211-156 arroyo seco rd pavement design report 05 01 12...sulfate content (aashto t290), ph (astm d...

FINAL REPORT

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PAVEMENT DESIGN ARROYO SECO ROAD

CA PFH 129-1(2)

LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

May 1, 2012

YA Project No. 211-156

Prepared for: Jacobs Engineering Group 707 17th Street, Suite 2300

Denver, CO 80202 And

Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division

12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228

Prepared by:

Yeh and Associates, Inc. 570 Turner Drive, Suite D Durango, Colorado 81303

i Yeh and Associates, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1

2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 2

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3

3.1 TERRAIN 3

3.2 CLIMATE 3

3.3 PAVEMENT CONDITION 3

3.4 RETAINING WALLS 4

4.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 4

4.1 EXPLORATORY BORINGS 5

4.2 LABORATORY TESTING 5

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6

5.1 PAVEMENT BORINGS 6

5.2 RETAINING WALL BORINGS 7

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 8

6.1 OVERVIEW 8

6.2 MITIGATION OPTIONS 9

6.2.1 Wall Replacement 9

6.2.2 Partial Wall Replacement – Subgrade Improvement 10

6.2.3 Ground Anchor Tieback Support 11

7.0 SOIL CORROSIVITY 12

8.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 13

8.1 SUBGRADE STRENGTH 13

8.2 TRAFFIC LOADING 13

8.3 RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT THICKNESS 13

8.4 BINDER AND MIX RECOMMENDATIONS 14

8.5 DRAINAGE 15

8.6 EARTHWORK 15

9.0 REFERENCES 16

10.0 LIMITATIONS 16

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Site Map

Appendix B – Exploratory Boring Logs

Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results

Appendix D – Pavement Condition Photographs

Appendix E - Wall Photographs Appendix F – Pavement Design Calculations

Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156

1

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

Yeh and Associates, Inc., as a subconsultant to Jacobs Engineering Group, Denver,

Colorado, was retained by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Central Federal Lands

Highway Division (CFLHD) to provide geotechnical and pavement recommendations for preliminary

and final design of improvements to the Arroyo Seco Road in the Los Padres National Forest in

Monterrey County, California. Arroyo Seco Road (Forest Highway 129) begins at the Arroyo Seco

Campground and proceeds eastward for approximately 4.5 miles to the intersection with County

Road G16 (Carmel Valley Road). The route is almost entirely within Monterey County and serves

local needs including school buses, mail delivery, commercial supply and access to private property

with the Forest. The roadway is owned and maintained by Monterey County. The project location

is shown on Figure 1.1.

The proposed road reconstruction will consist of replacing/rehabilitating the existing roadway

surface by pulverizing the existing asphalt and constructing a new asphalt surface course. Erosion

along the roadside will be addressed with roadside ditch improvements, outlet and inlet protection

and channel realignments. The project includes minor roadside grading, drainage improvements,

erosion-related rockfall mitigation, intersection improvements at County Road G16, placement of

pulverized base and asphalt pavement, minor signing, striping, and other safety-related features

necessary to meet current design practice. The scope of the project has been defined in the

October 27, 2010 Trip Report prepared by Jacobs Engineering.

The pavement above the retaining structures near Mile 4.0 shows signs of settlement

related to lateral movement of the walls. The improvements will address drainage and settlement

issues associated with the existing embankment and retaining walls. The improvements will be

designed and implemented in accordance with CFLHD, and American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Design Standards, in cooperation with the United

States Forest Service and the CFLHD Denver Service Center.

The purpose of the geotechnical investigation is to evaluate geologic and subsurface

conditions in the project area and provide recommendations for design of pavements and an

evaluation of options to mitigate settlement at the distressed retaining walls. This report presents

the results the geotechnical investigation along Arroyo Seco Road. The design recommendations

include pavements, surface and subsurface drainage, grading, corrosivity of soil materials and

preliminary recommendations retaining wall rehabilitation. This report addresses potential

geotechnical constraints for the proposed improvements, existing pavement conditions along the

Arroyo Seco Road, and includes recommendations for pavement section thickness designs and

alternatives for retaining wall repair.


2


Figure 1.1: Project Location Map

2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING

Arroyo Seco Road is located in the Central Coast Region of California, in eastern Monterey

County. The Arroyo Seco River has cut a deep, steep sided valley as it flows east from the Sierra

de Salinas Mountains in the western part of the county. The bedrock exposed on the canyon walls

consists of Miocene marine rocks of Oligocene to Pliocene age. These rocks are composed

primarily of sandstone with mudstone as the secondary rock type. The formations also can include

siltstone, evaporate and conglomerate.

The road follows the western side of the canyon through most of the project area. In the

valley bottom, the road was constructed on alluvium. At higher elevations, the road was

constructed by cutting into the steeply dipping Monterey Shale. The thinly bedded shale and

mudstone is exposed above and below the road at several locations. Rockfall from the rock cut

slopes consists primarily of shale fragments that have eroded from the slopes and accumulated on

the shoulder of the road.

Project Location


3


3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 Terrain

The site is located in mountainous terrain with vegetation consisting of small deciduous

trees, grasses and shrubs. Arroyo Seco Road is winding and has moderate to steep grades as it

traverses in and out of the valley floor. As the road approaches the Arroyo Seco Campground, the

grades flatten and the alignment enters a broad portion of the valley.

3.2 Climate

Climate data is based on records for Greenfield, CA, the nearest population center. The

area has a mild climate typical of the semi-arid regions of central California. The average annual

precipitation is about 12 inches, most of which occurs from January through March. Average

annual high temperature is 86o F and average annual low temperature is about 53o F. The annual

high temperatures occur in July and August and the annual low temperatures occur in December

and January.

3.3 Pavement Condition

The pavement is in fair to poor condition throughout the project. Linear cracking in

moderately deteriorated condition is prevalent. Figure 3.1 shows a typical condition found in much

of the project; linear cracking with some block and fatigue cracking progressing. This photograph is

also a location where it is suspected that water comes off the hill side and drains across the road.

Figure 3.1: Thermal and block cracking patterns near center of project


4


Figure 3.2 shows one of the most deteriorated locations on the project. The fatigue cracking

is starting to progress to alligator cracking and potholes near the entrance to the fire station. This is

another location where poor surface drainage may be contributing to the pavement deterioration

because the shallow ditches are not adequate to carry runoff away from the pavement. Additional

photographs of pavement conditions throughout the project are presented in Appendix D.

Figure 3.2: Fatigue cracking starting to pothole near fire station

3.4 Retaining Walls

Settlement of the pavement surface was observed in the area of two retaining walls near

Mile 4.0. The embankment at this location consists of fill that is supported by metal retaining walls

constructed of aircraft landing ramps and railroad rails. The pavement has reportedly been patched

several times by Monterey County road crews. Bulges in the faces of the walls and outward

rotation of the structures are indications that the walls may no longer be adequately supporting the

fill.

4.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

Yeh and Associates contracted with Precision Sampling, Inc. of Stockton, California to drill

exploratory borings for the geotechnical investigation along Arroyo Seco Road. Traffic control

during drilling was provided by Road Safety, Inc of Rocklin, California. The borings were drilled on

September 15 and 16, 2011.


5


4.1 Exploratory Borings

Borings AH-1 through AH-19 were drilled at approximately ¼-mile intervals near the center

of the eastbound and westbound travel lanes of the road. Odd numbered borings were generally

located in the westbound lane and even numbered borings were in the eastbound lane. The

borings were drilled to evaluate subgrade conditions for pavement design and corrosivity of the

soils.

Borings R-001-11, R-002-11 and R-003-11 were drilled from the roadway above the location

of the distressed retaining walls near Mile 4.0. The borings were drilled in the shoulder of the road

at the locations three to four feet from the wall facing as shown Sheet A-1 in Appendix A. The

borings were drilled to evaluated subsurface conditions behind the retaining walls.

The borings were drilled with a truck-mounted CME 75 drilling rig using 8-inch O.D. hollow

stem auger. Samples were obtained at selected intervals using a 1.5-inch I.D. split-spoon sampler.

The split-spoon sampler was driven into the subsoils with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.

The number of blows needed to drive the sampler 12 inches constitutes the blow count, N, reported

on the Boring Logs (Appendix B). The blow count can be used as a relative measure of the

material stiffness or density. Bulk samples of auger cuttings were also obtained from the borings at

selected intervals. Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with auger cuttings. The

pavement was patched with cold asphalt patch mix.

4.2 Laboratory Testing

Samples retrieved during the field exploration were returned to our laboratory for

observation by the project geotechnical engineer. An applicable program of laboratory testing was

developed to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Following the

completion of the laboratory testing, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary

and boring logs were prepared.

Laboratory tests performed included gradation (ASTM D 421, C 136 and AASHTO T 27),

Atterberg limits (AASHTO T 89/T 90), moisture content (AASHTO T 265), R-value (ASTM D 2844),

sulfate content (AASHTO T290), pH (ASTM D 4972/AASHTO T 289), chloride ion content (ASTM D

4327) and soil resistivity (AASHTO T 288). Gradation and Atterberg limits test results were used to

classify the soils in accordance with the AASHTO classification system and the Unified Soil

Classification System (USCS). Moisture content provides an estimate of the moisture conditions of

the subgrade and underlying materials. Soil R-value is a measure of soil subgrade strength used

for pavement design. Tests for soluble sulfate content, pH, chloride content and resistivity are used

to evaluate the potential of the soil to be aggressive to concrete and to corrode buried metal. The

laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C and on the boring logs in Appendix B. Photos

of the pavement conditions and boring locations along the project are presented in Appendix D.


6


5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Pavement Borings

The thickness of asphalt pavement encountered in the exploratory borings ranged from 0.1

to 0.3 feet (1.2 to 3.6 inches). The measured asphalt thickness includes the Hot Asphalt Concrete

Pavement (HACP) and chip seal applications that occurred before and after the HACP was placed.

Accurately distinguishing individual layers of the pavement surface was not possible due to the

destructive nature of the drilling process. An obvious layer of aggregate base course was not

encountered in the borings. Gravelly soils encountered below the asphalt may be remnants of an

earlier gravel surface course. The asphalt surface course thicknesses and brief descriptions of the

underlying fill and native subgrade materials are summarized in Table 5.1. Laboratory tests

performed on samples of the subgrade soils and bedrock are presented in Appendix C.

Subgrade materials encountered along Arroyo Seco Road are composed of alluvial silty to

clayey sand with gravel. The native soil materials are difficult to distinguish from possible fill

materials in the exploratory borings because the fill materials were likely produced from nearby road

cuts. Embankment fill encountered in Borings AH-4, AH-5, AH-6 and AH-8 consists of silty to

clayey sand with subangular to subrounded gravel. The fill encountered in Borings AH-10 through

AH-12 and AH-16 through AH-18 consists of silty sand with subangular to subrounded gravel. The

subgrade materials have 14 to 54 percent fines consisting of clay and silt and plasticity indices that

range from non-plastic to 17. The natural moisture contents of the samples range from 6.5 to 37.3.

The higher moisture contents were from borings where poor surface drainage or irrigation may have

contributed to subsurface moisture. R-value tests were performed on three combined bulk samples

of the subgrade soils from Borings AH-1 and AH-3 (Bulk Sample 1), AH-11 and AH-12 (Bulk

Sample 2) and AH-17 and AH18 (Bulk Sample 3). The R-value of Bulk Sample 1 was 40; the R-

value of Bulk Sample 2 was 58; and the R-value of Bulk Sample 3 was 46. The silty sand and silty

gravel subgrade soils have AASHTO classifications of A-1-a, A-1-b, A-2-4, A-2-5, A-4 and A-2-7.

The clayey sand soils have AASHTO classifications of A-4 and the sandy silt soil classifies as A-6.


7


Table 5.1: Pavement and Subgrade Summary

Boring Asphalt

(ft)

Fill

(ft.)

Embankment Fill

Description

Native Subgrade Soil

Description

AH-1 0.2 - - silty Sand with Gravel



AH-4 0.3 1.2 silty Sand with Gravel clayey Sand with Gravel

AH-5 0.3 4.7 clayey Sand with Gravel -

AH-6 0.2 0.5 silty Sand with Gravel sandy Silt with Gravel

AH-7 0.2 - - clayey Sand with Gravel

AH-8 0.3 4.7 silty/clayey Sand with Gravel -

AH-9 0.2 - silty Sand with Gravel

AH-10 0.3 4.7 silty Sand with Gravel -

AH-11 0.3 1.6 silty Sand with Gravel, silty Sand and Gravel

AH-12 0.3 1.6 silty Sand with Gravel silty Sand and Gravel


AH-14 0.3 - - silty Gravel and Sand

AH-15 0.1 - - silty Gravel and Sand





5.2 Retaining Wall Borings

Borings R-001-11, R-002-11 and R-003-11 encountered very loose to medium dense silty

sand and gravel fill below the pavement section to depths approximately equal to the wall heights at

the boring locations. Native soils consisting of loose to medium dense silty sand with gravel were

encountered in Boring R-001-11 and R-003-11 at depths of 7 and 8 feet respectively. The fill and

native soils have AASHTO classifications of A-2-7 and A-7-5. Moderately cemented zones and

calcareous deposits were encountered in Boring R-001-11 below 10 feet to the bedrock surface.

Sandy claystone bedrock of the Monterey Formation was encountered in Boring R-001-11 at 18

feet in Boring R-002-11 at 9 feet and in Boring R-003-11 at 8 feet. The bedrock is described as

slightly to moderately weathered, medium hard to hard and moist. Split-spoon sampler blow counts

(N) in the bedrock ranged from 14 for 12 inches of penetration to 50 for 4 inches of penetration.

Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the retaining wall site.


8


6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Overview

Yeh and Associates was requested to provide general observations and recommendations for the

two existing retaining walls located near Mile 4.0 on the downhill (fill) side of the road. Based on

survey data provided by others, the walls are located between Sta. 10+00 and 15+35 and range

from 3 to 12 feet in height. The walls appear to be constructed of vertical railroad rails (vertical

piles) and aircraft landing mats (lagging). The facing of the walls tilt and bulge outward in some

areas and the welds that connect the soldier piles and lagging have failed at some locations.

Settlement of the pavement surface above the walls has previously been reported and was

observed at the time of the investigation. Figure 6.1 depicts the top of the wall looking down the

roadway alignment showing pavement distress and Figure 6.2 depicts the wall face from below.

Additional wall condition photographs are presented in Appendix E.

Figure 6.1: Top of Existing Retaining Wall


9


Figure 6.2: Face of Existing Retaining Wall

Borings R-001-11, R-002-11, and R-003-11 were drilled in the roadway behind the walls.

The borings encountered gravelly, silty sand and silty, sandy gravel soils. Sandy claystone shale

was encountered at depths ranging from 9 to 23 feet below the pavement surface. The soils were

described by the field geologist as loose to dense with low moisture content. Zones of moderate

soil cementation were encountered a few feet above the bedrock. The cementation may be an

indication of previous groundwater flow through the fill and native soils that deposited minerals

leached from the surrounding bedrock.

The observed bulging and outward tilting of the wall face appears to be caused by lateral

earth pressures that exceed the resisting capacity of the retaining walls. Saturated soil conditions

during season heavy precipitation may be contributing to the higher lateral earth pressures. The

deflection of the wall face over-stressed the pile and lagging welded connections, causing them to

fail. Outward movement of the wall has allowed the settlement of the roadway fill to occur. There

also appears to be loss of backfill material through the aperture facing of the wall system. Wire

rope wraps that may be for deadman support are visible in Figure 6.2.

6.2 Mitigation Options

Based on our evaluation of the existing walls and understanding of the nature of the project,

we are providing three mitigation alternatives to prevent or reduce future settlement of the roadway

embankment at this location.

6.2.1 Wall Replacement

Replace the existing walls with new retaining structures such as Mechanically Stabilized Earth

(MSE) walls or a Shored MSE Wall. Properly designed and constructed MSE walls or shored MSE


10


walls will support the embankment virtually eliminating roadway settlement. The design should

include high strength horizontal reinforcing elements such as geogrids, a subsurface drainage

system and a facing that can tolerate some movement while protecting the reinforcing from

damage. The distinction between MSE walls and Shored MSE walls is a function of the availability

of space for construction. Shored MSE Walls are proposed to maintain one lane of traffic during

construction and can be reviewed in CFL document FHWA-CFL/TD-06-011 – February 2006. The

shored MSE wall will be needed where the existing wall height exceeds about 8 feet and shoring

must be used to support the roadway so that traffic may be maintained. This is a permanent

mitigation option that addresses the issues of piping, existing wall failure, and long term

maintenance. Figure 6.2.1 depicts a generalized shored MSE wall.

Figure 6.2.1: Generalized Depiction of a Shored MSE Wall.

6.2.2 Partial Wall Replacement – Subgrade Improvement

Partial replacement consists of removing between 4 and 6 feet of the backfill material at the

top of the existing retaining wall and reconstructing a GRS (tightly spaced grid) wall immediately

behind the existing retaining wall and below the pavement subgrade. Removing and replacing the

backfill materials with geogrid reinforced granular soil will greatly reduce the horizontal earth

pressure at the top of the existing retaining wall and will act to “bridge” settlement prone materials in

the base of the existing wall. It is estimated the reinforcement grid for the 4 to 6 foot high wall

would need to extend to the centerline of the existing roadway or extend back to the face of a stable


11


temporary cut. Design of the partial wall replacement/subgrade improvement alternate will require

evaluation of the surcharge loading condition on the base of the existing wall system because the

re-compacted material will likely be of greater density than the existing fill materials. Existing

tieback “deadman” restraining wire ropes may be present in the existing wall system and would

need to be left in place or stabilized during construction.

Figure 6.2.2: Generalized Depiction of Partial Wall Replacement/Subgrade Improvement

This alternate would need further evaluation but could stabilize the roadway subgrade under

the pavement for 5 to 15 years. Construction of the reinforced zone may increase stresses on the

existing wall face, accelerating failure of the existing welds and metal plate structure. Loss of fine

soils due to piping could still occur below the improved section of wall.

6.2.3 Ground Anchor Tieback Support

A third alternate for stabilizing the existing retaining wall is the installation of a ground

anchor tieback system. This alternate would involve drilling ground anchors on an 8-foot center to

center spacing at a downward angle of approximately 30 degrees to penetrate the bedrock.

Installing the anchors would require drilling through the face of the wall using a drill rig that is

positioned on the existing road. A specialty contractor will be needed to perform the work. The

ground anchors would need to be post tensioned after installation. The capacity of the anchors

would be dependent on the depth of the bedrock penetration. A continuous horizontal waler system

would be needed to distribute the anchor forces along the face of the wall. This option could be

designed to use the strength of the existing system of tiebacks to limit lateral movement. The

ground anchor alternate will not prevent settlement of the pavement subgrade due to loss of soil by

piping through voids within the existing wall backfill.

Existing Wall

GRS Wall

Center Line


12


Figure 6.2.3: Generalized Depiction of a Ground Anchor Tieback System

Design of this option would require further evaluation of the current condition of the existing

retaining wall and how the structure may respond to induced loading from the tiebacks.

7.0 SOIL CORROSIVITY

Samples from Borings AH-2 and AH-16 had water soluble sulfate concentrations of 0.017,

0.8 percent respectively. The sample from Boring AH-16 has a very high percentage of water

soluble sulfates and these soils will be aggressive toward buried concrete. Sulfate resistant cement

is recommended for all buried concrete in the alignment.

The pH of the sample from Boring AH-2 was 8.2 and the pH of the sample from Boring AH-

16 was 7.7. Chloride content of the samples from Borings AH-2 and AH-16 were below the

detection limit of 0.01 percent for the test method used.

Resistivity measurements of 2555 ohm-cm for the sample from Boring AH-2 and 1083 ohm-

cm for the sample from Boring AH-16 indicate the soils will be aggressive to buried metal. Metal

culvert pipes and ground anchors should be corrosion protected. We recommend a corrosion

engineer review the requirements for correction protection for any buried metal. Permanent

anchors and anchor hardware such as end plates used for retaining walls should be epoxy coated

to resist corrosion.

Existing Wall

Ground Anchor

Tiebacks

Center Line


13


8.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Subgrade Strength

The following equations are from NCHRP Study 128, which was used in the AASHTO 1993

Pavement Design Guide.

S1 = [(R-5)/11.29] + 3 (Eq. 2.1) MR = 10[S

1 + 18.72)/6.24] (Eq. 2.2)

Where: MR = resilient modulus (psi) S1 = the soil support value R = the R-value obtained from the Hveem Stabilometer (AASHTO T190)

R-values measured in accordance with AASHTO T190 on the soils from the project, were

40, 46 and 58. Using these equations, an R-value of 40 was used to calculate a resilient modulus

of 9,497 psi. This resilient modulus value was used as one of the inputs for the DARWin Pavement

Design computer program to determine recommended pavement thickness for Arroyo Seco Road.

The DARWin pavement design computer program generally follows the AASHTO 1993 Pavement

Design Manual.

Other structural layer coefficients used in design were found in the “FHWA CFL Project

Development and Design Manual (PDDM)”, March 2008.

8.2 Traffic Loading

No formal traffic information was available for this location, so the recommended minimum

of 50,000 Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) was used the pavement design.

8.3 Recommended Pavement Thickness

Based on discussions with the Forest Service and county personnel, the preferred

rehabilitation treatment for the existing pavement is to pulverize and place a new Hot Asphalt

Concrete Pavement (HACP). Using the strength information from the laboratory testing and the

strength coefficients from the PDDM for the treatments, the recommended treatment is to pulverize

the existing pavement to a depth of 4 inches followed by placement of a 3.0 inch HACP pavement.

The pavement thicknesses listed in Table 5.1 show that there is adequate thickness of HACP for

this treatment. Table 8.3 contains the input parameters used for the pavement thickness design.

The parameters were taken from the FHWA Project Development and Design Manual March 2008

based on the traffic loading and treatments for this pavement. The output from the DARWin

Pavement Design Program is presented in Appendix F.


14


Table 8.3 - Pavement Design Parameters and Thickness Results

Design Parameter Parameter Value Design Parameter Parameter Value

18-kip ESALs 50,000 Resilient Modulus MR 9,497

Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.0

Reliability 75% Structural Number 1

Pulverization, in. 4 HACP thickness, in. 3.0

8.4 Binder and Mix Recommendations

Using the Long Term Pavement Performance binder selection program LTPPBind, the 98%

reliability binder recommended for the closest weather station in King City, Ca. is PG 64-10. Figure

8.4 shows the print-out from the program based on historic weather information from the King City

Weather Station.

Figure 8.4 - Recommended Mix Binder

The new HACP overlay should be a nominal ½-inch mix with the above recommended

binder. Grading Designation E mix is recommended (as per FP-03). A Hveem mix design using a

½ inch nominal mix is also recommended. The quantity of binder can be estimated at 6% by weight

of the mix and the unit weight can be estimated at 145 lbs/ft3.


15


This project is in a relatively remote location and we understand the asphalt batch plant may

be several miles from the construction site. Loss of temperature and segregation of the hot asphalt

mix can occur during long distance transport. We recommend the project specifications require the

use of a material transfer device at the point of placement to insure uniform temperatures and

prevent segregation of the mix during placement. Use of a material transfer device is especially

important if the mix is placed in cool weather.

The application of tack coat (at 0.10 gallons/ yd2) is required on the pulverized base material

prior to paving. The tack coat material should be CSS-1, CSS-1h, SS-1, or SS-1h. A tack coat at

the above rate should be included between each lift of HACP.

Pulverized material or aggregate base course should receive a prime coat of an emulsion

blended as a penetrating prime at a rate of 0.33 gallons/yd2.

8.5 Drainage

Surface drainage adjacent to the existing road is generally fair except several locations

where it is suspected that water drains across the pavement and may have caused excess moisture

into the subgrade, weakening the pavement structure and causing deterioration. The depressions

and ridges in the pavement surface are probably the result of surface moisture infiltration.

Improving ditches at the sides of the road to provide positive surface drainage away from the

pavement will protect the subgrade from saturation.

The collection and diversion of surface drainage away from paved areas is extremely

important to the satisfactory performance of the pavement structure. Proper design of drainage

should include prevention of ponding of water on or immediately adjacent to pavement areas.

Over-spray from agricultural irrigation sprinklers should be minimized and surface drainage near

irrigated areas should be improved to collect and divert runoff. Slopes and other stripped areas

should be protected against erosion by re-vegetation or other methods.

8.6 Earthwork

The soils encountered in the exploratory borings are suitable for use as embankment fill

under roadways. Metz Sand and Gravel in Greenfield, California is a nearby supplier of

construction aggregates. Embankment materials should be placed and compacted in accordance

with the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway

Projects. Cut and fill slopes should be graded at 3 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. Slopes should

be protected from erosion by re-vegetation or other means.

Clearing debris from the existing ditches and constructing paved shoulders and concrete

curbs at the toes of slopes will reduce the effort required to remove accumulations of rockfall debris

in the future. These measures fit within the scope of the 3R project but do not prevent or mitigate

rockfall that could reach the travel lanes.


16


Soft soils may be encountered or the pulverized base may become unstable during

construction when subjected to traffic loads or following precipitation events. The upper 1.5 feet of

the soft material should be removed and replaced with compacted Subbase Fill, Grading A or B or

ABC. The required depth of removal and replacement can be reduced if a geosynthetic

reinforcement or separator fabric is used below the Subbase Fill.

9.0 REFERENCES

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2003, Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP-03. Google Earth, 2011 AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Guide The Weather Channel, LLC weather.com Jennings, C.W., Strand, R.G., and Rogers, T.H., 1977, Geologic map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:750,000.

10.0 LIMITATIONS

This study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering

practices in this area for use by the client for design and construction purposes. The conclusions

and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from exploratory

borings and field review and the proposed type of construction. Subsurface variations across the

site are likely and may not become evident until excavation is performed. If during construction, fill,

soil, rock or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein, this office should

be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations may be made. We recommend on-site

observation of excavations and pavement subgrade conditions by a representative of the

geotechnical engineer.

YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Thomas L. Allen, P.E.

Appendix A – Site Map ________________________________________________________________

Wall Boring Locations04/17/12

211-156 Wall Borings

212-156 A-1

Arroyo Seco Road

Appendix B – Exploratory Boring Logs ________________________________________________________________

7/2/3MC= 8.7 %#200= 14 %LL= NVPL= NPPI= NPAASHTO: A-1-b (0)USCS: SM

0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT.0.2 - 4.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, lightbrown, no plasticity, moist, loose, subangular.

Bottom of Hole at 4.0 ft.

5

Boring Began: 9/15/2011

Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger

Drill: CME 75

Driller: Precision Sampling

Logged By: W. Hoon

Final By: M. Aichiouene

Inclination: Vertical

Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:

Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---

Total Depth: 4.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:

Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N

Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road

Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS

RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)

Boring: AH-01Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1

BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

3/4/4

MC= 15.3 %#200= 33 %LL= 33PL= 24PI= 7AASHTO: A-2-4 (0)USCS: SMMC= 22.2 %#200= 23 %LL= 51PL= 39PI= 12pH= 8.2S= 0.017 %Re= 2555 ohms-cmAASHTO: A-2-7 (0)USCS: SM

0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT.0.2 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, lightbrown to brown, no plasticity, dry, loose,subangular.


8



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

6/6/6MC= 14.4 %#200= 42 %LL= 28PL= 21PI= 7AASHTO: A-4 (0)USCS: SM-SC

0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) and gravel,reddish brown, moist, medium dense, subangularto subrounded.


12



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

12/10/7MC= 14.3 %#200= 39 %LL= 32PL= 22PI= 10AASHTO: A-4 (1)USCS: SC

0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 1.5 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,reddish brown, dry, subangular.1.5 - 5.0 ft. clayey SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, moist, medium dense, subangular.


17



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11


0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. clayey SAND (FILL) with gravel,light brown, dry, loose, subangular tosubrounded.


7



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

2/4/5MC= 18.7 %#200= 54 %LL= 36PL= 25PI= 11AASHTO: A-6 (4)USCS: ML

0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT.0.2 - 0.7 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, lightbrown, dry.0.7 - 5.0 ft. sandy SILT (FILL) with gravel, darkbrown, moist, stiff.


9



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11


0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT.0.2 - 5.0 ft. clayey SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, low plasticity, moist, loose, subangular tosubrounded.


6



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

1/1/1MC= 11.8 %#200= 48 %LL= 21PL= 17PI= 4AASHTO: A-4 (0)USCS: SM-SC

0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, darkbrown, moist, very loose.


2



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

1/3/3MC= 23.8 %#200= 34 %LL= 33PL= 28PI= 5AASHTO: A-2-4 (0)USCS: SM

0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT.0.2 - 4.5 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, moist, loose, subangular.

4.5 - 5.0 ft. gravelly COBBLES, Cobbles andBoulders.


6



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

2/3/2MC= 20 %#200= 31 %LL= 44PL= 34PI= 10AASHTO: A-2-5 (0)USCS: SM

0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, gray -brown, dry, loose, subangular to subrounded.


5



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

17/15/15MC= 14.5 %#200= 26 %LL= 35PL= 26PI= 9AASHTO: A-2-4 (0)USCS: GM

0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 1.8 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, moist, subangular.

1.8 - 3.2 ft. silty GRAVEL (FILL) with sand, gray- brown, moist, medium dense, subangular.

3.2 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, lightbrown, moist, medium dense, subangular.


30



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11


0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 1.8 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, moist, subangular.

1.8 - 3.5 ft. silty GRAVEL (FILL) with sand,brown, moist, dense, subangular.

3.5 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, moist, subangular.


31



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

3/4/5MC= 29 %#200= 24 %LL= 52PL= 42PI= 10AASHTO: A-2-5 (0)USCS: SM

0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, darkbrown, moist, loose, subangular.


9



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11


0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty GRAVEL (FILL) with sand, darkbrown, moist, very loose.


3



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

3/6/6MC= 19.5 %#200= 15 %LL= 41PL= 39PI= 2AASHTO: A-1-a (0 )USCS: GM

0.0 - 0.1 ft. ASPHALT.0.1 - 4.0 ft. silty GRAVEL (FILL) with sand, lightbrown, dry, medium dense, subangular.


12



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

3/5/5

MC= 22.2 %#200= 23 %LL= 51PL= 39PI= 12pH= 7.7S= 0.8 %Re= 1083 ohms-cmAASHTO: A-2-7 (0)USCS: SM

0.0 - 0.1 ft. ASPHALT.0.1 - 4.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown-gray, dry, loose, subangular.

4.0 - 5.0 ft. Sandy Claystone, light gray, moist,hard, slightly weathered.


10



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

2/2/2MC= 9.1 %#200= 40 %LL= NVPL= NPPI= NPAASHTO: A-4 (0)USCS: SM

0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, moist, loose, subrounded.


4



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11


0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, lightbrown, moist, loose, subangular to subrounded.


7



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11


0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, moist, very loose, subangular tosubrounded.


2



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/15/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

1/2/1

1/2/1

2/3/5

1/6/3

12/14/9

10/23/17

MC= 18.7 %#200= 28 %LL= 51PL= 40PI= 11AASHTO: A-2-7 (0)USCS: SMMC= 19.8 %#200= 20 %USCS: SM

MC= 25.1 %#200= 33 %LL= 53PL= 42PI= 11AASHTO: A-2-7 (0)USCS: SM

MC= 22 %#200= 13 %USCS: GM

0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT CONCRETE.0.2 - 7.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) and Gravel,brown, dry, loose, subangular.

7.0 - 18.0 ft. silty SAND with gravel, brown, dry,loose, subangular, moderate cementation.

18.0 - 40.3 ft. SANDY CLAYSTONE, light gray,slightly weathered, hard, moist.

3

3

8

9

23

40


Drilling Method: Hollow-Stem Auger (8" O.D.)

Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/16/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)

Boring: R-001-11Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 2

BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

12/20/16

14/14/24

50:4''Bottom of Hole at 40.3 ft.

36

38

50:4''

Soil Samples

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab TestsR

un /

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

1/2/1

3/11/5

2/3/11

7/16/18

12/8/13

14/21/14


MC= 20.1 %#200= 23 %USCS: GM

0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT CONCRETE.0.2 - 9.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL), with gravel, lightbrown, dry, very loose to medium dense,subangular.

9.0 - 35.4 ft. SANDY CLAYSTONE, light gray tolight brown, moderately weathered, hard, moist.

3

16

14

34

21

35



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/16/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

7/19/34

50:5''Bottom of Hole at 35.4 ft.

53

50:5''

Soil Samples

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab TestsR

un /

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

3/4/3

1/1/3

2/2/4

9/3/2

4/5/7

14/19/14

MC= 17 %#200= 23 %LL= 50PL= 36PI= 14AASHTO: A-2-7 (0)USCS: SMMC= 18.8 %#200= 21 %USCS: SM


MC= 24.3 %#200= 18 %USCS: SM

MC= 25 %#200= 10 %USCS: GM

0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT CONCRETE.0.2 - 8.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL), poorly graded,with gravel, light brown, dry, loose, subangular.

8.0 - 23.0 ft. silty SAND with gravel, dark brown,dry, loose to medium dense, angular.

23.0 - 36.5 ft. SANDY CLAYSTONE, light grayto light gray, slightly weathered, medium hard,moist.

7

4

6

5

12

33



Drill: CME 75


Logged By: W. Hoon




Ground Water Notes:

DepthDateTime

Dry9/16/11

-

---

---

---


Soil Samples

5

10

15

20

25

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab Tests

Run

/ S

ampl

e T

ype

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

8/20/28

10/18/25


48

43

Soil Samples

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

N


Lith

olo

gy

Rock

MaterialDescription


RQ

D

Rec

over

y (%

)

Blowsper6 in


Field Notesand

Lab TestsR

un /

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Dep

th(f

eet)

Ele

vatio

n(f

eet)


BO

RIN

G L

OG

211

-15

6 B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S.G

DT

12

/21

/11

Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results ________________________________________________________________

Project No: Date: 10/10/2011

Gradation Atterberg

AH-1 2-3.5 SPT 8.7 27 59 14 NV NP NP A-1-b ( 0 ) SM

AH-2 2-3.5 SPT 15.3 22 45 33 33 24 7 A-2-4 ( 0 ) SM

AH-2 1.7-5.0 BULK 22.2 36 41 23 51 39 12 8.2 0.017 ND 2555 A-2-7 ( 0 ) SM

AH-3 2-3.5 SPT 14.4 15 43 42 28 21 7 A-4 ( 0 ) SM-SC

AH-4 2-3.5 BULK 14.3 13 48 39 32 22 10 A-4 ( 1 ) SC

AH-5 2-3.5 SPT 15.7 17 36 47 28 20 8 A-4 ( 1 ) SC

AH-6 2-3.5 SPT 18.7 12 34 54 36 25 11 A-6 ( 4 ) ML

AH-7 2-3.5 SPT 14.5 15 43 42 30 20 10 A-4 ( 1 ) SC

211-156

Sample Location

Sample

Type

Natural Dry

Density

(pcf)PL

Resistivity

OHMS per

cmDepth (ft)

Gravel

> #4

(%)

Natural

Moisture

Content

(%) USCSAASHTOPI

Water

Soluble

Sulfate

%

% Swell

(+) /

Consoli-

dation (-)

pH

YEH & ASSOCIATES, INC

Arroyo Seco Road

Summary of Laboratory Test Results

CLASSIFICATION

Sand

(%)

Fines

< #200

(%)

LL

Chloride

%Boring #

Project Name:

AH-7 2-3.5 SPT 14.5 15 43 42 30 20 10 A-4 ( 1 ) SC

AH-8 2-3.5 SPT 11.8 4 48 48 21 17 4 A-4 ( 0 ) SM-SC

AH-9 2-3.5 SPT 23.8 24 42 34 33 28 5 A-2-4 ( 0 ) SM

AH-9 BULK 24.4 25 46 29 36 28 8 A-2-4 ( 0 ) SM

AH-10 2-3.5 SPT 20.0 21 48 31 44 34 10 A-2-5 ( 0 ) SM

AH-11 2-3.5 SPT 14.5 37 37 26 35 26 9 A-2-4 ( 0 ) GM

AH-12 2-3.5 SPT 12.2 44 36 20 33 25 8 A-2-4 ( 0 ) GM

AH-13 2-3.5 SPT 29.0 28 48 24 52 42 10 A-2-5 ( 0 ) SM

AH-14 2-3.5 SPT 37.3 36 32 32 56 39 17 A-2-7 ( 0 ) GM

AH-15 2-3.5 SPT 19.5 44 41 15 41 39 2 A-1-a ( 0 ) GM

AH-16 2-3.5 SPT 22.2 36 41 23 51 39 12 A-2-7 ( 0 ) SM

AH-16 BULK 7.7 0.8 ND 1083 SM

AH-17 2-3.5 SPT 9.1 5 55 40 NV NP NP A-4 ( 0 ) SM

AH-18 2-3.5 SPT 6.5 15 62 23 22 21 1 A-2-4 ( 0 ) SM

AH-19 2-3.5 SPT 21.9 19 55 26 30 27 3 A-2-4 ( 0 ) SM

Project No: Date: 10/10/2011

Gradation Atterberg

R-001-11 2-3.5 SPT 18.7 24 48 28 51 40 11 A-2-7 ( 0 ) SM

R-001-11 5-6.5 SPT 19.8 39 41 20 NA NA NA NA NA

R-001-11 10-11.5 SPT 25.1 23 44 33 53 42 11 A-2-7 ( 0 ) SM

R-001-11 15-16.5 SPT 22.0 53 34 13 NA NA NA NA NA

R-001-11 20-21.5 SPT 25.9 46 39 15 NV NP NP A-1-a ( 0 ) GM

R-001-11 24.5-26 SPT 6.2 61 32 7 NA NA NA NA NA

R-001-11 30-31.5 SPT 23.2 50 40 10 NA NA NA NA NA

211-156

Sample Location

Sample

Type

Natural Dry

Density

(pcf)PLDepth (ft)

Gravel

> #4

(%)

Natural

Moisture

Content

(%) USCSAASHTO

Max Dry

Density

AASHTO

T180-API

Water

Soluble

Sulfate

%

% Swell (+) /

Consoli-

dation (-)

pH

YEH & ASSOCIATES, INC

Arroyo Seco Road

Summary of Laboratory Test Results

CLASSIFICATION

Sand

(%)

Fines

< #200

(%)

LL

Chloride

%Boring #

Project Name:

R-001-11 30-31.5 SPT 23.2 50 40 10 NA NA NA NA NA

R-001-11 35-36.5 SPT 25.6 49 38 13 NA NA NA NA NA

R-002-11 2-3.5 SPT 24.5 29 40 31 50 37 13 A-2-7 ( 0 ) SM

R-002-11 5-6.5 SPT 20.1 43 34 23 NA NA NA NA NA

R-002-11 10-11.5 SPT 21.8 60 31 9 NV NP NP A-1-a ( 0 ) GM

R-002-11 15-16.5 SPT 19.3 43 43 14 NA NA NA NA NA

R-002-11 20-21.5 SPT 18.4 42 44 14 NV NP NP A-1-a ( 0 ) SM

R-002-11 25-26.5 SPT 24.0 54 39 7 NA NA NA NA NA

R-002-11 30-31.5 SPT 21.4 50 36 14 NV NP NP A-1-a ( 0 ) GM

R-002-11 35-36.5 SPT 19.3 28 50 22 NA NA NA NA NA

100 0

100 0

100 0

100 0

100 0

Appendix D – Pavement Condition Photographs ________________________________________________________________

Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Pavement Condition Photographs 9/8-9/11 211-156

1 All mileages are from the bridge at the campground entrance

Boring 1 - 1/4 mile east of campground entrance - Best pavement condition with only transverse

cracks - note drainage from hill side on north carries across the pavement

Boring 2 - 1/2 mile east - note alligator cracking in wheel paths and fill on south side of

pavement



Boring 4 - 1 mile east, alligator across entire pavement probably from aged pavement and loads

when subgrade was wet.

Boring 6 - 1.5 miles east thermal cracking at approximately 15 feet



Boring 7 - 1.75 miles east - thermal and block cracking from pavement aging with minor fatigue

cracking in wheelpaths

Boring 10 - 2.5 miles east - severe alligator cracking and thermal cracking also east end of

rough pavement section where subgrade moisture or lack of compaction and settlement are believed to be a possible cause



Boring 11 - 2.75 miles east - Thermal and block cracking probably from aged asphalt and

alligator cracking in the wheel patch which may be load associated Also utility cut in background

Boring 13 - 3.25 miles east of campground - severely deteriorated alligator cracking at fire

station entrance



Boring 15 - 3.75 miles east fatigue cracking, patching and settlement of wall on south side of

pavement - questionable drainage on north side

Boring 17 - 4.25 miles east, deteriorated transverse cracking, block cracking and patching on

right in distance



Boring 19 near intersection looking east - prevalent fatigue cracking

Intersection of Arroyo Seco and Carmel Valley Road - Intersection may be realigned to better

configuration for turns

Appendix E – Wall Condition Photographs ________________________________________________________________

Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Retaining Wall Photographs (9/8‐9/11) 211‐156

West end of west wall section, few problems in this area

Start of patching and settlement in west wall


Worst visible area of wall rotation and cracking

Cracking in fill material at edge of pavement


Rock outcrop separating west and east wall sections

Looking west at Boring 4, full lane width patching for east wall section


Wall construction ‐ west section

Wall construction and bracing rail


Vegetation below and through wall

Close‐up of construction method, plates, vertical anchored railroad rail supports and cable ties with

some welded horizontal rail supports


Fill Materials loss behind plates

Material loss under plates


Patched plates near boring W‐3 at east end of west wall section

Typical section of east wall section above Miller's Resort Parking Lot


Typical east section wall near boring W‐5

Typical Wall Section near Boring W‐4

Appendix F – Pavement Design Calculations ________________________________________________________________

211-156 arroyo seco rd pavement design report 05 01 12...sulfate content (aashto t290), ph (astm d...

Documents