final geotechnical investigation report frt-18.5-k.99 ... · 1 day ago · final geotechnical...

FINAL

Geotechnical Investigation Report

FRT-18.5-K.99 Culvert Replacement Project

Mesa County, Colorado

Yeh Project No.: 219-061

July 19, 2019

Prepared for:

Collins Engineers, Inc.

Attn: Bryant E. Walters, P.E. 455 Sherman Street, Suite 160

Denver, CO 80203

Prepared by:

Yeh and Associates, Inc. 588 North Commercial Drive

Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 Phone: 970-242-5125 Fax: 970-255-8512

Final Geotechnical Investigation Report Project No. 219-061 FRT-18.5-K.99 Bridge Replacement, Mesa County, Colorado

i

Table of Contents

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ........................................................................................ 1

2. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................... 1

3. SITE CONDITIONS AND GEOLOGICAL SETTING .................................................................... 1

3.1 SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................... 1

3.2 GEOLOGICAL SETTING .............................................................................................................................. 4

4. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................ 4

4.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 5

4.1.1 FILL CLAY ........................................................................................................................................ 6

4.1.2 FILL SAND ....................................................................................................................................... 6

4.1.3 NATIVE CLAY ................................................................................................................................... 7

4.1.4 WEATHERED SHALE BEDROCK ............................................................................................................ 7

4.1.5 COMPETENT SHALE BEDROCK ............................................................................................................. 7

5. GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................ 8

6. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................. 8

7. SITE GRADING .................................................................................................................... 8

8. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 10

8.1 CONCRETE BOX CULVERT OPTION ............................................................................................................ 10

8.1.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS................................................................................................................. 10

8.2 BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 11

8.2.1 DRILLED SHAFT NOMINAL AXIAL RESISTANCE ...................................................................................... 12

8.2.2 DRILLED SHAFT AXIAL RESISTANCE FACTORS ....................................................................................... 13

8.2.3 DRILLED SHAFT LATERAL RESISTANCE ................................................................................................ 13

8.2.4 GENERAL DRILLED SHAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 14

8.3 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE ...................................................................................................................... 15

8.4 BRIDGE APPROACH EMBANKMENT ........................................................................................................... 15

9. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 16

9.1 SUBGRADE STRENGTH ............................................................................................................................ 16

9.2 TRAFFIC LOADING .................................................................................................................................. 16

9.3 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUTS ......................................................................................................... 16

9.4 PAVEMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 17

9.5 HOT MIX ASPHALT TYPE ......................................................................................................................... 17

9.6 PAVEMENT PREPARATION ....................................................................................................................... 18

10. WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE AND CORROSION TESTING .................................................... 18

11. LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................. 19

12. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 20


ii

List of Tables

TABLE 1 – BORING SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 6

TABLE 2 – SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR SITE CLASS B REFERENCE SITE .............................................................. 8

TABLE 3 – SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR SITE CLASS C ..................................................................................... 8

TABLE 4 – BRIDGE ABUTMENT BORING BEDROCK SUMMARY ................................................................................. 12

TABLE 5 – RECOMMENDED NOMINAL UNIT DRILLED SHAFT AXIAL RESISTANCE ......................................................... 13

TABLE 6 – LPILE PARAMETERS .......................................................................................................................... 14

TABLE 7 - FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................................................................ 16

TABLE 8 - RECOMMENDED HMA AND BASE THICKNESSES ...................................................................................... 17

List of Photos

PHOTO 1: TRANSVERSE AND ALLIGATOR CRACKING NEAR BORING P-1 ........................................................................ 2

PHOTO 2: PAVEMENT CRACKING AND POTHOLING IN 18.5 ROAD .............................................................................. 3

PHOTO 3: EAST INVERT OF THE EXISTING LITTLE SALT WASH PIPE CULVERT ................................................................. 3

List of Figures FIGURE 1 – SITE LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 2 – APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION MAP

List of Appendices

APPENDIX A - BORING LOGS AND LEGEND

APPENDIX B - ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SHEET

APPENDIX C - LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX D - ESALS AND TRAFFIC LOADING CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX E - PAVEMENT DESIGN


1

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation for construction of

either a box culvert or bridge to replace an existing culvert for the “Little Salt Wash” located at

approximately 18.5 and K.99 Roads at the northeastern edge of the City of Fruita in

unincorporated Mesa County, Colorado. The project site is located along 18.5 Road,

approximately 300 feet south of L Road, as shown in Figure 1 at the end of this report. The

purpose of this study was to evaluate geotechnical characteristics of the on-site soils and

provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed bridge or box culvert that will replace

the existing culvert and pavement design recommendations for new roadway alignments at the

approaches.

The geotechnical investigation consisted of field reconnaissance and exploratory drilling to

investigate subsurface conditions. Drilling was observed by a representative of Yeh and

Associates (Yeh). Samples obtained during the field exploration were examined by the project

personnel and representative samples were selected for laboratory testing to evaluate the

engineering characteristics of materials encountered. This report summarizes our field

investigation, the results of our analyses, and our conclusions and recommendations for

foundations and pavement based on the proposed construction, site reconnaissance,

subsurface investigation, and results of the laboratory testing.

2. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

It is our understanding that either a concrete box culvert or a bridge with associated structures

along 18.5 Road has been proposed to replace the pipe culvert at Little Salt Wash. Plans for a

proposed box culvert or bridge structure and proposed road alignment were not made available

to Yeh at the time of this report. Based on the existing conditions at the site, a new bridge

structure would likely be single span with abutments founded on drilled shafts. A new road

alignment is also planned for the approaches along 18.5 Road.

3. SITE CONDITIONS AND GEOLOGICAL SETTING

3.1 Site Conditions

The project site extends from the L Road intersection south approximately 550 feet, and

includes the right-of-way of 18.5 Road and an existing culvert that conveys water from the Little


2

Salt Wash drainage under 18.5 Road. At the time of this investigation, the 18.5 Road surface

was asphalt pavement that appeared to be in poor to fair condition with transverse and alligator

cracking, and potholing, as shown in Photos 1 and 2. Based on a Colorado Department of

Transportation (CDOT) Structure Inspection Report done in February 2018, the existing culvert

is listed as an 18-foot diameter, 104-foot long aluminum corrugated plate pipe with corrosion

holes throughout the pipe and damage to the culvert apron, as shown in Photo 3. Water was

flowing through the culvert at the time of the investigation. The culvert headwalls are described

in the report as stacked concrete rubble, and/or boulders that are beginning to collapse. The

width of 18.5 Road in the area of the culvert is approximately 22 feet. The site is bordered by

residential properties to the northwest and southeast, and vacant lands to the northeast and

southwest. The Little Salt Wash is located through the middle of the project site, flowing

northeast to southwest. The ground surface of the roadway is nearly flat to gently sloping at a

grade of approximately two percent from north to south and at an approximate elevation of 4573

feet, based on City of Fruita GIS topography maps. No survey data was made available to Yeh

at the time of this report. Site drainage is from the northeast down to the southwest. The Main

Line Grand Valley Canal is located approximately 100 feet west of the project site, and the

Colorado River is approximately 2.5 miles to the southwest. Vegetation consisted of trees,

native grasses and shrubs.

Photo 1: Transverse and alligator cracking near boring P-1

18.5 Road looking east


3

Photo 2: Pavement cracking and potholing in 18.5 Road

looking south.

Photo 3: East invert of the existing Little Salt Wash pipe culvert

looking southwest.


4

3.2 Geological Setting

The project site is located in the Grand Valley of the Colorado River, northeast of the

Uncompahgre Plateau and southwest of the Book Cliffs. The Quaternary age Redlands Fault

Complex is approximately four miles southwest of the project area at the northeast edge of the

Uncompahgre Plateau. Based on the 2009 geologic map of the Fruita quadrangle by Livaccari

and Hodge, the site is located on the Cretaceous age Smoky Hill Member of the Mancos Shale

bedrock that is dipping, or tilted, gently to the north-northeast. The shale bedrock, and soils

derived from the shale bedrock, may contain expansive clays, which can cause stability

problems for roads and buildings. Additionally, there is a possibility that evaporite mineral and

salt deposits, including sulfates such as gypsum, associated with the Mancos Shale may be

present in the soils that underlie the project site. As per the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS)

website for corrosive soils, these minerals may be corrosive to buried metal and concrete. Soil

corrosivity test results for soils sampled at the project site can be found in Section 9 of this

report. Additional surficial deposits include Quaternary age alluvium and artificial, or manmade,

fill and disturbed land.

Geologic hazards at the site include seasonal and flash flooding, and mud flows from Little Salt

Wash and from local washes and canals including Main Line Canal. Additional soil hazards

include swelling soils, collapsible and compressible soils in flooding areas, and corrosive soils

and swelling soils derived from the Mancos Shale. The potential for flooding and the resulting

scour should be anticipated within the project site and considered in the design of the culvert

replacement.

4. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

Four borings were drilled March 25 and 27, 2019, by HRL Compliance Solutions, Grand

Junction, Colorado with a CME 55 rubber track rig. Drilling systems used were 6-inch solid-stem

auger, 10-inch hollow-stem auger, and HQ3 wire-line coring. Boring locations were identified in

the field by Yeh based on discussions with the client. Borings were auger drilled or cored to

depths ranging from 6 to 51.5 feet below the pavement surface on 18.5 Road.

Two borings were drilled to investigate foundation conditions for the culvert replacement and

two borings were drilled to evaluate subgrade conditions for pavement design. Boring A-1 was

located in the vicinity of a north abutment for a proposed bridge, approximately 40 feet north of


5

the culvert centerline in the center of the northbound lane of 18.5 Road. Boring A-2 was located

in the vicinity of a south abutment for a proposed bridge, approximately 40 feet south of the

culvert centerline in the center of the southbound lane of 18.5 Road. The two bridge abutment

borings were advanced using 10-inch hollow-stem auger to depths ranging from 15.8 to 20.0

feet, where HQ3 wire-line coring was performed through the hollow-stem auger. A minimum of

20 feet of penetration into competent bedrock was achieved at both bridge structure boring

locations, to total drilling depths of 50.3 feet and 51.5 feet below ground surface.

Two borings were drilled through the existing pavement of the southbound lane of 18.5 Road

approximately 190 feet south and 160 feet north of the center line of the culvert. The borings

drilled for pavement design were advanced to a depth of 6 feet using a 6-inch solid stem auger.

The approximate locations of the borings are presented on Figure 2 at the end of this report.

At selected intervals, a modified California sampler with a 2-inch interior diameter (ID) and 2.5-

inch outside diameter (OD), or a standard split spoon sampler with a 1⅜-inch ID and 2-inch OD

were driven into the subsurface to record blow counts and obtain samples. The sampler was

seated at the bottom of the boring, then advanced by a 140-pound hydraulic automatic, or

“auto,” hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the

sampler two 6-inch intervals or a fraction thereof, constitutes the N-value. The N-value, when

properly evaluated, is an index of the consistency or relative density of the material tested.

Samples obtained during the field explorations were examined by the project engineer and

representative samples were submitted for laboratory testing to evaluate the engineering

characteristics of materials encountered. Representative HQ3 size, 2-3/8-inch diameter core

samples from Borings A-1 and A-2 were retrieved for testing. In addition, bulk samples of auger

cuttings were obtained at appropriate depths from all borings. The boring logs and legend are

presented in Appendix A, and laboratory test results and core photographs can be found in

Appendix C. An engineering geology sheet is presented in Appendix B.

4.1 Subsurface Conditions

Subsurface conditions encountered above bedrock in the proposed abutment area borings

consisted of 5 inches of hot mix asphalt (HMA) over 1.1 to 1.6 feet of road base, over 8.0 feet of

sandy clay fill, over 3.0 to 6.3 feet of clay. The bedrock consisted of 14.0 to 14.5 feet of

weathered shale over more competent shale encountered to the maximum depths drilled.


6

The pavement thickness encountered in the pavement borings consisted of 5 inches of asphalt

over 1.6 feet of road base. Boring P-1 had 3.5 feet of sand fill under the base course, over

native clay to the depth explored. Boring P-2 had 3.5 feet of native clay below the base course,

over weathered shale to depth explored. Table 1 summarizes boring depths, location, and

pavement and road base thicknesses.

Table 1 – Boring Summary

Boring Number

Boring Depth (feet)

Pavement Thickness (inches)

Road Base Thickness (inches)

Boring Location on 18.5 Road

A-1 51.5 5 13 40 feet north of culvert centerline, NB lane

A-2 50.3 5 19 40 feet south of culvert centerline, SB lane

P-1 6.0 5 19 160 feet north of culvert centerline, SB lane

P-2 6.0 5 19 190 feet south of culvert centerline, SB lane

4.1.1 Fill Clay

Four samples of the clay fill were tested in the laboratory. Two of the fill clay samples tested had

53 and 56 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 Sieve). Atterberg limits testing on these

samples indicated liquid limits of 24 and 25 percent and plasticity indices of 9 and 10 percent.

Swell/consolidation testing (ASTM D4546) was performed on three of the fill clay samples. One

sample from a depth of 2.0 feet exhibited no movement when wetted under an applied pressure

of 250 psf (pounds per square foot). A second fill clay sample from a depth of 6.5 feet exhibited

collapse of 0.1 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 500 psf. A third fill clay

sample from a depth of 7.0 feet exhibited collapse of 0.4 percent when wetted under an applied

pressure of 1,000 psf. Proctor test results indicate the fill clay has a maximum dry density of 119

pounds per cubic foot (pcf) at an optimum moisture content of 12.5 percent when tested in

accordance with AASHTO T-99.

The fill clay samples classified as CL based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

and as A-4 (2) based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO).

4.1.2 Fill Sand

Two samples of the sand fill (aggregate base course) tested had 20 and 44 percent fines, liquid

limits of no value and plasticity indices of non-plastic. The aggregate base course samples

classified as silty sand, SM (USCS), and as A-2-4 (0) and A-4 (0) (AASHTO).


7

4.1.3 Native Clay

Four native clay samples were tested in the laboratory. Three of the clay samples tested had 56

to 58 percent fines, liquid limits of 23 to 26 percent and plasticity indices of 6 to 9 percent.

Swell/consolidation testing (ASTM D4546) was performed on three of the clay samples. One

sample from a depth of 2.0 feet exhibited collapse of 0.1 percent when wetted under an applied

pressure of 250 psf. A second clay sample from a depth of 5.5 feet exhibited collapse of 0.1

percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 500 psf. The third clay sample from a depth

of 9.5 feet exhibited collapse of 0.1 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 1,000

psf.

A bulk clay sample from boring P-2 taken at depths of 2 to 5 feet was subjected to Hveem R-

value testing (ASTM 2844) and had an R-value of 18 at an exudation pressure of 300 psi

(pounds per square inch). Proctor test results indicate the native clay has a maximum dry

density of 116 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) at an optimum moisture content of 14.3 percent when

tested in accordance with AASHTO T-99. The native clay samples classified as CL and CL-ML

(USCS), and as A-4 (1) and A-4 (2) (AASHTO).

4.1.4 Weathered Shale Bedrock

Five weathered shale samples were subjected to laboratory testing. Atterberg limits testing on

two weathered shale samples showed liquid limits of 26 and 27 percent and plasticity indices of

11 and 13 percent. Swell/consolidation testing (ASTM D4546) performed on one weathered

shale bedrock sample from a depth of 15.0 feet exhibited swell of 0.1 percent, when wetted

under an applied pressure of 1,000 psf.

Two core samples of weathered shale from borings A-1 and A-2 at depths of 20 feet and 24 feet

showed unconfined compressive strengths of 13,794 psf and 17,585 psf, respectively. Rock

Quality Designation (RQD) values in cored, weathered shale in borings A-1 and A-2 was zero

(0) percent.

4.1.5 Competent Shale Bedrock

Four core samples of apparently competent shale bedrock from borings A-1 and A-2 at depths

of 28.5 to 47.0 feet were tested and had unconfined compressive strengths of 552,453 psf to

751,248 psf. RQD values in cored, competent shale in borings A-1 and A-2 ranged from 47 to

100 percent.


8

5. GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings during drilling. Water was flowing

through the culvert at the time of this investigation. Variations in groundwater conditions may

occur seasonally. The magnitude of the variation will be largely dependent upon the water

fluctuations in the Little Salt Wash, the Main Line Grand Valley Canal and other canals, and

nearby streams and washes, the amount of spring snowmelt, duration and intensity of

precipitation, flood irrigation, and the surface and subsurface drainage characteristics of the

surrounding area. Water flow in Little Salt Wash should be anticipated during construction.

6. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The proposed bridge or box culvert at FRT-18.5-K.99 is located at approximately latitude 39.178

degrees north and longitude -108.711 degrees west. The area of the proposed structure can be

classified as Site Class C, based on the recommendations in Table 3.10.3.1-1 of AASHTO

(2017). Based on the recommendations in Table 3.10.6-1 of AASHTO (2017), the area of the

proposed structure can be classified as a Seismic Zone 1.

The peak ground acceleration (PGA) and the short- and long-period spectral acceleration

coefficients (Ss and S1, respectively) for a reference Site Class B were determined using the

seismic design maps from the USGS website under the reference document AASHTO 2009.

The seismic design parameters for reference Site Class B and for Site Class C are shown in

Table 2 and Table 3 below.

Table 2 – Seismic Design Parameters for Site Class B Reference Site

PGA (0.0 sec) Ss (0.2 sec) S1 (1.0 sec)

0.077 g 0.160 g 0.039 g

Table 3 – Seismic Design Parameters for Site Class C

As (0.0 sec) SDS (0.2 sec) SD1 (1.0 sec)

0.092 g 0.192 g 0.067 g

7. SITE GRADING

All excavations and embankment grading should be performed in accordance with the Section

203 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 2017 (CDOT,

2017).


9

We recommend that all permanent un-retained cut and fill slopes be constructed no steeper

than 2 H: 1 V. Cut slopes should be protected from surface water runoff to prevent erosion and

slope failure. Surface drainage should be provided around all permanent cuts and fills to direct

surface runoff away from the slope faces. Fill slopes, cut slopes, and other stripped areas

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

should be prevented in areas susceptible to erosion or slope instability.

Positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of

the proposed structures. Surface features that could retain water in areas adjacent to the

structures should be sealed or eliminated.

Backfill against any structures and in utility trenches should be well compacted and free of all

construction debris, in order to reduce the possibility of moisture infiltration and migration. Flow

fill can be used to backfill confined areas and utility trenches.

Backfill placed on existing slopes that are steeper than 4H: 1V should be properly benched in

accordance with section 203.06 of the CDOT (2017). All compaction should be performed in

horizontal lifts that are 8-inches or less in loose thickness, using equipment and procedures that

will produce a uniform fill with the required moisture contents and densities throughout the lift.

The required percent of relative compaction and moisture content for the backfill materials are

presented in Section 203.07 of the CDOT (2017).

Imported backfill materials should have a Class 0 severity of sulfate exposure based on Table

601-2 of CDOT (2017). Backfill materials should be tested for severity of sulfate exposure prior

to placement. We recommend that the subgrade preparation process including soil excavation,

the placement and compaction of materials be observed and evaluated by the geotechnical

engineer of record or the engineer’s representative.

We anticipate that unshored, temporary excavation slopes may be used when the excavation

does not undermine existing structures, interfere with other construction, or extend beyond

construction limits. The Contractor is responsible for stability of temporary excavation slopes

and should observe the nature and conditions of the materials encountered during excavation,

including groundwater. If temporary excavations are made, they should be protected from

surface water runoff to prevent erosion and slope failure. All construction traffic should be set

back from the edge of temporary slopes a minimum of 5 feet, and excavated material, stockpiles

of construction materials, and construction equipment should not be placed closer to the edge of


10

any excavation than the depth of the excavation. We recommend that the contractor perform

periodic, daily monitoring of excavations and cut slopes to check for developing displacement,

deformations, bulges, and/or cracks in the soil.

8. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Concrete Box Culvert Option

Based on communications with the client, a concrete box culvert (CBC) with associated

retaining walls may be the selected alternative to replace the existing culvert. We recommend

the box culvert be designed in accordance with the CDOT M Standard Plans with the following

design and construction details.

8.1.1 Shallow Foundations

Shallow foundations should be constructed on properly placed structure backfill or native

weathered shale. Loose, disturbed soils encountered at foundation level should be removed and

replaced with Structure Backfill Class 1 per Section 206 of Colorado Department of

Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.

1. Using Load Resistance Factor Design criteria, from the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications, 8th Edition, (2017) (AASHTO LRFD); a nominal bearing resistance of qn =

34 ksf can be used for the shallow spread footing foundation below the CBC placed on

existing weathered shale or properly placed and compacted Structure Backfill Class 1.

This assumes a minimum effective width of 16 feet. A resistance factor of 0.45, per

Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 in AASHTO (2017) should be applied to the nominal bearing

resistance.

2. A minimum thickness of 6 inches of granular material should be placed below the bottom

of box culvert to increase resistance to sliding. An angle of internal friction of 34 degrees

should be used to calculate sliding resistance per AASHTO Section 10.6.3.4. Use a

resistance factor of 0.85 for friction to resist sliding.

3. Passive pressure to resist sliding can be estimated based on equivalent fluid densities

presented in Section 8.3. A resistance factor of 0.50 should be used for passive

resistance (per AASHTO 10.5.5.2.2-1).


11

4. Shallow spread footing foundations for the CBC wing walls should be protected from

frost action. Footings should be placed a minimum of 2.0 feet below final grade to

provide adequate frost protection.

5. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic

and surcharge pressures resulting from flow in the Little Salt Wash, adjacent roadways,

construction materials, and equipment.

6. We anticipate that the CBC will be underlain by weathered shale bedrock. Foundation

movements could occur if water from any source infiltrates the foundation soils,

particularly if swelling soils are involved. Our laboratory test results indicate the soils and

weathered bedrock have low swell potential in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Section

10.4.6.3. However, proper drainage will further reduce the potential for movement due to

swelling soils and should be provided in the final design and during construction.

7. Associated walls up to 24 feet in height are anticipated with CBC construction. It is

imperative that the final wall configuration meets the minimum factor of safety

requirements of AASHTO under external stability conditions. Recommendations for

design to resist lateral loading can be found in Section 8.3 of this report.

8. All foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical

engineer prior to placement of structure backfill or concrete.

8.2 Bridge Foundations

If the existing culvert is to be replaced by a bridge, we recommend the proposed bridge

abutments be supported on a deep foundation system such as drilled shafts (referred to locally

as caissons) or driven piles. Laboratory tests show the on-site soils could be corrosive to buried

metal and driven piles may require steel protection/mitigation. A drilled shaft deep foundation

system with sulfate-resistant concrete is recommended. Drilled shaft recommendations are

provided below in Sections 8.2.1 through 8.2.4. Driven pile recommendations can be provided

on request.


12

The soil and bedrock properties were estimated from drilling conditions, material descriptions,

and laboratory data. The design and construction of the foundation elements should comply with

all applicable requirements and guidelines listed in AASHTO LRFD.

Proposed bridge abutment boring estimated elevations, and approximate depths to weathered

and competent shale bedrock are presented in Table 4 below.

Table 4 – Bridge Abutment Boring Bedrock Summary

Boring Number and

Location

Estimated Elevation of Boring

(feet)

Estimated Elevation of Weathered

Bedrock (feet)

Estimated Elevation of Competent

Bedrock (feet)

A-1 North abutment

4573* 4558 4544

A-2 South abutment

4573* 4560 4545

*Based on City of Fruita GIS map

8.2.1 Drilled Shaft Nominal Axial Resistance

The bearing resistance of drilled shafts will be developed from side and tip resistance in the

underlying weathered and competent shale bedrock. The resistance from the overburden soil

above the weathered bedrock should be neglected when calculating drilled shaft capacity.

Drilled shafts should bear in the very hard (competent) shale that is slightly weathered to fresh.

Depth of penetration below the weathered shale should be at least 1.5 x D (where D is the

diameter of the shaft). Design should be in accordance with AASHTO 10.8.3.5.4b (2017). In

areas where rock coring produced suitable core recovery (RQD was greater than 50 percent),

axial resistance was calculated using design methods based on the unconfined compressive

strength of the rock using AASHTO 10.8.3.5 (2017). The expansive potential of the clay

overburden soils, and the weathered and competent bedrock are classified as low per Table

10.4.6.3-1 of the AASHTO LRFD specifications. Side resistance from shaft penetration through

the weathered shale and into the competent shale is expected to be sufficient to offset any uplift

due to swelling of clay overburden or adjacent weathered bedrock.

Table 5 contains the recommended values for the nominal side and tip resistance for drilled

shafts founded in the underlying weathered and competent shale bedrock. The upper three feet

of weathered bedrock penetration shall not be used for calculating drilled shaft resistance due to

the likelihood of construction disturbance and possible additional weathering. To account for


13

axial group effects, the minimum spacing requirements between drilled shafts should be three

(3) diameters from center-to-center.

8.2.2 Drilled Shaft Axial Resistance Factors

Based on Table 10.5.5.2.4-1 in AASHTO (2017), a resistance factor of 0.55 is recommended for

the side resistance while a factor of 0.50 can be used for the tip resistance. These factors

should be applied to the nominal resistance values in Table 5.

Table 5 – Recommended Nominal Unit Drilled Shaft Axial Resistance

“Hard” Weathered Shale (50<N<80 or 10ksf<UCCS<100ksf)

“Very Hard” Competent Shale (UCCS>100 ksf)

Drilled Shaft Nominal Unit Side Resistance (ksf)

Drilled Shaft Nominal Unit

Tip Resistance (ksf)

Drilled Shaft Nominal Unit

Side Resistance (ksf)

5 150 11

8.2.3 Drilled Shaft Lateral Resistance

The input parameters provided in Table 6 are recommended for use with the computer program

LPILE to develop the soil models used to evaluate the drilled shaft response to lateral loading.

Table 6 provides the estimated values associated with the soil types encountered in the borings.

The nature and type of loading should be considered carefully. The values in Table 6 may need

to be revised for foundation elements that are relatively close to a retaining wall.

Individual soil layers and their extent can be averaged or distinguished by referring to the boring

logs at the locations of the proposed foundations. The soils and/or bedrock materials prone to

future disturbance, such as from utility excavations or frost heave, should be neglected in the

lateral load analyses to the depth of disturbance, which may require more than but should not

be less than 3 feet.

Recommendations for p-y multiplier values (Pm values) to account for the reduction in lateral

capacity due to group effects are provided in Section 10.7.3.12 of AASHTO (2017). The Pm

value will depend on the direction of the applied load, center-to-center spacing, and location of

the foundation element within the group.


14

Table 6 – LPILE Parameters

Soil Type LPILE Soil

Criteria

Effective Unit Weight (pcf)

Friction Angle

φ φ φ φ (deg.)

Cohesion c (psf)

Strain Factor ε50

p-y modulus kstatic (pci)

AGT 1 BGT AGT BGT

Native Clay

Stiff Clay w/o Free Water (Welch & Reese)

115 57.5 - 500 0.01 100 -

Weathered Bedrock

Stiff Clay w/o Free Water (Welch & Reese)

125 62.5 - 1,000 0.008 500 -

Competent Bedrock

Hard Clay w/o Free Water (Welch & Reese)

135 135 - 8,000 0.001 2000 -

Notes (1) AGT is an abbreviation for above groundwater table, BGT is an abbreviation for below

groundwater table.

8.2.4 General Drilled Shaft Recommendations

The following recommendations can be used in the design and construction of the drilled shafts.

1. Groundwater and potentially caving soils may be encountered during drilling depending

on the time of year and location. The Contractor shall construct the drilled shafts using

means and methods that maintain a stable hole. Drilled shafts should be installed in

accordance with Section 503 of CDOT (2017).

2. Bedrock may be very hard at depth. The contractor should mobilize equipment of

sufficient size and operating condition to achieve the required design bedrock

penetration.

3. Drilled shaft construction shall not disturb previously installed drilled shafts or buried

structures, if any. The drilled shaft concrete should have sufficient time to cure before

construction on a drilled shaft within three shaft diameters (center to center spacing) to

prevent interaction between shafts during excavation and concrete placement.

4. Based on the results of the field investigation and experience with similar properly

constructed drilled shaft foundations, it is estimated that foundation settlement will be

less than approximately ½ inches when designed according to the criteria presented in

this report.


15

5. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe drilled shaft installation

operations on a full-time basis.

8.3 Lateral Earth Pressure

Bridge retaining/wing walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures. Based on the

existing geometry of the site there is a possibility of retaining walls and wing walls up to 24 feet

or more in height. Yeh recommends a global stability analysis be performed after a wall design

is completed. A global stability analysis was not included in our scope of work for this

investigation and can be provided upon request for an additional fee.

We recommend all retaining/wing walls be backfilled with properly compacted Class 1 Structure

Backfill meeting the requirements in the Colorado Department of Transportation, Standard

Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT 2017). Walls can be designed using an

equivalent fluid density of 38 pcf for active pressures or 60 pcf for at rest conditions for Class 1

Structure Backfill. On-site materials should not be used for retaining/wing wall backfill because

the clayey material is not free draining and may build hydrostatic pressure. This equivalent fluid

density assumes a horizontal slope above the wall. This value also assumes that the backfill

materials are not saturated. Wall designs should consider the influence of surcharge loading

such as traffic, construction equipment and/or sloping backfill.

Retaining/wing walls should be constructed with a drainage system to prevent buildup of

hydrostatic pressure immediately behind the wall. Drainage systems such as free-draining

gravel, pipes, drain board and/or weep holes are commonly used for the wall drainage. Water

levels during irrigation season may make subsurface drains impractical. Walls should be

designed for the anticipated hydrostatic pressures where drains cannot be provided.

8.4 Bridge Approach Embankment

We recommend the upper 2 feet of embankment material consist of imported granular soil

having an R-value of at least 30 to support the pavement structure. The abutment backfill

should be designed and constructed in accordance with the CDOT Bridge Design Manual.


16

9. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Subgrade Strength

An R-value of 18 was obtained from a representative bulk sample of native clay from a depth of

2 to 5 feet. The R-value of 18 was used to calculate a resilient modulus of 4,627 psi to model

subgrade strength for pavement design. The modulus value was used as one of the inputs for

the DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis computer program to determine recommended

pavement thickness. Other structural layer coefficients used in design were found in the

Colorado Department of Transportation 2014 Pavement Design Manual in accordance with the

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide.

9.2 Traffic Loading

The design traffic loading was determined from an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 1,568 vehicles

per day based on a 1.24 growth factor computed from an estimated current ADT of 1,400. The

current ADT number was obtained from Mesa County through TH Engineering. Twenty-year

projected volumes were used as an input for the design of hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavement.

The resulting traffic ESAL (Equivalent Single Axle Load applications) value was estimated at

477,315 for HMA pavement. The data and calculations of the traffic loading ESAL value is

presented in Appendix D.

9.3 Design Assumptions and Inputs

Table 7 presents the input design parameters used for the design of all flexible pavement

sections.

Table 7 - Flexible Pavement Design Parameters

HMA Design Inputs

Initial Serviceability 4.5 Overall Deviation 0.44

Terminal Serviceability 2.0 HMA Str. Layer Coefficient 0.44

Reliability Level, % 95 Class 6 Aggregate Coefficient 0.12

Structural Numbers

Pavement ESALs Design Structural

Number (SN)

HMA Traffic Loading 477,315 3.61


17

9.4 Pavement

A pavement section is a layered structure designed to disperse dynamic traffic loads to the

subgrade. The performance of the pavement structure depends on the traffic loadings and

physical properties of the subgrade materials. The recommended pavement design thickness

sections are summarized below. Recommended HMA pavement thickness can be found in

Table 8.

HMA pavement design calculations were performed using the program DARWin Version 3.1.

The program follows the guidelines from the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide and the

2014 CDOT Pavement Design Manual. The program outputs for all pavement designs are

presented in Appendix E.

Table 8 - Recommended HMA and Base Thicknesses

Pavement Location Required

SN New HMA (inches)

Class 6 Aggregate Base Course

(inches)

Calculated SN

18.5 Road south of L Road in area of proposed replacement bridge

3.61 6 9 3.72

Based on the DARWin program Version 3.1 (1993 AASHTO) computer program, an HMA

pavement thickness of 6 inches overlying a minimum of 9 inches of Class 6 aggregate base

course would be acceptable for the proposed changes to 18.5 Road in the location of the bridge

replacement.

9.5 Hot Mix Asphalt Type

A printout from the LTPPBind program is presented following the pavement designs in Appendix

E. The data from the LTPPBind program, based on local weather data, recommends that

performance graded binder PG 64-28 be used in the project area. However, because of the

limited amount of asphalt mix that will be required for the structure approaches, we recommend

a nominal 1/2 inch mix conforming to CDOT Grading SX(75) containing the performance graded

binder; PG 64-22. This mix contains an unmodified asphalt binder, is a locally produced mix and

should be readily available from all local asphalt producers. Based on the LTPPBind output

attached in Appendix E the mix should provide 98% reliability against rutting and 91% reliability

to address low temperature thermal cracking.


18

Aggregates for hot plant mix bituminous pavement should be of uniform quality, and composed

of clean, hard, durable particles of crushed stone, gravel, or slag. Excess of fine material should

be wasted before crushing.

9.6 Pavement Preparation

In order to prepare the subgrade for the placement of the new pavements, we recommend

removal of any topsoil material from the pavement areas. The upper 2 feet of existing fill

material should be removed and replaced compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard

Proctor density. Following removal of the existing fill soils and topsoil, the native subgrade or

existing fill should be reconditioned by scarifying and recompacting to a minimum depth of 8

inches. Stabilization, either mechanical or chemical, of the existing subgrade may be necessary

in order to achieve a stable paving subgrade. These recommendations can be provided during

construction if necessary. Subgrade deterioration in areas of frequent construction traffic should

be anticipated and stabilization methods such as imported layers of aggregate, or geogrid

stabilization, may be necessary. We recommend the installation of a non-woven separator

geotextile conforming to AASHTO M288 Class 1 on the compacted subgrade prior to placement

of the ABC.

10. WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE AND CORROSION TESTING

Three samples acquired during drilling were tested for water-soluble sulfate and corrosion. One

fill clay sample from a depth of 2 feet had a concentration of water-soluble sulfates of 0.333

percent. Two weathered shale samples from depths of 5.5 and 13.0 feet had concentrations of

water-soluble sulfates of 1.417 percent and 0.918 percent, respectively. The concentration of

soluble sulfate in the soil samples for this project represent a susceptibility to sulfate attack to

concrete of Class 2 based on Table 601-2 of the 2017 CDOT Standard Specifications for Road

and Bridge Construction. Concrete mixes in contact with soils on this project should meet the

requirements for Class 2 in conformance with Section 601.04 of the CDOT Standard

Specifications.

When applicable, a layer of Structure Backfill (Class 1) or aggregate base course could be used

as a separator between concrete and native material. Structure Backfill and aggregate base

course are assumed to have Class 0 water-soluble sulfate exposure, or no effect on concrete.


19

The pH, electrical resistivity and water-soluble chloride concentration were also determined for

the three samples. Test results measured pH values of 7.6 to 8.0, resistivity values of 335 to

651 ohm-centimeters, and water-soluble chlorides concentrations of 0.0038 to 0.0193 percent.

The low resistivity values indicate the soils may be corrosive to buried metal. An increase in

moisture to surrounding soils typically increases corrosivity. Properly compacted non-corrosive

imported fill soils may be used as a barrier between corrosive soils and construction materials.

Options for corrosion mitigation could include sacrificial metal (heavier gauge construction

material) in design of structural elements and use of materials resistant to corrosion such as

galvanized or epoxy coatings; cathodic protection systems, and sulfate resistant concrete. A

qualified corrosion engineer should review this data to evaluate the appropriate level of

corrosion protection for subgrade utilities and buried metal and concrete structures proposed for

the area.

11. LIMITATIONS

This study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering

practices in this area for use by the client for design of the proposed culvert replacement.

Recommendations herein are intended to be used for design by a qualified structural engineer.

The preliminary analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based upon our

data obtained from limited field observations, widely spaced borings, laboratory testing, our

understanding of the proposed construction and other information as discussed in this report. It

is possible and likely that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered in the

borings. We should also review the design for conformance to the recommendations in the

report when the scope of the proposed construction, including the proposed loads, finished

elevations or structure locations, become established.

The scope of services for this project did not include, specifically or by implication, any

environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, and bacteria) assessment of the site or

identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions or biological

conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, conditions or

pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

The report was prepared in substantial accordance with the generally accepted standards of

practice for geotechnical engineering as exist in the site area at the time of our investigation. No

warranties, express or implied, are intended or made. The recommendations in this report are


20

based on the assumption that Yeh and Associates will conduct an adequate program of

construction testing and observation to evaluate compliance with our recommendations.

12. REFERENCES

AASHTO, (2017). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition, American

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

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1993). AASHTO guide for

design of pavement structures, 1993. Washington, D.C.: The Association

City of Fruita GIS maps accessed web site April 19, 2019 at: https://fruita-

gis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e6ce33d199444f62b6bbd19849

f3ab60

Colorado Department of Transportation Pavement Design Manual, CDOT 2017.

Colorado Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge

Construction, CDOT 2017.

Colorado Geological Survey, Corrosive Soils, accessed web site April 9, 2019 at:

http://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/geologic-hazards/corrosive-soils/

Livaccari, R., and Hodge, J., 2009, Geologic map of the Fruita quadrangle, Mesa County,

Colorado, Open-File Report OF-09-04, scale 1:24,000.

U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Web Service Documentation,

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ws/designmaps/, accessed April 11, 2019.

PROJECT NUMBER:

NOT TO SCALE

PROJECT:

FIGURE

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

DATE:

DESIGNED FOR:

Consulting Engineers & ScientistsYeh and Associates, Inc. 1

JRM/SW

SWR

05-06-2019

05-06-2019


219-061

N

Base maps acquired from maps.google.com and Google Earth

Site Location Map

FRT-18.5-K.99 Bridge Replacement

Fruita, Mesa County, Colorado

SITE

Fruita

FRT-18.5-K.99 Bridge

Replacement Area

18.5 R

oa

d

Figure 2

G

o

v

t

H

ig

h

lin

e

Canal

L Road

M

a

i

n

L

i

n

e

G

r

a

n

d

V

a

lle

y

C

a

n

a

l

L

i

t

t

l

e

S

a

l

t

W

a

s

h

Main Line G

rand V

alley C

anal

L

i

t

t

l

e

S

a

l

t

W

a

s

h

PROJECT NUMBER:

SCALE: 1"=30'

PROJECT:

FIGURE

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

DATE:

DESIGNED FOR:

Consulting Engineers & ScientistsYeh and Associates, Inc. 2

JRM/SW

SWR

05-06-2019

05-06-2019


219-061

0 15 30 60

Indicates proposed abutment area boring

Approximate Boring

Location Map



NOTES: Base maps acquired from Google Earth.

Boring locations are placed according to

measurements taken by YA staff using basic

survey methods. Survey was not complete at time

of report.

Indicates pavement boring

P-1

A-1

LEGEND

(All locations are approximate)

18 1/2 Road

A-1

M

a

in

L

in

e

G

ra

n

d

V

a

lle

y

C

a

n

a

l

A-2P-2

40

40

P-1

Existing guardrail,

west side

North Bound Lane (NB) Mesa County

South Bound Lane (SB) City of Fruita

Approximate Centerline

of Existing Culvert

Approximate location of

proposed north abutment

Approximate location

of proposed south abutment

L

i

t

t

l

e

S

a

l

t

W

a

s

h

L

i

t

t

l

e

S

a

l

t

W

a

s

h

Indicates flow direction

Existing guardrail,

east side

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

AutoCAD SHX Text

S

AutoCAD SHX Text

W

AutoCAD SHX Text

E

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - BORING LOGS AND LEGEND

APPENDIX B - ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SHEET

APPENDIX C - LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX D - ESALS AND TRAFFIC LOADING CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX E - PAVEMENT DESIGN

Appendix A

BORING LOGS AND LEGEND

Project Number: 219-061

Lithology Symbols(see Boring Logs for complete descriptions)

Asphalt

Lab Test Standards Other Lab Test Abbreviations

Notes

Moisture Content ASTM D2216Dry Density ASTM D7263Sand/Fines Content ASTM D421, ASTM C136,

ASTM D1140Atterberg Limits ASTM D4318AASHTO Class. AASHTO M145,

ASTM D3282USCS Class. ASTM D2487(Fines = % Passing #200 SieveSand = % Passing #4 Sieve, but not passing #200 Sieve)

Auger Cuttings Rock Core

Modified CaliforniaSampler(2.5 inch OD, 2.0inch ID)

StandardPenetration Test(ASTM D1586)

Sample Types

Legend for Symbols Used on Borehole Logs

Project:

Yeh and Associates, Inc.C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s

Aggregate Base Course (ABC)

SHALE BEDROCK

CLAY

FILL SAND

FILL CLAY

pH Soil pH (AASHTO T289-91)S Water-Soluble Sulfate Content (AASHTO T290-91,

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

ASTM D4327)S/C Swell/Consolidation (ASTM D4546)UCCS Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM D2166)R-Value Resistance R-Value (ASTM D2844)Re Electrical Resistivity (AASHTO T288-91)

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

WEATHERED SHALE BEDROCK

2. The Modified California sampler used to obtain samples is a 2.5-inch OD, 2.0-inch ID (1.95-inch ID with liners),split-barrel sampler with internal liners, as per ASTM D3550. Sampler is driven with a 140-pound hammer, dropped30 inches per blow.


A-4 (2)CL

58 923

S/C=-0.1%

S/C=-0.1%

S/C=0.1%

20.0 ft - Switch toHQ CoreUCCS=13,794 psf

10.7

12.5

10.9

7.2

114.0

120.0

124.0

132.0

3-4

3-3

5-6

3-8

2-3

4-16

40-50/3"

7

6

11

11

5

20

50/3"

0.0 - 0.4 ft. 5 inches HMA.

0.4 - 1.5 ft. Aggregate Base Course;SAND, silty with gravel; brown; noplasticity; moist; medium dense, (fill).

1.5 - 9.5 ft. sandy CLAY with gravel,reddish brown, low plasticity, moist,medium stiff to stiff, (fill).

Reddish brown with dark brown, shalefragments.

9.5 - 15.0 ft. sandy CLAY, brown, lowplasticity, moist, medium stiff to stiff.

15.0 - 29.0 ft. WEATHERED SHALE,light brown with gray, predominantlydecomposed to moderately weathered,firm to very hard, lamination openfractures, some decomposed to clay;calcareous veins.

Color change to dark gray to black.

24.5 - 25.6 ft.Highly weathered zone.

89

95

0

0

Total Depth: 51.5 ft

Ground Elevation: Estimated 4573

Coordinates: N: E:

Location: In pavement 18.5 Rd, 40 ft north of culvert center

line, center of NB lane Groundwater Levels:

Logged By: J. Mulumba

Final By: J. Mulumba/S. White

Symbol

Depth

Date

Weather Notes: Sunny, 50°

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Boring Began: 3/27/2019

Boring Completed: 3/27/2019

Drilling Method(s): Hollow-Stem Auger (10" OD) /

Coring

Driller: HRL Compliance Solutions

Drill Rig: CME 55 Rubber Track

Hammer Type: Automatic (hydraulic)-

-

-

-

-

-

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 2

AASHTO& USCSClassifi-cations

Fin

es C

onte

nt

(%)

Pla

sticity

Index

Project Number: 219-061C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s

Liq

uid

Lim

it

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: A-1

Yeh and Associates, Inc.E

leva

tio

n(f

ee

t)

4570

4565

4560

4555

4550

De

pth

(fe

et)

5

10

15

20

25

Sam

ple

Type/

Advancem

ent M

eth

od

BO

RIN

G L

OG

20

15

2

19

-06

1 F

RT

-18

.5-K

99

GIN

T,M

W R

EV

EL

EV

.GP

J

20

15

YE

H A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

TE

MP

LA

TE

.GD

T

20

15

LIB

RA

RY

.GL

B

7/1

8/1

9

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)Blows

per6 in

Pe

ne

tra

tio

nR

esis

tan

ce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples

Material Description

Re

co

ve

ry (

%)

Rock

RQ

D (

%)

32.0 ft - FastercoringUCCS=620,790 psf

46.5 ft -UCCS=552,453 psf

51.5 ft - End coring;backfill with cuttingsand native material.Gravel base andconcrete patch atsurface.

2.3

3.1

147.0

153.0

29.0 - 51.5 ft. SHALE, dark gray to black;slightly weathered to fresh; very hard; fewfractures.

32.6 - 32.9 ft. Iron-oxide staining.

Bottom of Hole at 51.5 ft.

93

98

100

100

100

0

73

99

100

83

ProjectName:

PAGE2 of 2


Fin

es C

onte

nt

(%)

Pla

sticity

Index


Liq

uid

Lim

it

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: A-1


leva

tio

n(f

ee

t)

4545

4540

4535

4530

4525

4520

4515

De

pth

(fe

et)

30

35

40

45

50

Sam

ple

Type/

Advancem

ent M

eth

od

BO

RIN

G L

OG

20

15

2

19

-06

1 F

RT

-18

.5-K

99

GIN

T,M

W R

EV

EL

EV

.GP

J

20

15

YE

H A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

TE

MP

LA

TE

.GD

T

20

15

LIB

RA

RY

.GL

B

7/1

8/1

9

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)Blows

per6 in

Pe

ne

tra

tio

nR

esis

tan

ce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples

Material DescriptionR

eco

ve

ry (

%)

Rock

RQ

D (

%)

A-4 (2)CL

A-4 (2)CL

53

56

10

9

11

25

24

26

pH=8S=0.333%Chl=0.0038%S/C=0%Re=393ohm·cm2.0 ft - Proctor:Optimum MoistureContent=12.5%;Maximum DryDensity=119 pcf

S/C=-0.4%

pH=7.6S=0.918%Chl=0.0193%Re=651ohm·cm

15.8 ft - Switch toHQ Core

24.0 ft -UCCS=17,585 psf

32

44

15

0

13.8

10.1

6.1

10.5

115.0

112.0

101.0

4-5

5-6

4-6

3-4

15-50/5"

30-50/3"

9

11

10

7

50/5"

50/3"


0.4 - 2.0 ft. Aggregate BaseCourse; SAND, silty withgravel; brown; no plasticity;moist; medium dense, (fill).

2.0 - 10.0 ft. sandy CLAYwith gravel, reddish brown,low plasticity, moist, stiff, (fill).

10.0 - 13.0 ft. CLAY, brown,low plasticity, moist, mediumstiff.

13.0 - 27.5 ft. WEATHEREDSHALE, light gray to lightbrown, dark brown,moderately weathered, hardto very hard, lamination openfractures, some fractureshave clay infilling; friable.

Dark gray with bands of lightbrown.

56

100

95

0

0

0

Total Depth: 50.3 ft


Coordinates: N: E:

Location: In pavement 18.5 Rd, 40 ft south of culvert center

line, center of SB lane Groundwater Levels: Not Observed



Symbol

Depth

Date





Drilling Method(s): Hollow-Stem Auger (10" OD) /

Coring




-

-

-

-

-

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 2


Fin

es C

onte

nt

(%)

Pla

sticity

Index


Liq

uid

Lim

it

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: A-2


leva

tio

n(f

ee

t)

4570

4565

4560

4555

4550

De

pth

(fe

et)

5

10

15

20

25

Sam

ple

Type/

Advancem

ent M

eth

od

BO

RIN

G L

OG

20

15

2

19

-06

1 F

RT

-18

.5-K

99

GIN

T,M

W R

EV

EL

EV

.GP

J

20

15

YE

H A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

TE

MP

LA

TE

.GD

T

20

15

LIB

RA

RY

.GL

B

7/1

8/1

9

Sand C

onte

nt

(%)

Gra

vel C

onte

nt

(%)

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)Blows

per6 in

Pe

ne

tra

tio

nR

esis

tan

ce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples


Re

co

ve

ry (

%)

Rock

RQ

D (

%)

28.5 ft -UCCS=603,923 psf

46.5 ft -UCCS=751,248 psf

50.3 ft - End coring;backfill with cuttingsand native material.Gravel base andconcrete patch atsurface.

3.6 155.0

27.5 - 50.3 ft. SHALE, darkgray to black; slightlyweathered to fresh; very hard;slightly fractured.Iron oxide staining.


100

100

100

100

100

47

93

100

100

100

ProjectName:

PAGE2 of 2


Fin

es C

onte

nt

(%)

Pla

sticity

Index


Liq

uid

Lim

it

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: A-2


leva

tio

n(f

ee

t)

4545

4540

4535

4530

4525

4520

4515

De

pth

(fe

et)

30

35

40

45

50

Sam

ple

Type/

Advancem

ent M

eth

od

BO

RIN

G L

OG

20

15

2

19

-06

1 F

RT

-18

.5-K

99

GIN

T,M

W R

EV

EL

EV

.GP

J

20

15

YE

H A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

TE

MP

LA

TE

.GD

T

20

15

LIB

RA

RY

.GL

B

7/1

8/1

9

Sand C

onte

nt

(%)

Gra

vel C

onte

nt

(%)

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)Blows

per6 in

Pe

ne

tra

tio

nR

esis

tan

ce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples

Material DescriptionR

eco

ve

ry (

%)

Rock

RQ

D (

%)

A-2-4 (0)SM

A-4 (0)SM

A-4 (2)CL

20

44

56

NP

NP

9

NV

NV

26 S/C=-0.1%6.0 ft - End drilling;backfill with cuttingsand native material,and asphalt patch atsurface.

45

39

34

35

17

10

6.1

12.2

10.1

105.0

108.0

9-8-5

12-18

6-7

13

30

13



2.0 - 5.5 ft. silty SAND with gravel, brownwith red, no plasticity, moist, mediumdense, gravels up to 3-inch diameter, (fill).

5.5 - 6.0 ft. sandy CLAY, black, lowplasticity, moist, stiff, calcareous.


Total Depth: 6.0 ft


Coordinates: N: E:

Location: In pavement 18.5 Rd, 160 ft north of culvert center

line, SB lane Groundwater Levels: Not Observed



Symbol

Depth

Date





Drilling Method(s): Solid-Stem Auger (6" OD)




-

-

-

-

-

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt

(%)

Pla

sticity

Index


Liq

uid

Lim

it

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: P-1


leva

tio

n(f

ee

t)

4570

4565

4560

4555

4550

De

pth

(fe

et)

5

Sam

ple

Type/

Advancem

ent M

eth

od

BO

RIN

G L

OG

20

15

2

19

-06

1 F

RT

-18

.5-K

99

GIN

T,M

W R

EV

EL

EV

.GP

J

20

15

YE

H A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

TE

MP

LA

TE

.GD

T

20

15

LIB

RA

RY

.GL

B

7/1

8/1

9

Sand C

onte

nt

(%)

Gra

vel C

onte

nt

(%)

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)Blows

per6 in

Pe

ne

tra

tio

nR

esis

tan

ce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples


A-4 (1)CL-ML

58 6

13

23

27

S/C=-0.1%2.0 ft - Proctor:Optimum MoistureContent=14.3%;Maximum DryDensity=116 pcfR-Value=18

pH=7.9S=1.417%Chl=0.0097%Re=335ohm·cm6.0 ft - End drilling;backfill with cuttingsand native material,and asphalt patch atsurface.

36610.6

7.0

113.0

123.0

4-6

12-20

10

32



2.0 - 5.5 ft. silty CLAY sandy, brown, lowplasticity, moist, stiff, calcareous.

5.5 - 6.0 ft. WEATHERED SHALE,brown, decomposed as CLAY, with sand,low plasticity; medium hard; gypsumdeposits.


Total Depth: 6.0 ft


Coordinates: N: E:

Location: In pavement 18.5 Rd, 190 ft south of culvert center

line, SB lane Groundwater Levels: Not Observed



Symbol

Depth

Date





Drilling Method(s): Solid-Stem Auger (6" OD)




-

-

-

-

-

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt

(%)

Pla

sticity

Index


Liq

uid

Lim

it

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: P-2


leva

tio

n(f

ee

t)

4570

4565

4560

4555

4550

De

pth

(fe

et)

5

Sam

ple

Type/

Advancem

ent M

eth

od

BO

RIN

G L

OG

20

15

2

19

-06

1 F

RT

-18

.5-K

99

GIN

T,M

W R

EV

EL

EV

.GP

J

20

15

YE

H A

SS

OC

IAT

ES

TE

MP

LA

TE

.GD

T

20

15

LIB

RA

RY

.GL

B

7/1

8/1

9

Sand C

onte

nt

(%)

Gra

vel C

onte

nt

(%)

Mois

ture

Conte

nt

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)Blows

per6 in

Pe

ne

tra

tio

nR

esis

tan

ce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples


Appendix B

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SHEET

Consulting Engineers & ScientistsYeh and Associates, Inc.

REUSE OF DOCUMENTThis document is the property of Yeh &Associates, Inc. The ideas incorporated on thisdocument are instruments of professionalservice and shall not be used for any otherproject without written authorization from Yeh& Associates, Inc.

N

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT NUMBER:

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE

AutoCAD SHX Text

SHEET REVISION

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

BY

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT:

AutoCAD SHX Text

SHEET OF

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAWN BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

CHECKED BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

HORIZ:

AutoCAD SHX Text

VERT:

AutoCAD SHX Text

NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DESIGNED FOR:

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

A-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

A-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

18 ROAD12 ROAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%uRQD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

72

AutoCAD SHX Text

99

AutoCAD SHX Text

100

AutoCAD SHX Text

83

AutoCAD SHX Text

7

AutoCAD SHX Text

6

AutoCAD SHX Text

11

AutoCAD SHX Text

11

AutoCAD SHX Text

5

AutoCAD SHX Text

20

AutoCAD SHX Text

90/9"

AutoCAD SHX Text

A-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%uRQD

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

46

AutoCAD SHX Text

93

AutoCAD SHX Text

100

AutoCAD SHX Text

100

AutoCAD SHX Text

100

AutoCAD SHX Text

9

AutoCAD SHX Text

11

AutoCAD SHX Text

10

AutoCAD SHX Text

7

AutoCAD SHX Text

65/11"

AutoCAD SHX Text

80/9"

AutoCAD SHX Text

A-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

Weathered

AutoCAD SHX Text

Bedrock

AutoCAD SHX Text

Shale

AutoCAD SHX Text

Sample Type

AutoCAD SHX Text

Graphic

AutoCAD SHX Text

Groundwater

AutoCAD SHX Text

Levels

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%uRQD%%u

AutoCAD SHX Text

x

AutoCAD SHX Text

x

AutoCAD SHX Text

x

AutoCAD SHX Text

##

AutoCAD SHX Text

Boring No.

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%uTYPICAL BOREHOLE LOG

AutoCAD SHX Text

Asphalt

AutoCAD SHX Text

Fill

AutoCAD SHX Text

Fill with Clay

AutoCAD SHX Text

as major soil

AutoCAD SHX Text

USCS Low

AutoCAD SHX Text

Plasticity Clay

AutoCAD SHX Text

*e.g. A value of 50/3 or 50:3 indicates that 50 blows were applied to the sampler, with a penetration of 3 inches.

AutoCAD SHX Text

Material Description Graphics (see Legend)

AutoCAD SHX Text

Penetration Resistance (Blows per foot -OR-inches of penetration)*

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%ULEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text

M. WALZ

AutoCAD SHX Text

S. RICHARDS

AutoCAD SHX Text

7-12-19

AutoCAD SHX Text

7-12-19

AutoCAD SHX Text

219-061

AutoCAD SHX Text

1 1

AutoCAD SHX Text

FRT 18.5 K99 BRIDGE

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY

AutoCAD SHX Text

Note: Boring elevations were not surveyed and were taken from the City of Fruita GIS maps.

Appendix C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

(ohm-cm)

250 500 1000 (psf)

A-1 6.5 MC 10.7 114 -0.1FILL CLAY, sandy with

gravel

9.5 MC 12.5 120 58 23 14 9 -0.1 A-4 (2) CL CLAY, sandy

15.0 MC 10.9 124 0.1WEATHERED SHALE

BEDROCK

20.0 to

20.3Core 7.2 132 13,794

WEATHERED SHALE

BEDROCK

32.0 to

32.5Core 2.3 147 620,790 SHALE BEDROCK

46.5 to


A-2 2.0 MC 13.8 115 15 32 53 25 15 10 0.333 0.0038 393 8.0 0.0 A-4 (2) CLFILL CLAY, sandy with

gravel

2.0-5.0 Bulk 12.5* 119** 0 44 56 24 15 9 A-4 (2) CLFILL CLAY, sandy with

gravel

7.0 MC 10.1 112 -0.4FILL CLAY, sandy with

gravel

13.0 MC 6.1 26 15 11 0.918 0.0193 651 7.6WEATHERED SHALE

BEDROCK

24.0 to

24.3Core 10.5 101 17,585

WEATHERED SHALE

BEDROCK

28.5 to


46.5 to

46.8Core

157.9

(wet)751,248 SHALE BEDROCK

Water

Soluble

Sulfate

(%)

Atterberg Limits

AASHTOResistivity

Unconfined

Compressive

Strength

219-061

Sample

Type

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Gravel

> #4

(%)

Swell /

Consolidation %

Applied Load (psf)Sand

(%)

Fines

< #200

(%)

LL

FRT-18.5-K.99 Bridge Replacement, Mesa County, Colorado

PI

YEH & ASSOCIATES, INC

Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Project Name:

USCSR-

Value

Moisture

Content

(%)

Water

Soluble

Chloride

(%)PL

Sample Location

BoringMaterial Description

Project No:

Depth

(ft)

pH

Grain Size Analysis

MC - Indicates Modified California sampler

SPT - Indicates Split Spoon sampler

Bulk - Indicates auger cuttings

Core - Indicates HQ3 core samples 1 of 2* Optimum Moisture Content (%)

** Maximum Dry Density (pcf)

(ohm-cm)

250 500 1000 (psf)

Water

Soluble

Sulfate

(%)

Atterberg Limits

AASHTOResistivity

Unconfined

Compressive

Strength

219-061

Sample

Type

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Gravel

> #4

(%)

Swell /

Consolidation %

Applied Load (psf)Sand

(%)

Fines

< #200

(%)

LL

FRT-18.5-K.99 Bridge Replacement, Mesa County, Colorado

PI

YEH & ASSOCIATES, INC

Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Project Name:

USCSR-

Value

Moisture

Content

(%)

Water

Soluble

Chloride

(%)PL

Sample Location

BoringMaterial Description

Project No:

Depth

(ft)

pH

Grain Size Analysis

P-1 0.4 SPT 6.1 35 45 20 NV NP NP A-2-4 (0) SMFILL SAND, silty with

gravel

2.5 MC 12.2 105 17 39 44 NV NP NP A-4 (0) SMFILL SAND, silty with

gravel

5.5 MC 10.1 108 10 34 56 26 17 9 -0.1 A-4 (2) CL CLAY, sandy

P-2 2.0 MC 10.6 113 6 36 58 23 17 6 -0.1 A-4 (1)CL-

MLCLAY, silty, sandy

2.0-5.0 Bulk 14.3* 116** 18 CLAY, silty, sandy

5.5 MC 7.0 123 27 14 13 1.417 0.0097 335 7.9 WEATHERED SHALE

MC - Indicates Modified California sampler

SPT - Indicates Split Spoon sampler

Bulk - Indicates auger cuttings

Core - Indicates HQ3 core samples 2 of 2* Optimum Moisture Content (%)

** Maximum Dry Density (pcf)

Applied Normal Pressure, ksf


1 6.5

2 9.5

Job No:

SWR

219-061 Project Name: FRT-18.5-K.99 Bridge ReplacementFigure C-1

YEH & ASSOCIATES, INC.

A-1 120 12.5 -0.1 CLAY, sandy (CL) Checked By:

Soil Description

SWELL /

CONSOLIDATION

GRAPH

A-1 114 10.7 -0.1FILL CLAY, sandy with

gravel (CL)Drawn By: JRM/SW

Swell(+) /

Consolidation(-)

(%)

Graph

Number

Boring

NumberDepth (ft)

Natural Dry

Density

(pcf)

Moisture

Content

(%)

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

0.1 1 10

Co

nso

lid

ati

on

(-)/

Sw

ell

(+),

%

WATER ADDED

Graph 2

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

0.1 1 10

Co

nso

lid

ati

on

(-)/

Sw

ell

(+),

%WATER ADDED

Graph 1



1 15.0

2 2.0

Job No:

SWR



A-2 115 13.8 0.0FILL CLAY, sandy with

gravel (CL)Checked By:

Soil Description

SWELL /

CONSOLIDATION

GRAPH

A-1 124 10.9 0.1WEATHERED SHALE

BEDROCKDrawn By: JRM/SW

Swell(+) /

Consolidation(-)

(%)

Graph

Number

Boring

NumberDepth (ft)

Natural Dry

Density

(pcf)

Moisture

Content

(%)

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

0.1 1 10

Co

nso

lid

ati

on

(-)/

Sw

ell

(+),

%

WATER ADDED

Graph 2

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

0.1 1 10

Co

nso

lid

ati

on

(-)/

Sw

ell

(+),

%

WATER ADDED

Graph 1



1 7.0

2

Job No:

SWR



Checked By:

Soil Description

SWELL /

CONSOLIDATION

GRAPH

A-2 112 10.1 -0.4 FILL CLAY, sandy Drawn By: JRM/SW

Swell(+) /

Consolidation(-)

(%)

Graph

Number

Boring

NumberDepth (ft)

Natural Dry

Density

(pcf)

Moisture

Content

(%)

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

0.1 1 10

Co

nso

lid

ati

on

(-)/

Sw

ell

(+),

%

Graph 2

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

0.1 1 10

Co

nso

lid

ati

on

(-)/

Sw

ell

(+),

%WATER ADDED

Graph 1



1 5.5

2 2.0

Job No:

Graph

Number

Boring

NumberDepth (ft)

Natural Dry

Density

(pcf)

Moisture

Content

(%)

Soil Description

SWELL /

CONSOLIDATION

GRAPH

P-1 108 10.1 -0.1 CLAY, sandy (CL) Drawn By: JRM/SW

Swell(+) /

Consolidation(-)

(%)

SWR



P-2 113 10.6 -0.1CLAY, silty, sandy

(CL-ML)Checked By:

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

0.1 1 10

Co

nso

lid

ati

on

(-)/

Sw

ell

(+),

%

WATER ADDED

Graph 2

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

0.1 1 10

Co

nso

lid

ati

on

(-)/

Sw

ell

(+),

%WATER ADDED

Graph 1

Drawn By: JMPI 10

Sample ID: A-2

Project No.: 219-061 Sample

Description:FILL CLAY, sandy with gravel (CL)

Checked By: SWRFigure No.: C-5

Fines (%) 53SIEVE ANALYSIS

Sample

Depth (ft.):2.0

#200 53

Gravel (%) 15 LL 25 Project Name:FRT-18.5-K.99 Bridge

Replacement Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants

Sand (%) 32 PL 15

#4 85

#10 84

#40 81

¾ " 90

½" 87

⅜" 86

2" -

1 ½" -

1" 100

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

3" -

2 ½" -

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16

Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis

Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieves Size of Particles in mm

1002"

Drawn By: SW

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

3" -

2 ½" -

2" -

1 ½" -

1" -

¾ " -

½" -

⅜" 100

#4 100

#10 97

#40 92

SIEVE ANALYSIS

#200 56



Sand (%)

Sample

Depth (ft.):2.0 to 5.0

44 PL 15 Sample ID: A-2


Description:FILL CLAY, sandy with gravel (CL)


Fines (%) 56 PI 9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16



1002"

Drawn By: JMPI NP

Sample ID: P-1


Description:FILL SAND, silty with gravel (SM)



Sample

Depth (ft.):0.4

#200 20

Gravel (%) 35 LL NV Project Name:FRT-18.5-K.99 Bridge


Sand (%) 45 PL NP

#4 65

#10 60

#40 51

¾ " 100

½" 94

⅜" 82

2" -

1 ½" -

1" -

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

3" -

2 ½" -

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16



1002"

Drawn By: JMPI NP

Sample ID: P-1


Description:FILL SAND, silty with gravel (SM)



Sample

Depth (ft.):2.5

#200 44

Gravel (%) 17 LL NV Project Name:FRT-18.5-K.99 Bridge


Sand (%) 39 PL NP

#4 83

#10 83

#40 81

¾ " 90

½" 86

⅜" 85

2" -

1 ½" -

1" 100

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

3" -

2 ½" -

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16



1002"

Drawn By: JMPI 9

Sample ID: P-1


Description:CLAY, sandy (CL)



Sample

Depth (ft.):5.5

#200 56



Sand (%) 34 PL 17

#4 90

#10 80

#40 73

¾ " 100

½" 99

⅜" 97

2" -

1 ½" -

1" -

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

3" -

2 ½" -

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16



1002"

Drawn By: JMPI 6

Sample ID: P-2


Description:CLAY, silty, sandy (CL-ML)



Sample

Depth (ft.):2.0

#200 58



Sand (%) 36 PL 17

#4 94

#10 89

#40 82

¾ " 100

½" 99

⅜" 99

2" -

1 ½" -

1" -

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

3" -

2 ½" -

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

20040103/8" 41/2"3/4"3"12" 6" 1" 30 508 16



1002"

FRT-18.5-K.99 Replacement Bridge Yeh Project No. 219-061 Boring A-1

Core Photos Page C-1 of C-8

20.0 feet to 30.0 feet, Box 1 of 4

BORING




BORING



49.0 to 51.5 feet, Box 4 of 4

BORING

FRT-18.5-K.99 Replacement Bridge Yeh Project No.219-061 Boring A-2



BORING



26.0 to 35.0 feet, Box 2 of 4

BORING




BORING




END

50.3

BORING

Appendix D

ESALs and TRAFFIC LOADING CALCULATIONS

Traffic Loading Calculations

Traffic volume based on information received 04/25/2019 from TH Engineering/Mesa County

18.5 Road between L Road and M Road

1400

20-Year Factor = 1.24

from CDOT data for CR 13 (SH 139A)

1400 X 1.24 = 1736

Design Volume = (ADT + 20-Yr ADT)/2 =

(101+126)/2 = 1568

No vehicle type volumes were provided by client. Vehicle type volumes were assumed,

with trucks evenly split between single units and combination units (semi's).

Design

Vehicle Volume Percent ESAL 20-Year

Type ADT Volume Factor* days/yr years ESALs

Cars & PU 1568 0.90 0.003 365 20 = 30905

Single Units 1568 0.05 0.249 365 20 = 142508

Comb Units 1568 0.05 1.087 365 20 = 622112

Total 20-Year ESALs = 795525

*ESAL Factor from CDOT 2014 Pavement Design Manual

Design Lane Factor for 2-Lane Roads = 0.6

Total 20-Year Design ESALs = 477315

65

Estimated ADT:

Total 20-Year Design EDLA =

Proposed FRT-18.5-K.99 Bridge Replacement

Mesa County, Colorado Project No. 219-061

1 of 1

Appendix E

PAVEMENT DESIGN

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare

Computer Software ProductYeh & Associates, Inc.

Flexible Structural Design Module



Yeh Project No. 219-061

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 477,315

Initial Serviceability 4.5

Terminal Serviceability 2

Reliability Level 95 %

Overall Standard Deviation 0.44

Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 4,627 psi

Stage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 3.61 in

Specified Layer Design

Layer Material Description

Struct

Coef.

(Ai)

Drain

Coef.

(Mi)

Thickness

(Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in)

1 HMA 0.44 1 6 12 2.64

2 ABC Class 6 0.12 1 9 12 1.08

Total - - - 15.00 - 3.72

FRT-18.5-K.99 Bridge Replacement Yeh Project 219-061

Fruita, Mesa County, CO

Appendix E

Asphalt Binder Selection Data

Five Closest Weather Stations

“Fruita 1 w” Weather Station

final geotechnical investigation report frt-18.5-k.99 ... · 1 day ago · final geotechnical...

Documents