HomeMy WebLinkAboutMULBERRY CONNECTION - FDP200030 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 4 - STREET RELATED DOCUMENT (3)
Pavement Design Report
I-25 Frontage Road
Mulberry Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
Comunale Properties
1855 South Pearl Street, Suite 20 | Denver, Colorado 80210
March 10 , 2021 | Project No. 501710004
Geotechnical | Environmental | Construction Inspection & Testing | Forensic Engineering & Expert Witness
Geophysics | Engineering Geology | Laboratory Testing | Industrial Hygiene | Occupational Safety | Air Quality | GIS
03/10/2021
Kelley Lange, EI
Senior Staff Engineer
Brian F. Gisi, PE
Principal Engineer
Pavement Design Report
I-25 Frontage Road
Mulberry Development
Fort Collins, Colorado
Mr. Josh Heiney
Comunale Properties
1855 South Pearl Street, Suite 20 | Denver, Colorado 80210
March 10 , 2021 | Project No. 501710004
KL/BFG/lm
Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail)
6001 South Willow Drive, Suite 195 | Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 | p. 303.629.6000 | www.ninyoandmoore.com
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 i
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
3 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND REVIEW 2
4 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIO N 2
5 FIELD EXPLORATION AN D LABORATORY TESTING 2
6 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2
6.1 Geologic Setting 3
6.2 Subsurface Conditions 3
6.2.1 Asphalt Pavement 3
6.2.2 Fill Materials 3
6.2.3 Alluvium 4
6.3 Groundwater 4
7 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4
7.1 Expansive Soils 4
7.2 Compressible/Collapsible Soils 5
7.3 Liquefaction Potential 5
8 CONCLUSIONS 5
9 RECOMMENDATIONS 6
9.1 Demolition 7
9.2 Earthwork 7
9.2.1 Remedial Grading 7
9.2.2 Excavations 8
9.2.3 Re-Use of Site Soils 9
9.2.4 Imported Soil 9
9.2.5 Fill Placement 10
9.2.6 Controlled Low Strength Material 10
9.2.7 Temporary Cut Slopes 11
9.3 Pavement Design 11
9.3.1 Preventative Rehabilitation 11
9.3.2 Structural Rehabilitation and Reconstruction 12
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 ii
9.3.3 Pavement Design 12
9.3.4 Pavement Subgrade Preparation 13
9.3.5 Pavement Materials 13
9.3.6 Pavement Maintenance 14
9.4 Concrete Flatwork 14
9.5 Corrosion Considerations 15
9.5.1 Concrete 15
9.5.2 Buried Metal Pipes 15
9.6 Scaling 16
9.7 Construction in Cold or Wet Weather 16
9.8 Construction Observation and Testing 17
9.9 Plan Review 17
9.10 Pre-Construction Meeting 18
10 LIMITATIONS 18
11 REFERENCES 20
TABLES
1 – Recommended Pavement Thickness 13
FIGURES
1 – Site Location
2 – Boring Locations
3 – Proposed Pavement Section
4 – Existing Pavement Section
APPENDICES
A – Boring Logs
B – Laboratory Testing
C – Core Photographs
D – Pavement Design Calculations
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 1
1 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and authorization, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation
for the proposed roadway improvements to the Interstate-25 (I-25) Frontage Road near Redman
Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado. The approximate location of the site is depicted on Figure 1.
The purpose of our study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions and to provide design and
construction recommendations regarding geotechnical aspects of the proposed project. This
report presents the findings of our subsurface exploration, results of our laboratory testing,
conclusions regarding the subsurface conditions at the site, and geotechnical recommendations
for design and construction of this project.
2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our services for the project generally included:
Review of referenced background information, including aerial photographs, published
geologic and soil maps, in-house geotechnical data, and available topographical information
pertaining to the project site and vicinity.
Notification of Utility Notification Center of Colorado of the boring locations prior to drilling.
Completion of the Colorado Department of Transportation permits and coordination of traffic
control.
Drilling, logging, and sampling of six small-diameter exploratory borings within the project site
to depths ranging between approximately 14 and 15 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The
boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Approximate boring locations are presented on
Figure 2.
Performance of laboratory tests on selected samples obtained from the borings to evaluate
engineering properties including in-situ moisture content and dry density, Atterberg limits,
percent materials passing the No. 200 sieve and grain size analysis, swell/consolidation
potential, Proctor density, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), and soil corrosivity characteristics
(including pH, resistivity, water soluble sulfates and chlorides). The results of the laboratory
testing are presented on the boring logs and in Appendix B.
Coring the pavement in four locations and taking laboratory measurements of the cores. The
approximate core locations are presented on Figure 2. Photographs and measurements of
the cores are presented in Appendix C.
Compilation and analysis of the data obtained.
Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical
recommendations regarding design and construction of the project.
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 2
3 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND REVIEW
The project improvements are limited to an area along the I-25 Frontage Road between East Vine
Drive and South of Redman Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado.
Based on our review of historic aerial imagery, this portion of the I-25 Frontage Road has generally
existed in a similar condition since October of 1999, or earlier. The approximate location of the
site is depicted in Figure 1.
4 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIO N
The general improvement project includes multiple components, including the addition of multiple
turn lanes and acceleration/deceleration lanes, and possible rehabilitation of existing pavement
(milling and overlay) as part of the Mulberry Development at Redman Drive.
5 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
On December 9, 2020, Ninyo & Moore conducted a subsurface exploration at the site to evaluate
the existing subsurface conditions and to collect soil samples for laboratory testing. The
evaluation consisted of the drilling, logging, and sampling of six small-diameter borings using a
truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 4-inch diameter solid-stem augers to depths between
approximately 14 and 15 feet bgs. The approximate locations of the borings are presented on
Figure 2. Relatively undisturbed and disturbed soil samples were collected at selected intervals.
The sampling methods used during the subsurface evaluation are presented in Appendix A.
Soil samples collected during the subsurface exploration were transported to the Ninyo & Moore
laboratory for geotechnical laboratory analyses. Selected samples were analyzed to evaluate
engineering properties including in-situ moisture content and dry density, Atterberg limits, percent
materials passing the No. 200 sieve and grain size analysis, swell/consolidation potential, Proctor
density, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), and soil corrosivity characteristics (including pH,
resistivity, water soluble sulfates and chlorides). The results of the in-situ moisture content and
dry density tests are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. Descriptions of the laboratory
test methods and the remainder of the test results are presented in Appendix B.
6 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE COND ITIONS
The geology and subsurface conditions at the site are described in the following sections.
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 3
6.1 Geologic Setting
The site is located approximately 4 miles northeast of Downtown Fort Collins, Colorado,
approximately 10 miles east of the Rocky Mountains, within the Colorado Piedmont section of the
Great Plains Physiographic Province. The Laramide Orogeny uplifted the Rocky Mountains during
the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary Periods. Subsequent erosion deposited sediments east of
the Rocky Mountains, including the Pierre Shale Formation in the area. As a result of regional
uplift approximately 5 to 10 million years ago, streams down-cut and excavated into the Great
Plains forming the Colorado Piedmont section (Trimble, 1980). Surficial geology of the site is
mapped by Colton (1978) as Pleistocene-age Broadway Alluvium. Pierre Shale Formation is
mapped underlying the project site at depth.
6.2 Subsurface Conditions
Our understanding of the subsurface conditions at the project site is based on our field exploration
and laboratory testing, review of published geologic maps, historic aerial photographs, and our
experience with the general geology of the area. The following sections provide a generalized
description of the subsurface materials encountered. More detailed descriptions are presented on
the boring logs in Appendix A.
6.2.1 Asphalt Pavement
The asphalt pavement in each core location was cored and measured. In general, asphalt
pavement within the I-25 Frontage Road ranged between approximately 4.6 and 6.3 inches
in height. Approximately 6 to 12 inches of aggregate base was encountered beneath the
asphalt pavement. Photographic documentation of the cores is presented in Appendix C. The
core locations are presented on Figure 2.
6.2.2 Fill Materials
Fill materials were encountered in each boring beneath the asphalt pavement and aggregate
base course and extended to depths of approximately 5 to 7 feet bgs. The fill materials
generally consisted of various shades of brown, red, and gray, moist, clayey sand, sandy lean
clay, and fat clay with sand and trace gravel.
Based on the results of the laboratory testing, selected samples of the fill materials had in-
place moisture contents ranging between approximately 10.5 and 26.1 percent and in-place
dry densities ranging between approximately 97.8 and 129.5 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 4
6.2.3 Alluvium
Alluvium was encountered beneath the fill material in each boring and extended to the boring
termination depths of approximately 14 to 15 feet bgs. The alluvium generally consisted of
red, brown, pink, and white, moist to wet, stiff to very stiff, sandy lean clay, and loose to dense,
fine to coarse sand with varying amounts of clay and gravel.
Based on the results of the laboratory testing, selected samples of the alluvium had in-place
moisture contents between approximately 2.8 and 8.3 percent and dry densities between
approximately 125.6 and 135.3 pcf.
6.3 Groundwater
An attempt to measure groundwater levels was performed during drilling operations. At that time,
groundwater was encountered in each boring at depths ranging between approximately 11 to 14
feet bgs.
Groundwater levels will fluctuate due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, water
level of the adjacent canal, groundwater withdrawal from adjacent sites, and other factors. In
addition, perched water can develop within the fill materials following periods of heavy or
prolonged precipitation. In general, groundwater should not be a constraint to the construction of
this project. However, groundwater may be encountered in deep excavations.
7 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The following sections describe potential geologic hazards at the site including faulting, expansive
soils, compressible/collapsible soils, and liquefaction potential.
7.1 Expansive Soils
One of the more significant geologic hazards in the Front Range area is the presence of swelling
clays in bedrock or surficial deposits. Wetting and drying of bedrock or surficial deposits containing
swelling clays can result in expansion and collapse of those units, which can cause major damage
to structures. A review of a Colorado Geological Survey map delineating areas based on their
relative potential for swelling in the Denver area by Hart (1972) indicates that the soil and bedrock
materials in the site vicinity have the potential to exhibit low swell potential.
Based on the results of our laboratory testing, select samples of fill materials tested exhibited low
swell potential (up to approximately 0.5 percent) at surcharge pressures of approximately 200
pounds per square foot (psf).
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 5
7.2 Compressible/Collapsible Soils
Compressible soils are generally comprised of soils that undergo consolidation when exposed to
new loadings, such as fill or foundation loads. Soil collapse (or hydrocollapse) is a phenomenon
where soils undergo a significant decrease in volume upon an increase in moisture content, with
or without an increase in external loads. Pavements may be subject to excessive settlement-
related distress when compressible soils or collapsible soils are present.
Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and the information obtained from our
background review, the on-site soils expected to be encountered during roadway reconstruction
would have a low collapse potential.
7.3 Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated soils lose shear strength under short-
term (dynamic) loading conditions. Ground shaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of
grain-to-grain contact in potentially liquefiable soils due to a rapid increase in pore water pressure,
causing the soil to behave as a fluid for a short period of time.
To be potentially liquefiable, a soil is typically cohesionless with a grain-size distribution generally
consisting of sand and silt. It is generally loose to medium dense and has a relatively high moisture
content, which is typical near or below groundwater level. The potential for liquefaction decreases
with increasing clay and gravel content, but increases as the ground acceleration and duration of
shaking increase. Potentially liquefiable soils need to be subjected to sufficient magnitude and
duration of ground shaking for liquefaction to occur. Based on our subsurface exploration and
laboratory testing, liquefaction is not considered a hazard at this site.
8 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the subsurface evaluation, laboratory testing, and data analyses, it is our
opinion that the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the
recommendations presented herein are implemented and appropriate construction practices are
followed. Geotechnical design and construction considerations for the proposed project include
the following:
The asphalt pavement in each core location was cored and measured. In general, asphalt
pavement within the I-25 Frontage Road ranged between approximately 4.6 and 6.3 inches
in height. Approximately 6 to 12 inches of asphalt base was encountered beneath the asphalt
pavement.
Fill materials were encountered in each boring beneath the asphalt pavement and aggregate
base course and extended to depths of approximately 5 to 7 feet bgs. The fill materials
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 6
generally consisted of various shades of brown, red, and gray, moist, clayey sand, sandy lean
clay, and fat clay with sand and trace gravel.
Alluvium was encountered beneath the fill material in each boring and extended to the boring
termination depths of approximately 14 to 15 feet bgs. The alluvium generally consisted of
red, brown, pink, and white, moist to wet, stiff to very stiff, sandy lean clay, and loose to dense,
fine to coarse sand with varying amounts of clay and gravel.
The on-site soils should generally be excavatable to the anticipated removal depths with
moderate to heavy-duty earthmoving or excavating equipment in good operating condition.
Site soils generated from on-site excavation activities consisting of on-site soils that are free
of deleterious materials, and do not contain particles larger than 3 inches in diameter, can
generally be used as engineered fill during site grading provided they are moisture -
conditioned and compacted as recommended in this report.
Groundwater was encountered in each boring at depths ranging between approximately 11 to
14 feet bgs and is not considered to be a constraint to the construction.
Based on our laboratory data and our experience with similar materials at adjacent sites, the
sulfate content of the tested soils presents a moderate risk of sulfate attack to concrete. We
recommend the use of Type II cement for construction of concrete structures at this site.
Based on our laboratory data and our experience with similar materials at adjacent sites, the
subgrade soils at the site have a high potential for corrosivity to ferrous metals. Special
consideration should be given to the use of heavy gauge, corrosion-protected, underground
steel pipe or culverts, if any are planned. As an alternative, plastic pipe or reinforced concrete
pipe could be considered. A corrosion specialist should be consulted for further
recommendations.
No known or reported geologic hazards are reported underlying, or adjacent to, the site. Based
on the driven sample blow-count values at the site, and the low ground motion hazard
(relatively low ground accelerations), the likelihood or potential for liquefaction is considered
to be negligible and therefore not a design consideration.
9 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our understanding of the project, the following sections present our geotechnical
recommendations for design and construction of the proposed roadway improvements. These
recommendations were prepared based on conversations with the design team.
If the proposed roadway improvements differ from our understanding in this report, it is important
that Ninyo & Moore be notified and given an opportunity to reevaluate our recommendations prior
to bidding the project for construction. Project specific plans were not available at the time of this
report.
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 7
9.1 Demolition
The subject project will include demolition of existing pavements and other site improvements.
Although not encountered during our subsurface exploration, considering the historic past-uses
of the site, there may be buried concrete remnants, areas of deeper fills, or other features present
below the ground surface. Remnants from the demolition activities should be removed from the
site. The contractor should take adequate precautions when grading the site to reduce the
potential for damage to existing utilities that are to remain in service.
9.2 Earthwork
The following sections provide our earthwork recommendations for this project. In general, the
Laramie County and/or project specific earthwork specifications are expected to apply, unless
noted.
9.2.1 Remedial Grading
Prior to grading, the ground surface for the pavement reconstruction should be cleared of
any surface obstructions, existing pavements, debris, topsoil, organics (including vegetation),
and other deleterious material.
Materials generated from clearing operations should be removed from the project site for
disposal (e.g. at a legal landfill site). Obstructions that extend below finish grade, if present,
should be removed and resulting voids filled with compacted, engineered fill or Controlled
Low Strength Material (CLSM).
There are risks associated with supporting pavements and exterior flatwork over
undocumented fill materials. However, given the material has likely been in-place since 1999
or earlier, the likelihood of additional movement from the fill materials is low. Therefore,
treatment of the subgrade per Table 4.9 and Figure 4.22 of the CDOT 2020 Pavement Design
Manual is recommended.
New asphalt and concrete pavements and flatwork may be placed on 12 or more inches of
moisture conditioned and compacted engineered fill.
The exposed subgrade materials should be firm and unyielding prior to fill placement. The
extent of and depths of removal should be evaluated by our representative during the
excavation work based on observation of the soils exposed. Additional recommendations
specific to the site conditions encountered may be provided at the time of construction. The
project budget should include additional cost associated with the removal and replacement
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 8
of additional fill material. Subgrade materials that are disturbed during grading should be
moisture conditioned and re-compacted according to the recommendations provided in this
report.
Additional recommendations specific to the site conditions encountered may be provided at
the time of construction. The project budget should include additional cost associated with
the removal and replacement of additional fill material and stabilization of additional subgrade
materials.
9.2.2 Excavations
Our evaluation of the excavation characteristics of the on-site materials is based on the
results of our subsurface exploration, our site observations, and our experience with similar
materials. The on-site surface and near surface soils may generally be excavated with
moderate- to heavy-duty earthmoving or excavation equipment in good operating condition.
Equipment and procedures that do not cause significant disturbance to the excavation
bottoms should be used. Excavators and backhoes with buckets having large claws to loosen
the soil should be avoided when excavating the bottom 6 to 12 inches of excavations as such
equipment may disturb the excavation bases.
The surficial fill materials and alluvium are generally clayey sand and lean clay to fat clay with
varying amounts of sand and gravel. Due to the nature of the fill materials and native deposits,
unstable subgrade conditions may be encountered along the roadway alignment. Where
encountered, stabilization may be needed to support construction equipment. If the subgrade
becomes disturbed, it should be compacted or removed and replaced before placing
additional backfill material.
Groundwater was encountered in each boring at depths ranging between approximately 11
to 14 feet bgs during our subsurface exploration, but should not be a constraint to the
construction of the project.
In areas where the excavation bottom is disturbed under the action of excavation equipment
traffic, construction of a 12 or more inches thick “mud-mat” using coarse angular material (i.e.
4-inch minus crushed rock) may be needed to establish a stable platform for operating the
excavation equipment during construction.
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 9
9.2.3 Re-Use of Site Soils
Site soils generated from on-site excavation activities that are free of deleterious materials
and organic matter, and do not contain particles larger than 3 inches in diameter, can
generally be used as engineered fill.
Fragments of rock, cobbles, and inert construction debris (e.g., concrete or asphalt) larger
than 3 inches in diameter may be incorporated into the project fills in non-structural areas
and below the anticipated utility installation depths. A Geotechnical Engineer should be
consulted regarding appropriate recommendations for usage of such materials on a case-by-
case basis when such materials have been observed during earthwork. Care should be taken
to avoid nesting of oversized materials during placement. Recommendations provided in
Section 203 of the current the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Standard
Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction should be followed during the placement of
oversized material.
Additional evaluation and laboratory testing should be performed during earthwork activities
to better evaluate the suitability of the on-site soils for re-use as engineered fill at this site. An
evaluation of the potential for contamination by hazardous materials was beyond the scope
of this study and the possibility of restrictions on re-use due to environmental factors was not
studied.
9.2.4 Imported Soil
Imported soil for use as engineered fill should have less than 50 percent passing the No. 200
sieve, a very low swell potential (approximately 1 percent or less when wetted against a
surcharge pressure of 200 psf), and a low plasticity index (less than 20). Imported soil should
not contain organic matter, clay lumps, bedrock (claystone, sandstone, etc.) fragments,
debris, other deleterious matter, or rocks or hard chunks larger than approximately 3 inches
in nominal diameter.
Imported soil for use as engineered fill should exhibit low corrosion potential. Imported soil
placed in contact with ferrous materials should have a saturated soil resistivity of 2,000 ohm-
cm or more and a chloride content of 25 parts per million or less. Soils in contact with concrete
should exhibit a soluble sulfate content less than 0.1 percent.
We further recommend that proposed import material be evaluated by the project’s
geotechnical consultant at the borrow source for its suitability prior to importation to the
project site.
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 10
9.2.5 Fill Placement
Granular soils (on-site soils that classify as SC, SW, SW-SC, or import soils) used as
engineered fill should be moisture-conditioned to moisture contents within 2 percent of their
optimum moisture content. Fine-grained soils (on-site soils that classify as CL or CH) used
as engineered fill should be moisture-conditioned to moisture contents between the material’s
optimum moisture content and 2 percent over optimum moisture content. Engineered fill
should be placed in uniform horizontal lifts and compacted to a relative compaction of 95
percent, or more, as evaluated by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D698
(standard Proctor test).
Lift thickness for fill will be dependent upon the type of compaction equipment utilized, but
should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Fill materials
should not be placed, worked, rolled while they are frozen, thawing, or during poor/inclement
weather conditions. Compaction areas should be kept separate, and no lift should be covered
by another until relative compaction and moisture content within the recommended ranges
are obtained.
9.2.6 Controlled Low Strength Material
Use of CLSM should be considered in lieu of compacted fill for areas with low tolerances for
surface settlements, for excavations that extend below the groundwater table and in areas
with difficult access for compaction equipment. CLSM consists of a fluid, workable mixture of
aggregate, Portland cement, and water. CLSM should be placed in lifts of 5 feet or less with
a 24-hour or more curing period between each lift.
The use of CLSM has several advantages:
A narrower excavation can be used where shoring is present, thereby minimizing the
quantity of soil to be excavated and possibly reducing disturbance to the near-by traffic;
Compaction requirements do not apply;
There is less risk of damage to improvements, since little compaction is needed to place
CLSM;
CLSM can be batched to flow into irregularities in excavation bottoms and walls; and
The number of workers needed inside the trench excavation is reduced.
The CLSM mix design should be submitted for review prior to placement. The 28-day strength
of the material should be no less than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) and no more than 150
psi. CLSM should be observed and tested by the geotechnical consultant.
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 11
9.2.7 Temporary Cut Slopes
Based on the subsurface information obtained from our exploratory excavations and our
experience with similar projects, we anticipate that the soil conditions and stability of the
excavation sidewalls may vary with depth. Soils with higher fines content may stand vertically
for a short time (less than 12 hours) with little sloughing. However, as the soil dries after
excavation or as the excavations are exposed to rainfall, sloughing may occur. Soils with low
cohesion (e.g., predominately sandy or gravelly material), may slough or cave during
excavation, especially if wet or saturated.
The contractor should provide safely sloped excavations or an adequately constructed and
braced shoring system, in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) (OSHA, 2005) guidelines, for employees working in an excavation that may expose
employees to the danger of moving ground. If material is stored or equipment is operated
near an excavation, stronger shoring should be used to resist the extra pressure due to
superimposed loads.
In our opinion, the site soils should generally be considered a Type C soil when applying the
OSHA regulations. For these soil conditions, OSHA recommends a temporary slope
inclination of 1.5H:1V or flatter for excavations 20 feet or less in depth. Appropriate slope
inclinations should be evaluated in the field by an OSHA-qualified “Competent Person” based
on the conditions encountered.
9.3 Pavement Design
The pavement sections recommended below were developed in general accordance with the
guidelines and procedures of the AASHTO M-E Design, CDOT, and Laramie County. Table 2
summarizes the minimum pavement sections for asphaltic concrete (AC) pavements and Portland
cement concrete pavements (PCCP) for the I-25 Frontage Road improvements.
9.3.1 Preventative Rehabilitation
We understand consideration is being given to performing preventative and/or structural
rehabilitation of the existing roadways. Preventative rehabilitation maintains the pavement
structural carrying capacity and improves functional deterioration, such as poor surface
friction, poor surface texture, excess surface distortion, etc. Rehabilitation methods such as
crack seal, seal coat, slurry seal, chip seal, double chip seal, cape seal are all part of
preventative maintenance strategies that will improve functional deterioration. The life
expectancy of the preventative maintenance will depend on the condition of the asphalt
pavement that it is being applied on. The less high- to moderate-severity distress the
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 12
pavement exhibits, the more functional deterioration improvement will be gained from the
preventative maintenance. It should be noted that pavements have a design life of 20 years.
So when a pavement has exceeded this design life, waiting for the pavement to exhibit high
severity distress as an indication for performing preventative maintenance is not a
recommended strategy. It is imperative that preventative rehabilitation methods are applied
onto the pavements prior to the occurrence of high severity distress. High severity transverse
or longitudinal cracking, fatigue cracking, high severity block cracking will st art reflecting
through the preventative rehabilitation methods within 1 to 2 years of application, depending
on the strength of the application. Therefore, identifying these areas and performing full-depth
repairs prior to the application of preventative maintenance will be of paramount importance.
Preventative maintenance methods, however, are capable of delaying the reflection of the low
to moderate severity distress for about 4 to 7 years or more. Generally, applications that
contain aggregate pieces, such as chip seal and cape seal will delay the reflection crack
development time more efficiently than the applications that do not contain aggregate pieces,
such as seal coat and slurry seal.
9.3.2 Structural Rehabilitation and Reconstruction
Structural rehabilitation improves the pavement structural carrying capacity and also the
functional deterioration. Rehabilitation methods such as mill and overlay, edge mill and
overlay, and localized full depth reconstruction are all part of preventative maintenance
strategies that will improve structural carrying capacity in addition to functional deterioration.
9.3.3 Pavement Design
Information regarding traffic within the development was extracted from the Traffic Impact
Study dated February 2020 performed by Kimley-Horn projects. For our design, we utilized
an AADTT of 670 with a growth rate of 1.7%. If design traffic loadings differ significantly from
this value, we should be notified to re-evaluate the pavement recommendations below.
The current subgrade soils encountered in the borings consisted of clayey sand, sandy lean
clay, and fat clay with sand and trace gravel that classify as A-2-7 to A-6 soils in accordance
with the AASHTO classification system. We utilized a design CBR of 4.5 for the pavement
subgrade soils for the I-25 Frontage Road.
Table 1 provides our recommended pavement section thicknesses. The printouts from the
AASHTO M-E (Version 2.3.1) Design performed for the development are included in
Appendix D. A typical section of the proposed pavement is provided on Figure 3.
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 13
Table 1 – Recommended Pavement Thickness
Traffic Type Composite AC / ABC (inches)
I-25 Frontage Road 6.0 / 6.0
Notes: AC = Asphalt Concrete, ABC = Aggregate Base Course
9.3.4 Pavement Subgrade Preparation
For the AC pavement sections recommended above, we recommend the underlying
subgrade soils be prepared as described in Section 9.2.1 of this report.
The contractor should be prepared either to dry the subgrade materials or moisten them, as
needed, prior to compaction. Some site soils may pump or deflect during compaction if
moisture levels are not carefully monitored. In addition, clean sandy soils may rut or roll if the
surface is allowed to become desiccated. The contractor should be prepared to process and
compact such soils to establish a stable platform for paving, including use of chemical
stabilization or geotextiles, where needed.
The prepared subgrade should be protected from the elements prior to pavement placement.
Subgrades that are exposed to the elements may need additional moisture conditioning and
compaction, prior to pavement placements.
Immediately prior to paving, the subgrade should be proofrolled with a heavily loaded,
pneumatic tired vehicle and checked for moisture. Areas that show exc essive deflection
during proof rolling should be excavated and replaced and/or stabilized. Areas allowed to
pond prior to paving may need to be re-worked prior to proofrolling.
9.3.5 Pavement Materials
The AC pavement shall consist of a bituminous plant mix composed of a mixture of high
quality aggregate and bituminous material, which meets the requirements of a job-mix
formula established by a qualified engineer. The asphalt material used should be based on a
SuperPave Gyratory Design Revolution of 75. Lower lifts should be constructed using an
asphalt mix Grading S and asphalt cement binder grade PG 64-22. The top lift should be
constructed using an asphalt mix Grading SX and asphalt cement binder grade PG 76-28.
Pavement layer thickness should be between 2 and 4 inches for the lower lifts and 2 inches
for the top lift. A typical section of the proposed pavement is provided on Figure 3. The
geotechnical engineer should be retained to review the proposed pavement mix designs,
grading, and lift thicknesses prior to construction.
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 14
9.3.6 Pavement Maintenance
The collection and diversion of surface drainage away from paved areas is vital to satisfactory
performance of the pavements. The subsurface and surface drainage systems should be
carefully designed to facilitate removal of the water from paved areas and subgrade soils.
Allowing surface waters to pond on pavements will cause premature pavement deterioration.
Where topography, site constraints or other factors limit or preclude adequate surface
drainage, pavements should be provided with edge drains to reduce loss of subgrade
support. The long-term performance of the pavement also can be improved greatly by
backfilling and compaction behind curbs, gutters, and sidewalks so that ponding is not
permitted and water infiltration is reduced.
Landscape irrigation in planters adjacent to pavements and in “island” planters within paved
areas should be carefully monitored or differential heave and/or rutting of the nearby
pavements will result. Drip irrigation systems are recommended for such planters to reduce
over-spray and water infiltration beyond the planters. We recommend edge drains where the
profile/slopes are less than 1 percent.
The standard care of practice in pavement design describes the recommended flexible
pavement section as a “20-year” design pavement; however, many pavements will not remain
in satisfactory condition without routine, preventive maintenance and rehabilitation
procedures performed during the life of the pavement. Preventive pavement treatments are
surface rehabilitation and operations applied to improve or extend the functional life of a
pavement. These treatments preserve, rather than improve, the structural capacity of the
pavement structure. In the event the existing pavement is not structurally sound, the
preventive maintenance will have no long-lasting effect. Therefore, a routine maintenance
program to seal joints and cracks, and repair distressed areas is recommended.
9.4 Concrete Flatwork
Exterior walkways and flatwork should be 4 or more inches thick. The slab edges should be
deepened by two or more inches where exterior slabs-on-grade are placed adjacent to
landscaping areas and taper to the recommended thickness 12 inches inward from the edge.
Ground-supported flatwork, such as walkways, will be subject to soil-related movements resulting
from heave/settlement, frost, etc. To reduce the potential manifestation of distress to exterior
concrete flatwork due to movement of the underlying soil, we recommend that such flatwork be
installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the Structural Engineer.
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 15
9.5 Corrosion Considerations
The corrosion potential of on-site soils to concrete and buried metal was evaluated in the
laboratory using selected samples obtained from the exploratory borings. Laboratory testing was
performed to assess the effects of sulfate on concrete and the effects of soil resistivity on buried
metal. Results of these tests are presented in Appendix B. Recommendations regarding concrete
to be utilized in construction of proposed improvements and for buried metal pipes are provided
in the following sections.
9.5.1 Concrete
The test for water-soluble sulfate content of the soils was performed using CDOT Test Method
CP-L 2104. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. The sulfates in water of
a selected sample measured at approximately 440 parts per million (ppm). Based on Table
601-2 of the CDOT 2011 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, the on-
site soils represent a Class 1 severity of sulfate exposure to concrete on a scale that ranges
between Class 0 and Class 3. We recommend that the concrete used for this project should
have a maximum water to cementitious material ratio of 0.45 and the cementitious materials
should meet one of the requirements, as outlined below.
ASTM C 150 Type II or V; Class C fly ash shall not be substituted for cement
ASTM C 595 Type IP(MS) or IP(HS); Class C fly ash shall not be substituted for cement
ASTM C 1157 Type MS or HS; Class C fly ash shall not be substituted for cement
ASTM C 150 Type III cement if it is allowed, as in Class E concrete, it shall have no more
than 8 percent C3A. Class C fly ash shall not be substituted for cement
The Structural Engineer should ultimately select the concrete design strength based on the
project specific loading conditions. However, higher strength concrete may be selected for
increased durability, resistance to slab curling and shrinkage cracking. We recommend the
use of concrete with a design 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi or more, for concrete
slabs-on-grade at this site. Concrete exposed to the elements should be air-entrained.
Additional recommendations for exterior concrete are provided in Section 9.8.
9.5.2 Buried Metal Pipes
The corrosion potential of the on-site materials was analyzed to evaluate its potential effects
on buried metals. Corrosion potential was evaluated using the results of laboratory testing of
samples obtained during the subsurface evaluation that were considered representative of
soils at the subject site.
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 16
The results of the laboratory testing indicate the on-site materials have low resistivity and
could potentially be severely corrosive to ferrous metals. Therefore, special consideration
should be given to the use of heavy gauge, corrosion protected, underground steel pipe or
culverts, if any are planned. As an alternative, plastic pipe or reinforced concrete pipe could
be considered. A corrosion specialist should be consulted for further recommendations.
9.6 Scaling
Climatic conditions in the project area including relatively low humidity, large temperature changes
and repeated freeze-thaw cycles, may cause surficial scaling and spalling of exterior concrete.
Occurrence of surficial scaling and spalling can be aggravated by poor workmanship during
construction, such as “over-finishing” concrete surfaces and the use of de-icing salts on exterior
concrete flatwork, particularly during the first winter after construction. The use of de-icing salts
on nearby roadways, which can be transferred by vehicle traffic onto newly placed concrete, can
be sufficient to induce scaling.
The measures below can be beneficial for reducing the concrete scaling. However, because of
the other factors involved, including workmanship, surface damage to concrete can develop even
though the measures provided below were followed. The mix design criteria should be
coordinated with other project requirements including the criteria for soluble sulfate resistance
presented in Section 9.5.1.
Curing concrete in accordance with applicable codes and guidelines.
Maintaining a water/cement ratio of 0.45 by weight for exterior concrete mixes.
Including Type F fly ash in exterior concrete mixes as 20 percent of the cementitious material.
Specifying a 28-day, compressive strength of 4,500 or more psi for exterior concrete that may
be exposed to de-icing salts.
Avoiding the use of de-icing salts through the first winter after construction.
If colored concrete is being proposed for use at this site, Ninyo & Moore should be consulted
for additional recommendations.
9.7 Construction in Cold or Wet Weather
During construction, the site should be graded such that surface water can drain readily away
from the building areas. Given the soil conditions, it is important to avoid ponding of water in or
near excavations. Water that accumulates in excavations should be promptly pumped out or
otherwise removed and these areas should be allowed to dry out before resuming construction.
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 17
Berms, ditches, and similar means should be used to decrease stormwater entering the work area
and to efficiently convey it off site.
Earthwork activities undertaken during the cold weather season may be difficult and should be
done by an experienced contractor. Fill should not be placed on top of frozen soils. The frozen
soils should be removed prior to the placement of fill or other construction material. Frozen soil
should not be used as engineered fill or backfill. The frozen soil may be reused (provided it meets
the selection criteria) once it has thawed completely. In addition, compaction of the soils may be
more difficult due to the viscosity change in water at lower temperatures.
If construction proceeds during cold weather, foundations, slabs, or other concrete elements
should not be placed on frozen subgrade soil. Frozen soil should either be removed from beneath
concrete elements, or thawed and recompacted. To limit the potential for soil freezing, the time
passing between excavation and construction should be minimized. Blankets, straw, soil cover,
or heating may be used to discourage the soil from freezing.
9.8 Construction Observation and Testing
A qualified geotechnical consultant should perform appropriate observation and testing services
during grading and construction operations. These services should include observation of any
soft, loose, or otherwise unsuitable soils, evaluation of subgrade conditions where soil removals
are performed, evaluation of the suitability of proposed borrow materials for use as fill, evaluation
of the stability of open temporary excavations, evaluation of the results of any subgrade
stabilization or dewatering activities, and performance of observation and testing services during
placement and compaction of engineered fill and backfill soils.
The geotechnical consultant should also perform observation and testing services during
placement of concrete, mortar, grout, asphalt concrete, and steel reinforcement. If another
geotechnical consultant is selected to perform observation and testing services for the project, we
request that the selected consultant provide a letter to the owner, with a copy to Ninyo & Moore,
indicating that they fully understand our recommendations and they are in full agreement with the
recommendations contained in this report. Qualified subcontractors utilizing appropriate
techniques and construction materials should perform construction of the proposed
improvements.
9.9 Plan Review
The recommendations presented in this report are based on preliminary design information for
the proposed project and on the findings of our geotechnical evaluation. When finished, project
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 18
plans and specifications should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant prior to submitting
the plans and specifications for bid. Additional field exploration and laboratory testing may be
needed upon review of the project design plans.
9.10 Pre-Construction Meeting
We recommend a pre-construction meeting be held. The owner or the owner’s representative, the
architect, the contractor, and the geotechnical consultant should be in attendance to discuss the
plans and the project.
10 LIMITATIONS
The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this geotechnical
report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care
exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty,
expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions
presented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface
condition. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be
encountered during construction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced
through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed
upon request. Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical
aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns,
or the presence of hazardous materials.
This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is
designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore
should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the
content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.
This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an
accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant
perform an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The
independent evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnic al reports
prepared for the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and
laboratory testing.
Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site
conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 19
encountered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be
provided upon request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with
time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In
addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur
due to government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may,
therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has
no control.
This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings,
conclusions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken
at said parties’ sole risk.
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021 20
11 REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993, AASHTO
Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2011, Standard
Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 31st
Edition, and Provisional Standards.
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2011 , Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-11 ) and Commentary.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2015 Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), 2020, 2020 Pavement Design Manual.
Colton, Roger B., 1978, Geologic Map of the Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley Area, Colorado, United
States Geological Survey.
Hart, Stephen S., 1972, Potentially Swelling Soil and Rock in the Front Range Urban Corridor,
Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey.
International Code Council, 2015, International Building Code.
Kimley-Horn, 2020, Mulberry Connection, Fort Collins, Colorado, Traffic Impact Study, dated
February.
Kimley-Horn, 2020, Mulberry Connection, City of Fort Collins Final Development Plan, Off-Site
Exhibit, dated December 2.
Ninyo & Moore, In-house proprietary information.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 2005, OSHA Standards for the
Construction Industry, 29 CFR Part 1926: dated June.
Trimble, Donald E., 1980, The Geologic Story of the Great Plains, Geological Survey Bulletin
1493.
Google Earth, October 1999, November 2002, April 2003, February 2016, June 2017, September
2019.
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021
Appendix A
Photographic Documentation
FIGURES
4950
5
0
0
0 50005000
50
0
0
495
0
£¤87GREENFIELDSDRELGIN CT£¤87N CO RD 9¬«14WAGONTRAILRD
E LOCUST ST
S
SU
MMI
T
V
I
E
W
D
R
P L E ASANT ACRES DR
E VINE DR
NWFRONTAGERDC
A
N
A
L
DRSWFR O N T A G E R D
BARNSTORMER ST
SYKES DR CAMPFIRE DR§¨¦25
WATERGLENDRJOHN DEERE DRC a c h e la PoudreReserv
o
ir
I
n
l
e
t
nd
Weld Canal
CooperSloughSinnard
495050005
0
5
0
¬«14 ¬«14
E VINE DR
S CO RD 5COR
D
HAVE N DR
L I N D E N VIEW TRAPPERS PTGLENN RIDGE DRCARRIAG EPKWYCAM DE LMUNDOE CO RD 50
S U N C H A S EDRSPRINGER DR
C
A
M REALN CO RD 5COHO RUN E M U L B E RR STBoxelder CrL
a
r
i
me
r an dWel dCanalGray Reservoir
Number 3
Kitchel
Lake
Baker
Lake
S Gray
Reservoir
FIGURE 1
elt file no: 1710vmap0121501710004 | 1/21
MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD
SITE LOCATION
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
Source: US Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic map, Fort Collins and Timnath, Colorado, 2019.
0 2000
FEET
NN
APPROXIMATE
SITE LOCATION
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
0 280
FEET
NN
FIGURE 2
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
EXPLORATION LOCATIONS
Source: NAVTEQ, 07/17/19.elt file no: 1710exp0121501710004 | 1/21
MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD
LEGEND
Boring Location
Core Location
B-6
C-4
REDMAN DRIVEREDMAN DRIVE
NW FRONTAGE RDNW FRONTAGE RDU.S. INTERSTATE 25 (I-25)U.S. INTERSTATE 25 (I-25)NE FRONTAGE ROADNE FRONTAGE ROADC-1C-1
C-2C-2
C-3C-3
C-4C-4
B-1B-1
B-2B-2
B-3B-3
B-4B-4
B-5B-5
B-6B-6
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 3
elt file no: 1659dtl0920aGeotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
501710004 | 1/21
EXISTING PAVEMENT SECTION
Source: NAVTEQ, 07/07/17.
Source: Pictometry, 07/07/17.
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD
MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
4.6-6.3” AC
UNKNOWN
UNDOCUMENTED
FILL
*
2” (S) (100) (PG 64-22)
3” (S) (100) (PG 64-22)
6” ABC
Moisture Conditioned and Compacted Engineer Fill
*
EXISTING PAVEMENT SECTION
6-12" ABC
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 4
elt file no: 1659dtl0920bGeotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
501710004 | 1/21
PROPOSED PAVEMENT SECTION
Source: NAVTEQ, 07/07/17.
Source: Pictometry, 07/07/17.
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD
MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
12” ENGINEERED
FILL
*
2” (SX) (75) (PG 76-28)
4” (S) (75) (PG 64-22)
6” ABC
Moisture Conditioned and Compacted Engineered Fill*
12"
PROPOSED PAVEMENT SECTION
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021
APPENDIX A
Boring Logs
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS
Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples
Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.
Bulk Samples
Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory borings.
The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing.
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler
Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of a Standard
Penetration Test sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external diameter
of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1-3/8 inches. The sampler was driven into the
ground 12 to 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer falling freely from a height of 30 inches in
general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches
of penetration; the blow counts reported on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of
penetration. Soil samples were observed and removed from the sampler, bagged, sealed and
transported to the laboratory for testing.
Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples
Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.
The California Drive Sampler
The sampler, with an external diameter of 2.4 inches, was lined with four, 4-inch long, thin
brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 1.9 inches. The sample barrel was driven
into the ground with the weight of a hammer in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. The
driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of
the hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs as
an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from
the sample barrel in the brass liners, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.
The Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler
The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with 1-inch long, thin brass
rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into
the ground with a 140-pound hammer falling freely from a height of 30 inches in general
accordance with ASTM D 3550. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer
or bar, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs as an
index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from
the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART PER ASTM D 2488
PRIMARY DIVISIONS SECONDARY DIVISIONS
GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME
COARSE-
GRAINED
SOILS
more than
50% retained
on No. 200
sieve
GRAVEL
more than
50% of
coarse
fraction
retained on
No. 4 sieve
CLEAN GRAVEL
less than 5% fines
GW well-graded GRAVEL
GP poorly graded GRAVEL
GRAVEL with
DUAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
5% to 12% fines
GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with silt
GP-GM poorly graded GRAVEL with silt
GW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clay
GP-GC poorly graded GRAVEL with clay
GRAVEL with
FINES
more than
12% fines
GM silty GRAVEL
GC clayey GRAVEL
GC-GM silty, clayey GRAVEL
SAND
50% or more
of coarse
fraction
passes
No. 4 sieve
CLEAN SAND
less than 5% fines
SW well-graded SAND
SP poorly graded SAND
SAND with
DUAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
5% to 12% fines
SW-SM well-graded SAND with silt
SP-SM poorly graded SAND with silt
SW-SC well-graded SAND with clay
SP-SC poorly graded SAND with clay
SAND with FINES
more than
12% fines
SM silty SAND
SC clayey SAND
SC-SM silty, clayey SAND
FINE-
GRAINED
SOILS
50% or
more passes
No. 200 sieve
SILT and
CLAY
liquid limit
less than 50%
INORGANIC
CL lean CLAY
ML SILT
CL-ML silty CLAY
ORGANIC
OL (PI > 4)organic CLAY
OL (PI < 4)organic SILT
SILT and
CLAY
liquid limit
50% or more
INORGANIC
CH fat CLAY
MH elastic SILT
ORGANIC
OH (plots on or
above “A”-line)organic CLAY
OH (plots below
“A”-line)organic SILT
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat
USCS METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Explanation of USCS Method of Soil Classification
PROJECT NO.DATE FIGURE
APPARENT DENSITY - COARSE-GRAINED SOIL
APPARENT
DENSITY
SPOOLING CABLE OR CATHEAD AUTOMATIC TRIP HAMMER
SPT (blows/foot)
MODIFIED SPLIT BARREL (blows/foot)
SPT (blows/foot)
MODIFIED SPLIT BARREL (blows/foot)
Very Loose < 4 < 8 < 3 < 5
Loose 5 - 10 9 - 21 4 - 7 6 - 14
Medium
Dense 11 - 30 22 - 63 8 - 20 15 - 42
Dense 31 - 50 64 - 105 21 - 33 43 - 70
Very Dense > 50 > 105 > 33 > 70
CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL
CONSIS-TENCY
SPOOLING CABLE OR CATHEAD AUTOMATIC TRIP HAMMER
SPT (blows/foot)
MODIFIED SPLIT BARREL
(blows/foot)
SPT (blows/foot)
MODIFIED SPLIT BARREL (blows/foot)
Very Soft < 2 < 3 < 1 < 2
Soft 2 - 4 3 - 5 1 - 3 2 - 3
Firm 5 - 8 6 - 10 4 - 5 4 - 6
Stiff 9 - 15 11 - 20 6 - 10 7 - 13
Very Stiff 16 - 30 21 - 39 11 - 20 14 - 26
Hard > 30 > 39 > 20 > 26
LIQUID LIMIT (LL), %PLASTICITY INDEX (PI), %0 10
107
4
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
MH or OH
ML or OLCL - ML
PLASTICITY CHART
GRAIN SIZE
DESCRIPTION SIEVE
SIZE
GRAIN
SIZE
APPROXIMATE
SIZE
Boulders > 12”> 12”Larger than
basketball-sized
Cobbles 3 - 12”3 - 12”Fist-sized to
basketball-sized
Gravel
Coarse 3/4 - 3”3/4 - 3”Thumb-sized to
fist-sized
Fine #4 - 3/4”0.19 - 0.75”Pea-sized to
thumb-sized
Sand
Coarse #10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19”Rock-salt-sized to
pea-sized
Medium #40 - #10 0.017 - 0.079”Sugar-sized to
rock-salt-sized
Fine #200 - #40 0.0029 -
0.017”
Flour-sized to
sugar-sized
Fines Passing #200 < 0.0029”Flour-sized and
smaller
CH or OH
CL or OL
BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET
0
5
XX/XX
10
15
Bulk sample.
Modified split-barrel drive sampler.
2-inch inner diameter split-barrel drive sampler.
No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler, or 2-inch inner diameter split-barrel
drive sampler.
Sample retained by others.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT).
No recovery with a SPT.
Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered in inches.
No recovery with Shelby tube sampler.
Continuous Push Sample.
Seepage.
Groundwater encountered during drilling.
Groundwater measured after drilling.
SM MAJOR MATERIAL TYPE (SOIL):
Solid line denotes unit change.
CL Dashed line denotes material change.
Attitudes: Strike/Dip
b: Bedding
c: Contact
j: Joint
f: Fracture
F: Fault
cs: Clay Seam
s: Shear
bss: Basal Slide Surface
sf: Shear Fracture
sz: Shear Zone
sbs: Shear Bedding Surface
The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the boring.
20
BORING LOG
Explanation of Boring Log Symbols
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGUREDEPTH (feet)BLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.6<0%2/%XON'ULYHQ6$03/(6
0
5
10
15
20
34
20
48
50/5"
10.5
19.1
7.2
129.5
110.1
135.3
CL
SW
ASPHALT: Approximately 6 inches thick.
BASE COURSE: Approximately 12 inches thick.
FILL:Brown to reddish gray, moist, sandy lean CLAY.
ALLUVIUM:Reddish brown, moist, very stiff, sandy lean CLAY.
Red to brown, wet, dense, fine to coarse SAND with gravel; trace clay.
@12': Groundwater encountered during drilling.
Total Depth = 14.4 feet.
Groundwater encountered during drilling at approximately 12 feet.
Backfilled with on-site soil and patched after drilling on 12/09/2020.
Notes:
Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal
variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.
FIGURE A- 1
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPEMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
501710004 |1/21DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 12/09/2020 BORING NO.B-1
GROUND ELEVATION --SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING CME-55, 4" Solid-Stem Auger (Dakota Drilling)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY KTM LOGGED BY KTM REVIEWED BY BFG
1
0
5
10
15
20
38
13
30
39
11.4
5.8
128.9
125.6
CL
SW-SC
ASPHALT: Approximately 6 inches thick.
BASE COURSE: Approximately 6 inches thick.
FILL:Reddish gray to brown, moist, clayey SAND.
ALLUVIUM:Red to reddish brown, moist, stiff, sandy lean CLAY.
Red to brown, wet, medium dense, fine to coarse SAND with clay and gravel.
@11': Groundwater encountered during drilling.
Wet.
Total Depth = 15 feet.
Groundwater encountered during drilling at approximately 11 feet.
Backfilled with on-site soil and patched after drilling on 12/09/2020.
Notes:
Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal
variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.
FIGURE A- 2
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPEMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
501710004 |1/21DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 12/09/2020 BORING NO.B-2
GROUND ELEVATION --SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING CME-55, 4" Solid-Stem Auger (Dakota Drilling)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY KTM LOGGED BY KTM REVIEWED BY BFG
1
0
5
10
15
20
34
12
10
42
11.9
12.4
8.3
126.8
118.1
132.5
SC
SW
ASPHALT: Approximately 6 inches thick.
BASE COURSE: Approximately 7 inches thick.
FILL:Brown to gray, moist, clayey SAND.
Brown.
ALLUVIUM:Brown, moist, loose, clayey SAND
@13': Groundwater encountered during drilling.Red to brown, wet, medium dense, fine to coarse SAND with gravel; trace clay.
Total Depth = 15 feet.
Groundwater encountered during drilling at approximately 13 feet.
Backfilled with on-site soil and patched after drilling on 12/09/2020.
Notes:
Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal
variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.
FIGURE A- 3
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPEMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
501710004 |1/21DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 12/09/2020 BORING NO.B-3
GROUND ELEVATION --SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING CME-55, 4" Solid-Stem Auger (Dakota Drilling)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY KTM LOGGED BY KTM REVIEWED BY BFG
1
0
5
10
15
20
31
17
30
11.9 125.0
CL
SW-SC
ASPHALT: Approximately 6 inches thick.
BASE COURSE: Approximately 7 inches thick.
FILL:Brown to gray, moist, clayey SAND.
Reddish brown to dark brown, moist, sandy lean CLAY.
ALLUVIUM:Reddish brown, moist, very stiff, sandy lean CLAY.
Pink to white, dry, medium dense, fine to coarse SAND with clay and gravel.
@14': Groundwater encountered during drilling.Total Depth = 14 feet.
Groundwater encountered during drilling at approximately 14 feet.
Backfilled with on-site soil and patched after drilling on 12/09/2020.
Notes:
Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal
variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.
FIGURE A- 4
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPEMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
501710004 |1/21DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 12/09/2020 BORING NO.B-4
GROUND ELEVATION --SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING CME-55, 4" Solid-Stem Auger (Dakota Drilling)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY KTM LOGGED BY KTM REVIEWED BY BFG
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
15
19
28
12.6
2.8
123.2
CL
SW
ASPHALT: Approximately 6 inches thick.
BASE COURSE: Approximately 6 inches thick.
FILL:Reddish gray to black, moist, sandy lean CLAY; trace organics.
ALLUVIUM:Red, moist, stiff, sandy lean CLAY.
Red to brown, moist, loose, fine to coarse SAND with gravel; trace clay.
@13': Groundwater encountered during drilling.
Wet; medium dense.
Total Depth = 15 feet.
Groundwater encountered during drilling at approximately 13 feet.
Backfilled with on-site soil and patched after drilling on 12/09/2020.
Notes:
Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal
variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.
FIGURE A- 5
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPEMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
501710004 |1/21DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 12/09/2020 BORING NO.B-5
GROUND ELEVATION --SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING CME-55, 4" Solid-Stem Auger (Dakota Drilling)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY KTM LOGGED BY KTM REVIEWED BY BFG
1
0
5
10
15
20
16
18
28
42
26.1
7.0
97.8
133.5
CL
SW-SC
ASPHALT: Approximately 6 inches thick.
BASE COURSE: Approximately 6 inches thick.
FILL:Reddish brown to reddish gray, moist, fat CLAY with sand; trace gravel.
ALLUVIUM:Reddish brown, moist, very stiff, sandy lean CLAY.
Pink to brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse SAND with clay and gravel.
@12': Groundwater encountered during drilling.
Wet.
Total Depth = 15 feet.
Groundwater encountered during drilling at approximately 12 feet.
Backfilled with on-site soil and patched after drilling on 12/09/2020.
Notes:
Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal
variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.
FIGURE A- 6
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPEMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
501710004 |1/21DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 12/09/2020 BORING NO.B-6
GROUND ELEVATION --SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING CME-55, 4" Solid-Stem Auger (Dakota Drilling)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto. Trip Hammer)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY KTM LOGGED BY KTM REVIEWED BY BFG
1
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Testing
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classifications System
(USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the
exploratory excavations in Appendix A.
In-Place Moisture and Density Tests
The moisture content and dry density of ring-lined samples obtained from the exploratory borings were
evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D2837. These test results are presented on the logs of the
exploratory borings in Appendix A.
Atterberg Limits
Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid limit,
plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. These test results were utilized
to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The tes t results
and classifications are shown on Figure B-1.
No. 200 Sieve Analysis
An evaluation of the percentage of particles finer than the No. 200 sieve in selected soil samples was
performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1140. The results of the tests are presented on Figure B-2.
Gradation Analysis
Gradation analysis tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accordance
with ASTM D 6913. The grain-size distribution curves are shown on Figures B-3 through B-8. These test
results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the USCS.
Consolidation/Swell Tests
The consolidation and/or swell potential of selected materials were evaluated in general accordance with
ASTM D 4546. Specimens were loaded with a specified surcharge before inundation with water. Readings
of volumetric consolidation/swell were recorded until completion of primary consolidation/swell. After the
completion of primary swell, surcharge loads were increased incrementally to evaluate s well pressure. The
results of the consolidation/swell tests are presented on Figures B-9 through B-13.
Proctor Density Tests
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of selected representative soil samples were
evaluated using the Standard Proctor method in general accordance with ASTM D 698. The results of these
tests are summarized on Figure B-14.
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
CBR tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accordance with ASTM
D 1883. Specimens were molded under a specified compactive energy to approximately 100 percent of
maximum laboratory density at optimum moisture content. The specimens were soaked for at least 96
hours, or until stabilization, and then tested to evaluate the penetration resistance of a piston moving at a
rate of 0.05 inch per minute. The CBR value shown on Figure B-15 is a ratio of penetration resistance at
0.1 inch of penetration to the standard penetration resistance value.
Soil Corrosivity Tests
Soil pH tests were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM Test Method
D4972. Soil minimum resistivity tests were performed on representati ve samples in general accordance
with AASHTO T288. The sulfate content of selected samples was evaluated in general accordance with
CDOT Test Method CP-L 2103. The chloride content of selected samples was evaluated in general
accordance with CDOT Test Method CP-L 2104. The test results are presented on Figure B-16.
∆
x
NP - INDICATES NON-PLASTIC
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4318
B-1 through
B-6
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
501710004 1/21
B-4
B-5
2.0-3.0
0.0-5.0
28
24
B-6
EQUIVALENT
USCS
SC
No. 40 Sieve)
SYMBOL LOCATION DEPTH (ft)LIQUID
LIMIT
USCS
(Fraction Finer Than
PLASTICITY
INDEX
CLASSIFICATION
B-1
PLASTIC
LIMIT
13
2.0-3.0
16
CL
2.0-3.0 2844
SC
CL
SC
CL
4.0-5.0
24
23
B-2
B-3
2.0-3.0 13
CL
52
26
CL
18
11
10
14 14
CL
CL
2.0-3.0
8
3616
SC
CH
CL
CH
14 10
CH or OH
CL or OL
MH or OH
ML or OLCL -ML
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120PLASTICITY INDEX, PI LIQUID LIMIT, LL
FIGURE B-1
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1140
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
SAMPLE
LOCATION
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft)
PERCENT
PASSING
NO. 200
PERCENT
PASSING
NO. 4
DESCRIPTION
100 51
EQUIVALENT
USCS
2.0-3.0
B-4
B-1
B-2
Brown Clayey Sand
Brown to Gray Clayey Sand
Brown to Reddish Gray Sandy Lean CLAY
Reddish Gray to Brown Clayey Sand
B-5
2.0-3.0B-6
Reddish Gray to Black Sandy Lean CLAY 100
100
SC10048
CL
4.0-5.0
2.0-3.0
2.0-3.0
2.0-3.0
B-3
CL53
CHReddish Brown to Reddish Gray Fat CLAY with Sand;
trace Gravel
1/21501710004
100
SC
SC
41
49
99 81
NO. 200 SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-2
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2"1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 6913
----
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
1/21501710004
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
Depth
(ft)D30
Fine
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
D60 Cu
Equivalent
USCS
SC------40
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc
------
B-1
through B-
6
0.0-5.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-3
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2"1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 6913
Cu
Equivalent
USCS
SW-SC6.10 50.8 4.9 5.2
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc
--0.12 1.90B-2 9.0-10.0
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
Depth
(ft)D30
Fine
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
D60
----
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
1/21501710004
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-4
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2"1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 6913
Cu
Equivalent
USCS
SW2.80 12.7 1.2 4.6
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc
--0.22 0.85B-3 14.0-15.0
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
Depth
(ft)D30
Fine
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
D60
----
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
1/21501710004
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-5
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2"1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 6913
Cu
Equivalent
USCS
SW-SC2.80 18.7 1.4 6.5
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc
--0.15 0.78B-4 14.0-14.1
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
Depth
(ft)D30
Fine
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
D60
----
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
1/21501710004
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-6
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2"1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 6913
Cu
Equivalent
USCS
SW3.20 13.3 1.1 4.2
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc
--0.24 0.90B-5 9.0-10.5
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
Depth
(ft)D30
Fine
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
D60
----
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
1/21501710004
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-7
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2"1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 6913
Cu
Equivalent
USCS
SW-SC1.60 16.0 3.1 7.9
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc
--0.10 0.70B-6 14.0-15.0
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
Depth
(ft)D30
Fine
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
D60
----
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
1/21501710004
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-8
Seating Cycle
Loading Prior to Inundation
Loading After Inundation
Rebound Cycle
B-1
2.0-3.0
CL (Fill)
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
501710004 1/21
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
Soil Type:
Moisture Increase (%):
Swell Percentage (%):
Swell Pressure (psf):
1.9
-0.4
--
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0CONSOLIDATION IN PERCENT OF SAMPLE THICKNESS (%) EXPANSION (%)STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-9
Seating Cycle
Loading Prior to Inundation
Loading After Inundation
Rebound Cycle
B-2
2.0-3.0
SC (Fill)
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546
1.5
-0.1
--
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
Soil Type:
Moisture Increase (%):
Swell Percentage (%):
Swell Pressure (psf):
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
501710004 1/21
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0CONSOLIDATION IN PERCENT OF SAMPLE THICKNESS (%) EXPANSION (%)STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-10
Seating Cycle
Loading Prior to Inundation
Loading After Inundation
Rebound Cycle
B-4
2.0-3.0
SC (Fill)
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546
2.0
-0.2
--
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
Soil Type:
Moisture Increase (%):
Swell Percentage (%):
Swell Pressure (psf):
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
501710004 1/21
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0CONSOLIDATION IN PERCENT OF SAMPLE THICKNESS (%) EXPANSION (%)STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-11
Seating Cycle
Loading Prior to Inundation
Loading After Inundation
Rebound Cycle
B-5
2.0-3.0
CL (Fill)
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
501710004 1/21
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
Soil Type:
Moisture Increase (%):
Swell Percentage (%):
Swell Pressure (psf):
1.1
0.0
--
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0CONSOLIDATION IN PERCENT OF SAMPLE THICKNESS (%) EXPANSION (%)STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-12
Seating Cycle
Loading Prior to Inundation
Loading After Inundation
Rebound Cycle
B-6
2.0-3.0
CH (Fill)
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546
1.0
0.5
650
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
Soil Type:
Moisture Increase (%):
Swell Percentage (%):
Swell Pressure (psf):
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
501710004 1/21
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0CONSOLIDATION IN PERCENT OF SAMPLE THICKNESS (%) EXPANSION (%)STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-13
##
##
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH METHOD
Maximum Dry
Density
(pcf)
119.0
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
B-1 through B-6
Optimum Moisture
Content
(percent)
Soil Description
Brown to Reddish Gray Clayey SAND; trace Gravel
Sample
Location
Depth
(ft)
13.0
501710004 1/21
0.0-5.0
N/A N/ADry Density and Moisture Content Values Corrected for Oversize (ASTM D 4718)
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40DRY DENSITY (PCF)MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
Zero Air Void Line
(Specific Gravity = 2.70)
Zero Air Void Line
(Specific Gravity = 2.60)
Zero Air Void Line
(Specific Gravity = 2.50)
ASTM D 1557 ASTM D 698 A B C
PROCTOR DENSITY TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-14
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1883
1/21
Description
Brown to Reddish Gray
Clayey SAND; trace
Gravel
Depth (ft.)
0.0-5.0
Sample Location
B-1 through B-6
Symbol Design CBR
4.5SC
Soil Type
501710004
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
CBR TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-15
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0CORRECTED CBRDRY DENSITY (PCF)
DRY DENSITY vs CBR
10 Blows per layer
25 Blows per layer
56 Blows per layer
CBR at 95%
Compaction
Dry Density at 95%
Compaction
(113.1 pcf)
1 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4972
2 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH AASHTO T288
3 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CDOT TEST METHOD CP-L 2103
4 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CDOT TEST METHOD CP-L 2104
pH 1SAMPLE
DEPTH (ft)
SAMPLE
LOCATION
RESISTIVITY 2
(ohm-cm)
SULFATE CONTENT 3
(ppm) (%)
6.9 959804400.044B-1 through B-6 0.0-5.0
501710004 1/21
I-25 FRONTAGE ROAD, MULBERRY DEVELOPMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
CHLORIDE
CONTENT 4
(ppm)
CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS
FIGURE B-16
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021
APPENDIX C
Core Photographs
I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development Date:
Tech:PAG
5.168Ave. Height (in.):
Project Name:
Project Number:501710004
12/9/2020
3.915
Ave. Height (in.):6.251
THICKNESS OR HEIGHT OF COMPACTED ASPHALT MIXTURE
SPECIMENS DATA WORKSHEET - ASTM D3549
Ave. Diameter (in.):3.910 Ave. Diameter (in.):
C-2
3.916
4.561
Sample Location:C-3 Sample Location:C-4
Sample Location:C-1
Ave. Diameter (in.):3.914
4.720Ave. Height (in.):
Sample Location:
Ave. Diameter (in.):
Ave. Height (in.):
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021
APPENDIX D
Pavement Design Calculations
Design Inputs
Age (year)Heavy Trucks
(cumulative)
2020 (initial) 670
2030 (10 years)1,666,530
2040 (20 years)3,773,540
TrafficDesign Structure
Layer type Material Type Thickness (in)
Flexible R4 Level 1 S(100) PG 76-
28 2.0
Flexible R4 Level 1 S(100) PG 64-
22 4.0
NonStabilized Crushed gravel 6.0
Subgrade A-6 Semi-infinite
Volumetric at Construction:
Effective binder
content (%)10.6
Air voids (%)6.8
Distress Type
Distress @ Specified
Reliability Reliability (%)Criterion
Satisfied?Target Predicted Target Achieved
Terminal IRI (in/mile)200.00 166.20 95.00 99.67 Pass
Permanent deformation - total pavement (in)0.80 0.66 95.00 99.93 Pass
AC bottom-up fatigue cracking (% lane area)25.00 3.13 95.00 100.00 Pass
AC thermal cracking (ft/mile)1500.00 107.96 95.00 100.00 Pass
AC top-down fatigue cracking (ft/mile)1320.00 552.33 95.00 100.00 Pass
Permanent deformation - AC only (in)0.65 0.09 95.00 100.00 Pass
Distress Prediction Summary
FLEXIBLEDesign Type:
20 yearsDesign Life:
October, 2020Traffic opening:
Pavement construction:October, 2020
September, 2020Base construction:Climate Data
Sources (Lat/Lon)
40.452, -105.001
Design Outputs
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 1 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
Distress Charts
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 2 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
Traffic Volume Monthly Adjustment Factors
Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13
Graphical Representation of Traffic Inputs
Traffic Inputs
Operational speed (mph)35.0
Percent of trucks in design direction (%):60.0
100.01Percent of trucks in design lane (%):Number of lanes in design direction:
670Initial two-way AADTT:
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 3 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
Traffic Wander
Mean wheel location (in)
Traffic wander standard deviation (in)
Design lane width (ft)
18.0
10.0
12.0
Axle Configuration
Average axle width (ft)8.5
Dual tire spacing (in)
Tire pressure (psi)
12.0
120.0
Average Axle Spacing
Tandem axle
spacing (in)
Tridem axle
spacing (in)
Quad axle spacing
(in)
51.6
49.2
49.2
Wheelbase does not apply
Number of Axles per Truck
Vehicle
Class
Single
Axle
Tandem
Axle
Tridem
Axle
Quad
Axle
Class 4 1.62 0.39 0 0
Class 5 2 0 0 0
Class 6 1.02 0.99 0 0
Class 7 1 0.26 0.83 0
Class 8 2.38 0.67 0 0
Class 9 1.13 1.93 0 0
Class 10 1.19 1.09 0.89 0
Class 11 4.29 0.26 0.06 0
Class 12 3.52 1.14 0.06 0
Class 13 2.15 2.13 0.35 0
Axle Configuration
Volume Monthly Adjustment Factors Level 3: Default MAF
Month Vehicle Class
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
January 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
February 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
March 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
April 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
May 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
June 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
July 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
August 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
September 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
October 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
November 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
December 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Distributions by Vehicle Class
Growth Factor
Rate (%)Function
3%Linear
3%Linear
3%Linear
3%Linear
3%Linear
3%Linear
3%Linear
3%Linear
3%Linear
3%Linear
Vehicle Class
AADTT
Distribution (%)
(Level 3)
Class 4 3.3%
Class 5 34%
Class 6 11.7%
Class 7 1.6%
Class 8 9.9%
Class 9 36.2%
Class 10 1%
Class 11 1.8%
Class 12 0.2%
Class 13 0.3%
Truck Distribution by Hour does not apply
Tabular Representation of Traffic Inputs
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 4 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
AADTT (Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic) Growth
* Traffic cap is not enforced
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 5 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
Climate Inputs
Climate Data Sources:
Climate Station Cities:Location (lat lon elevation(ft))
40.45200 -105.00100 5016FORT COLLINS, CO
Monthly Climate Summary:
Annual Statistics:
Mean annual air temperature (ºF)48.98
Mean annual precipitation (in)11.80
Freezing index (ºF - days)386.00
Average annual number of freeze/thaw cycles:82.60 Water table depth
(ft)10.00
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 6 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
< -13º F
Hourly Air Temperature Distribution by Month:
-13º F to -4º F -4º F to 5º F 5º F to 14º F 14º F to 23º F 23º F to 32º F 32º F to 41º F 41º F to 50º F
59º F to 68º F50º F to 59º F 68º F to 77º F 77º F to 86º F 86º F to 95º F 95º F to 104º F 104º F to 113º
F
> 113º F
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 7 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
HMA Design Properties
Layer Name Layer Type Interface
Friction
Layer 1 Flexible : R4 Level 1 S
(100) PG 76-28 Flexible (1)1.00
Layer 2 Flexible : R4 Level 1 S
(100) PG 64-22 Flexible (1)1.00
Layer 3 Non-stabilized Base :
Crushed gravel Non-stabilized Base (4)1.00
Layer 4 Subgrade : A-6 Subgrade (5) -
Use Multilayer Rutting Model False
Using G* based model (not nationally
calibrated)False
Is NCHRP 1-37A HMA Rutting Model
Coefficients True
Endurance Limit -
Use Reflective Cracking True
Structure - ICM Properties
AC surface shortwave absorptivity 0.85
Design Properties
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 8 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
Thermal Cracking (Input Level: 1)
Indirect tensile strength at 14 ºF (psi)595.00
Creep Compliance (1/psi)
Loading time (sec)-4 ºF
1 3.46e-007
2 3.83e-007
5 4.34e-007
10 4.85e-007
20 5.29e-007
50 5.99e-007
100 6.87e-007
14 ºF
4.12e-007
4.76e-007
5.97e-007
7.25e-007
8.45e-007
1.05e-006
1.32e-006
32 ºF
7.13e-007
9.57e-007
1.33e-006
1.80e-006
2.29e-006
3.25e-006
4.24e-006
Thermal Contraction
Is thermal contraction calculated?True
Mix coefficient of thermal contraction (in/in/ºF) -
Aggregate coefficient of thermal contraction
(in/in/ºF)5.0e-006
Voids in Mineral Aggregate (%)17.4
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 9 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
HMA Layer 1: Layer 1 Flexible : R4 Level 1 S(100) PG 76-28
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 10 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
HMA Layer 2: Layer 2 Flexible : R4 Level 1 S(100) PG 64-22
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 11 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
Analysis Output Charts
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 12 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 13 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 14 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 15 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
Layer Information
Layer 1 Flexible : R4 Level 1 S(100) PG 76-28
Asphalt Binder
Temperature (ºF)Binder Gstar (Pa)Phase angle (deg)
179.6 493 68
158 1559 64
168.8 859 66
T ( ºF)0.5 Hz
14 2958100
40 2729500
70 2287500
100 1679000
130 1047500
25 Hz
3078700
2974700
2753000
2386900
1883300
1 Hz
2987200
2787200
2391400
1823100
1195200
10 Hz
3058600
2932800
2668900
2246800
1695100
Asphalt Dynamic Modulus (Input Level: 1)
Asphalt
Thickness (in)2.0
Unit weight (pcf)143.2
Poisson's ratio Is Calculated?False
Ratio 0.35
Parameter A -
Parameter B -
General Info
Name Value
Reference temperature (ºF)70
Effective binder content (%)10.61
Air voids (%)6.82
Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-ºF)0.67
Heat capacity (BTU/lb-ºF)0.23
Field Value
Display name/identifier R4 Level 1 S(100) PG 76-28
Description of object Mix ID # IM 0253-214
Author CDOT
Date Created 5/3/2016 12:00:00 AM
Approver CDOT MP
Date approved 5/3/2016 12:00:00 AM
State Colorado
District
County
Highway
Direction of Travel
From station (miles)
To station (miles)
Province
User defined field 1 S
User defined field 2
User defined field 3
Revision Number 0
Identifiers
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 16 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
Layer 2 Flexible : R4 Level 1 S(100) PG 64-22
Asphalt Binder
Temperature (ºF)Binder Gstar (Pa)Phase angle (deg)
168.8 451 85
147.2 1857 81.6
158 889 83.1
T ( ºF)0.5 Hz
14 3066800
40 2806000
70 2266800
100 1522600
130 820200
25 Hz
3192100
3085600
2835600
2393200
1773100
1 Hz
3098200
2874100
2396000
1696200
975200
10 Hz
3172300
3039900
2735700
2219300
1545400
Asphalt Dynamic Modulus (Input Level: 1)
Asphalt
Thickness (in)4.0
Unit weight (pcf)150.7
Poisson's ratio Is Calculated?False
Ratio 0.35
Parameter A -
Parameter B -
General Info
Name Value
Reference temperature (ºF)70
Effective binder content (%)10.59
Air voids (%)6.34
Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-ºF)0.67
Heat capacity (BTU/lb-ºF)0.23
Field Value
Display name/identifier R4 Level 1 S(100) PG 64-22
Description of object Mix ID # FSA 0931-031
Author CDOT
Date Created 5/3/2016 12:00:00 AM
Approver CDOT - MP
Date approved 5/3/2016 12:00:00 AM
State Colorado
District
County
Highway
Direction of Travel
From station (miles)
To station (miles)
Province
User defined field 1 S
User defined field 2
User defined field 3
Revision Number 0
Identifiers
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 17 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
Layer 3 Non-stabilized Base : Crushed gravel
Liquid Limit
Plasticity Index 1.0
6.0
Sieve Size % Passing
0.001mm
0.002mm
0.020mm
#200 8.7
#100
#80 12.9
#60
#50
#40 20.0
#30
#20
#16
#10 33.8
#8
#4 44.7
3/8-in.57.2
1/2-in.63.1
3/4-in.72.7
1-in.78.8
1 1/2-in.85.8
2-in.91.6
2 1/2-in.
3-in.
3 1/2-in.97.6
Is User Defined?False
af 7.2555
bf 1.3328
cf 0.8242
hr 117.4000
Sieve
Is User
Defined?Value
Maximum dry unit weight (pcf)False 127.2
Saturated hydraulic conductivity
(ft/hr)False 5.054e-02
Specific gravity of solids False 2.7
Water Content (%)False 7.4
User-defined Soil Water Characteristic Curve
(SWCC)
FalseIs layer compacted?
Unbound
Layer thickness (in)6.0
Poisson's ratio 0.35
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0)0.5
Resilient Modulus (psi)
25000.0
Modulus (Input Level: 3)
Analysis Type:Modify input values by
temperature/moisture
Method:Resilient Modulus (psi)
Use Correction factor for NDT modulus? -
NDT Correction Factor: -
Field Value
Display name/identifier Crushed gravel
Description of object Default material
Author AASHTO
Date Created 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM
Approver
Date approved 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM
State
District
County
Highway
Direction of Travel
From station (miles)
To station (miles)
Province
User defined field 1
User defined field 2
User defined field 3
Revision Number 0
Identifiers
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 18 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
Layer 4 Subgrade : A-6
Liquid Limit
Plasticity Index 16.0
33.0
Sieve Size % Passing
0.001mm
0.002mm
0.020mm
#200 63.2
#100
#80 73.5
#60
#50
#40 82.4
#30
#20
#16
#10 90.2
#8
#4 93.5
3/8-in.96.4
1/2-in.97.4
3/4-in.98.4
1-in.99.0
1 1/2-in.99.5
2-in.99.8
2 1/2-in.
3-in.
3 1/2-in.100.0
Is User Defined?False
af 108.4091
bf 0.6801
cf 0.2161
hr 500.0000
Sieve
Is User
Defined?Value
Maximum dry unit weight (pcf)False 107.9
Saturated hydraulic conductivity
(ft/hr)False 1.95e-05
Specific gravity of solids False 2.7
Water Content (%)False 17.1
User-defined Soil Water Characteristic Curve
(SWCC)
FalseIs layer compacted?
Unbound
Layer thickness (in)Semi-infinite
Poisson's ratio 0.35
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0)0.5
CBR
4.5
Modulus (Input Level: 2)
Analysis Type:Modify input values by
temperature/moisture
Method:Resilient Modulus (psi)
Resilient Modulus (psi)
6690
Use Correction factor for NDT modulus? -
NDT Correction Factor: -
Field Value
Display name/identifier A-6
Description of object Default material
Author AASHTO
Date Created 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM
Approver
Date approved 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AM
State
District
County
Highway
Direction of Travel
From station (miles)
To station (miles)
Province
User defined field 1
User defined field 2
User defined field 3
Revision Number 0
Identifiers
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 19 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
Calibration Coefficients
k1: 0.007566
k2: 3.9492
k3: 1.281
Bf1: 1
Bf2: 1
Bf3: 1
AC Fatigue
AC Layer K1:-3.35412 K2:1.5606 K3:0.4791 Br1:1 Br2:1 Br3:1
0.24 * Pow(RUT,0.8026) + 0.001
AC Rutting
AC Rutting Standard Deviation
Level 1 K: 1.5
Level 2 K: 0.5
Level 3 K: 1.5
Level 1 Standard Deviation: 0.1468 * THERMAL + 65.027
Level 2 Standard Deviation: 0.2841 * THERMAL + 55.462
Level 3 Standard Deviation: 0.3972 * THERMAL + 20.422
Thermal Fracture
k1: 1 k2: 1 Bc1: 0.75 Bc2:1.1
CSM Fatigue
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 20 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
Subgrade Rutting
Granular Fine
k1: 2.03 Bs1: 1 k1: 1.35 Bs1: 1
Standard Deviation (BASERUT)
0.1477 * Pow(BASERUT,0.6711) + 0.001
Standard Deviation (BASERUT)
0.1235 * Pow(SUBRUT,0.5012) + 0.001
c1: 7 c2: 3.5
200 + 2300/(1+exp(1.072-2.1654*LOG10
(TOP+0.0001)))
AC Cracking
1.13 + 13/(1+exp(7.57-15.5*LOG10
(BOTTOM+0.0001)))
AC Top Down Cracking AC Bottom Up Cracking
c3: 0 c4: 1000 c3: 6000c2: 1c1: 1
AC Cracking Top Standard Deviation AC Cracking Bottom Standard Deviation
C1: 0 C2: 75
CSM Cracking
C4: 3C3: 5
CTB*1
CSM Standard Deviation
IRI Flexible Pavements
C3: 0.008 C4: 0.015C1: 40 C2: 0.4
501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage RoadFile Name: C:\Users\visitor\Desktop\501710003 Mulberry Connection I-25 Frontage Road.dgpx
Report generated on:
3/10/2021 9:56 AM Page 21 of 21by:
on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM on: 3/9/2021 1:36 PM
by: Created ApprovedVersion:
2.3.1+66
Ninyo & Moore | I-25 Frontage Road, Mulberry Development, Fort Collins, Colorado | 501710004 R01 | March 10, 2021
6001 S. Willow Drive, Suite 195 | Greenwood Village, Col orado 80111 | p. 303.629.6000
ARIZONA | CALIFORNIA | COLORADO | NEVADA | TEXAS | UTAH
ninyoandmoore.com