY

4.0 - 5.0 ft Olive brown CLAY

BHT at 5.0 ft

AR

5 5

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 64+75, 12 ft LT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-204

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/25/15

Ground Elev: ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/25/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2

0.0 - 3.5 ft Brown gravelly CLAY AR 1 Brown gravelly CLAY, moist, medium plasticity, and brown CLAY, moist, medium plasticity.

3.5 - 5.0 ft Brown CLAY

BHT at 5.0 ft

AR

3.5

5 5

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 78+00, 12 ft RT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-205

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/25/15

Ground Elev: ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/25/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2

0.0 - 0.5 ft Brown BASE COURSE AR 1 Brown base course, brown gravelly SAND, moist, clayey and brown CLAY, moist, medium plasticity.

0.5 - 1.5 ft Brown gravelly SAND, clayey

1.5 - 5.0 ft Brown CLAY

BHT at 5.0 ft

AR

0.5

1.5

5 5

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 98+00, 13.5 ft LT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-206

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/25/15

Ground Elev: ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/25/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2

0.0 - 1.5 ft Brown gravelly SAND, clayey AR 1 Brown gravelly SAND, clayey, moist, medium plasticity, and brown CLAY, moist, medium plasticity.

1.5 - 5.0 ft Brown CLAY

BHT at 5.0 ft

AR

1.5

5 5

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 110+00, 13.3 ft RT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-207

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/25/15

Ground Elev: ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/25/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2

0.0 - 1.0 ft Brown gravelly SAND AR 1 Brown gravelly SAND, moist, brown gravelly CLAY, moist, medium plasticity, and brown CLAY, moist, medium plasticity.

1.0 - 2.5 ft Brown gravelly CLAY

2.5 - 5.0 ft Brown CLAY

BHT at 5.0 ft

AR

2.5

5 5

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 127+00, 13 ft LT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-208

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/25/15

Ground Elev: ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/25/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2

0.0 - 3.0 ft Brown gravelly SAND AR 1 Brown gravelly SAND, moist, and GRAVELS and COBBLES, moist.

3.0 - 4.0 ft GRAVELS and COBBLES

BHT at 4.0 ft

AR

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 135+00, 13 ft RT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-209

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/25/15

Ground Elev: ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/25/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2

0.0 - 2.0 ft Brown gravelly SAND, clayey AR 1 Brown gravelly SAND, clayey, moist, medium plasticity, and gravelly SAND and COBBLES, moist.

2.0 - 5.0 ft Light brown gravelly SAND and COBBLES, clayey

BHT at 5.0 ft

AR

5 5

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 166+00, 13.2 ft LT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-210

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/25/15

Ground Elev: ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/25/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2

2/3/3

0.0 - 2.0 ft Brown gravelly SAND, clayey AR 1 Brown gravelly SAND, clayey, moist, medium plasticity, and brown gravelly CLAY, moist, medium plasticity.

2.0 - 3.5 ft Brown gravelly CLAY

AR 2 Brown gravelly CLAY, moist, medium plasticity. and COBBLES and yellow brown clayey SAND, moist, medium plasticity.

3.5 - 7.0 ft Brown gravelly CLAY and COBBLES

7.0 - 9.5 ft Yellow brown clayey SAND

SPT 1 Rec. 1.5 ft of yellow brown clayey SAND, moist, loose, medium plasticity.

BHT at 9.5 ft

AR

AR

SPT

3.5

9.5

1.50

100%SC-SM

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 193+00, 16 ft RT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-211

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/25/15

Ground Elev: ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/25/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2

7/10/13

0.0 - 0.8 ft ASPHALT PAVEMENT AR 1 ASPHALT PAVEMENT and brown gravelly SAND, clayey, moist, medium plasticity.

0.8 - 7.0 ft Brown gravelly SAND, clayey

AR 2 Brown gravelly SAND, clayey, moist, medium plasticity. and yellow brown gravelly CLAY, moist, medium plasticity.

7.0 - 8.0 ft Yellow brown gravelly CLAY

8.0 - 9.5 ft Brown gravelly SAND, clayey

SPT 1 Rec. 0.67 ft of brown gravelly SAND, clayey, moist, medium dense, medium plasticity. (gravel stuck in SPT shoe).

BHT at 3.0 ft

AR

AR

SPT

0.8

9.5

0.67 45%

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 206+00, 5.2 ft LT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-212

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/25/15

Ground Elev: ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/25/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2

6/12/11

0.0 - 5.5 ft Brown gravelly SAND, clayey AR 1 Brown gravelly SAND, clayey, moist, medium plasticity.

AR 2 Brown gravelly SAND, clayey, moist, medium plasticity, COBBLES and yellow brown clayey SAND, moist, medium plasticity.

5.5 - 7.0 ft COBBLES

7.0 - 8.5 ft Yellow brown clayey SAND

SPT 1 Rec. 1.2 ft of yellow brown clayey SAND, medium dense, moist, medium plasticity.

BHT at 8.5 ft

AR

AR

SPT

5.5

8.5

1.20

80%SC

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 220+00, 18 ft LT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-213

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/25/15

Ground Elev: ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/25/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2

3/4/3

0.0 - 1.0 ft Brown gravelly SAND, clayey AR 1 Brown gravelly SAND, clayey, moist, medium plasticity and brown clayey SAND, moist, medium plasticity and COBBLES.

1.0 - 4.0 ft Brown clayey SAND and COBBLES

AR 2 Brown brown clayey SAND, moist, medium plasticity, COBBLES and brown gravelly CLAY, moist, medium plasticity.

4.0 - 9.5 ft Brown gravelly CLAY

SPT 1 Rec. 0.75 ft of brown gravelly CLAY, moist. medium stiff, medium plasticity.

BHT at 9.5 ft

AR

AR

SPT

9.5

0.75 50%

Description: (Density, Color, Type, Moisture, Other)

R un

/S am p N

o. Length Recov.

feet

% Rec.

Sheet 1 of 1Date: March 2015Project Name: UT FLAP 149, Dinosaur Access Road

Boring Location: STA 230+00, 16.6 ft LT

Coordinates:

Drill: SIMCO 9100

Field Logged By: C. Martinez

Revisions/Final By: C. Martinez

Depth

(feet)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

BORING LOG

Driller: D.A. Smith G ra ph ic L og

RQD

SPT

Blows per 6 in

Boring No. B-214

Type of Boring: Auger

Casing Used: HSA

Boring Began: 2/25/15

Ground Elev: ft

Water Depth:

Date:

Time:

Size: 4" I.D.

Completed: 2/25/15

Weather: Sunny, cold

U .S

.C .S

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

U T

F

LA

P

.G

P J

S W

IF

T

T R

A

IL

.G P

J

/2

APPENDIX C – Photographs

APPENDIX C – Photographs

Typical Roadway Cross Section

Typical Pavement Condition

Typical Pavement Cracking

Typical Pavement Cracking

Typical Subgrade Material Segment 1

Typical Subgrade Material Segment 2

Typical Coring Operations

Typical Boring(s) and Auger Attachment

APPENDIX D – DARWin Pavement Design

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare Computer Software Product

Flexible Structural Design Module

FDR and overlay, STA 10 to 169, Segment 1 Average R-value = 12

Mr = 3826

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 559,428 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 75 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 3,826 psi Stage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 3.72 in

Rigorous ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 20 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 806 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 50 %

Vehicle Class

Percent of

ADT

Annual

Growth

Average Initial Truck Factor

(ESALs/ Truck)

Annual % Growth in

Truck Factor

Accumulated 18-kip ESALs over Performance Period

2 68 1.54 0.0004 0 918 5 18 1.54 0.52 0 315,863 9 14 1.54 0.52 0 245,672

Total 100 - - - 562,453

Growth Simple

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 562,453

Specified Layer Design

Layer

Material Description

Struct Coef.

(Ai)

Drain Coef.

(Mi)

Thickness (Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in)

1 HACP 0.44 1 3.5 - 1.54

2 Pulverized Base 0.12 1 6 - 0.72 3 Existing Borrow 0.08 0.8 24 - 1.54

Total - - - 33.50 - 3.80

FDR and overlay, STA 169 to 231, Segment 2 Average R-value = 28

Mr = 6576

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 217,717 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 75 % Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 6,576 psi

Calculated Design Structural Number 2.58 in

Simple ESAL Calculation

Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 500 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 % Percent Trucks in Design Direction 50 % Percent Heavy Trucks (of ADT) FHWA Class 5 or Greater 20 % Average Initial Truck Factor (ESALs/truck) 0.52 Annual Truck Factor Growth Rate 0 % Annual Truck Volume Growth Rate 1.54 %

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 217,717

Coef.

(Ai)

Drain

1 HACP 0.44 1 3.5 - 1.54

2 FDR 0.12 1 9 - 1.08

Total - - - 12.50 - 2.62

APPENDIX E – PG LTPPBIND Software

UT FLAP 149(1) BindReport-5Closest

Five Closest Weather Stations For Latitude/Longitude= 40.384/109.323 Report Date: 11/25/2014 (LTPPBind V3.0 Alpha)

UT FLAP 149(1) SR 149 Widening - LTPP 5 closest weather stations

General A=3 km B=6 km C=18 km D=34 km E=36 km Station ID UT4342 UT2173 UT9111 CO2286 UT5268 County/District uintah uintah uintah moffat uintah Weather Station jensen dinosaur quarry vernal municipa dinosaur natl m maeser 9 nw Elevation, m 1345 1351 1490 1677 1824 Latitude, Longitude 40.37 ,109.35 40.43 ,109.3 40.45 ,109.52 40.23 ,108.97 40.57 ,109.67 Last Year Data Available 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997

Air Temperature Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) Mean ( Std, N ) High Temperature 35.4 (11,35) 37.5 (13,34) 34.7 (12,35) 35.2 (15,32) 31.5 (16,14) Low Temperature -29.5 (48,35) -28.1 (50,34) -26.3 (45,35) -24.8 (41,32) -25 (50,14) Low Temperature Drop 28 (18,35) 27.4 (23,34) 25.6 (25,35) 25 (19,32) 23.8 (32,14) Degree-Days > 10C 3142 (212,35) 3419 (228,34) 2995 (205,35) 2988 (258,32) 2469 (176,14)

PG High Low Rel. High Low Rel. High Low Rel. High Low Rel. High Low Rel.

Pavement Temperature, C 57.7 -20.6 59.8 -19.6 56.5 -18.3 56.5 -17.1 51.9 -17.4 50% Reliability PG 58-22 (60,64) 64-22 (98,72) 58-22 (88,83) 58-22 (90,91) 52-22 (54,86) >50% Reliability PG 64-22 (98,64) 64-28 (98,97) 58-28 (88,98) 64-22 (98,91) 58-22 (98,86) = 64-28 (98,96) 64-34 (98,98) 64-28 (98,98) 64-28 (98,98) 58-28 (98,98) = 64-34 (98,98)

APPENDIX F – Weather Data Information

The Authority in Expert Weather

Universal Time: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 23:48

Historic Average Home » Local » Historic Averages

Monthly Averages & Records - °F | °C

Daily Averages & Records - °F | °C

Jensen, Utah Weather Report · Interactive Map · Extended Forecast · Hourly Forecast · Past Observations · Historic Averages

Date Average Low

Average High

Record Low

Record High

Average Precipitation

Average Snow

January 4° 30° -36° (1984) 58° (2002) 0.54" NA

February 11° 38° -40° (1989) 67° (1986) 0.53" NA

March 23° 53° -17° (1962) 82° (2004) 0.68" NA

April 31° 64° 8° (1970) 87° (1992) 0.82" NA

May 40° 74° 18° (1972) 100° (2002) 0.92" NA

June 47° 85° 25° (1954) 106° (1994) 0.53" NA

July 53° 91° 38° (1993) 105° (2002) 0.68" NA

August 51° 89° 27° (1975) 102° (1979) 0.62" NA

September 42° 79° 17° (1965) 100° (1954) 0.93" NA

October 31° 66° 0° (1971) 87° (2001) 1.14" NA

November 20° 47° -12° (1975) 74° (1999) 0.59" NA

December 8° 34° -36° (1990) 60° (1995) 0.46" NA

Date Average Low

Average High

Record Low

Record High

Average Precipitation

Average Snow

Apr 1 28° 60° 8° (1970) 77° (2004) 0.02" NA

Apr 2 28° 60° 12° (1971) 77° (1959) 0.02" NA

Apr 3 28° 61° 15° (1970) 80° (1961) 0.02" NA

Apr 4 28° 61° 10° (1970) 80° (1959) 0.02" NA

Apr 5 29° 61° 14° (1982) 82° (1959) 0.02" NA

Apr 6 29° 61° 14° (1971) 82° (1959) 0.02" NA

Apr 7 29° 62° 14° (1983) 80° (1988) 0.02" NA

Apr 8 29° 62° 10° (1973) 79° (1977) 0.02" NA

Apr 9 29° 62° 12° (1982) 82° (1996) 0.03" NA

Apr 10 30° 63° 14° (1982) 81° (1996) 0.03" NA

Apr 11 30° 63° 14° (1951) 77° (1985) 0.03" NA

Apr 12 30° 63° 13° (1997) 79° (1988) 0.03" NA

Apr 13 30° 64° 13° (1997) 82° (1988) 0.03" NA

Apr 14 30° 64° 16° (1968) 82° (1962) 0.03" NA

Apr 15 31° 64° 16° (1961) 82° (1962) 0.03" NA

Apr 16 31° 65° 14° (1959) 81° (1962) 0.03" NA

Apr 17 31° 65° 15° (1960) 82° (1962) 0.03" NA

Apr 18 31° 65° 20° (1978) 83° (1994) 0.03" NA

Apr 19 32° 65° 20° (1963) 83° (1962) 0.03" NA

Apr 20 32° 66° 16° (1958) 85° (1989) 0.03" NA

Apr 21 32° 66° 14° (1958) 85° (1989) 0.03" NA

Apr 22 33° 66° 12° (1958) 83° (1950) 0.03" NA

Apr 23 33° 67° 18° (1968) 85° (1949) 0.03" NA

Apr 24 33° 67° 18° (1970) 87° (1949) 0.03" NA

Apr 25 34° 67° 19° (1958) 82° (1981) 0.03" NA

Apr 26 34° 68° 19° (1958) 84° (1953) 0.03" NA

Apr 27 34° 68° 19° (1966) 85° (1992) 0.03" NA

Apr 28 35° 68° 18° (1955) 85° (2000) 0.03" NA

Apr 29 35° 69° 18° (1996) 87° (1992) 0.03" NA

Apr 30 35° 69° 20° (1962) 87° (1992) 0.03" NA

Advertisements National News

Advertise with Us Contact Us Account Help NewsAbout Us Ad Choices

Privacy Statement © 2015 Partnered with Terms of Use Weather Underground Version 4.6.201311.1

Enter City, State, Country or U.S. Zip code

Profile Alerts Hurricanes Help iNav

Jensen, Utah

Local Interactive National Global Storms Health Travel Forecast Current Radar Satellite

Page 1 of 1Intellicast - Jensen Historic Weather Averages in Utah (84035)

4/16/2015http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USUT0123

APPENDIX G – Preliminary Pavements Memo and Life-Cycle Cost Memo

Depth (in.)

Borrow

Depth (in.)

Subgrade

R‐

Value Class PI

Moist

Comments

0.0 B‐1 9 27 Moist Clay 3' to 5' 70 A‐1‐a 4 14.5 Test results on borrow/base material

0.0 C‐1 8.4 Core broke during drilling/removal

0.1 C‐8 9.6

Core broke during drilling/removal. May be thicker.

Mid layer showing signs of stripping.

0.5 B‐20 5.5 40 Moist clay 4' to 5' 59 A‐1‐b 4 16.4 Test results on borrow/base material

0.5 C‐7 3

Some material at bottom of core separated. May be thicker

0.6 B‐2 6.5 18

Wet clay 2' ‐ 3.5'. 3.5' to

5' drier gravelly soil 8 A‐6 (8) 15 Test results on clay sample

1.0 B‐19 5 40 Wet clay 4' to 5'. A‐6 (4) 11 15.7 Test results on clay sample

1.3 B‐3 4.2 26

Moist sandy clay 2.5' to

5' 14 A‐6 (4) 15

Test results on clay sample. Cobbles present at various depths.

1.3 C‐2 3.3

1.6 B‐18 5.5 35 Moist silty clay 3.5' to 5' A‐4 (1) 8

Test results on silty clay sample. Cobbles present in upper 3 feet.

1.6 C‐6 5.5

1.8 B‐4 4.5 30 Wet clay 3' to 5' 13 A‐6 (7) 14 Test results on clay sample.

2.2 B‐17 5.5 40 Drier clay 4' to 5' Not sampled

2.4 B‐5 10.2 35 Wet clay 4' to 5'. 13 A‐6 (4) 19 15.7

Test results on clay sample. A fatter, gray clay noted.

Gravel, 2‐inch minus material with silt/clay in the borrow material.

2.4 C‐3 6 Core broke during drilling/removal

2.8 B‐16 4.5 45 Wet clay 4.5' to 5' 53 A‐2‐4 4

Test results on borrow/base material. Borrow material is a sandy gravel with some 2" & 3" rounded gravel and some PI.

2.8 C‐5 4.5

3.0 B‐6 7 40 Moist clay 4.5' to 5'

Not sampled. Borrow is a sandy gravel material with

3" minus rounded gravel. Tough drilling.

Segment Break ~STA 169

3.3 B‐15 4.25 35

Moist, firm, clay 4.5' to

5' 20 A‐4 9

Test results on borrow/base material at 3.5' depth

(may have contained some clay subgrade material).

3.4 B‐7 9

Not sampled. A PCV irrigation line inside a CMP at 2 feet from surface of pavement. Similar gravelly sand borrow material in upper 2 feet as other holes.

3.5 B‐14 9.5 26

Moist, sandy gravel with some cobbles & PI A‐2‐4 4

Tests results from 3.5' depth and lower. In fill area;

no clay noted in 5' bore depth.

3.6 B‐8 7 40 Moist clay 4' to 5' 35 A‐2‐4 7

Test results on borrow material. Rounded cobbles present.

3.7 B‐13 6.5 50 n/a 19 A‐2‐4 9

Test results on sandy clay borrow material. Fill location.

3.8 B‐9 8.5 40 Drier, frim, clay 4' to 5' 21 A‐2‐4 10

Test results on sandy clay borrow material. Fill location.

3.9 B‐12 9.5 40 Moist clay, 4' to 5' 24 A‐2‐4 10 13.8

Test results on sandy clay borrow material with some of the clay subgrade, too.

4.0 B‐10 5.5 50 n/a 51 A‐2‐4 3

Test results on sandy clay borrow material. Some rounded cobbles present.

4.1 B‐11 9.5 50 n/a 27 A‐2‐4 5

Test results on sandy clay borrow material (relatively dry). 1" minus gravel present.

4.2 C‐4 10.8

Average 6.7 37.2 Ave. STA 169‐231 28

50th %tile 6.3 40.0 Ave. STA 10‐169 12

25th %tile 4.6 30.0 Ave. Borrow Seg 1 61

Seg 1, 25th 4.5 27 S1 (Segment 1) = 3.6364

Seg 2, 25th 6.5 38 S1 (Segment 2) = 5.1039

Seg 1, Ave 5.9 33.6 MR (Segment 1) = 3826

Seg 2, Ave 7.9 41.2 MR (Segment 2) = 6576

0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.8 2.8

Mile Post

Segment 1 Depths

Pavement Depth (in.)

Borrow Depth (in.)

3.0 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2

Mile Post

Segment 2 Depths

Pavement Depth (in.)

Borrow Depth (in.)

FDR and overlay, STA 10…