NM_FLAP_52000(1)_CSP15R25707_NM_Flap_SW_2nd_St_Geotech_Pavt_Final_Report.pdf

20150999/CSP14R04130 Page i of iv August 22, 2014

@ 2014 Kleinfelder

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

AND PAVEMENT DESIGN

NM FLAP 52000(1) 2nd St. SW CORRIDOR

IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONS

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

TASK ORDER NUMBER: DTFH68-12-D-00013/0055

KLEINFELDER PROJECT # 20160264.001A

MARCH 31, 2016

Copyright 2015 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved

ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC

PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED.

HLim Ming Signature

HLim Bill Signature

HLim JG Signature

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page ii of iii March 31, 2016

© 2015 Kleinfelder

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.3 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

2 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 GENERAL

2.2 EXPLORATIONS

Soil Borings

Laboratory Testing

3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 PAVEMENT

3.2 FILL AND NATIVE SOIL

3.3 GROUNDWATER

4 PAVEMENT DESIGN, PAVEMENT MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION

CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 PAVEMENT DESIGN

Subgrade Materials and Strength

Traffic Information

Design Sections

4.2 PAVEMENT MATERIALS

Asphalt Mix

Crushed Aggregate Base Course

Milling, Crack Sealing and Overlay

Tack and Prime Coat

4.3 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Subgrade Preparation

Excavation Characteristics

Structural Fill

Compaction Requirements

Construction in Wet or Cold Weather

Drainage

Pavement Maintenance

5 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

6 LIMITATIONS

REFERENCES

ABBREVIATIONS DEFINED

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page iii of iii March 31, 2016

TABLES

Table 2.1 Summary of Explorations

Table 2.2 Summary of Lab Testing Program

Table 4.1 Subgrade Materials Strength

Table 4.2 Traffic Data For Pavement Design

Table 4.3 Summary of Pavement Design Parameters

Table 4.4 Summary of Layer Coefficients

Table 4.5 Summary of Recommended Pavement Sections

Table 4.6 Imported Structural Fill Criteria

Table 4.7 Subgrade Preparation and Fill Placement Criteria

FIGURES

Figures 1 & 2 Exploration Location Plans And Vicinity Map

APPENDICES

A Boring Logs and DCP Results

B Laboratory Test Results

C Traffic Study/ DARWin Analyses

D Pavement Evaluations Photos

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 1 of 24 March 31, 2016

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

AND PAVEMENT DESIGN

NM FLAP 52000(1) 2nd St. SW CORRIDOR

IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONS

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

TASK ORDER NUMBER: DTFH68-12-D-00013/0055

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE

Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) was retained by HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) to perform a geotechnical exploration and pavement design for proposed improvements to 2nd Street

Southwest (2nd St. SW) Corridor in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The location of the project is shown on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. The purpose of this report is to present the results of our fieldwork, laboratory testing, and our conclusions and recommendations related to pavement thickness design and pavement construction. The information presented in this report will be used to support preparation of construction plans, specifications, and engineers estimate for the Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands

Highway Division (CFLHD). The Project is described in Section B, Project Summary, of the Scope of Work (SOW), NM FLAP 52000(1) 2nd St. SW Corridor Improvements and

Additions, prepared by HDR. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are subject to provisions outlined in Section 6, Limitations.

The objective of our services was to collect site-specific pavement and subgrade information to be used to characterize subsurface and groundwater conditions; and based on the results of field investigations, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis, and to provide pavement thickness recommendations.

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The scope of services performed for this project included the following:

• Gather information related to the project, including archived report/files, as-builts, scoping reports, and any other relevant information;

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 2 of 24 March 31, 2016

• Development of a final geotechnical field investigation plan described in Step 3, Geotechnical Investigations of Section G (Geotechnical) and Section I (Pavement) of the SOW;

• Subsurface field investigation preparation, coordination, and execution;

• Performing laboratory testing of soil samples, and;

• Preparation of this report summarizing our field investigation and pavement thickness design and construction recommendations.

1.3 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The proposed roadway improvement project is located on 2nd St. SW accessing the entrance to the Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge in Bernalillo County, Albuquerque, New Mexico. The proposed roadway improvement is approximately 2.2 miles in length, starting from Salida Sandia and extending northward to the approach of the bridge over

South Diversion Channel. The proposed roadway improvement project is divided into 2 segments as discussed below:

• Segment 1 is from Salida Sandia to Desert Road. This segment is classified as collector road with a projected traffic of 500 ADT in the design year of 2034. The proposed improvement consists of pulverize and reclaim the existing pavement and portion of the existing subgrade for use as a new base course. New asphaltic concrete pavement will be placed on the reclaimed base course. A new 10 foot wide paved trail will also be constructed.

• Segment 2 is from Desert Road to Mountain View Elementary School SW, ending at the approach to the bridge over South Diversion Channel. This segment is classified as minor arterial with a projected traffic of 12,800 in the year of 2034.

However, after requesting the traffic data from New Mexico Department of

Transportation (NMDOT) for the specific extent of this segment, the ADT in Year

2013 is 4,650. A growth rate of 5.6% per year is calculated based on the ADT in

2004 of 2,848. The proposed improvement in Segment 2 consists of milling and overlay the existing pavement, widening with new shoulders on both sides, construction of curb and gutter, sidewalk, and a 10 feet wide paved trail.

Additionally, the intersection at Desert Road and 2nd Street SW will be reconfigured to a “T” intersection.

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 3 of 24 March 31, 2016

The existing 2nd St. SW is a two‐lane, paved roadway in flat terrain. The existing shoulders are not paved. Segment 2 has right turn deceleration lanes approaching the existing side street accesses. The proposed improvements will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Standards of CFLHD, Bernalillo County and AASHTO

Highway Design Standards.

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 4 of 24 March 31, 2016

2 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 GENERAL

Field investigation including site reconnaissance and exploratory drilling was performed on May 18, 2015. This section provides a summary of the exploratory borings completed as part of this project. Approximate locations of the explorations are presented on Figures

1 and 2, Exploration Location Plan and Vicinity Map. Detailed logs of exploration are presented in Appendix A and results of geotechnical laboratory tests are presented in

Appendix B.

2.2 EXPLORATIONS

Soil Borings

A total of ten borings were advanced along the alignment of the proposed roadway improvement. Total of 8 borings (P-1 through P-8) were performed on the existing pavement with 4 borings in Segment 1 and 2, respectively. Total of 2 borings (B-1 and

B-2) were performed at the existing shoulder in areas where minor cut/fill is anticipated for the roadway widening and trail additions. Additionally, the existing subgrade soils in

Borings P-5 through P-8 where mill and overlay is planned, Dynamic Cone Penetration

(DCP) tests were performed to estimate the strength of the subgrade soils. A summary of the boring explorations is presented below in Table 2.1.

TABLE 2.1

SUMMARY OF EXPLORATIONS

Boring Approx.

Station1

Approx.

Latitude

(degrees N)2

Approx.

Longitude

(degrees W)2

Exploration Depth (ft)

Asphalt Thickness (inches)

Base Course Thickness (inches)

B-1 60+00 34.98492 106.66631 10.0 - -

B-2 80+75 34.99104 106.66493 10.0 - -

P-1 25+00 34.97533 106.66808 5.0 4.0 N/O3

P-2 40+00 34.97943 106.66738 5.0 5.5 N/O3

P-3 55+00 34.98348 106.66520 5.0 6.0 N/O3

P-4 70+00 34.98758 106.66579 5.0 6.5 N/O3

P-5 85+00 34.99167 106.66502 5.0 7.5 6.0

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 5 of 24 March 31, 2016

Boring Approx.

Station1

Approx.

Latitude

(degrees N)2

Approx.

Longitude

(degrees W)2

Exploration Depth (ft)

Asphalt Thickness (inches)

Base Course Thickness (inches)

P-6 100+00 34.99582 106.66424 5.0 9.0 N/O3

P-7 115+00 34.99981 106.66338 5.0 7.0 5.0

P-8 125+40 35.00318 106.66276 5.0 11.0 6.0

1. Based on stationing provided by HDR as shown on Figures 1 and 2.

2. Latitude/Longitude obtained by handheld GPS, and therefore locations are limited to the accuracy of the GPS unit (estimated to be on the order of 10-ft radius).

3. N/O =Not Observed in the boring.

Kleinfelder field staff logged the borings by visually identifying and field classifying soils in general accordance with ASTM International Standard D 2488 and the Unified Soil

Classification System (USCS). Upon completion of laboratory testing, soil classifications were further evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2487 and are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. A key to the boring logs is presented in Appendix A.

The exploratory borings were advanced with a truck-mounted CME-75 drill rig using a combination of hollow stem continuous flight augers. Bulk and/or grab disturbed soil samples were obtained from pavement borings. Modified California sampler (2.5-inch

O.D.) and a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split barrel sampler (2-inch O.D.) driven 18 inches (unless otherwise noted) into undisturbed material using a 30-inch drop of a 140-pound hammer (ASTM D1586) were conducted in all borings. The samples were packaged or stored in a bucket with lid, and sealed in the field to reduce moisture loss and disturbance, and sent for laboratory testing. Upon completion of drilling, borings were backfilled with auger cuttings and patched at the surface with materials similar to the existing ground surface.

Laboratory Testing

Laboratory testing was conducted on materials collected from the subsurface borings during the field investigation. Table 2.2 summarizes the number and type of tests performed. Laboratory results are presented in Appendix B. Select lab results are also shown on the boring logs in Appendix A.

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 6 of 24 March 31, 2016

TABLE 2.2

SUMMARY OF LAB TESTING PROGRAM

Test ASTM/AASHTO No. Number of Tests

Sieve Analysis Coarse and Fines

AASHTO T 27/

ASTM D 422

Atterberg Limits

AASHTO T 90/

ASTM D 4318

Moisture Content AASHTO T 255 12

Hveem/R-Value

AASTHO T 190/

ASTM D 2844

Modified Proctor

AASHTO T T180/

ASTM D 1557

The R-value test and modified Proctor were performed on the composite samples of the subsurface materials obtained from the borings. Composite 1 was prepared using the subgrade soils from Borings P-1 through P-4; Composite 2 was prepared using the subgrade soils from Borings P-5 through P-8; and Composite 3 was prepared using the subgrade soils from Borings P-1 through P-4, and mixed with broken asphaltic concrete sampled from the borings to represent the reclaimed asphalt. No R-value test was performed on Composite 2 samples, since the in-situ subgrade strengths were estimated from DCP.

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 7 of 24 March 31, 2016

3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The following briefly describes the subsurface conditions encountered during our exploration program. A more detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered along the alignment is presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

3.1 PAVEMENT

The existing pavements are comprised of asphaltic concrete. The existing asphaltic concrete pavement thickness ranges from 4 to 6-inches in Segment 1 and 7 to 9-inches in Segment 2. The asphalt sections were observed to be placed directly on subgrade material consisting of fill material or native soils, except in Borings P-5, P-7 and P-8, where approximately 5 to 6-inches of granular base was encountered below the asphaltic concrete pavement.

A pavement surface condition survey was conducted for the existing pavement within

Segment 2 in general accordance with procedures outlined in ASTM D6433-03 which requires approximately 10 percent of the project length be surveyed. The survey was conducted at three (3) randomly selected locations and are indicated on the Figure 2, Exploration Location Plan and Vicinity Map. Based on the survey results, a Pavement

Condition Index (PCI) was determined for each survey section. The existing pavement in

Segment 2 was observed to have a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ranging from 62 to

77, which indicates fair to satisfactory pavement condition.

During the field study, the types of distress observed on the existing pavement in

Segment 2 includes low to medium severity alligator cracking, longitudinal and transverse cracking, block cracking, and edge cracking.

3.2 FILL AND NATIVE SOIL

Fill materials comprised of sand was encountered below the pavement in Boring P-1, and at the surface in Boring B-2. Native soils were encountered below the fill materials in these borings, and below the pavement in the remaining pavement borings and from the

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 8 of 24 March 31, 2016 surface in Boring B-1. Majority of the native soils encountered in Segment 1 (including

Boring B-1 and B-2) comprised of sandy lean clay and sand with varying amounts of silt and clay. Majority of the native soils encountered in Segment 2 comprised of clay with varying amounts of sand and silt. Native soils were observed to be brown to tan in color and moist. Granular soils were observed to have an apparent relative density of loose to medium dense and fine grained soils were observed to be soft to firm in consistency.

3.3 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered during our exploration. Soil moisture levels and groundwater levels commonly vary over time depending upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation practices, land use and runoff conditions. The soil moisture and groundwater data in this report pertain only to the locations and times at which exploration was performed. They can be extrapolated to other locations and times only with caution. It should be noted that Kleinfelder has not performed a hydrologic study to assess the seasonal groundwater conditions.

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 9 of 24 March 31, 2016

4 PAVEMENT DESIGN, PAVEMENT MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION

CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 PAVEMENT DESIGN

A pavement section is a layered system designed to distribute concentrated traffic Ioads to the subgrade. The performance of a pavement structure is directly related to the physical properties of the subgrade soils, pavement materials and thicknesses, surface drainage, and traffic loading. For pavement design, parameters were chosen in general accordance with Chapter 11 of the FHWA Project Development and Design Manual, 2008

Edition (PDDM). Kleinfelder performed the flexible pavement design using the

AASHTOWare Program DARWin, which is based on the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. The following sections describe the parameters considered for our calculations and recommended pavement sections for the project.

Subgrade Materials and Strength

The proposed roadway improvement in each of the segment is presented below.

• Segment 1: Full depth reclamation including pulverizing the existing pavement section and mixing with the subgrade soils. The existing pavement thickness in this segment ranges from 4.5 to 6.5-inches. The existing pavement should be pulverized to an approximate depth of 7-inches to prepare the new base. The pulverized asphaltic concrete will be mixed with a portion of the subgrade, moisture conditioned and re-compacted as the new base layer for the new pavement sections.

• Segment 2: Roadway rehabilitation consisting of milling the existing asphaltic concrete surface to remove weathered and unsuitable material followed by overlay of new Asphalt Concrete Pavement (ACP) layer. The proposed rehabilitation thickness is milling maximum of 2-inches of existing pavement and overlay with minimum of 4-inches of ACP.

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 10 of 24 March 31, 2016

Based on the field exploration and laboratory test results, the strength of the subgrade soils were estimated based on the R-value test results and DCP testing. To evaluate of the strength of the reclaimed asphalt (pulverized pavement), composite subgrade soil samples prepared from Borings P-1 through P-4 were mixed with the existing asphaltic concrete pavement at a weight ratio of 70% asphalt and 30% subgrade mixture to represent the proposed new base prepared by the proposed pulverizing depth

(represents 4-inches of asphalt and 2-inches of subgrade). The R-values of the composite samples from Segment 1, and the existing subgrade in Segment 2 are presented in Table 4.1.

TABLE 4.1

SUBGRADE MATERIALS STRENGHTS

Segment ID Station Numbers Borings R- Value

1 (Reclaimed Asphalt) 10+00 to 85+00 P-1 through P-4 73

1 (Subgrade) 10+00 to 85+00 P-1 through P-4 57

2 (Subgrade) 85+00 to 125+00 P-5 through P-8 CBR=61 1 Based on DCP test results. Results of DCP are presented in Appendix A. Result from P-7 was extremely low and is considered anomalous and not used for analyses.

The Mr values were estimated using the correlation between resilient modulus (Mr) and other soil properties suggested by FHWA, and from Huang, 1993. From this correlation, the Mr value of the subgrade soils are presented below:

Recompacted Subgrade in Segment 1: 16,000 psi

Reclaimed asphalt mixed with subgrade in Segment 1: 27,800 psi

Existing Subgrade in Segment 2: 6,500 psi

Traffic Information

Based on traffic data provided by HDR, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for each segment of the project is presented below:

Segment 1, ADT 100 (2014) and ADT 500 (projected 2034), truck factor is unknown.

Segment 2, ADT of 3,600 to 8,200 (2014), and ADT of 12,800 (projected 2034), 30% trucks estimated.

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 11 of 24 March 31, 2016

Kleinfelder contacted New Mexico DOT for the available traffic data for the extent of this project. The traffic data along with the percentage of each class of the traffic are presented in Appendix A. Based on the traffic data provided by NMDOT, the traffic data used for the design are presented in Table 4.2.

TABLE 4.2

TRAFFIC DATA FOR PAVEMENT DESIGN

Segment ID Segment 1

(Mainline and shoulders)

Segment 2 (Mainline)

Segment 2 (Shoulders)

Station 10+00 to 85+00 85+00 to 125+00 85+00 to 125+00

Current ADT 100 49101 24052

Growth Rate (%) 8.4 5.0 5.0

Truck % (3 axles) 7.0% (estimated) 7.0% 3.0% (estimated)

Directional Distribution 60% 60% 60%

Lane Factor 100%

1 ADT in Year 2015, calculated based on 2013 ADT and growth rate

2 Assume half of the traffic on mainline

Using 18-kip Equivalent Single Axel Loads (ESAL) factors from the FHWA PDDM and the calculation method from Appendix D of the AASHTO 1993 guide, an average 20 year, 18-kip ESAL for Segment 1 and 2, were calculated and are presented in Table 4.3.

Design Sections

Recommended pavement sections presented below are based on field and laboratory test results for the subgrade soils encountered within the borings drilled for this study, the

AASHTO design criteria, and traffic data provided by HDR and NMDOT. If other traffic studies exist that indicate values that are significantly different, we should be contacted to review these recommendations. Tables 4.3 and 4.4 below present our design parameters and strength coefficients that are utilized in our pavement thickness calculations:

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 12 of 24 March 31, 2016

TABLE 4.3

SUMMARY OF PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS

Parameter Segment 1

(Mainline and shoulders)

Segment 2 (Mainline)

Segment 2 (Shoulders)

Design Life (yrs.) 20 20 20

18-kip ESAL 56,507 3,157,200 753,189

Reliability (%) 75 85 75

Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 0.49 0.49

Initial Serviceability Index 4.2 4.2 4.2

Terminal Serviceability Index 2.5 2.5 2.5

TABLE 4.4

SUMMARY OF LAYER COEFFICIENTS

Parameter Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 2 (Shoulder)

New ACP Structural Coefficient 0.44 0.44 .44

New ACP Drainage Coefficient 1.00 1.00 1.00

Crushed Aggregate Base Structural Coefficient

N/A 0.14 0.14

Pulverized/Reclaimed Asphalt Base Structural Coefficient

0.111 N/A N/A

Existing ACP Structural Coefficient

N/A 0.302 N/A

Existing Granular Base Structural Coefficient (Where

Presents) N/A 0.103 N/A

Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 16,000 psi 6,500 psi 6,500 psi N/A: Not Present 1 Based on a R-value of 73 2 Based on pavement surface condition evaluation, <10% low severity alligator cracking and/or <5% medium- and high-severity transverse cracking 3 Based on experience with similar materials, assumes similar to select borrow with R-value >55

The pavement design parameters were chosen in accordance with 2008 FHWA PDDM

Sections 11.2.1.1 and 11.2.1.2. Structural coefficients were chosen in accordance with

Exhibit 11.2-C in Section 11.2.1.4 of the 2008 FHWA PDDM, corresponding with values for Bid Item 401 Asphalt Concrete Pavement (ACP), 304 Full Depth Reclamation, and

413 Asphalt Pavement Milling.

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 13 of 24 March 31, 2016

Based on the chosen design parameters and strength coefficients, and the minimum pavement sections, the pavement sections presented in Table 4.5 are recommended.

Considering the impact of the pavement thickness to the grading of the roadway, two pavement thickness recommendations are provided in Segment 2, including a full depth asphaltic concrete pavement, and an asphaltic concrete over aggregate base composite pavement.

TABLE 4.5

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS

Segment Recommended Pavement Section

(Mainline & Shoulder)

3” ACP

6” Pulverized/Reclaimed Base

2 (Mainline) 10” ACP

8” ACP

6” ABC

2 (Shoulder) 7.5” ACP

5.5” ACP

6” ABC

Based on the pavement thickness design, the proposed milling of 2-inches and overlay with 4-inches of new ACP in Segment 2 would not satisfy a design life of 20 years. It is estimated that the proposed mill/overlay pavement will have a design life of approximately 8.5 years. In order to achieve a design life of 20 years, it is recommended to remove and reconstruct the pavement with the thickness presented in Table 4.5.

Alternatively, the proposed mill/overlay thickness can be performed with a further evaluation and/or rehabilitation be planned in 5 to 10 years after the pavement is rehabilitated. It is also our understanding that the County has selected to perform the proposed mill and overlay thickness with a shorter estimated pavement life.

4.2 PAVEMENT MATERIALS

Asphalt Mix

An ACP Superpave design mix, or a State Department of Transportation asphalt concrete pavement mixture as specified in Section 401 of the FP-14, Standard Specifications for

Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-14), is

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 14 of 24 March 31, 2016 recommended. Based on the LTTPBIND published for FHWA, PG70-28 is recommended to be used as asphalt binder for the pavement. Alternatively, PG70-22 is acceptable.

Crushed Aggregate Base Course

Untreated aggregate base course in accordance with Section 301 of the FP-14, is recommended with a maximum size of 1-inch. Crushed aggregate base course should be uniformly graded, and free of organic matter, lumps or balls of clay, and other deleterious materials. The maximum dry density of the ABC should be determined according to AASHTO T 180, method D. ABC should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum density and within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content, and should be spread in layers not exceeding 6-inches in compacted thickness. The new ABC should have a Hveem R-Value of at least 80.

Milling, Crack Sealing and Overlay

Mill and overlay may be performed on the existing pavement. Milling of the existing pavement should be performed in accordance with Section 413 of FP-14, Asphalt

Pavement Milling. After milling, repairing of deteriorated areas to include crack sealing should be performed prior to overlay. The crack sealing should be performed in accordance with Section 414 of FP-14, Asphalt Pavement Crack and Joint Sealing.

Construction of an Asphaltic Concrete (AC) overlay of the existing pavement consists of the following tasks:

1. Repairing deteriorated areas including crack sealing;

2. Correcting surface rutting by milling or placing a leveling course;

3. Constructing widening;

4. Applying a tack coat; and

5. Placing Asphaltic Concrete overlay.

Guidelines outlined in Chapter 5 “Rehabilitation Methods with Overlays” of the AASHTO

Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (1993), and FP-14 should be followed for mill and overlay.

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 15 of 24 March 31, 2016

Tack and Prime Coat

Prime coat should also be applied to prepare the ABC or properly prepared subgrade at a rate as specified in Section 411 of FP-14. Application should take place when it is not foggy or rainy and when air temperature in the shade is above 50 degrees F and rising.

Allow tacked surfaces to cure for at least 24 hours before placing the covering course.

Per Section 412 of the FHWA FP-14, a tack coat should be applied if the ACP is applied in more than one lift, at a rate of 0.03 to 0.15 gal/yd2 between each lift of HACP. Prior to application, prepare the existing surface by removing deleterious substances and ensure that the surface is dry and unfrozen, and that the air temperature in the shade is above

35 degrees F and rising. Allow tacked surfaces to cure and place the covering course within 4 hours of placing tack coat. Emulsified asphalt specified in subsection 702.02 of

FP-14 should be used.

4.3 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Unless other Federal or local agency requirements or specifications apply or are specifically incorporated into the project, roadway construction should be performed per the FHWA Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal

Highway Projects (FP-14). The following sections provide recommendations associated with design and performance of the proposed pavement section as provided herein.

Subgrade Preparation

Any obvious unsuitable materials present (e.g. debris, organic materials, waste) larger than 6 inches should be completely removed from the top 6 inches of subgrade. Remove the stripped materials for offsite disposal in accordance with Section 204.14 of FP-14.

Prior to placement of new embankment fill or pavement sections, processing of the subgrade should be performed per Section 303 of FP-14. Per subsection 204.10 of FP-

14, the subgrade should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6-inches, and surface irregularities removed. The subgrade surface should be moisture conditioned to the

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 16 of 24 March 31, 2016 moisture content shown in Table 7-6, and compacted to a minimum 95% (AASHTO T 180 or T 99, see Section 204.11 of FP-14) of the laboratory maximum dry density for pavement subgrade and existing base course.

The construction of the shoulder subgrade will encounter clay soils especially in Segment

2. If the construction is performed during wet seasons, soft and unstable subgrade soils should be anticipated. Undercutting the soft surficial soils, replacement with structural fill materials or scarifying, moisture conditioning and compacting of the subgrade soils should be anticipated. Alternatively, soil stabilization with lime or cement can also be performed. The modifications to the subgrade soils can impact the budget of the project significantly and should be taken into consideration.

Prior to placing the pavement section including aggregate base course, the pavement subgrade should be proof-rolled with compression-type rollers at speeds less than 6 feet per second and vibratory rollers at speeds less than 3 feet per second. Areas that pump or deform significantly under heavy wheel loads are not stable and should be removed and replaced to achieve a stable subgrade prior to paving. Care should be taken to ensure areas around manholes or other utility protrusions are proof-rolled adequately.

Any soft and/or wet areas exposed during the excavation process may need to be stabilized prior to placement of new fill and pavement sections to create a stable and firm construction platform per Section 204.07 of FP-14. The method and extent of stabilization will depend on the actual conditions encountered, and the more appropriate method of stabilization will likely be best determined in the field at the time of excavation, by

Kleinfelder representatives. Typical stabilization methods may include rock stabilization utilizing geo-grid such as Tensar TX140 or TX160, and Aggregate Base Course (or similar) to form a stable base on which to place the pavement section. Installation typically includes placement of the geo-grid directly on subgrade with on the order of 12 to 18-inches of ABC above the grid. Rock aggregate size and depth of mitigation will vary

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 17 of 24 March 31, 2016 depending on actual conditions encountered and would require adjustment during construction

Excavation Characteristics

Excavation into the overburden soil material can likely be accomplished utilizing conventional standard duty earth moving equipment.

Groundwater was not encountered in our borings during this investigation. Localized groundwater seepage may be encountered at random locations and elevations within the soils and is subject to seasonal precipitation events. Therefore, where operations encounter perched water or surface water construction dewatering may be required.

Utilizing appropriate construction dewatering equipment/systems, such as well points, sumps, and trenches, will be the responsibility of the trenching contractor. A dewatering expert should be retained as appropriate. In addition, trenching into wet and/or saturated overburden soils will require temporary shoring, where the construction of safe slopes is not feasible.

All excavations must comply with the Section 204 of FP-14 and any applicable Local, State and Federal safety regulations, and particularly with the excavation standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Construction site safety, including excavation safety, is the sole responsibility of the Contractor as part of its overall responsibility for the means, methods and sequencing of construction operations.

Kleinfelder’s recommendations for excavation support are intended for the Client’s use in planning the project, and in no way relieve the Contractor of its responsibility to construct, support and maintain safe slopes. Under no circumstances should the following recommendations be interpreted to mean that Kleinfelder is assuming responsibility for either construction site safety or the Contractor’s activities.

We believe that the near-surface soils on this site will classify as Type C materials using

OSHA criteria. OSHA requires that unsupported cuts be laid back to ratios no steeper than

1½H:1V (horizontal to vertical) up to 20-feet in height. In general, we believe that these slope inclinations will be temporarily stable under unsaturated conditions. Where groundwater seepage occurs, flatter slopes will be appropriate. Please note that the actual

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 18 of 24 March 31, 2016 determination of soil type and allowable sloping must be made in the field by the

Contractor’s OSHA-qualified “competent person.”

Structural Fill

Structural fill refers to material that is appropriate for placement beneath structure components, embankment fill, and pavement subgrade. Based on the results of our subsurface explorations and laboratory testing, the on-site granular soils are appropriate for this use provided any particles greater than 3-inches are removed. If imported fill is required to meet proposed site grades, it should consist of a non-expansive, mainly granular material meeting the requirements presented in Table 4.6, per Section 704.04 of

FP-14.

A sample of any proposed imported structural fill should be submitted to our office for review and testing at least 3 days prior to stockpiling at the site. The native subgrade to receive structural fill should be prepared in accordance with Section 5.3.1.

TABLE 4.6

IMPORTED STRUCTURAL FILL CRITERIA

Gradation Requirements

Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing

3 inch 100

No. 200 15 or less

Plasticity Requirements (Atterberg Limits)

Plasticity Index 6 or less

A representative of Kleinfelder should perform testing and observation of the subgrade structural fill placement.

Compaction Requirements

Soil and aggregate materials should be placed on a horizontal plane and placed in loose lifts not to exceed 6-inches in compacted thickness, unless otherwise accepted by the

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 19 of 24 March 31, 2016 geotechnical engineer. Materials should be moisture-conditioned and compacted according to following criteria.

TABLE 4.7

SUBGRADE PREPARATION AND FILL PLACEMENT CRITERIA

Fill Location Material Type Percent

Compaction

(AASHTO T 180)

Moisture Content

Pavement Subgrade/Structural Fill

On-site soils/ Imported Structural

Fill 95 minimum

± 2 % of optimum

Aggregate Base Course

(ABC)

Crushed Aggregate Base Course

(See Section 4.2.2) 95 minimum

± 2 % of optimum

Construction in Wet or Cold Weather

During construction, grade the site such that surface water can drain readily away from the site area. Promptly pump out or otherwise remove any water that may accumulate in excavations or on subgrade surfaces, and allow these areas to dry before resuming construction. Berms, ditches and similar means may be used to prevent stormwater from entering the work area and to convey any water off site efficiently.

If earthwork is performed during the winter months when freezing is a factor, no grading fill, structural fill or other fill should be placed on frosted or frozen ground, nor should frozen material be placed as fill. Frozen ground should be allowed to thaw or be completely removed prior to placement of fill. A good practice is to cover the compacted fill with a “blanket” of loose fill to help prevent the compacted fill from freezing.

If construction is initiated during cold weather, concrete elements should not be constructed on frozen soil. Frozen soil should be completely removed from beneath the concrete elements, or thawed, scarified and recompacted. The amount of time passing between excavation or subgrade preparation and placing concrete should be minimized during freezing conditions to prevent the prepared soils from freezing. Blankets, soil cover or heating as required may be utilized to prevent the subgrade from freezing.

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 20 of 24 March 31, 2016

Drainage

Proper drainage is of paramount importance in enhancing pavement performance. To avoid distress to pavement from wet, soft subgrade soils, we recommend the maintenance of good drainage away from all pavements. Possible water sources include storm runoff, irrigation of landscaping adjacent the pavement and localized groundwater seepage, among others. Joints in the pavement or at asphalt/concrete interfaces should be sealed. Any cracks or openings in the finished pavement surface should be sealed and/or repaired as quickly as possible.

Pavement Maintenance

Annual maintenance generally refers to crack filling and general surface sealers. We recommend implementation of an at least annual if not more frequent pavement crack sealing program. This is very important to prevent surface water from entering cracks and wetting the subgrade. Due to temperature fluctuations significant separations can also occur at interfaces between the asphalt pavement concrete elements, and other features. These areas generally result in a high rate of premature distress and failure that can propagate well beyond the original problem area. Any cracks or openings in the finished pavement surface should be sealed and/or repaired as quickly as possible.

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 21 of 24 March 31, 2016

5 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

Additional Kleinfelder services are not anticipated for this project beyond preparation of this report. However, the following services are highlighted as they are critical to ensuring proper implementation of the recommendations provided through communication to designer and contractor, and verifying construction compliance with project plans and specifications.

• Review of plans and specifications to verify recommendations provided herein were properly incorporated into plans and specs.

• Pre-bid and pre-construction meetings to clarify recommendations and clear up any conflicts, misunderstandings, or ambiguities between the recommendations provided herein and the final plans and specs.

• The recommendations in this report depend on the assumption that an adequate program of testing and observation will be made during construction to verify compliance with our recommendations. These tests and observations may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

• Observations and density testing during site preparation and earthwork;

• Observation and testing of subgrade preparation, placement of Aggregate

Base Course and Hot Mix Asphalt Materials; and

• Consultation as may be required during construction.

Adequate testing and observation is essential to successful and economical completion of a construction project. Testing and observation allow for verification that the recommendations are being followed. They also make it possible to identify new or changed conditions that could require modification of recommendations.

We understand the services above will be performed by HDR and/or CFLHD. Kleinfelder is happy to provide these services or assistance in support of these services as necessary.

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 22 of 24 March 31, 2016

6 LIMITATIONS

This work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of Kleinfelders’ profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at the date the services are provided. Our conclusions, opinions, and recommendations are based on a limited number of observations and data.

It is possible that conditions could vary between or beyond the data evaluated. Kleinfelder makes no other representation, guarantee, or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided.

This report may be used only by the Client and the registered design professional in responsible charge and only for the purposes stated for this specific engagement within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than two (2) years from the date of the report.

The work performed was based on project information provided by Client. If Client does not retain Kleinfelder to review any plans and specifications, including any revisions or modifications to the plans and specifications, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for the suitability of our recommendations. In addition, if there are any changes in the field to the plans and specifications, Client must obtain written approval from Kleinfelders’ engineer that such changes do not affect our recommendations. Failure to do so will vitiate Kleinfelders’ recommendations.

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 23 of 24 March 31, 2016

REFERENCES

AASHTO (1993). Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials

ASTM International. (2009) Annual Book of ASTM Standards.

Federal Highway Administration (2008). Federal Lands Highway - Project Development and Design Manual, Chapter 11: Pavements. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Lands Highway.

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

Van Til, C.J., McCullough, B.F., Vallerga, B.A., and Hicks, R.G. (1972). Evaluation of

AASHO Interim Guides for the Design of Pavement Structures. NCHRP Report 128.

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 Page 24 of 24 March 31, 2016

ABBREVIATIONS DEFINED

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ABC Aggregate Base Course

ASTM ASTM International

CFLHD Central Federal Lands Highway Division

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FP-14 2014 FHWA Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects

HACP Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement

H:V Horizontal to Vertical

PDDM FHWA Project Development and Design Manual

PM Post Mile

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

20160264.001A/CSP15R25707 March 31, 2016

FIGURES

The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document.

The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

C A

D

F

I L E c s p r i n g s k l e i n f e l d e r c o m

C

S P

R I N

G S

D

A T

A W

O R

K I N

G A

N

M

F

L A

P

S

W n d

S t r e e t

T e c h

I n f o

T e c h

C

A D

D

F i g u r e s C

A D

D G

O d w g

L

Y O

U T

F

I G

U R

E

P L O

T T

E D

P

M

B

Y j a m e s m a s i

DRAWN BY

DATE:

PROJECT NO.

CHECKED BY

REVISED:

FIGURE

EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN

AND VICINITY MAP

NM FLAP 52000 (1) 2ND ST. SW. CORRIDOR

IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONS

ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

20160264

PAF

JTM

07/15/2015

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

N

NOTES:

1. BASE MAP IMAGE CREATED FROM DATA COMPILED BY USGS,

IMAGE CAPTURED 7-15-15.

2. VICINITY MAP CREATED FROM DATA COMPILED BY USGS.

LEGEND

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

SCALE IN FEET

600 1200

SCALE: 1" = 600'

SITE

I-25

B

N

S

R

B-2

READING DR SE

S A

L I D

A

S

A N

D

W

B

R

O

A

D

W

V

C O

S

E

P-1

P-3

P-4

L A

G U

N I T

N

B-1

H

I S

T

O

R

U

I-40

KIRTLAND

AIR FORCE

BASE

ALBUQUERQUE

R

G

A

N

D

E

R

E

D

E

S

E

R

T

P-2

The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document.

The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

C A

D

F

I L c s p r i n g s k l e i n f e l d e r c o m

C

S P

R I N

G S

D

A T

A W

O R

K I N

G A

N

M

F

L A

P

S

W n d

S t r e e t

T e c h

I n f o

T e c h

D

D

F i g u r e s C

A D

D G d w g

Y O

U

G

U R

E

P L O

T T

E

P

M j a m e s m a s i

DRAWN BY

DATE:

PROJECT NO.

CHECKED BY

REVISED:

FIGURE

EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN

AND VICINITY MAP

NM FLAP 52000 (1) 2ND ST. SW. CORRIDOR

IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONS

ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

20160264

PAF

JTM

07/15/2015

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

N

NOTES:

1. BASE MAP IMAGE CREATED FROM DATA COMPILED BY USGS,

IMAGE CAPTURED 7-15-15.

2. VICINITY MAP CREATED FROM DATA COMPILED BY USGS.

LEGEND

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

SCALE IN FEET

600 1200

SCALE: 1" = 600'

S

D

I V

E

R

S

I

N

N

T

I J E

R

N

N

S

O

U

H

V

E

R

S

I

N

N

R

E

B

N

I

N

D

U

S

T

B

R

O

A

D

W

P-5

P-6

P-8

SITE

I-25

H

I S

T

O

R

U

I-40

KIRTLAND

AIR FORCE

BASE

ALBUQUERQUE

R

A

N

D

E

P-7

D E

S E

S

E

S H

I R

K

L

N

S

W

APPROXIMATE PAVEMENT

EVALUATION SECTION AREA

P E

P E

P E

APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS

FIGURE

A-1NM FLAP (52000)1 2nd Street SW Corridor Improvements and Additions Albuquerque, New Mexico

The report and graphics key are an integral part of these logs. All data and interpretations in this log are subject to the explanations and limitations stated in the report.

Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual or differ from those shown.

No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil or rock conditions between individual sample locations.

Logs represent general soil or rock conditions observed at the point of exploration on the date indicated.

In general, Unified Soil Classification System designations presented on the logs were based on visual classification in the field and were modified where appropriate based on gradation and index property testing.

Fine grained soils that plot within the hatched area on the Plasticity Chart, and coarse grained soils with between 5% and 12% passing the No. 200 sieve require dual USCS symbols, ie., GW-GM, GP-GM, GW-GC, GP-GC, GC-GM, SW-SM, SP-SM, SW-SC, SP-SC, SC-SM.

If sampler is not able to be driven at least 6 inches then 50/X indicates number of blows required to drive the identified sampler X inches with a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches.

SILTY SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL-SILT

MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL-CLAY

MIXTURES

SW-SM

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-SILT-CLAY

MIXTURES

CL

CL-ML

SANDS

WITH

5% TO

12%

FINES

SANDS

WITH >

12%

FINES

S A

N D

S

M or e th an h al f o f c oa rs e fr ac tio n is s m al le r th an th e

#4 s ie ve

WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL

MIXTURES WITH LITTLE FINES

Cu 4 and/ or 1 Cc 3>

CLEAN

GRAVEL

WITH

<5%

FINES

GRAVELS

WITH

5% TO

12%

FINES

OL

CH

CLAYEY GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES

GRAVELS

WITH >

12%

FINES

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER

(2 or 2-1/2 in. (50.8 or 63.5 mm.) outer diameter)

STANDARD PENETRATION SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER

(2 in. (50.8 mm.) outer diameter and 1-3/8 in. (34.9 mm.) inner diameter)

GM

GC

GW

GP

GW-GM

GW-GC

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

GRAPHICS KEY

SAMPLE/SAMPLER TYPE GRAPHICS

CLEAN

SANDS

WITH

<5%

FINES

G R

A V

E L

S

M or e th an h al f o f c oa rs e fr ac tio n is la rg er th an th e

#4 s ie ve

Cu 6 and/ or 1 Cc 3

Cu 6 and/ or 1 Cc 3

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3

SC-SM

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3

ORGANIC SILTS & ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS

OF LOW PLASTICITY

SILTS AND CLAYS

(Liquid Limit less than 50)

SILTS AND CLAYS

(Liquid Limit greater than 50)

WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL

MIXTURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED SANDS,

SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE OR NO FINES

MH

OH

ML

GC-GM

C O

A R

S E

G R

A

IN

E D

S O

IL

S

M or e th an h al f o f m at er ia l i s la rg er th an th e

#2 s ie ve

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3

GP-GM

GP-GC

SP

SP-SM

SP-SC

SM

SC

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE OR NO FINES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE FINES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE CLAY FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE CLAY FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SILT-SAND

MIXTURES

CLAYEY GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY-SILT MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL

MIXTURES WITH LITTLE CLAY FINES

POORLY GRADED SANDS,

SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE CLAY FINES

SW

SW-SC

POORLY GRADED SANDS,

SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE FINES

Cu 4 and/ or 1 Cc 3>

F

IN

E G

R A

IN

E

D S

O

IL

S (M or e th an h al f o f m at er ia l is s m al le r th an th e

#2 s ie ve

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, SILTY OR

CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

ORGANIC CLAYS & ORGANIC SILTS OF

MEDIUM-TO-HIGH PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,

FAT CLAYS

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILT

INORGANIC CLAYS-SILTS OF LOW PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

GROUND WATER GRAPHICS

OBSERVED SEEPAGE

WATER LEVEL (level after exploration completion)

WATER LEVEL (level where first observed)

WATER LEVEL (additional levels after exploration)

NOTES

DRAWN BY: MAP

CHECKED BY: JTM

DATE: 6/29/2015

REVISED: -

P

LO

T T

E D

/2 1/

:0

P

M B

Y

M P al m er

PROJECT NO.: 20160264

gI N

T F

IL

E

P

R O

JE

C

T W

IS

E

: 2

.0

1-nm F la p

S w nd

S t_ gi nt

T o

P w

.g pj gI N

T T

E M

P

LA

T E

P

R O

JE

C

T W

IS

E

: K

LF

S

T A

N D

A R

D _G

IN

T

_L

IB

R A

R Y

_2

5.

LB

[G

O -L

E G

E N

D

G

R A

P H

IC

S

K E

Y

W

IT

H U

S C

(# blows/ft) (# blows/ft)

FIGURE

(# blows/ft)

A-2NM FLAP (52000)1 2nd Street SW Corridor Improvements and Additions Albuquerque, New Mexico

High (H)

NOTE: AFTER TERZAGHI AND PECK, 1948

<4

65 - 85

Boulders

Green Yellow Green

Blue Green Blue

Purple Blue Purple

Red Purple

4000 - 8000

Weakly

Moderately

Strongly

FIELD TESTDESCRIPTION

SubangularRounded few trace little some and mostly

<5 5-10 15-25 30-45

50-100

Percentage

#200 - #40

Angular

CRITERIA

Very Soft

Soft

Subrounded

Gravel

Sand

Fines

Thumb will penetrate soil more than 1 in. (25 mm.)

Wet medium

Loose

Very Loose

DENSITY

1000 - 2000

Homogeneous

DESCRIPTION

Dry

Moist is required to reach the plastic limit.

The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching

>60 35 - 60

CALIFORNIA

4 - 10

NAME

YR

B

PB

P

RP

#40 - #10

Passing #200

3 - 12 in. (76.2 - 304.8 mm.)

3/4 -3 in. (19 - 76.2 mm.)

#4 - 3/4 in. (#4 - 19 mm.)

The thread is easy to roll and not much time

5 - 12

A 1/8-in. (3 mm.) thread cannot be rolled at

5 - 15

15 - 40 40 - 70

35 - 65

15 - 35

>70

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, usually soil is below water table

Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular

DENSITY

0 - 15 crumbling when drier than the plastic limit lumps which resist further breakdown

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated

Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little resistance

APPARENT

10 - 30 30 - 50

>50 less than 1/4-in. thick, note thickness

> 8000

Firm

Hard

Very Hard

Non-plastic

Low (L)

Medium (M)

It takes considerable time rolling and kneading coarse

ABBR

R

Y

GY

G

BG

Red Yellow Red

Yellow

<5

SAMPLER

or thread cannot be formed when drier than the any water content.

The thread can barely be rolled and the lump when drier than the plastic limit

FIELD TEST

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch fine coarse fine

#10 - #4

GRAIN

SIZE

>12 in. (304.8 mm.)

3/4 -3 in. (19 - 76.2 mm.)

0.19 - 0.75 in. (4.8 - 19 mm.)

< 1000

SOIL DESCRIPTION KEY

FIELD TESTDESCRIPTION

plastic limit.

the plastic limit. The lump or thread crumbles limit. The lump or thread can be formed without

Same color and appearance throughout

DESCRIPTION

Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses

CRITERIA

Alternating layers of varying material or color with the layer

0.0029 - 0.017 in. (0.07 - 0.43 mm.)

0.017 - 0.079 in. (0.43 - 2 mm.)

to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be

Lensed

Blocky

Slickensided

Fissured

Laminated

Stratified

DESCRIPTION

None

Strong

Rounded

DESCRIPTION

Cobbles

Thumbnail will not indent soil

Thumb will penetrate soil about 1 in.