HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGISTRY RIDGE SEVENTH FILING - Filed SEPD-SURFACE EXPLORATION/PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT - 2018-05-21TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE ......................................................................................................................... 1
FIELD EXPLORATION ........................................................................................................ 1
LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................................................................... 2
SUBGRADE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 2
WATER SOLUBLE SULFATES .............................................................................................. 3
EXPANSIVE SUBGRADE CONDITIONS ................................................................................. 3
SUBGRADE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................ 4
TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................. 5
PAVEMENT THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 5
PAVEMENT SELECTION PROCESS ...................................................................................... 7
GENERAL DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 7
DRAINAGE ....................................................................................................................... 8
CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 8
Subgrade .............................................................................................................. 8
Aggregate Base Course .........................................................................................10
Asphalt Concrete Surface .......................................................................................10
LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................11
ATTACHMENTS
SITE PLAN AND VICINITY MAP .............................................................................. FIGURE 1
PAVEMENT THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... FIGURE 1A
TEST BORING LOGS ................................................................................. FIGURES 2 AND 3
LEGEND AND NOTES ............................................................................................ FIGURE 4
GRADATION AND ATTERBERG TEST RESULTS .................................... FIGURES 5 THROUGH 8
SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS .......................................... FIGURES 9 THROUGH 11
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS ..................................................................................... FIGURE 12
DARWin PAVEMENT THICKNESS CALCULATIONS ............................ FIGURES 13 THROUGH 15
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .............................................................. TABLE I
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE ................................................................................... APPENDIX
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Study Lokal Homes, LLC
Project Number 162847 1 Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc. April 26, 2018
PAVEMENT STUDY
Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
Fort Collins, Colorado
April 26, 2018
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to provide pavement thickness recommendations for the subject
site in general conformance with City of Fort Collins, which were adopted from the "Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS)" ("Manual"). This report presents the analysis of
approximately 1,000 and 800 feet of local residential and private roadways, respectively. Factual
data gathered during the field and laboratory work and our analyses are summarized on Figures
1 through 15 and Table I. Our opinions and recommendations presented in this report are based
on the data generated during this field exploration, laboratory testing, and our experience with
similar projects.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The subgrade soils were sampled by drilling seven test borings within the proposed roadway
alignments approximately 250 lineal feet apart (see Figure 1). The test borings were drilled after
the installation of the water line and sanitary sewer using a 4-inch diameter continuous flight
auger powered by a truck-mounted drill rig. The test borings were drilled to depths of
approximately 5 or 10 feet with disturbed bulk samples collected in the upper 5 feet of rough
subgrade elevation. Samples of the subsurface materials were obtained using a Modified
California sampler which was driven into the soil by dropping a 140-pound hammer through a
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Study Lokal Homes, LLC
Project Number 162847 2 Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc. April 26, 2018
free fall of 30 inches. The Modified California sampler is a 2.5-inch outside diameter by 2-inch
inside diameter device. The number of blows required for the sampler to penetrate 12 inches
and/or the number of inches that the sampler is driven by 50 blows gives an indication of the
consistency or relative density of the subsurface materials encountered. Results of the
penetration tests are presented on the "Test Boring Logs", Figures 2 and 3. Ground water was
not encountered at the time of drilling.
LABORATORY TESTING
The samples obtained during drilling were returned to the laboratory where they were visually
classified by a geotechnical engineer. Laboratory testing was then assigned to determine the
soil classification, swell-consolidation potential, water soluble sulfate concentration, and
subgrade support properties of the soils collected at the site. Based on the results of these tests,
the subsurface materials exhibiting the "poorest" pavement support characteristics were selected
to estimate the subgrade support strength.
The Atterberg limits and gradation test results are presented on Figures 5 through 8. The swell-
consolidation test results are presented on Figures 9 through 11. The bulk sample from Test
Boring No. 7 (0-5’) was tested to determine the R-value. The results of the R-value test are
presented on Figure 12. A summary of the laboratory tests conducted is presented on Table I.
SUBGRADE DESCRIPTION
The subgrade soils encountered consisted of sandy clay fill and sandy to very sandy clay.
According to the AASHTO Soil Classification system, the soils from the bulk samples collected
classified as A-6 (5) to A-6 (15). Based upon field observations, fill was encountered in five of
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Study Lokal Homes, LLC
Project Number 162847 3 Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc. April 26, 2018
the seven test borings to depths ranging from approximately 4½ to 10 feet below rough
subgrade elevation. Clay was encountered in three of the test borings at depths ranging from
approximately zero to 9½ feet. Neither ground water nor bedrock were encountered to the
depths drilled.
WATER SOLUBLE SULFATES
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) stipulates requirements for the risk of
sulfate exposure on concrete structures based on Table 601-2 of the "Standard Specifications
for Road and Bridge Construction". The water soluble sulfate concentration of the samples
tested resulted in less than 100 parts per million (ppm) (<0.01% by soil mass). Based on these
results, the sulfate concentration of the samples tested represents a Class 0 risk of sulfate
exposure. We recommend concrete structures bearing upon onsite materials meet the
requirements stipulated in Section 601.04 of the CDOT "Standard Specifications for Road and
Bridge Construction".
EXPANSIVE SUBGRADE CONDITIONS
The "Manual" stipulates subgrade soils requiring expansive subgrade mitigation should be
addressed in the pavement design. Swell-consolidation tests were conducted to determine
expansion potential under a surcharge load of 150 pounds per square foot (psf). These test
results ranged from 0.8% to 3.1%. Based on these test results, expansive subgrade mitigation
per the "Manual" is required.
Expansive subgrade mitigation may be determined based upon the Plasticity Index (PI) of the
subgrade soils. Table 4.8, "Treatment of Expansive Soils", in the CDOT "Pavement Design
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Study Lokal Homes, LLC
Project Number 162847 4 Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc. April 26, 2018
Manual", indicates soils with PI’s of 10 to 20 require moisture treatment to a depth of at least 2
feet below proposed pavement subgrade elevation. Our laboratory tests indicated the subgrade
soils encountered exhibited an average PI of 17. Based upon Table 4.8, moisture treatment to
a depth of at least 2 feet is recommended. The fill should be placed in maximum 8-inch loose
lifts and compacted to at least 95% of Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum dry density at
optimum to +3.0% of optimum moisture content for compaction of A-6 soils. We recommend
the moisture treatment extend to at least 1-foot beyond the proposed back of curb for detached
sidewalks or 1-foot beyond back of walk for attached sidewalks. The soil type encountered in
our test borings may be used as the replacement fill.
Lokal Homes, LLC requested an alternate approach to moisture treatment. Additional aggregate
base course may be placed on prepared subgrade in lieu of moisture treatment. This approach
will need approval from the municipality prior to construction. The aggregate base course should
be placed as indicated in the "Aggregate Base Course" section of this report.
SUBGRADE SUPPORT
The pavement subgrade support strength of soils is based on the resilient modulus (MR). The
resilient modulus is a measure of the elastic property of soil, which is dependent upon moisture
content, density, and the applied stress level. Based on our laboratory testing, the soils
encountered at the site are considered to possess poor subgrade support characteristics. It is
our experience these soils generally exhibit low design resilient moduli values. The CDOT
"Pavement Design Manual" utilizes two equations to approximate the resilient modulus based
upon the R-value. The A-6 (15) soils from Test Boring No. 7 (0–5′) were tested for R-value and
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Study Lokal Homes, LLC
Project Number 162847 5 Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc. April 26, 2018
exhibited an R-value of 18 (see Figure 12). The following equations were used to approximate
the resilient modulus:
MR = 10 ^ [S1
+18.72
6.24
]
where S1 = [R-value -5
11.29
] + 3
MR = 4,627 psi
Based on the subgrade soils encountered at this site, the resilient modulus of 4,627 psi was
adjusted for seasonal variation (see Figure 13). This adjustment yielded an effective resilient
modulus of 3,829 psi, which was used in the pavement design.
TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS
Based on the "Manual" and the plans, the roadways at the site classify as local residential
roadways and private drives. A traffic study was not available during this study. However, the
"Manual" stipulates default traffic values for the various roadway classifications based on a 20-
year design period. We found these values to be reasonable given the intended roadway
applications. The following table summarizes the traffic design criteria.
Roadway Classification ESALs Reliability (%) Serviceability Index
Local Residential 73,000 80 2.0
Private Drives 73,000 80 2.0
ESAL = Equivalent Single Axle Load (18-kip)
PAVEMENT THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS
The pavement thickness recommendations have been calculated using the 1993 AASHTO
Pavement Design, DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System computer program. Pavement
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Study Lokal Homes, LLC
Project Number 162847 6 Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc. April 26, 2018
thicknesses less than the minimum allowed per the "Manual" were calculated for local residential
and private drives (see Figures 13 and 14). We recommend utilizing the minimum pavement
thickness stipulated on Table 10-1 of the "Manual". The minimum pavement thicknesses are
provided in the table below and on Figure 1A.
Roadway Alternate ACS (in.) ABC (in.) Total (in.)
Local Residential and Private Drives
(ESAL = 73,000; MR = 3,829 psi)
A 6.5 — 6.5
B 4.5 6.0 10.5
C 5.5 12.0 17.0
ACS = Asphalt Concrete Surface ABC = Aggregate Base Course
Note: Alternate A is allowed only if approved by the City Engineer according to the "Manual".
Alternates A and B require moisture treatment to a depth of at least 2 feet (see "Expansive
Subgrade Conditions). Alternate C requires approval of the municipality because this section
contains additional of aggregate base course in lieu of moisture treatment (see design structural
number on Figure 15). This section contains approximately 8.5 inches of additional aggregate
base course for expansive subgrade mitigation. This base course will add strength to the
pavement, a transition zone between pavement layers and aid in reducing future heave potential.
Proper and timely maintenance will be required during the lifetime of the pavement to reach the
designed service life. Pavement maintenance recommendations are provided in the Appendix.
Based on the construction plans, concrete pavers are anticipated on Cabot Court west of Nimitz
Drive. The design of concrete pavers is typically provided by the supplier. The design of the
concrete pavers is presented in Detail 2/C902 of the approved construction plans. AGW makes
no inference that this pavement alternate is adequate or acceptable.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Study Lokal Homes, LLC
Project Number 162847 7 Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc. April 26, 2018
PAVEMENT SELECTION PROCESS
Based on the "AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures" (AASHTO, 1993), the
pavement thicknesses presented in "Pavement Thickness Recommendations" are considered
equivalent. However, careful judgment should be exercised when selecting a pavement
alternate.
The full-depth asphalt alternate consists of asphalt concrete overlying a prepared subgrade
platform of at least 12 inches. The "Manual" allows for full-depth asphalt pavement if approved
by the City Engineer, however, our experience indicates this type of pavement may exhibit edge
line cracking which is common on plastic subgrade soils. Based on our laboratory test results,
the soils encountered at the site classify as plastic soils, therefore, we suggest considering this
risk if this alternate is selected.
Generally, composite (multi-layered) pavements are considered less likely to exhibit edge line
cracking. Several municipalities in the region believe an intermediate layer creates a transition
zone within the pavement system that aids in the distribution of stress over the weaker subgrade
materials. Based on the subgrade soil characteristics encountered at this site, it is our
recommendation to utilize either of the composite pavement alternates.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
We understand several municipalities in the region allow "vertical" residential construction prior
to the completion of the designed pavement structure (i.e., after placement of the bottom lift of
asphalt). Our experience indicates construction traffic during the buildout phase often exceeds
the anticipated daily traffic volume on residential streets. Pavement distress may occur on
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Study Lokal Homes, LLC
Project Number 162847 8 Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc. April 26, 2018
incomplete pavement structures as a result of construction traffic. It is our recommendation to
consider full placement of the designed pavement structure prior to vertical residential
construction. In addition, bottom lift only paving allows accumulation of water since the drainage
structures cannot be effectively utilized. This could result in wetting of the subgrade soils.
DRAINAGE
Long-term pavement performance is aided by proper drainage. Surface drainage is necessary
for water to drain into the proper collection system instead of fully infiltrating into the subgrade
soils below the pavement structure. If the pavement is not properly drained, the soils below the
pavement structure may become saturated, and the subgrade will lose strength, ultimately
affecting the performance of the pavement layers above (generally from imposed traffic loads).
A pavement drain system should be considered near irrigated areas. Excessive irrigation could
negatively impact the pavement structure. In addition, xeriscaping the landscaped areas is
recommended.
CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are intended as a guideline and not as replacement to the
jurisdictional standards and specifications. Ultimately, it shall be the responsibility of the
Contractor to abide by the standards and specifications stipulated in the "Manual".
SUBGRADE
Prior to paving operations, the subgrade must be prepared in a manner that allows for adequate
pavement support. The entire subgrade should be proof-rolled with a loaded 988 front-end
loader or similar heavy rubber tired vehicle (GVW of 50,000 pounds with 18-kip per axle at tire
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Study Lokal Homes, LLC
Project Number 162847 9 Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc. April 26, 2018
pressures of 90 pounds per square inch (psi)) to detect any soft or loose areas. All areas
exhibiting unstable subgrade conditions such as loose soils, pumping, or excessive movement,
should be overexcavated to a firm soil layer or to a maximum depth of 2 feet, whichever is
shallowest, and replaced with suitable compacted fill. If unstable subgrade conditions persist,
AGW should be contacted for our opinion. The subgrade should only be prepared when ambient
conditions are such that they will not impede from the Contractor achieving the required density
and moisture content. Frozen soil should never be used as subgrade fill.
If no unstable areas are observed during the proof-roll or after removal and replacement of
unsuitable soils, the entire subgrade may be prepared by windrowing, tilling or by removing at
least 12 inches of subgrade from proposed pavement subgrade elevation. If necessary, add or
reduce moisture to the required moisture content. The subgrade fill should be placed in
maximum 8-inch loose lifts and compacted to 95% of Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) maximum
dry density at optimum to +3.0% of optimum moisture content for compaction of A-6 to A-7-6
soils. The fill should be compacted to 95% of Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) maximum dry
density at −2.0% to +2.0% of optimum moisture content for compaction of other soils. If
additional fill is required to reach the pavement subgrade elevation, the fill should have a soil
classification similar to or better than the poorest soils encountered during this study. The
subgrade should be free of organics, vegetation, large rocks, or any other deleterious materials.
The pavement subgrade should be crowned to the appropriate grade lines. Additional compactive
effort should be applied along edged concrete structures such as curbs and crosspans.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Study Lokal Homes, LLC
Project Number 162847 10 Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc. April 26, 2018
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
The aggregate base course (ABC) should consist of aggregate which meets particular
specifications for gradation, plasticity, abrasion wear, and strength. We recommend the use of
a material meeting CDOT "Class 6" specifications and having an R-value equal to or exceeding
78. The ABC should be tested to determine compliance with these specifications prior to use.
If the material used does not meet the particular specifications, then the thickness calculations
and recommendations should be revised. The ABC should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding
8 inches and should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of Modified Proctor maximum dry
density (ASTM D1557). Aggregate thicknesses exceeding 8 inches should be placed and
compacted in two separate lifts. The ABC should not be placed when weather conditions impede
achievement of the required compaction.
ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE
Asphalt material should conform to an agency approved mix design that states the SHRP
Gyratory design properties (i.e., maximum density, optimum asphalt content, job mix formula,
recommended mixing and placing temperatures, etc.). We recommend that the aggregate
used in the asphalt meet Colorado Department of Transportation "Grading S", "Grading SX",
"Grading SG", or equivalent regulatory aggregate specifications. If the material does not meet
or exceed these specifications, the asphalt thickness should be revised. The asphalt material
should be placed in lifts a minimum of three times the aggregate size and should be compacted
to 92 to 96% of Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity for Super Pave Mixes. Materials standards
and specifications in the "Manual" are required. Asphalt binder selection should be appropriate
for each roadway classification. The paving contractor is responsible for mix submittal to the
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Study Lokal Homes, LLC
Project Number 162847 11 Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc. April 26, 2018
agency. Field testing conducted by AGW will not relieve the paving contractor from proper mix
and binder selection.
Asphalt concrete should not be placed when weather conditions are such that the materials
cannot be properly placed or compacted. The asphalt concrete should be placed on a prepared
surface, graded to the appropriate elevation. In no case should the asphalt concrete be placed
on frozen subgrade or base. When applicable, a tack coat should be applied at joints, adjacent
to curbs, gutters or crosspans. The Contractor is responsible for establishing rolling patterns to
determine the amount of effort required to meet the compaction requirements. Field testing
conducted by AGW will not relieve the Contractor from proper compaction and construction of
the pavement.
LIMITATIONS
This pavement study was based upon laboratory testing of samples obtained at widely spaced
locations. Variations in subsoil conditions could occur between sample locations. We should
evaluate and test the subgrade and pavement materials during construction to determine that
our recommendations have been properly interpreted. However, A. G. Wassenaar, Inc. shall not
be responsible for constant or exhaustive inspection of the work, the means and methods of
construction or the safety procedures employed by Client's contractor. Client shall hold its
contractor solely responsible for the quality and completion of the project, including construction
in accordance with the construction documents. Any duty hereunder is for the sole benefit of
the Client and not for any third party, including the contractor or any subcontractor. The Owner
should be aware that this report was prepared utilizing the "Manual" standards. Highly plastic
and expansive soils pose a significant risk to pavement structures. This risk includes heave and
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Study Lokal Homes, LLC
Project Number 162847 12 Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc. April 26, 2018
cracking upon wetting. In addition, utility backfill settlement is a risk of development that can
affect pavement performance. The Client is aware that isolated to more wide-spaced damage
may occur. Longitudinal cracking parallel to the curb line may be indicative of an expansive
subgrade becoming wetted. The only positive solution is removal of the subgrade materials to
the depth of wetting and replacement or treatment. The "Manual" specifications do not require
that the Client take these measures, but the Client should be aware that these measures are the
only solution to dealing with highly plastic and expansive soils. As this is generally economically
unfeasible, this design may be used as an attempt to provide a reasonable cost-effective
pavement structure. The Owner assumes all liability for the performance of this pavement
structure. We are available to discuss the risks associated with this design.
0 150 300
Scale in Feet
N
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
TEST BORINGS ARE OVERLAID ON THE "REGISTRY RIDGE", PREPARED BY UNITED CIVIL
DESIGN GROUP, DATED JUNE 9, 2016.
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
NOTES:
REGISTRY RIDGE, SEVENTH FILING
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
TB-5
1.
2.
SITE PLAN
AND
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT NO. 162847 PS
FIGURE 1
TB-6
TB-1
TB-2
TB-7
TB-3
TB-4
HORNET DRIVE
BON HOMME RICHARD DRIVE
CABOT COURT CABOT COURT
ENTERPRISE DRIVE
NIMITZ DRIVE
SITE
ENTERPRISE DRIVE
NIMITZ DRIVE
REGISTRY RIDGE, SEVENTH FILING
N FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
0 150 300
Scale in Feet
DRIVE
LOCAL RESIDENTIAL AND PRIVATE DRIVES
(ESAL = 73,000; M = 3,829 psi)
ALT ACS (IN) ABC (IN) TOTAL (IN)
A 6.5 - 6.5
B 4.5 6.0 10.5
C 5.0 12.0 17.0
ACS - ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE
ABC - AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
NOTE: ALTERNATES A AND B REQUIRE MOISTURE TREATMENT TO A
DEPTH OF AT LEAST TWO FEET BELOW THE PROPOSED
PAVEMENT SUBGRADE ELEVATION (SEE "EXPANSIVE
SUBGRADE CONDITIONS" IN TEXT OF REPORT). ALTERNATE
C REQUIRES APPROVAL FROM THE MUNICIPALITY.
THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS INDICATE THIS
PORTION OF STREET CONSISTS OF CONCRETE
PAVERS. SEE DETAIL 2/C902 OF THE APPROVED
CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
NOTES:
1. TEST BORINGS ARE OVERLAID ON THE "REGISTRY RIDGE", PREPARED BY UNITED CIVIL
DESIGN GROUP, DATED JUNE 9, 2016.
2. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
BON HOMME RICHARD
R
CABOT COURT CABOT COURT
HORNET DRIVE
PAVEMENT THICKNESS
RECOMMENDATIONS
PROJECT NO. 162847 PS
FIGURE 1A
U:\PROJECT FILES\162847 REGISTRY RIDGE FILING 7\PAVEMENT\GINT\162847S_GT2018-04-12 REGISTRY RIDGE PS.GPJ
CLIENT Lokal Homes
PROJECT NUMBER 162847 PS
TEST
BORING
1
TEST
BORING
2
PROJECT NAME Registry Ridge
PROJECT LOCATION Fort Collins, Colorado
TEST
BORING
3
TEST
BORING
4
D
E
P
T
H
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
27 / 12
MC = 9
B
-#200 = 76
LL = 35
PI = 17
12 / 12
DD = 103
MC = 12
SW150 = 1.1
B
-#200 = 73
LL = 37
PI = 18
10 / 12
DD = 109
MC = 17
12 / 12
MC = 11
B
-#200 = 64
LL = 31
PI = 11
13 / 12
U:\PROJECT FILES\162847 REGISTRY RIDGE FILING 7\PAVEMENT\GINT\162847S_GT2018-04-12 REGISTRY RIDGE PS.GPJ
CLIENT Lokal Homes
PROJECT NUMBER 162847 PS
TEST
BORING
5
PROJECT NAME Registry Ridge
PROJECT LOCATION Fort Collins, Colorado
TEST
BORING
6
TEST
BORING
7
D
E
P
T
H
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
21 / 12
DD = 104
MC = 14
SW150 = 3.1
B
-#200 = 77
LL = 38
PI = 18
13 / 12
DD = 108
MC = 16
B
-#200 = 75
LL = 37
PI = 17
6 / 12
DD = 105
MC = 15
SW150 = 0.8
10 / 12
DD = 104
MC = 17
SW150 = 2.0
B
-#200 = 74
LL = 40
PI = 22
U:\PROJECT FILES\162847 REGISTRY RIDGE FILING 7\PAVEMENT\GINT\162847S_GT2018-04-12 REGISTRY RIDGE PS.GPJ
CLIENT Lokal Homes PROJECT NAME Registry Ridge
PROJECT NUMBER 162847 PS PROJECT LOCATION Fort Collins, Colorado
SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
Fill, clay, stiff to very stiff, silty, sandy
Clay, stiff to very stiff
ABBREVIATIONS
DD Dry density of sample in pounds per cubic foot (pcf)
MC Moisture content as a percentage of dry weight of soil (%)
SW150 Percent swell under a surcharge of 150 pounds per
COM150 Percent compression under a surcharge of 150 pounds per
-#200 Percent passing the Number 200 sieve (%)
LL Liquid Limit
PI Plasticity Index
NP Non-Plastic
NV No Value
pH Acidity or alkalinity of sample in pH units
R Resistivity in ohms.cm
WS Water soluble sufates in parts per million (ppm)
CL Chlorides in percent (%)
x/y X blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches were required
x/y SS X blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches were required
C-x Depth of cut to grade (rounded to the nearest foot)
F-x Depth of fill to grade (rounded to the nearest foot)
FG Finished grade (rounded to the nearest foot)
NR No sample recovered
Bounce Sampler bounced during driving
B Bulk sample
AS Auger sample
Moderately to well cemented layer
Depth at which practical drilling refusal was encountered
Water level at time of drilling
Water level
Caved depth
Notes:
1. Test borings were drilled April 5, 2018 .
2. Location of the test borings were measured by pacing from features
shown on the site plan.
3. The horizontal lines shown on the logs are to differentiate materials and
represent the approximate boundaries between materials. The transitions
between materials may be gradual.
4. Elevations were not provided.
5. Boring logs shown in this report are subject to the limitations,
explanations, and conclusions of this report.
LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4
square foot (psf) upon wetting (%)
square foot (psf) upon wetting (%)
to drive a 2.5-inch outside diameter sampler Y inches
to drive a 2.0-inch outside diameter sampler Y inches
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cobbles
Liquid Limit 35
Plasticity Index 17
Clay/Silt (%) 76
Sand (%) 19
Gravel (%) 5
Sample Description Clay, sandy
Classification A-6(11), LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)
fine Silt (Non-Plastic) to Clay (Plastic)
Sand
coarsemedium
Gravel
coarsefine
PERCENT PASSING (%)
PARTICLE SIZE (MM)
Sample Location Test Boring No. 1 at a depth of 0 feet to 5 feet
GRADATION AND ATTERBERG TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 5 PROJECT NO. 162847 PS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cobbles
Liquid Limit 31
Plasticity Index 11
Clay/Silt (%) 64
Sand (%) 29
Gravel (%) 7
Sample Description Clay, very sandy
Classification A-6(5), SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL)
fine Silt (Non-Plastic) to Clay (Plastic)
Sand
coarsemedium
Gravel
coarsefine
PERCENT PASSING (%)
PARTICLE SIZE (MM)
Sample Location Test Boring No. 3 at a depth of 0 feet to 5 feet
GRADATION AND ATTERBERG TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 6 PROJECT NO. 162847 PS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cobbles
Liquid Limit 38
Plasticity Index 18
Clay/Silt (%) 77
Sand (%) 23
Gravel (%) 1
Sample Description Fill, clay, sandy
Classification A-6(13), LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)
fine Silt (Non-Plastic) to Clay (Plastic)
Sand
coarsemedium
Gravel
coarsefine
PERCENT PASSING (%)
PARTICLE SIZE (MM)
Sample Location Test Boring No. 5 at a depth of 0 feet to 5 feet
GRADATION AND ATTERBERG TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 7 PROJECT NO. 162847 PS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cobbles
Liquid Limit 40
Plasticity Index 22
Clay/Silt (%) 74
Sand (%) 24
Gravel (%) 2
Sample Description Fill, clay, sandy
Classification A-6(15), LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)
fine Silt (Non-Plastic) to Clay (Plastic)
Sand
coarsemedium
Gravel
coarsefine
PERCENT PASSING (%)
PARTICLE SIZE (MM)
Sample Location Test Boring No. 7 at a depth of 0 feet to 5 feet
GRADATION AND ATTERBERG TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 8 PROJECT NO. 162847 PS
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
100 1,000 10,000 105
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 103
CONSOLIDATION - % - SWELL
Sample Description Fill, clay, sandy Moisture Content (%) 12
Sample Location Test Boring No. 2 at a depth of 1 feet
APPLIED PRESSURE - PSF
PROJECT NO. 162847 PS
SWELL - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 9
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
100 1,000 10,000 105
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 101
CONSOLIDATION - % - SWELL
Sample Description Fill, clay, sandy Moisture Content (%) 15
Sample Location Test Boring No. 4 at a depth of 1 feet
APPLIED PRESSURE - PSF
Water Added
Swell under constant pressure
because of wetting
Water Added
Consolidation under constant
pressure because of wetting
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
100 1,000 10,000 105
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 104
CONSOLIDATION - % - SWELL
Sample Description Fill, clay, sandy Moisture Content (%) 14
Sample Location Test Boring No. 5 at a depth of 1 feet
APPLIED PRESSURE - PSF
PROJECT NO. 162847 PS
SWELL - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 10
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
100 1,000 10,000 105
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 105
CONSOLIDATION - % - SWELL
Sample Description Fill, clay, sandy Moisture Content (%) 15
Sample Location Test Boring No. 6 at a depth of 9 feet
APPLIED PRESSURE - PSF
Water Added
Swell under constant pressure
because of wetting
Water Added
Swell under constant pressure
because of wetting
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
100 1,000 10,000 105
Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 104
CONSOLIDATION - % - SWELL
Sample Description Fill, clay, sandy Moisture Content (%) 17
Sample Location Test Boring No. 7 at a depth of 1 feet
APPLIED PRESSURE - PSF
PROJECT NO. 162847 PS
SWELL - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 11
Water Added
Swell under constant pressure
because of wetting
DESIGN "R" VALUE GRAPH
FIGURE 12
RESISTANCE VALUE ("R" - VALUE)
DRY DENSITY (PCF)
MOISTURE (%)
EXUDATION PRESSURE
R-VALUE
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
POINT 1 2 3 4
"R" - VALUE AT 300 PSI EXUDATION _______________
DATE: APRIL 24, 2018
PROJECT NO.: 162847 PS
PROJECT: REGISTRY RIDGE
LOCATION: TEST BORING 7 (0-5')
18
112.6
16.8
277
13
114.2
16.4
283
17
115.4
16.1
395
20
1993 AASHTO Pavement Design
DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System
A Proprietary AASHTOWare
Computer Software Product
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc.
Flexible Structural Design Module
Local Residential and Private Drives
Registry Ridge Seventh Filing
Fort Collins, Colorado
Project Number 162847-PS
Flexible Structural Design
18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 73,000
Initial Serviceability 4.5
Terminal Serviceability 2
Reliability Level 80 %
Overall Standard Deviation 0.44
Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 3,829 psi
Stage Construction 1
Calculated Design Structural Number 2.60 in
Effective Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus
Roadbed
Resilient
Period Description Modulus (psi)
1 Winter 20,000
2 Spring 2,500
3 Summer 4,627
4 Fall 4,627
Calculated Effective Modulus 3,829 psi
Specified Layer Design
Struct
Coef.
Layer Material Description (Ai)
Drain
Coef.
(Mi)
Thickness
(Di)(in)
Width
(ft)
Calculated
SN (in)
1 Hot Bituminous Pavement 0.44 1 4.5 - 1.98
2 Aggregate Base Course 0.11 1 6 - 0.66
Total - - - 10.50 - 2.64
FIGURE 13
Layered Thickness Design
Thickness precision Actual
Struct
Coef.
Layer Material Description (Ai)
Drain
Coef.
(Mi)
Spec
Thickness
(Di)(in)
Min
Thickness
(Di)(in)
Elastic
Modulus
(psi)
Width
(ft)
Calculated
Thickness
(in)
Calculated
SN (in)
1 Hot Bituminous Pavem... 0.44 1 - - - - 5.91 2.60
Total - - - - - - - 5.91 2.60
FIGURE 14
1993 AASHTO Pavement Design
DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System
A Proprietary AASHTOWare
Computer Software Product
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc.
Flexible Structural Design Module
Local Residential and Private Drives
Registry Ridge Seventh Filing
Fort Collins, Colorado
Project Number 162847-PS
Flexible Structural Design
18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 73,000
Initial Serviceability 4.5
Terminal Serviceability 2
Reliability Level 80 %
Overall Standard Deviation 0.44
Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 3,829 psi
Stage Construction 1
Calculated Design Structural Number 2.60 in
Specified Layer Design
Struct
Coef.
Layer Material Description (Ai)
Drain
Coef.
(Mi)
Thickness
(Di)(in)
Width
(ft)
Calculated
SN (in)
1 Hot Bituminous Pavement 0.44 1 5 - 2.20
2 Aggregate Base Course 0.11 1 12 - 1.32
Total - - - 17.00 - 3.52
FIGURE 15
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
April 26, 2018
Project Number 162847
Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
Fort Collins, Colorado
1 of 1
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index
1 0-5 Clay, sandy A-6(11) 76 35 18 17
1 1 Clay, sandy 9
2 0-5 Fill, clay, sandy A-6(12) 73 37 19 18
2 1 Fill, clay, sandy 103 12 1.1
2 9 Clay, sandy 109 17
3 0-5 Clay, very sandy A-6(5) 64 31 20 11
3 1 Clay, very sandy 11
4 0-5 Fill, clay, sandy A-6(9) 73 35 21 14 <100
4 1 Fill, clay, sandy 101 15 -0.3
4 9 Clay, sandy 110 17
5 0-5 Fill, clay, sandy A-6(13) 77 38 20 18
5 1 Fill, clay, sandy 104 14 3.1
6 0-5 Fill, clay, sandy A-6(12) 75 37 20 17
6 1 Fill, clay, sandy 108 16
6 9 Fill, clay, sandy 105 15 0.8
7 0-5 Fill, clay, sandy A-6(15) 74 40 18 22 <100
7 1 Fill, clay, sandy 104 17 2.0
Test
Boring
Number
Depth
(feet) Soil Type
AASHTO Soil
Classification
Natural
Dry Density
(pcf)
% Passing
#200 Sieve
Atterberg Limits
Water
Soluble
Sulfates
(ppm)
Swell /
Consolidation (-)
(%) 1
Natural
Moisture
(%)
Notes:
1 Indicates Percent Swell or Consolidation (−) when wetted under a 150 psf load, unless otherwise noted.
NV - indicates No Value
NP - indicates Non-Plastic
_____________________________________________________________________________
Pavement Study Lokal Homes, LLC
Project Number 162847 1 Registry Ridge, Seventh Filing
A. G. Wassenaar, Inc. April 26, 2018
APPENDIX
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE
Flexible pavement structures are typically designed for service periods of 20 years. However,
timely and proper maintenance during the life of the pavement is essential to reach the designed
service period and to possibly extend the serviceability of the pavement. We recommend the
implementation of a maintenance program aimed at preserving the structural integrity of the
pavement. The implementation of available maintenance operations varies depending upon
pavement type and on-site conditions.
Flexible Pavements
Flexible pavements in this region will exhibit some type of pavement distress during their service
life. Periodic maintenance and rehabilitation should be anticipated in order to reach the
anticipated design life. Typically, minor cracks may develop within the first three years. Crack
sealant should be utilized immediately upon recognition of these cracks to reduce further
deterioration and/or potential moisture induced damage. The use of crack sealants may extend
the life of the pavement by two to five years before any other treatment is applied.
A variety of seal coats are available and can delay the need for a major surface structural
treatment. However, careful engineering judgment should be utilized to determine the type of
seal application that is most appropriate. Seal coats should not be applied on pavements with
severe cracks, raveling or potholes. Fog seals typically have an estimated service life of
approximately one to two years but should only be utilized on structurally sound pavements.
Slurry seals generally have a service life of four to seven years and are commonly utilized on
pavements exhibiting no to low pavement distress. Chip seals aid in slowing surface oxidation,
minor raveling, and sealing small cracks. Chip seals are considered to have a service life of
approximately four to seven years.
Structural mill and overlay is a rehabilitation technique that generally occurs within eight to 12
years after initial construction. This technique should only be utilized on stable pavements with
minor surface distress and a strong base. Conventional structural mill and overlay operations
are typically known to have a service life of eight to 14 years.
70
80
90
100
Cobbles
Liquid Limit 37
Plasticity Index 17
Clay/Silt (%) 75
Sand (%) 24
Gravel (%) 1
Sample Description Fill, clay, sandy
Classification A-6(12), LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)
fine Silt (Non-Plastic) to Clay (Plastic)
Sand
coarsemedium
Gravel
coarsefine
PERCENT PASSING (%)
PARTICLE SIZE (MM)
Sample Location Test Boring No. 6 at a depth of 0 feet to 5 feet
70
80
90
100
Cobbles
Liquid Limit 35
Plasticity Index 14
Clay/Silt (%) 73
Sand (%) 25
Gravel (%) 3
Sample Description Fill, clay, sandy
Classification A-6(9), LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)
fine Silt (Non-Plastic) to Clay (Plastic)
Sand
coarsemedium
Gravel
coarsefine
PERCENT PASSING (%)
PARTICLE SIZE (MM)
Sample Location Test Boring No. 4 at a depth of 0 feet to 5 feet
70
80
90
100
Cobbles
Liquid Limit 37
Plasticity Index 18
Clay/Silt (%) 73
Sand (%) 25
Gravel (%) 2
Sample Description Fill, clay, sandy
Classification A-6(12), LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)
fine Silt (Non-Plastic) to Clay (Plastic)
Sand
coarsemedium
Gravel
coarsefine
PERCENT PASSING (%)
PARTICLE SIZE (MM)
Sample Location Test Boring No. 2 at a depth of 0 feet to 5 feet
WS <100
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
D
E
P
T
H
I
N
F
E
E
T
SEE FIGURE 4 FOR LEGEND AND NOTES TO TEST BORINGS
TEST BORING LOGS
FIGURE 3
DD = 101
MC = 15
COM150 = 0.3
B
-#200 = 73
LL = 35
PI = 14
WS <100
14 / 12
DD = 110
MC = 17
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
D
E
P
T
H
I
N
F
E
E
T
SEE FIGURE 4 FOR LEGEND AND NOTES TO TEST BORINGS
TEST BORING LOGS
FIGURE 2