HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLOOM FILING FOUR - FDP240001 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (7)
CTL|Thompson, Inc.
Denver, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Glenwood Springs, Pueblo, Summit County – Colorado
Cheyenne, Wyoming and Bozeman, Montana
Bloom Subdivision
Filing 1 Roads, Phase 2
Aria Way, Tourmaline Place, Parkland Street, Roselyn Street, Flourish Lane, and Portions of
Conquest Street, Sykes Drive, Comet Street, Crusader Street, and Greenfields Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared for:
HARTFORD HOMES
4801 Goodman Street
Timnath, Colorado 80542
Attention:
Shane Westlind
Vice President of Land
CTL|T Project No. FC07733.008-135
September 25, 2023
SUBGRADE INVESTIGATION AND PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Table of Contents
Scope 1
Summary Of Conclusions 1
Site Location and Project Description 2
Previous Investigations 2
Field and Laboratory Investigation 2
Subsurface Conditions 3
Pavement Design 4
Traffic Projections 4
Subgrade and Groundwater Conditions 5
Pavement Thickness Calculations 5
Pavement Recommendations 5
Subgrade and Pavement Materials and Construction 6
Water-Soluble Sulfates 7
Maintenance 9
Surface Drainage 9
Limitations 10
FIGURES 1 AND 2 – LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
APPENDIX A – SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
APPENDIX B – RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING
APPENDIX C – PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX D – PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX E – MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
1
Scope
This report presents the results of our subgrade investigation and pavement
recommendations for the proposed roadways in the Bloom Subdivision in Fort Collins,
Colorado. The purpose of our subgrade investigation was to determine the subsurface
conditions and to evaluate pavement support characteristics for our pavement
recommendations. The report was conducted in general conformance with the Larimer County
Urban Area Street Standards, August 2021.
This report was prepared from data developed during field exploration, laboratory testing,
engineering analysis, and experience with similar conditions. The report includes a description
of the subsurface conditions found in exploratory borings, laboratory test results, and pavement
construction and material recommendations for the construction of Aria Way, Tourmaline Place,
Parkland Street, Roselyn Street, Flourish Lane, and portions of Conquest Street, Sykes Drive,
Comet Street, Crusader Street, and Greenfields Drive. If plans change significantly, we should
be contacted to review our investigation and determine if our recommendations still apply. A
brief summary of our conclusions is presented below, with more detailed criteria and
recommendations contained in the report.
Summary Of Conclusions
1. Soils encountered in our borings generally consisted of 10 feet of clean to clayey,
gravelly sand or sandy clay. The upper 3 to 5 feet of all but six borings was fill,
placed during site grading and/or utility installation. Bedrock was not encountered
during this investigation. Groundwater was encountered in ten borings at
approximately 4 to 9 feet. Only one boring indicated water within 5 feet of the
subgrade surface.
2. The subgrade soils classified as A-2-4 to A-6 according to AASHTO methods.
Such material is considered to exhibit good to poor subgrade support. Swell-
consolidation testing indicated swells of nil to 2.8 percent. Based on our lab data,
subgrade conditions and our experience, we recommend mitigation for swelling
soils.
3. Precipitation in the area was observed to create soft, saturated soil conditions. If
soft soils are encountered during construction stabilization can likely be achieved
by crowding 1½ to 3-inch nominal size crushed rock into the subgrade until the
base does not deform by more than about 1-inch under compactive effort.
Chemical treatment (cement, fly ash, lime) can also be considered for
stabilization. We understand that cement stabilization has been the preferred
method at this site. Soft soil mitigation is discussed in the report.
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
2
4. Asphaltic concrete and/or Portland cement concrete over aggregate base course
are appropriate surface pavements for the included roadways. Minimum
pavement recommendations are presented in this report.
Site Location and Project Description
The Bloom Subdivision is located between East Vine Drive and Mulberry Street, east of
Timberline Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado (Figure 1). Phase 2 includes the portion of
Greenfields Drive between International Boulevard and Sykes Drive. Also included in the
investigation are Aria Way, Tourmaline Place, Parkland Street, Roselyn Street, Flourish Lane,
and portions of Conquest Street, Sykes Drive, Comet Street, and Crusader Street. The roads
are anticipated to be paved with hot mix asphalt and/or Portland cement concrete.
Previous Investigations
CTL|Thompson previously performed a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation at Bloom
Subdivision under CTL|T project No. FC07733-115, report dated May 11, 2017, and a
Geotechnical Investigation for various Filing 1 structures under FC07733.005-125 dated July 18,
2023. A Subgrade Investigation and Pavement Design was performed for the Phase 1 roads
under CTL|T Project No. FC07733.006-135, report dated July 26, 2023. Data from the previous
investigations were considered for this report.
Field and Laboratory Investigation
Our field investigation consisted of drilling twenty-one borings to a depth of approximately
10 feet, logging the subsurface conditions, recording penetration-resistance tests, and acquiring
samples of the subgrade materials. Borings were drilled at approximate 500-foot spacing, or
less. The approximate locations of our borings are presented on Figures 1 and 2. The borings
were drilled with 4-inch diameter continuous-flight augers and a truck-mounted drill. Our field
representative directed the field investigation as the borings were advanced. Bulk samples
were obtained from the upper 4 feet of the borings and modified California samples were
obtained from selected intervals within the borings. The number of blows from a 140-pound
hammer falling 30 inches, required to drive the modified California sampler, were recorded.
Summary logs of the borings, including results of field penetration resistance tests, are
presented in Appendix A.
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
3
After the samples were returned to our laboratory, our geotechnical engineer for this
project examined the samples and assigned laboratory testing. Laboratory testing was
performed in general accordance with AASHTO and ASTM methods to determine index
properties, classification, and subgrade support values for those soil types influencing the
pavement design. To evaluate potential heave, swell-consolidation testing was performed on
samples of the subgrade soils. Swell testing samples were inadvertently tested under a
pressure of 500 pounds per square foot (psf) instead of the required 150 psf. We have adjusted
the recommendations in this report accordingly. Other laboratory tests and analysis included
moisture content, dry density, Atterberg limits, gradation analysis, swell consolidation, particle-
size analysis, and water-soluble sulfate tests. We performed one Hveem stabilometer tests on
bulk samples during this investigation and two during the previous investigation. Results of
laboratory tests are presented on Appendix B and summarized in Table B-I.
Subsurface Conditions
Soils encountered in our borings generally consisted of clean to clayey, gravelly sand or
sandy clay to the depths explored of 10 feet. The upper 3 to 5 feet of all but six borings was
identified as fill, placed during site grading and/or utility installation. The fill was tested by our
firm and generally found to meet project specifications at the time of placement. Bedrock was
not encountered during this investigation. Swell-consolidation testing of the upper 5 feet
indicated nil to 2.8 percent swell. Samples tested in the laboratory contained 5 to 58 percent
clay and silt-sized particles (passing the No. 200 sieve). Atterberg limit testing indicated liquid
limits of 21 to 32 and plasticity indices of 5 to 18. Hveem Stabilometer tests of three bulk
samples collected from the Filing 1 interior roads and Greenfields Drive indicated R-values of
15, 25, and 25.
Groundwater was encountered in ten borings at approximately 4 to 9 feet. Only one
boring indicated water within 5 feet of the subgrade surface and not indicative of a shallow
groundwater table. Groundwater fluctuates seasonally and will be affected by irrigation and
precipitation. Groundwater is not expected to affect pavement construction for the included
roads. Further description of the subsurface conditions is presented in our boring logs and
laboratory test results.
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
4
Pavement Design
New construction is planned for the subject roadways. We understand roadway
improvements are regulated by the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards August 2021
(LCUASS), which requires the use of the AASHTO pavement design methods for their
roadways. These design methods require input parameters for traffic projections for a specified
design life, roadway classification, characteristics of the subgrade materials, type and strength
characteristics of pavement materials, groundwater conditions, drainage conditions, and
statistical data.
Traffic Projections
Traffic projections are typically expressed as an 18-kip Equivalent Daily Load Application
(EDLA) for a single day or as an 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) for the design
period of 20 years. Traffic projections were not provided to us for this report. We used Table
10.1: Flexible Pavement Design Criteria from LCUASS for assumed ESAL loads. Table A
presents the roadway classifications and Design ESALs used with our calculations.
Table A:
Design 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs)
Street
Flexible ESAL Rigid ESAL
Aria Way (Parkland to Sykes), Tourmaline Place,
Parkland Street, Conquest Street, Comet Street,
Crusader Street, Roselyn Street, and Flourish Lane
(Local/Cul-de-sac)
36,500/73,000
47,900/95,700
Sykes Drive and Aria Way (Sykes to Donnella)
(Minor Collector) 182,500 239,000
Greenfields Drive
(Two-Lane Arterial) 730,000 957,000
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
5
Subgrade and Groundwater Conditions
The subgrade soils generally consist of clean to clayey, gravelly sand or sandy clay that
classifies as A-2-4 to A-6 in accordance with AASHTO classification methods. Hveem
stabilometer tests of composite samples of nearby sandy clay and clayey sand resulted in R-
values of 15 to 25. We used the R-value of 15 which we converted to a resilient modulus of
7,247 psi based on CDOT criteria. Moderately to highly plastic clay and higher swelling soils
were encountered during this investigation. Based on our experience at the site and laboratory
data, we recommend mitigation for swelling soils. Mitigation should consist of the removal,
moisture or chemical treatment, and re-compaction of 12 inches of the subgrade below the
included roadways. We understand that cement treatment is the preferred stabilization method
at this site. Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 4 to 9 feet in ten borings
during this investigation. Only one boring indicated water within 5 feet of the subgrade surface
and not indicative of a shallow groundwater table. Groundwater is not expected to interfere with
the performance of the pavement.
Pavement Thickness Calculations
We used AASHTO methods to develop our pavement thickness calculations for flexible
and rigid pavements with input values provided by the LCUASS, our laboratory tests, and
observations. Input values including initial and terminal serviceability indices, reliability factor,
and layer strength coefficients were taken from LCUASS. Other input values not specified by
the LCUASS were estimated based on our experience with similar projects. Computer-
generated printouts of the pavement calculations are presented in Appendix C.
Pavement Recommendations
For our design, we assume the pavement will be constructed during a single stage. If
multiple-stage construction is desired, we should be consulted to revise our recommendations.
We have provided pavement design recommendations for new construction including hot mix
asphalt (HMA) on aggregate base course (ABC), and Portland cement concrete (PCC). Cement
treatment of the upper 12 inches of subgrade is recommended to mitigate swelling soils and soft
soils. Minimum pavement thickness recommendations are presented on Table B.
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
6
TABLE B:
MINIMUM PAVEMENT THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS
Roadway
Hot Mix Asphalt
(HMA) + Aggregate
Base Course (ABC)
+ Chemical Treated
Subgrade (CTS)
Portland Cement
Concrete
(PCC) +
Chemical Treated
Subgrade (CTS)
Aria Way (Parkland to Sykes),
Tourmaline Place, Parkland
Street, Conquest Street, Comet
Street, Crusader Street, Roselyn
Street, and Flourish Lane
(Local)
4” HMA +
6” ABC + 12” CTS 6” PCC + 12” CTS
Sykes Drive and Aria Way
(Sykes to Donnella)
(Minor Collector)
5.5” HMA +
7” ABC + 12” CTS 6” PCC + 12” CTS
Greenfields Drive
(Two-Lane Arterial)
7.5” HMA +
11.5” ABC +
12” CTS
8” PCC +
12” CTS
Subgrade and Pavement Materials and Construction
The construction materials are assumed to possess sufficient quality as reflected by the
strength factors used in our design calculations. Materials and construction requirements of
LCUASS 2021 or CDOT should be followed. LUCASS requires mitigation of swelling soils when
swell potential is 2.0 percent or greater. Based on the results of laboratory testing, our
experience, and LCUASS, we believe that mitigation for swell will be required below the
included roadways. Soft saturated soils have been encountered throughout the site because of
higher-than-normal precipitation. Cement treatment has been used as the preferred stabilization
method for the site roadways to address both problems. Cement reduces the plasticity and swell
potential of soil and also increases its bearing capacity. Cement concentration for subgrade
stabilization typically ranges between 4 to 7 percent by weight. We believe 4 to 5 percent will
likely be necessary at this site.
We recommend a minimum of 1-day curing period (3 days is preferred) prior to paving
for cement treatment. The surface of the stabilized area should be kept moist during the cure
period by periodic, light sprinkling if needed. Strength gains will be slower during cooler
weather. Traffic should not be permitted on the treated subgrade during the curing period.
Mixing of the treated subgrade should not occur if the temperature of the soil mixture is below
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
7
40 degrees Fahrenheit. The subgrade should be protected from freezing or drying at all times
until paving. We do not recommend placing asphalt pavement directly on cement treated
subgrade. Placement, mixing, and compaction of stabilized subgrade should be observed and
tested by our firm.
Recommendations for paving materials and subgrade preparations, including moisture
and chemical treatment, are presented in Appendix D. Preparation of the subgrade should
extend from back-of-walk to back-of-walk for attached or monolithic walks or back-of-curb to
back-of-curb.
These criteria were developed from analysis of the field and laboratory data, our
experience, LCUASS, and CDOT requirements. If the materials cannot meet these
requirements, our pavement recommendations should be re-evaluated based upon available
materials. The use of recycled materials, such as recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) and
recycled concrete may be used in place of aggregate base course (ABC) provided they meet
minimum R-values and gradations established by LCUASS. Materials planned for construction
should be submitted and the applicable laboratory tests performed to verify compliance with the
specifications.
Water-Soluble Sulfates
The method of applying the stabilizing agent to the soil will depend partly on the level of
water-soluble sulfates in the subgrade soil. A reaction of water-soluble sulfates in the soil and
available calcium in the stabilizing agent can occur creating the mineral ettringite, which can
swell causing detrimental effects to the pavement surface. If unacceptable concentrations of
water-soluble sulfates are present in the soil, the double-application method can reduce the risk
of pavement heave due to ettringite formation to an acceptable level. We measured water-
soluble sulfate concentrations in twenty-one samples for this investigation and fifteen samples
from previous investigations at less than 0.01 to 0.55 percent. Five samples were between 0.20
and 0.55 percent and three were between 0.10 to 0.20 percent with all other samples being
below measurable to 0.08 percent. Our threshold limit of water-soluble sulfates in soils for single
application of cement, fly ash, or lime for stabilization is 0.5 percent. Based on our test results,
we believe single application is appropriate for the site.
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
8
In addition to the interaction of water-soluble sulfates with chemical treatment agents,
concrete that is exposed to sulfate-rich soils can be subject to sulfate attack. If concrete
pavements or structures will not be in contact with sulfate-rich soils, by means of an aggregate
base course layer or other materials, the risk of sulfate attack should be low. Based on our
cumulative test results, our experience, and ACI 332-20, the sulfate exposure class is RS2 (see
Table C). Deviations from the exposure class may occur as a result of additional sampling and
testing.
TABLE C:
SULFATE EXPOSURE CLASSES PER ACI 332-20
Exposure Classes
Water-Soluble Sulfate (SO4)
in Soil A
(%)
Not Applicable RS0 < 0.10
Moderate RS1 0.10 to 0.20
Severe RS2 0.20 to 2.00
Very Severe RS3 > 2.00
A) Percent sulfate by mass in soil determined by ASTM C1580
For this level of sulfate concentration, ACI 332-20 indicates there are special cement
type requirements for sulfate resistance as indicated in Table D.
TABLE D:
CONCRETE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR SULFATE EXPOSURE PER ACI 332-20
Exposure
Class
Maximum
Water/
Cement
Ratio
Minimum
Compressive
Strength A
(psi)
Cementitious Material Types B Calcium
Chloride
Admixtures
ASTM
C150/
C150M
ASTM
C595/
C595M
ASTM
C1157/
C1157M
RS0 N/A 2500 No Type
Restrictions
No Type
Restrictions
No
Type
Restrictions
No
Restrictions
RS1 0.50 2500 II Type with (MS)
Designation MS No
Restrictions
RS2 0.45 3000 V C Type with (HS)
Designation HS Not Permitted
RS3 0.45 3000
V + Pozzolan
or Slag
Cement D
Type with (HS)
Designation
plus Pozzolan
or Slag Cement
E
HS + Pozzolan
or Slag
Cement E
Not Permitted
A) Concrete compressive strength specified shall be based on 28-day tests per ASTM C39/C39M
B) Alternate combinations of cementitious materials of those listed in ACI 332-20 Table 5.4.2 shall be permitted when
tested for sulfate resistance meeting the criteria in section 5.5.
C) Other available types of cement such as Type III or Type I are permitted in Exposure Classes RS1 or RS2 if the
C3A contents are less than 8 or 5 percent, respectively.
D) The amount of the specific source of pozzolan or slag to be used shall not be less than the amount that has been
determined by service record to improve sulfate resistance when used in concrete containing Type V cement.
Alternatively, the amount of the specific source of the pozzolan or slab to be used shall not be less than the
amount tested in accordance with ASTM C1012/C1012M and meeting the criteria in section 5.5.1 of ACI 332-20.
E) Water-soluble chloride ion content that is contributed from the ingredients including water aggregates,
cementitious materials, and admixtures shall be determined on the concrete mixture ASTM C1218/C1218M
between 29 and 42 days.
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
9
Superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of highly permeable concrete,
even though sulfate levels are relatively low. To control this risk and to resist freeze-thaw
deterioration, the water-to-cementitious materials ratio should not exceed 0.50 for concrete in
contact with soils that are likely to stay moist due to surface drainage or high-water tables.
Concrete should have a total air content of 6 percent ± 1.5 percent.
Maintenance
Routine maintenance, such as sealing and repair of cracks, is necessary to achieve the
long-term life of a pavement system. We recommend a preventive maintenance program be
developed and followed for all pavement systems to ensure that design life can be realized.
Choosing to defer maintenance usually results in accelerated deterioration leading to higher
future maintenance costs and/or repair. A recommended maintenance program is outlined in
Appendix E.
Excavation of completed pavement for utility construction or repair can destroy the
integrity of the pavement and result in a severe decrease in serviceability. To restore the
pavement top original serviceability, careful backfill compaction before repaving is necessary.
Surface Drainage
A primary cause of premature pavement deterioration is infiltration of water into the
pavement system. This increase in moisture content usually results in the softening of base
course and subgrade soil and eventual failure of the pavement. In addition, parts of Colorado
experience many freeze-thaw cycles each season that can result in deterioration of the
pavement. We recommend that subgrade, pavement, and surrounding ground surface be
sloped to cause surface water to run off rapidly and away from pavements. Backs of curbs and
gutters should be backfilled with compacted fill and sloped to prevent ponding adjacent to backs
of curbs and to paving. The final grading of the subgrade should be carefully controlled so the
pavement design cross-section can be maintained. Low spots in the subgrade that can trap
water should be eliminated. Seals should be provided within the curb and pavement, and in all
joints to reduce the possibility of water infiltration.
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
10
Limitations
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Hartford Homes for the purpose
of providing geotechnical design and construction criteria for the proposed project. This report
was prepared from data developed during our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering
analysis, and experience with similar conditions. The borings were spaced to obtain a
reasonably accurate understanding of the existing pavements and subsurface conditions. The
borings are representative of conditions encountered only at the exact boring locations.
Variations in subsurface conditions not indicated by our borings are always possible. The
recommendations contained in this report were based upon our understanding of the planned
construction. If plans change or differ from the assumptions presented herein, we should be
contacted to review our recommendations.
A representative of our firm should observe subgrade preparation and pavement
construction. Our representative should also conduct tests of construction materials for
compliance with recommendations presented in this report and/or specifications of the
controlling agency.
Due to the changing nature of site characterization, pavement design methods,
standards, and practices, the information and recommendations provided in this report are only
valid for one year following the date of issue. Following that time, our office should be
contacted to provide, if necessary, any updated recommendations and design criteria as
appropriate for the engineering methodologies used at that time.
We believe this investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of
skill and care ordinarily used by members of the profession currently practicing under similar
conditions in the locality of this project. No warranty, express or implied, is made. If we can be
of further service in discussing the contents of this report or in the analysis of the influence of
subsurface conditions on design of the pavements, please call.
CTL | THOMPSON, INC.
Trace Krausse, PE R.B. “Chip” Leadbetter, III, PE
Geotechnical Project Engineer Senior Engineer
TH-7
TH-4
TH-5
TH-6
TH-2
TH-3
TH-1
TH-1
TH-2
TH-3
TH-4
Ar
i
a
W
a
y
Wh
i
s
p
e
r
w
i
n
d
L
a
n
e
Conquest Street
Parkland Street
Tou
r
m
a
l
i
n
e
P
l
a
c
e
TI
M
B
E
R
L
I
N
E
R
D
.
I-
2
5
E. MULBERRY ST.
E. VINE DR.
SITELEGEND:
TH-1
TH-1
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL I T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
FIGURE 1
Locations of
Exploratory Borings
VICINITY MAP
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
NOT TO SCALE
200'100'
APPROXIMATE
SCALE: 1" = 200'
0'
INDICATES APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY
BORING
INDICATES APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF PAST COMPLETED
BORINGS FROM FC07733.006-135
TH-14
TH-15
TH-19
TH-16
TH-18
TH-17TH-21
TH-13
TH-12
TH-10
TH-11
TH-9TH-8
TH-20
Gr
e
e
n
f
i
e
l
d
s
D
r
i
v
e
Crusader Street
Comet Street
Ar
i
a
W
a
y
Sykes Drive
Ro
s
e
l
y
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Fl
o
u
r
i
s
h
L
a
n
e
LEGEND:
INDICATES APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY
BORING
TH-1
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL I T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
FIGURE 2
Locations of
Exploratory Borings
225'112.5'
APPROXIMATE
SCALE: 1" = 225'
0'
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
15/12
7/12
4/12
WC=8.8DD=123SW=1.3SS=<0.01
WC=12.1DD=127LL=24 PI=9-200=32
WC=8.8DD=123SW=1.3SS=<0.01
WC=12.1DD=127LL=24 PI=9-200=32
TH-1
7/12
9/12
12/12
WC=9.9DD=126SW=0.2SS=0.320
WC=4.8-200=5
WC=9.9DD=126SW=0.2SS=0.320
WC=4.8-200=5
TH-2
23/12
24/12
5/12
WC=8.4DD=127SW=0.1SS=0.030
WC=7.3DD=122LL=21 PI=5-200=24
WC=8.4DD=127SW=0.1SS=0.030
WC=7.3DD=122LL=21 PI=5-200=24
TH-3
10/12
11/12
11/12
WC=14.9DD=114SW=0.4SS=0.550
WC=3.2-200=6
WC=14.9DD=114SW=0.4SS=0.550
WC=3.2-200=6
TH-4
6/12
11/12
6/12
WC=15.6DD=116LL=30 PI=16-200=56
WC=9.4DD=125SW=0.1SS=0.460
WC=15.6DD=116LL=30 PI=16-200=56
WC=9.4DD=125SW=0.1SS=0.460
TH-5
6/12
11/12
15/12
WC=12.4DD=121SW=0.2SS=0.530
WC=9.5LL=27 PI=12-200=28
WC=12.4DD=121SW=0.2SS=0.530
WC=9.5LL=27 PI=12-200=28
TH-6
DRIVE SAMPLE. THE SYMBOL 15/12 INDICATES 15 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER
FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2.5-INCH O.D. SAMPLER 12 INCHES.
FILL, CLAY, SANDY WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL, MOIST, MEDIUM STIFF TO VERY STIFF,
BROWN
1.
3.
LEGEND:
SAND, CLAYEY, SLIGHTLY MOIST TO MOIST, LOOSE, BROWN (SC)
SAND, GRAVELLEY, SLIGHTLY SILTY, WET, LOOSE, TAN, PINK, GREY (SP)
DE
P
T
H
-
F
E
E
T
THESE LOGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXPLANATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN
THIS REPORT.
NOTES:
FILL, SAND, CLEAN TO CLAYEY, GRAVELLY, MOIST, SOFT TO MEDIUM DENSE, BROWN
INDICATES MOISTURE CONTENT (%).
INDICATES DRY DENSITY (PCF).
INDICATES SWELL WHEN WETTED UNDER OVERBURDEN PRESSURE (%).
INDICATES PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (%).
INDICATES LIQUID LIMIT.
INDICATES PLASTICITY INDEX.
INDICATES SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT (%).
2.
DE
P
T
H
-
F
E
E
T
WATER LEVEL MEASURED AT TIME OF DRILLING.
Summary Logs of
Exploratory Borings
THE BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON AUGUST 30TH, 2023 USING 4-INCH DIAMETER
CONTINUOUS-FLIGHT AUGERS AND A TRUCK-MOUNTED DRILL RIG.
FIGURE A-1
WC
DD
SW
-200
LL
PI
SS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
CLAY, SANDY, SLIGHTLY MOIST TO MOIST, MEDIUM STIFF TO VERY STIFF,
BROWN (C L)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
9/12
15/12
16/12
WC=12.2
DD=123
LL=32 PI=18
-200=45
WC=9.4
DD=124
SW=0.3
SS=0.030
TH-7
14/12
14/12
12/12
WC=11.5
DD=121
SW=0.2
SS=<0.01
WC=10.2
DD=117
LL=26 PI=11
-200=42
TH-8
10/12
8/12
30/12
WC=11.8
DD=121
LL=28 PI=13
-200=44
WC=10.8
DD=120
SW=0.4
SS=0.010
TH-9
11/12
46/12
10/12
WC=1.4
-200=6
SS=0.030
WC=1.8
-200=7
TH-10
18/12
16/12
11/12
WC=8.4
DD=120
SW=2.8
SS=<0.01
WC=5.1
DD=111
LL=25 PI=10
-200=36
TH-11
32/12
41/12
9/12
WC=6.8
DD=128
SW=1.2
SS=0.030
WC=7.5
DD=111
-200=16
TH-12
17/12
14/12
10/12
WC=8.6
DD=120
LL=27 PI=10
-200=53
WC=10.7
DD=120
SW=1.6
SS=0.030
TH-13
23/12
17/12
19/12
WC=17.2
DD=118
LL=24 PI=9
-200=32
WC=8.3
DD=120
SW=0.2
SS=<0.01
TH-14
DE
P
T
H
-
F
E
E
T
DE
P
T
H
-
F
E
E
T
Summary Logs of
Exploratory Borings
FIGURE A - 2
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
10/12
7/12
WC=9.6
DD=121
-200=38
SS=<0.01
WC=8.6
-200=40
TH-15
10/12
13/12
WC=11.9
DD=121
SW=0.2
SS=0.080
TH-16
17/12
15/12
WC=10.1
DD=125
LL=26 PI=10
-200=39
WC=7.6
DD=126
SW=0.0
SS=<0.01
TH-17
12/12
12/12
24/12
WC=8.9
DD=123
LL=25 PI=10
-200=32
WC=8.3
DD=130
SW=0.0
SS=<0.01
TH-18
16/12
13/12
26/12
WC=8.9
DD=120
-200=30
SS=0.030
WC=8.1
DD=123
LL=26 PI=12
-200=36
TH-19
11/12
10/12
29/12
WC=9.2
DD=124
LL=25 PI=10
-200=36
WC=8.0
DD=121
SW=0.1
SS=<0.01
TH-20
19/12
21/12
3/12
WC=10.8
DD=124
SW=0.4
SS=0.010
WC=7.5
DD=127
LL=24 PI=9
-200=28
TH-21
DE
P
T
H
-
F
E
E
T
DE
P
T
H
-
F
E
E
T
Summary Logs of
Exploratory Borings
FIGURE A - 3
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
TABLE B-I – SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=123 PCF
From TH - 1 AT 2 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=8.8 %
Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=126 PCF
From TH - 2 AT 2 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=9.9 %
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
FIGURE B-1
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
0.1 10 1001.0
0.1 1.0 10 100APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=127 PCF
From TH - 3 AT 2 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=8.4 %
Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=114 PCF
From TH - 4 AT 2 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=14.9 %
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
FIGURE B-2
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
0.1 10 1001.0
0.1 1.0 10 100APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
Sample of FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=125 PCF
From TH - 5 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=9.4 %
Sample of FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=121 PCF
From TH - 6 AT 2 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=12.4 %
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
FIGURE B-3
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
0.1 10 1001.0
0.1 1.0 10 100APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
Sample of FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=124 PCF
From TH - 7 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=9.4 %
Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=121 PCF
From TH - 8 AT 2 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=11.5 %
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
FIGURE B-4
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
0.1 10 1001.0
0.1 1.0 10 100APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=120 PCF
From TH - 9 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=10.8 %
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=120 PCF
From TH - 11 AT 2 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=8.4 %
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
FIGURE B-5
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
0.1 10 1001.0
0.1 1.0 10 100APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
Sample of FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=128 PCF
From TH - 12 AT 2 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=6.8 %
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=120 PCF
From TH - 13 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=10.7 %
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
FIGURE B-6
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
0.1 10 1001.0
0.1 1.0 10 100APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
Sample of FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=120 PCF
From TH - 14 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=8.3 %
Sample of FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=121 PCF
From TH - 16 AT 2 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=11.9 %
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
FIGURE B-7
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
0.1 10 1001.0
0.1 1.0 10 100APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
Sample of FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=126 PCF
From TH - 17 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=7.6 %
Sample of FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=130 PCF
From TH - 18 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=8.3 %
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
FIGURE B-8
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
0.1 10 1001.0
0.1 1.0 10 100APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
NO SWELL AFTER WETTING
NO SWELL AFTER WETTING
Sample of FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=121 PCF
From TH - 20 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=8.0 %
Sample of FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=124 PCF
From TH - 21 AT 2 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=10.8 %
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
Swell Consolidation
FIGURE B-9
CO
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
%
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
0.1 10 1001.0
0.1 1.0 10 100APPLIED PRESSURE - KSF
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT
PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING
Sample of CLAY, SANDY (CL)GRAVEL 1 %SAND 41 %
From S - 1 AT 0-4 FEET SILT & CLAY 58 %LIQUID LIMIT 28 %
PLASTICITY INDEX 13 %
Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC)GRAVEL 11 %SAND 54 %
From S - 2 AT 0-4 FEET SILT & CLAY 35 %LIQUID LIMIT 24 %
PLASTICITY INDEX 9 %
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
FIGURE B-10
Gradation
Test Results
0.002
15 MIN.
.005
60 MIN.
.009
19 MIN.
.019
4 MIN.
.037
1 MIN.
.074
*200
.149
*100
.297
*50
0.42
*40
.590
*30
1.19
*16
2.0
*10
2.38
*8
4.76
*4
9.52
3/8"
19.1
3/4"
36.1
1½"
76.2
3"
127
5"
152
6"
200
8"
.001
45 MIN.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE COBBLES
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
25 HR.7 HR.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
PE
R
C
E
N
T
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
0
10
20
30
50
60
70
80
90
100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
R
E
T
A
I
N
E
D
40
0.002
15 MIN.
.005
60 MIN.
.009
19 MIN.
.019
4 MIN.
.037
1 MIN.
.074
*200
.149
*100
.297
*50
0.42
*40
.590
*30
1.19
*16
2.0
*10
2.38
*8
4.76
*4
9.52
3/8"
19.1
3/4"
36.1
1½"
76.2
3"
127
5"
152
6"
200
8"
.001
45 MIN.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE COBBLES
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
25 HR.7 HR.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
PE
R
C
E
N
T
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
PE
R
C
E
N
T
R
E
T
A
I
N
E
D
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sample of SAND (SP)GRAVEL 35 %SAND 60 %
From TH - 2 AT 4 FEET SILT & CLAY 5 %LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
Sample of SAND (SP)GRAVEL 18 %SAND 76 %
From TH - 4 AT 4 FEET SILT & CLAY 6 %LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
FIGURE B-11
Gradation
Test Results
0.002
15 MIN.
.005
60 MIN.
.009
19 MIN.
.019
4 MIN.
.037
1 MIN.
.074
*200
.149
*100
.297
*50
0.42
*40
.590
*30
1.19
*16
2.0
*10
2.38
*8
4.76
*4
9.52
3/8"
19.1
3/4"
36.1
1½"
76.2
3"
127
5"
152
6"
200
8"
.001
45 MIN.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE COBBLES
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
25 HR.7 HR.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
PE
R
C
E
N
T
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
0
10
20
30
50
60
70
80
90
100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
R
E
T
A
I
N
E
D
40
0.002
15 MIN.
.005
60 MIN.
.009
19 MIN.
.019
4 MIN.
.037
1 MIN.
.074
*200
.149
*100
.297
*50
0.42
*40
.590
*30
1.19
*16
2.0
*10
2.38
*8
4.76
*4
9.52
3/8"
19.1
3/4"
36.1
1½"
76.2
3"
127
5"
152
6"
200
8"
.001
45 MIN.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE COBBLES
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
25 HR.7 HR.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
PE
R
C
E
N
T
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
PE
R
C
E
N
T
R
E
T
A
I
N
E
D
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sample of SAND, GRAVELLY (SP)GRAVEL 24 %SAND 69 %
From TH - 10 AT 4 FEET SILT & CLAY 7 %LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
Sample of FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)GRAVEL 8 %SAND 60 %
From TH - 14 AT 2 FEET SILT & CLAY 32 %LIQUID LIMIT 24 %
PLASTICITY INDEX 9 %
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
FIGURE B-12
Gradation
Test Results
0.002
15 MIN.
.005
60 MIN.
.009
19 MIN.
.019
4 MIN.
.037
1 MIN.
.074
*200
.149
*100
.297
*50
0.42
*40
.590
*30
1.19
*16
2.0
*10
2.38
*8
4.76
*4
9.52
3/8"
19.1
3/4"
36.1
1½"
76.2
3"
127
5"
152
6"
200
8"
.001
45 MIN.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE COBBLES
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
25 HR.7 HR.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
PE
R
C
E
N
T
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
0
10
20
30
50
60
70
80
90
100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
R
E
T
A
I
N
E
D
40
0.002
15 MIN.
.005
60 MIN.
.009
19 MIN.
.019
4 MIN.
.037
1 MIN.
.074
*200
.149
*100
.297
*50
0.42
*40
.590
*30
1.19
*16
2.0
*10
2.38
*8
4.76
*4
9.52
3/8"
19.1
3/4"
36.1
1½"
76.2
3"
127
5"
152
6"
200
8"
.001
45 MIN.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE COBBLES
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
25 HR.7 HR.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
PE
R
C
E
N
T
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
PE
R
C
E
N
T
R
E
T
A
I
N
E
D
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC)GRAVEL 18 %SAND 42 %
From TH - 15 AT 4 FEET SILT & CLAY 40 %LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
Sample of GRAVEL %SAND %
From SILT & CLAY %LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
FIGURE B-13
Gradation
Test Results
0.002
15 MIN.
.005
60 MIN.
.009
19 MIN.
.019
4 MIN.
.037
1 MIN.
.074
*200
.149
*100
.297
*50
0.42
*40
.590
*30
1.19
*16
2.0
*10
2.38
*8
4.76
*4
9.52
3/8"
19.1
3/4"
36.1
1½"
76.2
3"
127
5"
152
6"
200
8"
.001
45 MIN.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE COBBLES
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
25 HR.7 HR.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
PE
R
C
E
N
T
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
0
10
20
30
50
60
70
80
90
100
PE
R
C
E
N
T
R
E
T
A
I
N
E
D
40
0.002
15 MIN.
.005
60 MIN.
.009
19 MIN.
.019
4 MIN.
.037
1 MIN.
.074
*200
.149
*100
.297
*50
0.42
*40
.590
*30
1.19
*16
2.0
*10
2.38
*8
4.76
*4
9.52
3/8"
19.1
3/4"
36.1
1½"
76.2
3"
127
5"
152
6"
200
8"
.001
45 MIN.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
GRAVEL
FINE COARSE COBBLES
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
25 HR.7 HR.
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
PE
R
C
E
N
T
P
A
S
S
I
N
G
PE
R
C
E
N
T
R
E
T
A
I
N
E
D
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PASSING WATER-
MOISTURE DRY LIQUID PLASTICITY APPLIED NO. 200 SOLUBLE
DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY LIMIT INDEX SWELL*PRESSURE SIEVE SULFATES
BORING (FEET)(%)(PCF)(%)(PSF)(%)(%)DESCRIPTION
S-1 0-4 9.3 28 13 58 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
S-2 0-4 6.5 24 9 35 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-1 2 8.8 123 1.3 500 <0.01 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-1 4 12.1 127 24 9 32 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-2 2 9.9 126 0.2 500 0.32 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-2 4 4.8 5 SAND (SP)
TH-3 2 8.4 127 0.1 500 0.03 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-3 4 7.3 122 21 5 24 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-4 2 14.9 114 0.4 500 0.55 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-4 4 3.2 6 SAND (SP)
TH-5 2 15.6 116 30 16 56 FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL)
TH-5 4 9.4 125 0.1 500 0.46 FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL)
TH-6 2 12.4 121 0.2 500 0.53 FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL)
TH-6 4 9.5 27 12 28 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-7 2 12.2 123 32 18 45 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-7 4 9.4 124 0.3 500 0.03 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-8 2 11.5 121 0.2 500 <0.01 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-8 4 10.2 117 26 11 42 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-9 2 11.8 121 28 13 44 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-9 4 10.8 120 0.4 500 0.01 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-10 2 1.4 6 0.03 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-10 4 1.8 7 SAND (SP)
TH-11 2 8.4 120 2.8 500 <0.01 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
TH-11 4 5.1 111 25 10 36 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-12 2 6.8 128 1.2 500 0.03 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
SWELL TEST RESULTS*
TABLE B-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
Page 1 of 3
* NEGATIVE VALUE INDICATES COMPRESSION.
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
PASSING WATER-
MOISTURE DRY LIQUID PLASTICITY APPLIED NO. 200 SOLUBLE
DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY LIMIT INDEX SWELL*PRESSURE SIEVE SULFATES
BORING (FEET)(%)(PCF)(%)(PSF)(%)(%)DESCRIPTION
SWELL TEST RESULTS*
TABLE B-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
TH-12 4 7.5 111 16 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-13 2 8.6 120 27 10 53 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
TH-13 4 10.7 120 1.6 500 0.03 CLAY, SANDY (CL)
TH-14 2 17.2 118 24 9 32 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-14 4 8.3 120 0.2 500 <0.01 FILL, CLAY, SANDY (CL)
TH-15 2 9.6 121 38 <0.01 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-15 4 8.6 40 SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-16 2 11.9 121 0.2 500 0.08 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-17 2 10.1 125 26 10 39 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-17 4 7.6 126 0.0 500 <0.01 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-18 2 8.9 123 25 10 32 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-18 4 8.3 130 0.0 500 <0.01 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-19 2 8.9 120 30 0.03 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-19 4 8.1 123 26 12 36 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-20 2 9.2 124 25 10 36 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-20 4 8.0 121 0.1 500 <0.01 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-21 2 10.8 124 0.4 500 0.01 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
TH-21 4 7.5 127 24 9 28 FILL, SAND, CLAYEY (SC)
Page 2 of 3
* NEGATIVE VALUE INDICATES COMPRESSION.
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
Specification Title:Onsite/Native (Granular)
ASTM D75 / AASHTO T2 / CDOT CP30
Material Description:
Sample Location:
Very pale brown|Light brown, GRAVEL with clay
Location 1
R-Value (ASTM D2844)
19 15 11
0100200300400500600700
Exudation Pressure (psi)
0
20
40
60
80
100
R
-
V
a
l
u
e
Test
Point
Moisture
(%)
Exudation
Pressure
(psi)
R-Value
1 12.2 165 11
2 8.6 467 19
3 10.2 307 15
R- Value at 300 psi
Exudation Pressure
15
Remarks:
8.6 10.2 12.2
0100200300400500600700
Exudation Pressure (psi)
0
10
20
30
40
50
M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
(
%
)
Sampling Method:
CTL Thompson - 2021-2022 Misc Lab TestingReport Date:
Soil/Aggregate Laboratory Summary
21-0609.SoilSampling.0038; ver: 1Sep 14, 2023 Work Order No.:
Work Order Date:Sep 5, 2023 Reviewed by:Joe Zorack
Results apply only to the specific items and locations referenced and at the time of testing, observations or special inspections. Unless noted otherwise, samples were received in adequate condition.
This report should not be reproduced, except in full, without the written permission of GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc.
41 Inverness Drive East, Englewood, Colorado www.groundeng.com 303-289-1989
Englewood | Commerce City | Loveland | Granby | Gypsum | Colorado Springs
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
Page 3 of 3
APPENDIX C
AASHTO FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Roadway(s):
Reliability 75 %
Standard Deviation 0.44
Initial Serviceability 4.5
Terminal Serviceability 2.0
Resilient Modulus 7,247 psi
Design ESALs 36,500
Layers
Structural
Coefficient Drainage Thickness SN
HMA 0.44 1 4 1.76
ABC 0.11 1.05 6 0.69
CSS 0.1 1 0 0.00
SUM 2.45
Design Structural Number
1.80
Flexible Structural Design
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135 FIGURE C-1
Local
Aria Way, Tourmaline Pl., Conquest St., Comet St., Crusader St.,
Roselyn St. and Flourish Lane
Roadway(s):
Reliability 80 %
Standard Deviation 0.44
Initial Serviceability 4.5
Terminal Serviceability 2
Resilient Modulus 7,247 psi
Design ESALs 73,000
Layers
Structural
Coefficient Drainage Thickness SN
HMA 0.44 1 4 1.76
ABC 0.11 1.05 6 0.69
CSS 0.1 1 0 0.00
SUM 2.45
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135 FIGURE C-2
Design Structural Number
2.07
Parkland Street
Flexible Structural Design
Local Cul-de-Sac
Roadway(s):
Reliability 75 %
Standard Deviation 0.44
Initial Serviceability 4.5
Terminal Serviceability 2.3
Resilient Modulus 7,247 psi
Design ESALs 182,500
Layers
Structural
Coefficient Drainage Thickness SN
HMA 0.44 1 5.5 2.42
ABC 0.11 1.05 7 0.81
CSS 0.1 1 0 0.00
SUM 3.23
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135 FIGURE C-3
Design Structural Number
2.34
Sykes Drive and Aria Way (Sykes to Donella)
Flexible Structural Design
Minor Collector
Roadway(s):
Reliability 90 %
Standard Deviation 0.44
Initial Serviceability 4.5
Terminal Serviceability 2.5
Resilient Modulus 7,247 psi
Design ESALs 730,000
Layers
Structural
Coefficient Drainage Thickness SN
HMA 0.44 1 7.5 3.30
ABC 0.11 1.05 11.5 1.33
CSS 0.1 1 0 0.00
SUM 4.63
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135 FIGURE C-4
Design Structural Number
3.14
Greenfields Drive
Flexible Structural Design
Two-Lane Arterial
Rigid Pavement Design - Based on AASHTO Supplemental Guide
Project #FC07733.008-135
RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN
TWO-LANE ARTERIAL
Bloom Filing 1 Phase 2
Slab Thickness Design
Pavement Type JPCP
18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period (million)0.96 million
Initial Serviceability 4.5
Terminal Serviceability 2.5
28-day Mean PCC Modulus of Rupture 600 psi
Elastic Modulus of Slab 3,400,000 psi
Elastic Modulus of Base 1,200 psi
Base Thickness 6 in.
Mean Effective k-Value 60 psi/in
Reliability Level 90 %
Overall Standard Deviation 0.44
Calculated Design Thickness 8.0 in
Fort Collins, Colorado
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135 FIGURE C-5
Greenfields Drive between International Blvd. and Sykes Drive
APPENDIX D
PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
D-1
SUBGRADE PREPARATION
Chemically Stabilized Subgrade (CSS)
1. Utility trenches and all subsequently placed fill should be properly compacted
and tested prior to subgrade preparation. As a minimum, fill should be
compacted to 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density.
2. The subgrade should be stripped of organic matter and should be shaped to final
line and grade.
3. The contractor or owner’s representative can, if directed, have a mix design
performed in general accordance with ASTM D 558 using the actual site soils
and the approved stabilizing agent (lime, fly ash or a combination of lime and fly
ash). Scheduling should allow at least eight weeks for the mix design to be
completed prior to construction.
4. High calcium quicklime should conform to the requirements of ASTM C 977 and
ASTM C 110. Dolomitic quicklime, magnesia quicklime with magnesium oxide
contents in excess of 4 percent, or carbonated quicklime should not be used.
5. Fly ash should consist of Class C in accordance with ASTM C 593 and C 618.
6. All stabilizing agents should come from the same source as used in the mix
design. If the source is changed, a new mix design should be performed.
7. Stabilizing agents should be spread with a mechanical spreader from back of
curb to back of curb for detached sidewalks or back of walk to back of walk for
attached sidewalks, where applicable.
8. The subgrade should be mixed to the specified depth and at the specified
concentration until a uniform blend of soil, stabilizing agent and water is obtained
and the moisture content is at least 2 percent (for cement and fly ash) and 3
percent (for lime) above the optimum moisture content of the design mixture
(ASTM D 558).
9. If lime is used, a mellowing period of up to seven days may be required following
initial mixing. Once the pH of the mixture is 12.3 or higher and the plasticity
index is less than 10, the soils shall again be mixed and moisture conditioned to
at least 3 percent over optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95
percent of the mixture’s maximum dry density (ASTM D 558). Up to
seven additional days may be required for curing prior to paving. The treated
surface shall be kept moist or sealed with emulsified asphalt. Traffic should not
be allowed on the surface during the mellowing and curing periods.
10. If fly ash is used, the mixture should be moisture conditioned to at least 2 percent
over optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the
mixture’s maximum dry density (ASTM D 558) within 2 hours from the time of
initial fly ash mixing.
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
D-2
11. If a lime/fly ash combination is used, the lime should be mixed first and allowed
to mellow as indicated for lime treatment in item 9. Following the mellowing
period, the fly ash should be added, moisture conditioned and compacted as
indicated above within 2 hours of initial fly ash mixing.
12. Samples of loose, blended stabilizing agent/soil mixture should be sampled by a
representative of CTL Thompson, Inc. for compressive strength testing (ASTM D
1663) to determine compliance (optional) when full credit for the FASS layer is
used in the pavement thickness design.
13. Batch tickets should be supplied to the owner or owner’s representative with the
application area for that batch to determine compliance with the recommended
proportions of fly ash to soil.
14. The subgrade should be re-shaped to final line and grade.
15. The subgrade should be sealed with a pneumatic-tire roller that is sufficiently
light in weight so as to not cause hairline cracking of the subgrade.
16. Where sulfate concentrations are over 0.5 percent, a double treatment method
should be performed. When a double treatment is required, the first half of the
stabilizing agent should be placed, moisture treated and allowed to mellow or
cure for at least two weeks. The remaining half of the stabilizing agent plus an
additional 0.5 (for lime) to 2 (for fly ash) percent shall then be applied.
17. Mixing of the fly ash, lime, or lime/fly ash treated subgrade should not occur if the
temperature of the soil mixture is below 40oF.
18. We recommend a minimum of 2 days curing prior to paving. The surface of the
stabilized area should be kept moist during the cure period by periodic, light
sprinkling if needed. Strength gains will be slower during cooler weather. Traffic
should not be permitted on the treated subgrade during the curing period. The
subgrade should be protected from freezing or drying at all times until paving.
19. Placement, mixing and compaction of stabilized subgrade should be observed
and tested by a representative of our firm.
Aggregate Base Course (ABC)
1. A Class 5 or 6 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) specified ABC
should be used. Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) or reclaimed concrete
pavement (RCP) alternative which meets the Class 5 or 6 designation and
design R-value/strength coefficient is also acceptable.
2. Bases should have a minimum Hveem stabilometer value of 78, or greater. ABC,
RAP, and RCP must be moisture stable. The change in R-value from 300-psi to
100-psi exudation pressure should be 12 points or less.
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
D-3
3. ABC, RAP, or RCP bases should be placed in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches
and moisture treated to near optimum moisture content. Bases should be
moisture treated to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95
percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698, AASHTO T 99).
4. Placement and compaction of ABC, RAP, or RCP should be observed and tested
by a representative of our firm. Placement should not commence until the
underlying subgrade is properly prepared and tested.
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
1. HMA should be composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler, hydrated lime, and
asphalt cement. Some mixes may require polymer modified asphalt cement, or
make use of up to 20 percent reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). A job mix
design is recommended and periodic checks on the job site should be made to
verify compliance with specifications.
2. HMA should be relatively impermeable to moisture and should be designed with
crushed aggregates that have a minimum of 80 percent of the aggregate retained
on the No. 4 sieve with two mechanically fractured faces.
3. Gradations that approach the maximum density line (within 5 percent between
the No. 4 and 50 sieves) should be avoided. A gradation with a nominal
maximum size of 1 or 2 inches developed on the fine side of the maximum
density line should be used.
4. Total void content, voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA) and voids filled should
be considered in the selection of the optimum asphalt cement content. The
optimum asphalt content should be selected at a total air void content of
approximately 4 percent. The mixture should have a minimum VMA of 14
percent and between 65 percent and 80 percent of voids filled.
5. Asphalt cement should meet the requirements of the Superpave Performance
Graded (PG) Binders. The minimum performing asphalt cement should conform
to the requirements of the governing agency.
6. Hydrated lime should be added at the rate of 1 percent by dry weight of the
aggregate and should be included in the amount passing the No. 200 sieve.
Hydrated lime for aggregate pretreatment should conform to the requirements of
ASTM C 207, Type N.
7. Paving should be performed on properly prepared, unfrozen surfaces that are
free of water, snow, and ice. Paving should only be performed when both air and
surface temperatures equal, or exceed, the temperatures specified in Table 401-
3 of the 2021 Colorado Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for
Road and Bridge Construction.
8. HMA should not be placed at a temperature lower than 245oF for mixes
containing PG 64-22 asphalt, and 290oF for mixes containing polymer-modified
asphalt. The breakdown compaction should be completed before the HMA
temperature drops 20oF.
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
D-4
9. Wearing surface course shall be Grading S or SX for residential roadway
classifications and Grading S for collector, arterial, industrial, and commercial
roadway classifications.
10. The minimum/maximum lift thicknesses for Grade SX shall be 1½ inches/2½
inches. The minimum/maximum lift thicknesses for Grade S shall be 2 inches/3½
inches. The minimum/maximum lift thicknesses for Grade SG shall be 3 inches/5
inches.
11. Joints should be staggered. No joints should be placed within wheel paths.
12. HMA should be compacted to between 92 and 96 percent of Maximum
Theoretical Density. The surface shall be sealed with a finish roller prior to the
mix cooling to 185oF.
13. Placement and compaction of HMA should be observed and tested by a
representative of our firm. Placement should not commence until approval of the
proof rolling as discussed in the Subgrade Preparation section of this report.
Sub-base, base course or initial pavement course shall be placed within 48 hours
of approval of the proof rolling. If the Contractor fails to place the sub-base, base
course or initial pavement course within 48 hours or the condition of the subgrade
changes due to weather or other conditions, proof rolling and correction shall be
performed again.
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)
1. Portland cement concrete should consist of Class P of the 2021 CDOT -
Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction specifications for
normal placement. PCC should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,500
psi at 28 days and a minimum modulus of rupture (flexural strength) of 600 psi.
Job mix designs are recommended and periodic checks on the job site should be
made to verify compliance with specifications.
2. Portland cement should be Type II “low alkali” and should conform to ASTM C
150.
3. Portland cement concrete should not be placed when the subgrade or air
temperature is below 40°F.
4. Concrete should not be placed during warm weather if the mixed concrete has a
temperature of 90°F, or higher.
5. Mixed concrete temperature placed during cold weather should have a
temperature between 50°F and 90°F.
6. Free water should not be finished into the concrete surface. Atomizing nozzle
pressure sprayers for applying finishing compounds are recommended whenever
the concrete surface becomes difficult to finish.
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
D-5
7. Curing of the Portland cement concrete should be accomplished by the use of a
curing compound. The curing compound should be applied in accordance with
manufacturer recommendations.
8. Curing procedures should be implemented, as necessary, to protect the
pavement against moisture loss, rapid temperature change, freezing, and
mechanical injury.
9. Construction joints, including longitudinal joints and transverse joints, should be
formed during construction, or sawed after the concrete has begun to set, but
prior to uncontrolled cracking.
10. All joints should be properly sealed using a rod back-up and approved epoxy
sealant.
11. Traffic should not be allowed on the pavement until it has properly cured and
achieved at least 80 percent of the design strength, with saw joints already cut.
12. Placement of Portland cement concrete should be observed and tested by a
representative of our firm. Placement should not commence until the subgrade is
properly prepared and tested.
APPENDIX E
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
E-1
MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
A primary cause for deterioration of pavements is oxidative aging resulting in brittle
pavements. Tire loads from traffic are necessary to "work" or knead the asphalt concrete to
keep it flexible and rejuvenated. Preventive maintenance treatments will typically preserve the
original or existing pavement by providing a protective seal or rejuvenating the asphalt binder to
extend pavement life.
1. Annual Preventive Maintenance
a. Visual pavement evaluations should be performed each spring or fall.
b. Reports documenting the progress of distress should be kept current to
provide information on effective times to apply preventive maintenance
treatments.
c. Crack sealing should be performed annually as new cracks appear.
2. 3 to 5 Year Preventive Maintenance
a. The owner should budget for a preventive treatment at approximate intervals
of 3 to 5 years to reduce oxidative embrittlement problems.
b. Typical preventive maintenance treatments include chip seals, fog seals,
slurry seals and crack sealing.
3. 5 to 10 Year Corrective Maintenance
a. Corrective maintenance may be necessary, as dictated by the pavement
condition, to correct rutting, cracking, and structurally failed areas.
b. Corrective maintenance may include full depth patching, milling and overlays.
c. In order for the pavement to provide a 20-year service life, at least one major
corrective overlay should be expected.
HARTFORD HOMES
BLOOM FILING 1 ROADS - PHASE 2
CTL T PROJECT NO. FC07733.008-135
E-2
MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGID PAVEMENTS
High traffic volumes create pavement rutting and smooth, polished surfaces.
Preventive maintenance treatments will typically preserve the original or existing pavement by
providing a protective seal and improving skid resistance through a new wearing course.
1. Annual Preventive Maintenance
a. Visual pavement evaluations should be performed each spring or fall.
b. Reports documenting the progress of distress should be kept current to
provide information of effective times to apply preventive maintenance.
c. Crack sealing should be performed annually as new cracks appear.
2. 4 to 8 Year Preventive Maintenance
a. The owner should budget for a preventive treatment at approximate intervals
of 4 to 8 years to reduce joint deterioration.
b. Typical preventive maintenance for rigid pavements includes patching, crack
sealing and joint cleaning and sealing.
c. Where joint sealants are missing or distressed, resealing is mandatory.
3. 15 to 20 Year Corrective Maintenance
a. Corrective maintenance for rigid pavements includes patching and slab
replacement to correct subgrade failures, edge damage and material failure.
b. Asphalt concrete overlays may be required at 15-to-20-year intervals to
improve the structural capacity of the pavement.