1 3 PDF

Geotechnical Engineering Report
71st Avenue Reconstruction

71st Avenue from West 10th Street to West 20th Street
Greeley, Colorado
January 14, 2011
Terracon Project No. 21105020
Prepared for:
City of Greeley
1001 9th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Prepared by:
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
1289 1st Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Phone: 970-351-0460
Fax: 970-353-8639
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... i
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 1
2.1 Project Description .................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Site Location and Description ................................................................................... 2
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2
3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile ........................................................................................ 3
3.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................................. 3
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION....................................... 4
4.1 Geotechnical Considerations .................................................................................... 4
4.1.1 Bridge Abutment Foundations ................................................................ 4
4.1.2 71st Avenue Reconstruction.................................................................... 5
4.2 Earthwork .................................................................................................................. 5
4.2.1 Site Preparation ......................................................................................... 5
4.2.2 Excavation and Dewatering ....................................................................... 6
4.2.3 Import Material Specifications .................................................................... 7
4.2.4 Fill Materials and Placement ...................................................................... 7
4.2.5 Compaction Requirements ........................................................................ 8
4.2.6 Grading and Drainage ................................................................................. 8
4.2.7 Corrosion Protection ................................................................................... 8
4.3 Foundations .............................................................................................................. 9
4.3.1.1 Construction Considerations – Driven Piles.......................................... 10
4.3.2.1 Construction Considerations – Drilled Piers ......................................... 11
4.4 Seismic Considerations ........................................................................................... 13
4.5 Pavements .............................................................................................................. 13
4.5.1 Design Recommendations ....................................................................... 13
4.5.2 Construction Considerations .................................................................... 16
5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 17
Appendix A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibits A-1 to A-3 Boring Location Diagram
Exhibit A-4 Field Exploration Description
Exhibits A-5 to A-13 Boring Logs
Appendix B - LABORATORY TESTING
Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing
Exhibit B-2 to B-8 Laboratory Testing Results
Appendix C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Exhibit C-1 General Notes
Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification Properties
Exhibit C-3 General Notes – Description of Rock
Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A geotechnical investigation has been performed for the proposed reconstruction of 71st Avenue in
Greeley, Colorado. At the time of this report, the reconstruction is to include a full depth
replacement or mill/overlay of 71st Avenue with the addition of a center median and the
rehabilitation or replacement of the bridge at Sheep Draw which may also include widening of the
bridge. Nine (9) test borings, designated Exhibits A-5 to A-13, were performed to depths of
approximately 10.5 to 24.5 feet below the existing asphalt surface. This report specifically
addresses the recommendations for the proposed pavements and bridge foundations.
It should also be noted that this report may be used as a Final Pavement Design provided that the
grade changes are less than 6 inches, per Section 2.06 of the City of Greeley Design Criteria and
Construction Specifications. Should grade changes exceed 6 inches, an additional soil
investigation will be required.
Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site can be developed for
the proposed project. The following geotechnical considerations were identified:
 If a full bridge replacement is chosen by the project team, it may be supported on driven
piles or drilled piers bearing in sandstone/siltstone bedrock.
 Special consideration should be given to dewatering methods during the construction of the
bridge abutment foundations.
 Full-depth Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) replacement and mill/overlay options are given for the
reconstruction of 71st Avenue in this report. The existing silty sand subgrade soils are
suitable for reuse as engineered fill beneath new pavements and curb and gutter/median
flatwork provided they meet CDOT Class 1 specifications.
 The 2006 International Building Code, Table 1613.5.2 IBC seismic site classification for
this site is C.
 Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in

achieving the design subgrade support. We therefore recommend that Terracon be
retained to monitor this portion of the work.
 This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes.
It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and
the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items
contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an
understanding of the report limitations.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
71st Avenue Reconstruction
71st Avenue from West 10th Street to West 20th Street
Greeley, Colorado
Terracon Project No. 21105020

January 14, 2011
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for the
proposed 71st Avenue Reconstruction project located between West 10th Street to West 20th
Street in Greeley, Colorado. The purpose of these services is to provide information and
geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:
 subsurface soil and bedrock

conditions
 groundwater conditions
 drainage
 lateral earth pressures
 foundation design and construction
 pavement design and construction
 earthwork
Our geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included the initial site visit,
advancement of nine (9) test borings to depths ranging from approximately 10.5 to 24.5 feet
below existing asphalt grades, laboratory testing for soil engineering properties, and engineering
analyses to provide foundation and pavement design and construction recommendations.
Logs of the borings (Exhibits A-5 through A-14) along with Boring Location Diagrams (Exhibits
A-1 through A-3) are included in Appendix A of this report. The results of the laboratory testing
performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included in
Appendix B of this report.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Project Description
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Site layout Refer to the Boring Location Diagram (Exhibit A-1 in Appendix A)

1
71st Avenue Reconstruction ■ Greeley, Colorado
January 14, 2011 ■ Terracon Project No. 21105020
ITEM DESCRIPTION
st
Structures Bridge along 71 Avenue crossing Sheep Draw
At the time of this report, the conceptual design alternatives for the
bridge include rehabilitation of the existing bridge, complete
Bridge construction
removal of the existing bridge and replacement with a new bridge,
and widening the existing bridge.
Maximum loads Bridge Abutments: 1,500 kips
Maximum allowable settlement 1-inch (assumed)
Grading in bridge area Match existing (assumed)
At the time of this report, potential cuts and fills are unknown. We
Grading in pavement areas anticipate cuts and fills may be on the order of 3 feet in areas along
the alignment.
71st Avenue Traffic Data
Current Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 4,280
Traffic loading data Projected 2035 ADT: 11,000
City of Greeley Minimum Equivalent Single-Axle Load (ESAL)
Two Lane Arterial: 730,000
2.2 Site Location and Description
ITEM DESCRIPTION
71st Avenue from West 10th Street to West 20th Street in Greeley,
Location
Colorado
Existing two lane arterial and bridge crossing Sheep Draw along
Existing site features
alignment of 71st Avenue
North: West 10th Street
East: Various agricultural and residential properties
Surrounding developments
West: Various agricultural and residential properties
South: West 20th Street
Current ground cover Varying thicknesses of HMA over aggregate base course (ABC)
Rolling hills generally sloping down towards Sheep Draw crossing
Existing topography
located about 1,650 feet south of West 10th Street
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Specific conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring
logs included in Appendix A of this report. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent
the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may
be gradual. Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can
be generalized as follows:

2
3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile
Approximate Thickness of
Material Description Consistency/Density/Hardness
Stratum (ft)
Existing asphalt pavement
ranging from 3 ¼ to 5 inches in
thickness, underlain by 3 to 12 0.5 to 1.4 --
inches of aggregate base
course
Silty sand fill with varying
1.6 to 10.5 Medium Dense to Very Dense
amounts of gravel
Silty sand 6 to 10.5 Very Loose to Medium Dense
Sandstone/siltstone bedrock Encountered at 9½ to 17 feet Weathered to Very Hard
3.2 Groundwater
The borings were observed while drilling for the presence and level of groundwater.
Groundwater was encountered in borings B-8 and B-9 during drilling operations. Due to safety
considerations and City of Greeley requirements, the borings were immediately backfilled with
flowable backfill following the completion of drilling operations; therefore, subsequent
groundwater measurements were not obtained.
The groundwater levels and elevations are noted on the attached Logs of Borings, and are
summarized below.
Elevation of
Depth to groundwater
Boring No. Boring Elevation (ft) groundwater during
while drilling (ft)
drilling (ft)
1 Not Encountered 4844.6 --
8 11.5 4775.8 4764.3
9 12.5 4775.5 4763.0

These observations represent groundwater conditions at the time of the field exploration, and
may not be indicative of other times or at other locations. Groundwater levels can be expected
to fluctuate with varying seasonal and weather conditions, and other factors.

3
Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff
and other factors including the flow of Sheep Draw. The flow level of Sheep Draw was
observed at approximately 11 feet (approximate elevations ranging from 4763.0 to 4764.3)
below the bridge deck elevation during drilling operations, which is consistent with the
elevations of groundwater observed in the test borings. Accordingly, groundwater levels during
construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels
indicated on the boring logs, and may reflect the flow elevation of Sheep Draw at a given time.
The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the
design and construction plans for the project.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
4.1 Geotechnical Considerations
4.1.1 Bridge Abutment Foundations
Based on the anticipated loading conditions, existing undocumented fill, and the possibility of
scour, we believe the bridge abutments and associated wing walls can be supported on driven
piles or drilled piers bearing in the sandstone/siltstone bedrock encountered at depths ranging
from 14½ to 17 feet below existing site grades.
It is our understanding that the existing two lane bridge is supported on a driven pile foundation
system. Should the project team choose to replace the bridge in its entirety, care should be
taken in the removal of existing foundation abutments and the abandonment of the existing pile
foundations. The location of the existing piles can be documented by using existing “as-built”
drawings and/or excavating to expose existing piles in the field. Abandonment of the existing
piles should include excavating and cutting off the piles a minimum of 3 feet below the top of
existing pile elevation or to a depth of at least 3 feet below the bottom of abutments or wing
walls planned for the new bridge.
The project team should take care in the layout of new pile foundations to ensure that existing
piles are not encountered during the construction of the new piles. We recommend including
the location of the abandoned piles on the “as-built” drawings generated for the new bridge
construction.
Should the project team elect to widen the bridge only, and reuse the existing pile foundations,
consideration should be given to a pile capacity/quality verification program of the existing pile
foundations. We should be contracted to assist with analyzing pile capacity/quality.
Groundwater was encountered at depths of about 11½ to 12½ feet below existing grades near
the bridge structure. Depending on the existing pile elevations and the depth of excavation
required for abandonment, dewatering may be required for construction purposes.
Groundwater will also affect drilled pier installation.

4
Design recommendations and construction considerations are outlined in further detail in the 4.3
Foundations section of this report.
4.1.2 71st Avenue Reconstruction
As previously noted, about 2 to 10 feet of fill was encountered in the borings drilled at the site
during this study. We do not possess any information regarding whether the fill was placed
under the observation of a geotechnical engineer, however, we assume the fill was placed
during the construction of the existing pavement. Accordingly, due to the relative density of the
fill materials, the properties of the underlying subgrade soils, and the anticipated grading, the fill
is considered suitable to receive aggregate base course for the pavement section. If any loose
or soft soils are encountered during construction, they should be removed and recompacted in
accordance with the 4.2 Earthwork section of this report.
Based on anticipated traffic loading, existing pavement and subgrade conditions, and laboratory
test data and analysis, a full depth replacement or a mill/overlay are considered suitable options
for the reconstruction.
Design and construction recommendations for the foundations, pavements, and other earth
connected phases of the project are outlined below.
4.2 Earthwork
The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation
and placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented for design
and construction of earth supported elements including foundations and pavements are
contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section.
Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of
earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation,
foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of
the project.
4.2.1 Site Preparation
Strip and remove existing pavements, vegetation, and any other deleterious materials from the
proposed bridge abutments and pavement areas. Stripped materials consisting of vegetation and
organic materials should be wasted from the site, or used to revegetate landscaped areas or
exposed slopes after completion of grading operations. All exposed surfaces should be free of
mounds and depressions which could prevent uniform compaction.

5
Should the project team elect to replace the existing bridge in its entirety, complete removal of
bridge elements, including abutments and the top three feet of pile foundations will be required.
4.2.2 Excavation and Dewatering
It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with
conventional earthmoving equipment. For excavations into the on-site soils at the location of the
bridge structure, weak and/or saturated soil conditions with possible caving conditions will likely be
encountered.
If a drilled pier foundation is selected by the project team, pier drilling penetrating the bedrock may
require the use of specialized heavy-duty equipment, together with rock bits to advance the pier
hole. Consideration should be given to obtaining a unit price for difficult pier drilling in the contract
documents for the project.
The soils to be penetrated by the proposed excavations may vary significantly across the site.
The soil classifications are based solely on the materials encountered in widely spaced
exploratory test borings. The contractor should verify that similar conditions exist throughout the
proposed area of excavation. If different subsurface conditions are encountered at the time of
construction, the actual conditions should be evaluated to determine any excavation modifications
necessary to maintain safe conditions.
Although evidence of underground facilities such as septic tanks, vaults, basements, and utilities
was not observed during the site reconnaissance, such features could be encountered during
construction. If unexpected fills or underground facilities are encountered, such features should
be removed and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction.
Depending upon depth of excavation and seasonal conditions, surface water infiltration and/or
groundwater may be encountered in the excavations on the site. It is anticipated that pumping
from sumps may be utilized to control water within excavations. Well points may be required for
significant groundwater flow, or where excavations penetrate groundwater to a significant depth.
The subgrade soil conditions should be evaluated during the excavation process and the stability
of the soils determined at that time by the contractors’ Competent Person. Slope inclinations
flatter than the OSHA maximum values may have to be used. The individual contractor(s) should
be made responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to
maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should be sloped or
shored in the interest of safety following local, and federal regulations, including current OSHA
excavation and trench safety standards. If any excavation, including a utility trench, is extended to
a depth of more than 20 feet, it will be necessary to have the side slopes and/or shoring system
designed by a professional engineer.

6
As a safety measure, it is recommended that all vehicles and soil piles be kept to a minimum
lateral distance from the crest of the slope equal to no less than the slope height. The exposed
slope face should be protected against the elements.
The stability of the subgrade may be affected by precipitation, repetitive construction traffic or
other factors. If unstable conditions develop, workability may be improved by scarifying and
drying. Alternatively, overexcavation of wet zones and replacement with granular materials may
be used, or crushed gravel and/or rock can be tracked into the unstable surface soil until a
stable working surface is attained. Lightweight excavation equipment may also be used to
reduce subgrade pumping.
4.2.3 Import Material Specifications
Imported soils (if required) should meet the CDOT Class 1 material properties as required by
the City of Greeley:
Gradation Percent finer by weight (ASTM C136)

2 inch 100
No. 4 Sieve 30-100
No. 50 Sieve 10-60
No. 200 Sieve 5-50
 Liquid Limit……………………………………………………35 (max)

 Plasticity Index……………………………………………….6 (max)
4.2.4 Fill Materials and Placement
All exposed areas which will receive fill, once properly cleared, should be scarified to a minimum
depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at
least 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight as defined by AASHTO T99 prior to placement
of fill.
If fills are required for the construction of the roadway or bridge structures, they should be within
the specified limits for CDOT Class 1 material as required by the City of Greeley. The onsite
sand soils encountered should be sampled and verified prior to reuse as fills. Pea gravel or
other similar non-cementitious, poorly-graded materials should not be used as fill or backfill
without the prior approval of the geotechnical engineer and the City of Greeley.
It is noted that if crushed gravel or certain other granular materials are used it may be
appropriate to specify compaction criteria based on a relative density test. Compaction criteria
based on relative density should be evaluated based on a project specific basis.

7
4.2.5 Compaction Requirements
Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment and
procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift.
Item Description
Fill lift thickness 8-inches or less in loose thickness
Abutment backfill: 98% of the maximum dry density (AASHTO
Compaction requirements T99)
All other areas: 95% of the maximum dry density (AASHTO T99)
Moisture content -2 to +2 % of the optimum moisture content
1. We recommend engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement.
Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits
have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required
until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.
2. Specifically, moisture levels should be maintained low enough to allow for satisfactory compaction
to be achieved without the fill material pumping when proofrolled.
3. Import granular and on-site granular soils approved by the geotechnical engineer need only be
moisture conditioned sufficiently to allow compaction to the required criteria.
4.2.6 Grading and Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided away from the structures and pavements during
construction and maintained throughout the life of the proposed project. Infiltration of water into
utility or foundation excavations must be prevented during construction. Landscaped medians
and other surface features which could retain water in areas adjacent to the structures or
pavements should be irrigated as little as possible to support plant growth. Excessive irrigation of
the landscaped medians can result in the softening of the subgrade and aggregate base course
and premature pavement distress or failure. We recommend that protective slopes be provided
with a minimum grade of approximately 10 percent for at least 10 feet away from the bridge
foundations.
4.2.7 Corrosion Protection
Laboratory test results for select samples tested indicate that on-site soils have the following
properties:
1
Sample Soluble Sulfate
Boring No. Resistivity (ohm-m) pH
Depth (feet) (ppm)
7 1 5.1 6.85 8
1. Results of soluble sulfate testing indicate that a sample of the on-site soils tested posses negligible
sulfate concentrations when classified in accordance with Table 4.3.1 of the ACI Design Manual.
Concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section
318, Chapter 4.

8
4.3 Foundations
A deep foundation system consisting of either drilled piers bottomed in bedrock or driven piles
bottomed in bedrock is considered suitable for the support of the proposed bridge abutments and
associated wing walls. Design recommendations for foundation alternatives are presented
below.
4.3.1 Design Recommendations – Driven Piles
Driven piles can be used for the proposed bridge abutments and associated wing walls. The
design capacity of a single, driven pile is a function of several factors including:
 the size and type of the pile

 the size and type of driving hammer
 the engineering properties of the subsurface soils and bedrock
Steel H-piles driven into the native sandstone/siltstone can be designed for support of the bridge.
The allowable pile point resistance is based on a factor of safety (FS) of 3 using allowable stress
design (ASD) methods. Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) values can be provided upon
your request. Design values for common H-Pile sizes are shown below.
Ultimate Pile Point Resistance, Allowable Pile Point

H-Pile
kips Resistance, kips, FS=3
10X42 84 28
10X57 87 29
12X53 102 34
12X74 107 35
The steel-pile should be driven to practical refusal in the competent unweathered bedrock,
which will likely occur after penetrations of approximately 3 to 5 feet. If driven to practical
refusal, the allowable stress of the pile cross section would control the pile capacity. The
capacity of the pile would be determined as 0.25 times the pile yield stress multiplied by the
actual cross section area of the pile. Compressive stress developed in the steel section should
not exceed 9 kips per square inch (ksi) for 36 ksi grade steel and 12.5 ksi for 50 ksi grade steel
sections. Due to the hardness of the isolated sandstone bedrock layers found in our borings, 50
ksi steel with rock tips should be used so damage to the pile can be avoided. A test pile should
be performed prior to production, to determine the need for pre-drilling and to determine likely
pile refusal depths. It may be prudent to review pile driving records documented during
construction of the existing bridge to estimate likely pile refusal depths
Based on our borings, we would anticipate the piles would be installed to elevations approaching
4,755 feet. The final depth of the piles will be dependent on the type of installation equipment and

9
grade changes. We recommend that pile installation be monitored on a full time basis by the
geotechnical engineer.
4.3.1.1 Construction Considerations – Driven Piles
As discussed in our 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations, it is our understanding that the existing
two lane bridge is supported on a driven pile foundation system. Should the project team
choose to replace the bridge in its entirety, care should be taken in the removal of existing
foundation abutments and the abandonment of the existing pile foundations. The location of the
existing piles should be located by using existing “as-built” drawings and/or excavating to
expose existing piles in the field. Abandonment of the existing piles should include excavating
and cutting off the piles a minimum of 3 feet below the top of existing pile elevation or to a depth
of at least three feet below the bottom of abutments or wing walls planned for the new bridge.
The project team should take care in the layout of new pile foundations to ensure that existing
piles are not encountered during the construction of the new piles. We recommend including
the location of the abandoned piles on the “as-built” drawings generated for the new bridge
construction.
Should the project team elect to widen the bridge and reuse the existing pile foundations,
consideration should be given to a pile capacity/quality verification program of the existing pile
foundations. This should consist, at a minimum, of a comprehensive review of the pile driving
records of the existing bridge piles. Terracon can assist in the development of a pile verification
program which can include pile load testing and re-striking of the existing piles.
Steel piles should be driven with a hammer having a rated energy in foot-pounds (J) at least
equivalent to 15 percent of the design pile load capacity in pounds. For example, a pile with a
design load capacity of 50 tons should be driven with a hammer having a rated energy of at
least 15,000 foot-pounds (1,875 ft-lbs/in2 of pile section). A wave equation analysis can be used
to provide an indication of the drivability of the hammer-pile system and to be utilized as a
gauge for determining the actual pile capacity. To avoid damage to the piles, driving should be
terminated at a refusal criterion of not more than about 10 blows per inch. Completed piles
should be monitored for rebound due to driving of nearby piles. Affected piles should be re-
struck to insure contact with bedrock.
The pile driving system can be analyzed using the wave equation to evaluate the potential for
overstressing the pile materials during driving. Dynamic analysis may also be used to evaluate
the driving resistance required to obtain the predicted design load.
Full-scale load tests are not recommended for driven piles on this project. Drowndrag is not a
concern for this project. Pile foundations, properly designed and constructed as recommended
in this report would be expected to settle less than ½ inch, total and differential, in addition to
elastic shortening of the pile materials.

10
4.3.2 Design Recommendations – Drilled Piers
Description Value
Minimum pier length 25 feet
Minimum bedrock embedment 1 6 feet
Maximum net allowable end-bearing pressure 25,000 psf
Skin friction 2,000 psf
1. Drilled piers should be embedded into firm or harder bedrock materials. Actual structural
loads and pier diameters may dictate embedment deeper than the recommended minimum
penetration. Embedment depth should be considered the pier depth extending into competent
unweathered bedrock below the bottom of the casing (if needed).
4.3.2.1 Construction Considerations – Drilled Piers
Drilling to design depth should be possible with conventional single-flight power augers; however,
specialized drilling equipment may be required for very hard bedrock layers. In addition, caving
soils and perched groundwater indicate that temporary steel casing and/or drilling slurry will be
required to properly drill the piers prior to concrete placement.
All piers should be reinforced full depth for the applied axial and lateral stresses imposed.
Groundwater encountered will require the use of temporary steel casing to properly drill and
clean piers prior to concrete placement. Groundwater should be removed from each pier hole
prior to concrete placement. Pier concrete should be placed immediately after completion of
drilling and cleaning. If pier concrete cannot be placed in dry conditions, a tremie should be
used for concrete placement. Due to potential sloughing and raveling, foundation concrete
quantities may exceed calculated geometric volumes.
Casing used for pier construction should be withdrawn in a slow continuous manner maintaining
a sufficient head of concrete to prevent infiltration of water or caving soils or the creation of
voids in pier concrete. Pier concrete should have a relatively high fluidity when placed in cased
pier holes or through a tremie. Pier concrete with slump in the range of 5 to 7 inches is
recommended.
Free-fall concrete placement in piers will only be acceptable if provisions are taken to avoid
striking the concrete on the sides of the hole or reinforcing steel and if the pier is clean and free
of excess water. Pier-bearing surfaces must be cleaned prior to concrete placement. A
representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe the bearing surface and pier
configuration.
4.3.3 Lateral Load Design Considerations
We anticipate that sheetpiling will be used to support the abutment excavations and provide a cut-
off wall for dewatering. For lateral design of the sheetpiling, a passive earth pressure coefficient

11
(Kp) of 2.8 and an active earth pressure coefficient (Ka) of 0.35 can be used for the native soils
below the embankment fill. An active earth pressure coefficient (Ka) of 0.28 can be used for the
soils within embankment fill. The lateral earth pressure coefficients given do not include any
factors of safety. The wall designer should include appropriate factors of safety.
A moist soil unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot can be used in the lateral design
calculations. These recommendations do not take into account hydrostatic pressures that may be
present. If water is allowed to build up behind the retaining wall, hydrostatic pressures must be
included in the wall design.
The following table presents the recommended L-Pile parameter values that can be used in the
drilled pier and/or driven pile lateral design.
Depth Intervals, ft.

Parameter 0 to 10-11 10 to 14-17 14-17 to Max Depth
Existing fill: silty
Layer description (per logs) Silty sand Sandstone/siltstone bedrock
sand with gravel
Total unit weight (pcf) 125 120 125
Angle of internal friction, Ф
25 32 40
(degrees)
Undrained shear strength, cu
0 0 0
(psf)
150 (above water
Static soil modulus parameter, k
table) 125 (submerged) -
(pci)
100 (submerged)
Strain, Є50 (in/in) - - -
Note: The design water table should be considered at depth of about 10 feet below existing grade.
Drilled piers and/or driven piles should be considered to work in group action if the horizontal
spacing is less than three drilled pier diameters or less than four helical bearing plate
diameters. A minimum practical horizontal spacing between drilled piers/driven piles of at least
three diameters should be maintained, and adjacent piers or piles should bear at roughly the
same elevation. The capacity of individual piers and/or piles must be reduced when considering
the effects of group action. Capacity reduction is a function of pier and/or pile spacing and the
number of piers and/or piles within a group. If group action analyses are necessary, capacity
reduction factors can be provided for the analyses.

12
4.4 Seismic Considerations
Code Used Site Classification

2009 International Building Code (IBC) 1 C2
1. In general accordance with the 2009 International Building Code, Table 1613.5.2.
2. The 2009 International Building Code (IBC) requires a site soil profile determination extending a
depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope requested does not include the
required 100 foot soil profile determination. Borings for the building extended to a maximum depth
of approximately 20 feet and this seismic site class definition considers that very stiff to hard glacial
drift underlain by shale or limestone bedrock continues below the maximum depth of the subsurface
exploration. Additional exploration to deeper depths could be performed to confirm the conditions
below the current depth of exploration. Alternatively, a geophysical exploration could be utilized in
order to attempt to justify a higher seismic site class.
4.5 Pavements
4.5.1 Design Recommendations
It should be noted that this report may only be used as a Final Pavement Design if the grade
changes are less than 6 inches, as specified in Section 2.06 of the City of Greeley Design Criteria
and Construction Specifications. Should grade changes exceed 6 inches, an additional soil
investigation will be required.
Should the grade changes not exceed 6 inches consideration should be given to roto-milling the
existing HMA section by 1½ inches and placing a minimum 3½ to 5 inches of new HMA over the
entire alignment. Consideration can also be given to a full-depth HMA replacement or a rigid
portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement replacement.
If the alignment includes new pavement to accommodate a wider road or shoulders, we provide
the following information for consideration. It is recommended the subgrade soils to receive fill
embankment or new pavement sections be scarified and moisture conditioned to near optimum
moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined by AASHTO T99.
Since the drainage is relatively fair over the majority of the alignment, Terracon anticipates the
underlying subgrade to be stable throughout the alignment. However, consideration should be
given to the area near Boring Nos. 5 through 8 (from approximate stations 17+20 to 32+40), where
the existing asphalt depth ranged from about 3¼ to 3¾ inches. With a proposed roto-mill depth of
1½ inches, support of construction traffic may not be feasible without undesirable yielding
pavement. Terracon recommends that contract documents contain budget contingencies for a full-
depth HMA replacement in this area.

13
If full-depth HMA replacement is necessary, there may be areas of loose subgrade under
construction traffic in certain locations. Although difficult to delineate specific areas where
undesirable yielding subgrade could be encountered, Terracon recommends the construction
contract and specifications contain budget contingencies to mitigate and repair isolated areas of
poor subrade soils. Proofrolling and recompacting the subgrade is recommended immediately
prior to placement of the aggregate road base section. Soft or weak areas delineated by the
proofrolling operations could also be undercut and backfilled with aggregate base course to
achieve the appropriate subgrade support.
Design parameters stated below are based on traffic data provided by the City of Greeley,
laboratory test data, and the City of Greeley pavement design criteria. Three options were
evaluated:
 Mill/overlay with a 1½ inch mill depth

 Full-depth HMA replacement
 Full-depth rigid PCC pavement replacement
Design of pavements for the project have been based on the procedures outlined in the 1993
Guideline for Design of Pavement Structures by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
According to the City of Greeley, the 25 year build-out average daily traffic in both directions of
71st Avenue will be approximately 11,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Semi-tractor truck traffic
was assumed to be approximately 3% of total traffic, with 1.5% of this being light trucks, and 1.5%
being heavy trucks. Based on these traffic frequencies and the vehicle distribution, Terracon
calculates the Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) over the design life of the pavement to be
2,298,000 for flexible pavements and 3,527,000 for rigid pavements. Additional parameters in the
design include a reliability of 90%, an initial serviceability of 4.5, a terminal serviceability of 2.5, a
minimum structural number of 4.08, and a resilient modulus of 27,000 based on a design R-value
of 47.
For the mill/overlay option, the thickness of the new pavement will be a function of the parameters
discussed above, the subgrade strength, and strength parameters assigned to the new and
existing pavement layers. It may be necessary to repair isolated areas of severely distressed
pavements with full-depth patching prior to placement of the overlay. The table below
summarizes the existing asphalt and aggregate base course thickness. These thicknesses will be
a major contribution to the overall strength of the final pavement design.

14
Boring No. / (Station) HMA Thickness, in. ABC Thickness, in.

1 / (51+58) 4¾ 12
2 / (46+91) 5 7
3 / (42+42) 5 6
4 / (37+59) 4¼ 4½
5 / (32+42) 3¼ 5
6 / (27+17) 3¾ 7
7 / (22+39) 3¼ 3
8 / (17+20) 3½ 10
9 / (16+36) 5 7
The required overlay thickness for each section will be dependent on the thickness and condition
of the existing pavement that remains, after a suitable roto-mill depth. The depth of the mill will
need to be balanced with existing grades, and perhaps more importantly, leaving enough asphalt
in-place to support construction traffic. For this project, Terracon recommends a minimum roto-
mill depth of 1½ inches. For design calculation purposes, the following table summarizes the
average thickness of the existing asphalt and road base.
Average Asphalt Thickness, in. Average ABC Thickness, in.
4.20 6.83
Based on milling a depth of 1½ inches, the recommended flexible pavement overlay for 71st
Avenue is summarized below:
Mill Depth, Approximate Completed Total Thickness

in. HMA Overlay, in. ABC, in. (overlay+existing HMA after mill + ABC), in.
1½ 6½ --- 16
The following table summarizes the recommended thicknesses of flexible HMA and rigid PCC
pavements for a full-depth replacement:
Recommended Pavement Thickness, in.

Alternative
Traffic Area
HMA ABC PCC Total
A 7 10 17
71st Avenue
B -- 10 7 17

15
4.5.2 Construction Considerations
Each alternative should be considered with respect to current material availability and economic
conditions. For new construction, aggregate base course (if used on the site) should consist of a
blend of sand and gravel, which meets strict specifications for quality and gradation. Use of
materials meeting Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Class 6 specifications is
recommended for base course. Aggregate base course should be placed in lifts not exceeding six
inches and should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined by AASHTO T180.
Asphalt concrete pavement should be composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler, binders, and
additives, if required, and approved bituminous material in accordance with the Colorado
Department of Transportation Specifications. The asphalt concrete should conform to an
approved mix design stating the Superpave properties, optimum asphalt content, job mix formula
and recommended mixing and placing temperatures. Aggregate used in the asphalt concrete
should meet particular gradations, such as the Colorado Department of Transportation Grading S
or SX specifications. The top 2 inches of material should consist of SX, and the underlying layers
should consist of Grading S. Mix designs should be submitted prior to construction to verify their
adequacy. Asphalt material should be placed in maximum 3-inch lifts and should be compacted
to a within a range of 92 to 96 % of the maximum theoretical density.
After milling the existing pavement (if required), the surface should be power swept clean of any
loose material or fines. Prior to paving, the surface should be smooth, dry, and uniform. To
achieve this, the work shall include patching, brooming, shaping to required grade, compaction,
and removal of unstable corrugated areas. The edges of existing pavements which are to be
adjacent to new pavements should be cleaned. A tack coat should be placed on the properly
prepared surface prior to paving. The tack coat material and placement procedure should meet
the requirements of CDOT Standard Specifications.
Long-term pavement performance will be dependent upon several factors, including maintaining
subgrade moisture levels and providing for preventive maintenance. The following
recommendations should be considered the minimum:
 site grading at a minimum 2% grade away from the pavements;

 for new areas, the subgrade and the pavement surface have a slope to promote proper
surface drainage;
 install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately;
 seal all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to minimize or prevent moisture
migration to subgrade soils;
 placing compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter;
and,

16
 placing curb, gutter and/or sidewalk directly on subgrade soils without the use of base
course materials.
Preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement
management program. Preventive maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of
pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventive maintenance
consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global
maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first priority when
implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on
investment for pavements. Prior to implementing any maintenance, additional engineering
observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of preventive maintenance.
Site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. However as construction
proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic,
desiccation, or rainfall. As a result, the pavement subgrade may not be suitable for pavement
construction and corrective action will be required. The subgrade should be carefully evaluated at
the time of pavement construction for signs of disturbance or excessive rutting. If disturbance has
occurred, pavement subgrade areas should be reworked, moisture conditioned, and properly
compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to paving.
Please note that if during or after placement of the stabilization or initial lift of pavement, the area
is observed to be yielding under vehicle traffic or construction equipment, it is recommended that
Terracon be contacted for additional alternative methods of stabilization, or a change in the
pavement section.
5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments
can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations
in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and
testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related
construction phases of the project.
The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in
this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the
site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such
variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we
should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations
can be provided.
The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any
environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or

17
prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the
potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the
project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site
safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the
event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are
planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered
valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this
report in writing.

18
Field Exploration
The scope of the services performed for this project included site reconnaissance by a
geotechnical engineer, subsurface exploration program and laboratory testing.
Nine (9) test borings were performed on December 29, 2010 The borings were advanced to
approximate depths of 10.5 to 24.5 feet at the approximate locations shown on the Boring
Location Diagram, Exhibits A-1 through A-3. The borings were advanced with a truck-mounted
drilling rig, utilizing 4-inch-diameter, solid-stem augers.
The borings were located in the field by a hand held GPS. Approximate ground surface
elevations at the boring locations were surveyed by the client. The accuracy of boring locations
and elevations should only be assumed to the level implied by the methods used to determine
each.
A lithologic log of each boring was recorded by the geotechnical engineer during the drilling
operation. The logs of borings are presented in Appendix A. Relatively undisturbed samples
were obtained at selected intervals utilizing a standard split-spoon and ring barrel samplers. In
addition, bulk samples of subsurface materials were obtained. Penetration resistance values
were recorded in general accordance with the standard penetration test (SPT) or similar manner
with the ring barrel. This test consists of driving the sampler into the ground with a 140-pound
hammer free-falling through a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance
the sampler the final 12 inches, or the interval indicated on the boring log, is recorded as the
penetration resistance value which is recorded or correlated to a standard penetration resistance
value (N-value). The blow count values are indicated on the boring logs at the respective sample
depths. Ring barrel sample blow counts are not considered N-values.
A CME automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the samplers in the borings performed on
this site. A greater efficiency is typically achieved with the automatic hammer compared to the
conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. Published correlations between
the SPT values and soil properties are based on the lower efficiency cathead and rope method.
This higher efficiency affects the standard penetration resistance blow count value by increasing
the penetration per hammer blow over what would be obtained using the cathead and rope
method. The effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has been considered in the interpretation
and analysis of the subsurface information for this report.
The penetration test provides a reasonable indication of the in-place density of sandy type
materials, but only provides an indication of the relative stiffness of cohesive materials since the
blow count in these soils may be affected by the soils moisture content. In addition, considerable
care should be exercised in interpreting the blow counts in bedrock and gravelly soils, particularly
where the size of the gravel particle exceeds the inside diameter of the sampler.

Exhibit A-4
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 Page 1 of 1
CLIENT
City of Greeley
SITE 71st Ave from 10th St. to 20th St. PROJECT
Greeley, Colorado 71st Avenue Reconstruction
Boring Location: Sta. 51+58.4 SAMPLES TESTS
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
DRY UNIT WT
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
BLOWS / ft.
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pcf
Approx. Surface Elev.: 4844.6 ft
0.4 ASPHALT 4-3/4 inches 4844.2
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE 12 inches
1.4 4843.2 1 RS 12 60 3
FILL (A-1-b)
silty sand with gravel, medium to coarse
grained, very dense, mottled brown
3 4841.6
SILTY SAND (A-2-4)
fine to medium grained, medium dense,
brown to light brown with trace calcareous
staining SM 2 SS 13 22 7
3 SS 15 21 10
10
10.5 4834.1
BOTTOM OF BORING
BOREHOLE_99 21105020.GPJ FORT COLLINS 12-30-09.GDT 1/6/11
The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines

between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 12-29-10

WL None WD Backfilled AB BORING COMPLETED 12-29-10
WL RIG CME-55 FOREMAN JRM
WL Exhibit A-5 LOGGED JRM JOB # 21105020
CLIENT
City of Greeley
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
DRY UNIT WT
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
BLOWS / ft.
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pcf
0.4 ASPHALT5 inches 4842.8
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE 7 inches
1 4842.2
FILL (A-1-b) 1 RS 12 57 7 120
silty sand with gravel, medium to coarse
grained, medium dense, mottled brown
3 4840.2
SILTY SAND (A-2-4)
fine to medium grained, medium dense to
loose, brown to dark brown
2 SS 15 30 11
3 SS 15 8 13
10
10.5 4832.7
BOTTOM OF BORING


CLIENT
City of Greeley
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
DRY UNIT WT
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
BLOWS / ft.
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pcf
0.4 ASPHALT 5 inches 4842.2
0.9
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE 6 inches 4841.7
FILL (A-1-b) 1 RS 12 36 5 119
silty sand with trace gravel, medium to 150psf
coarse grained, medium dense, mottled
brown
3 4839.6
SILTY SAND (A-4)
brown
2 SS 18 12 16
SM 3 SS 16 15 9
10
10.5 4832.1
BOTTOM OF BORING


CLIENT
City of Greeley
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
DRY UNIT WT
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
BLOWS / ft.
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pcf
0.8 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE 4-1/2 4841
inches
1 RS 12 31 7 109
FILL (A-2-4)
silty sand, fine to medium grained, medium
dense, brown
3 4838.8
SILTY SAND (A-2-4)
fine to medium grained, loose to medium
dense, brown to light brown
2 SS 14 6 13
3 SS 15 17 10
10
10.5 4831.3
BOTTOM OF BORING


CLIENT
City of Greeley
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
DRY UNIT WT
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
BLOWS / ft.
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pcf
0.3 ASPHALT 3-1/4 inches 4838
0.7 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE 5 inches 4837.6
FILL (A-2-4)
1 RS 12 36 5 116
silty sand with trace gravel, fine to coarse
grained, medium dense, mottled brown
3 4835.3
SILTY SAND (A-4)
fine to medium grained, loose, light
brown/brown
2 SS 10 6 9
9 4829.3
BEDROCK 3 SS 12 43 14
sandstone/siltstone, trace claystone,
medium hard, brown with iron staining 10
10.5 4827.8
BOTTOM OF BORING


CLIENT
City of Greeley
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
DRY UNIT WT
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
BLOWS / ft.
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pcf
0.9
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE 7 inches 4810.1
SILTY SAND (A-2-4) SM 1 SS 15 22 8
fine to medium grained, medium dense to
loose, brown
2 RS 12 8 7 107
9.5 4801.5
3 SS 15 18 15
WEATHERED BEDROCK
sandstone, light brown 10
10.5 4800.5
BOTTOM OF BORING


CLIENT
City of Greeley
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
DRY UNIT WT
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
BLOWS / ft.
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pcf
SILTY SAND (A-4)

1 SS 16 27 7
light brown
2 RS 12 10 7 105
SM 3 SS 18 12 11
10
10.5 4777.9
BOTTOM OF BORING


CLIENT
City of Greeley
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
DRY UNIT WT
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
BLOWS / ft.
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pcf
SW 1 SS 7 35 3
FILL (A-1-b) SM
silty sand with gravel, fine to coarse
grained, dense, mottled brown
2 RS 12 18 11 115
5
Decreasing gravel with depth
10 4765.8
3 RS 10 5 9
10
SILTY SAND (A-2-4)
fine to medium grained, very loose, brown
14.5 4761.3 4 SS 14 38 26
BEDROCK 15
sandstone/siltstone, medium hard to very
hard, light brown with iron staining
20
24.5 4751.3 5 SS 6 50/0.5 21

BOTTOM OF BORING


WL 11.5 WD Backfilled AB BORING COMPLETED 12-29-10
CLIENT
City of Greeley
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
DRY UNIT WT
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
BLOWS / ft.
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pcf
0.4 ASPHALT 5 inches 4775.1
1 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE 7 inches 4774.5
1 SS 8 36 5
FILL (A-1-b)
silty sand with gravel, fine to coarse
grained, medium dense, light brown to
brown 2 RS 12 45 3 125
5 500psf
3 SS 10 15 13
10
11 4764.5
SILTY SAND (A-2-4)
fine to medium grained, loose, gray/brown
SM 4 SS 13 8 18
15
17 4758.5
BEDROCK
sandstone/siltstone, hard to very hard, light
brown with iron staining
5 SS 14 56 23
20
24.3 4751.2
BOTTOM OF BORING 6 SS 3 50/0.3 28


WL 12.5 WD Backfilled AB BORING COMPLETED 12-29-10
Laboratory Testing
The soil samples retrieved during the field exploration were returned to the laboratory for
observation by the project geotechnical engineer. At that time, the field descriptions were
reviewed and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering
properties of the subsurface materials.
Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples. The results of these tests are
presented in Appendix B. The test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses,
and the development of foundation and earthwork recommendations. The laboratory tests were
performed in general accordance with applicable locally accepted standards. Soil samples were
classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described in
Appendix C. Rock samples were visually classified in general accordance with the General Notes
in Appendix C.
 Water Content  Plasticity Index
 Grain Size Distribution  Dry Density
 Consolidation/Swell  R-value
 Water Soluble Sulfate Content  Resistivity

Exhibit B-1
4
-2
AXIAL STRAIN, %
-4
-6
-8
-10
100 1,000 10,000
PRESSURE, psf
TC_CONSOL_STRAIN 21105020.GPJ FORT COLLINS 12-30-09.GDT 1/6/11
Specimen Identification Classification , pcf WC,%

B-3 1.0ft SILTY SAND FILL 119 5
Notes: Water Added @ 150 psf.
SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST

Project: 71st Avenue Reconstruction
Site: 71st Ave from 10th St. to 20th St. Greeley, Colorado
Job #: 21105020
Exhibit B-2
4
-2
AXIAL STRAIN, %
-4
-6
-8
-10
100 1,000 10,000
PRESSURE, psf
TC_CONSOL_STRAIN 21105020.GPJ FORT COLLINS 12-30-09.GDT 1/6/11
Specimen Identification Classification , pcf WC,%

B-9 4.0ft SILTY SAND FILL 125 3
Notes: Water Added @ 500 psf.
SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST

Job #: 21105020
Exhibit B-3
60
CL CH
50
P
L
A
S 40
T
I
C
I
T 30
Y
I
N 20
D
E
X
10
CL-ML ML MH
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Specimen Identification LL PL PI %Fines Classification

B-1 4.0ft NP NP NP 25 SILTY SAND(SM)
B-8 1.0ft NP NP NP 12 WELL-GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL(SW-SM)
TC_ATTERBERG_LIMITS 21105020.GPJ FORT COLLINS 12-30-09.GDT 1/6/11
ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS

Job #: 21105020
Exhibit B-4
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL SAND
COBBLES SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine coarse medium fine
Specimen Identification Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu

B-1 4.0ft SILTY SAND(SM) NP NP NP
TC_GRAIN_SIZE 21105020.GPJ FORT COLLINS 12-30-09.GDT 1/6/11

B-8 1.0ft WELL-GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL(SW-SM) NP NP NP 1.23 44.08
Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay
B-1 4.0ft 25 0.183 0.084 4.5 70.4 25.2
B-3 9.0ft 9.5 0.102 1.0 56.7 42.3
B-6 1.0ft 19 0.152 0.075 6.6 63.6 29.8
B-7 9.0ft 4.75 0.108 0.0 58.2 41.8
B-8 1.0ft 25 2.578 0.431 30.3 57.8 11.9
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Job #: 21105020
Exhibit B-5
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL SAND
COBBLES SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine coarse medium fine
Specimen Identification Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu

TC_GRAIN_SIZE 21105020.GPJ FORT COLLINS 12-30-09.GDT 1/6/11
Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay
B-9 14.0ft 19 0.207 0.085 6.4 68.1 25.5
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Job #: 21105020
Exhibit B-6
RESISTANCE R-VALUE & EXPANSION
PRESSURE OF COMPACTED SOIL
ASTM D2844
CLIENT: City of Greeley DATE OF TEST: 06-Jan-11
PROJECT: 71 First Avenue
LOCATION: Composite from B-1, B-2, & B-3
TERRACON NO. 21105020 CLASSIFICATION: Silty Sand w/ Gravel (A-1-b)
SAMPLE DATA TEST RESULTS

TEST SPECIMEN NO. 1 2 3
COMPACTION PRESSURE (PSI) 350 350 350
DENSITY (PCF) 137.4 137.1 138.0
MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 6.6 6.8 6.4
EXPANSION PRESSURE (PSI) -0.19 -0.25 -0.22
HORIZONTAL PRESSURE @ 160 PSI 39 30 23
SAMPLE HEIGHT (INCHES) 2.43 2.43 2.41
EXUDATION PRESSURE (PSI) 136.3 252.3 424.6
CORRECTED R-VALUE 63.9 70.5 75.4
UNCORRECTED R-VALUE 65.8 72.5 78.2
R-VALUE @ 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE = 72
100
90
80
70
60
R-VALUE
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
EXUDATION PRESSURE - PSI
Exhibit B-7
RESISTANCE R-VALUE & EXPANSION
PRESSURE OF COMPACTED SOIL
ASTM D2844
CLIENT: City of Greeley DATE OF TEST: 05-Jan-11
PROJECT: 71 First Avenue
LOCATION: Composite from B-5, B-6, & B-7
TERRACON NO. 21105020 CLASSIFICATION: Silty Sand w/ Gravel (A-1-b)
SAMPLE DATA TEST RESULTS

TEST SPECIMEN NO. 1 2 3
COMPACTION PRESSURE (PSI) 350 350 350
DENSITY (PCF) 130.6 131.3 132.2
MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 9.0 8.6 8.4
EXPANSION PRESSURE (PSI) -0.31 -0.25 -0.22
HORIZONTAL PRESSURE @ 160 PSI 86 62 48
SAMPLE HEIGHT (INCHES) 2.47 2.47 2.46
EXUDATION PRESSURE (PSI) 149.9 317.3 567.4
CORRECTED R-VALUE 31.3 48.8 58.6
UNCORRECTED R-VALUE 31.3 48.8 58.6
R-VALUE @ 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE = 47
100
90
80
70
60
R-VALUE
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
EXUDATION PRESSURE - PSI
Exhibit B-8
GENERAL NOTES
DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
3
SS: Split Spoon - 1- /8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger
ST: Thin-Walled Tube – 2” O.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger (Solid Stem)
RS: Ring Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger
DB: Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B RB: Rock Bit
BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB Wash Boring or Mud Rotary
The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch
penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the “Standard Penetration” or “N-value”.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:

WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling BCR: Before Casing Removal
WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling ACR: After Casing Removal
DCI: Dry Cave in AB: After Boring N/E: Not Encountered
Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other
times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low
permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations.
DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils
have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine
Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic,
and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added
according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their
in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Unconfined Standard Penetration Standard Penetration
Compressive or N-value (SS) Consistency or N-value (SS) Relative Density
Strength, Qu, psf Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft.
< 500 0-1 Very Soft 0–3 Very Loose
500 – 1,000 2-4 Soft 4–9 Loose
1,000 – 2,000 4-8 Medium Stiff 10 – 29 Medium Dense
2,000 – 4,000 8 - 15 Stiff 30 – 50 Dense
4,000 – 8,000 15 - 30 Very Stiff > 50 Very Dense
8,000+ > 30 Hard
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

Descriptive Term(s) Percent of Major Component
Particle Size
of other constituents Dry Weight of Sample
Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm)
With 15 – 29 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)
Modifier ≥ 30 Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75mm)
Sand #4 to #200 sieve (4.75 to 0.075mm)
Silt or Clay Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm)
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Descriptive Term(s) Percent of Plasticity
Term
of other constituents Dry Weight Index
Trace <5 Non-plastic 0
With 5 – 12 Low 1-10
Modifier > 12 Medium 11-30
High > 30
Exhibit C-1
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification
Group
Symbol Group NameB
Coarse Grained Soils Gravels Clean Gravels Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3E GW Well-graded gravelF
More than 50% of coarse Less than 5% finesC
More than 50% retained Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 E
GP Poorly graded gravelF
fraction retained on
on No. 200 sieve No. 4 sieve Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF,G, H
More than 12% finesC
Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF,G,H
Sands Clean Sands Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 E
SW Well-graded sandI
50% or more of coarse Less than 5% finesD
Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E SP Poorly graded sandI
fraction passes
No. 4 sieve Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG,H,I
More than 12% finesD
Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG,H,I
Fine-Grained Soils Silts and Clays inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above “A” line J
CL Lean clayK,L,M
50% or more passes the Liquid limit less than 50
PI < 4 or plots below “A” lineJ ML SiltK,L,M
No. 200 sieve
organic Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clayK,L,M,N
< 0.75 OL
Liquid limit - not dried Organic siltK,L,M,O
Silts and Clays inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clayK,L,M
Liquid limit 50 or more
PI lots below “A” line MH Elastic SiltK,L,M
organic Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clayK,L,M,P
< 0.75 OH
Liquid limit - not dried Organic siltK,L,M,Q
Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat
A H
Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.
B
If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles I
If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
or boulders, or both” to group name. J
If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
C
Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded K
If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with
gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly gravel,” whichever is predominant.
graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.
D
L
If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add
Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded “sandy” to group name.
sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded
sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay
M
If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel,
add “gravelly” to group name.
2
E (D30 ) N
PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
Cu = D60/D10 Cc =
D10 x D60 O
PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.
P
F
If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. PI plots on or above “A” line.
G Q
If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM. PI plots below “A” line.
Exhibit C-2
Form 111—6/98
GENERAL NOTES
Description of Rock Properties
WEATHERING
Fresh Rock fresh, crystals bright, few joints may show slight staining. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline.
Very slight Rock generally fresh, joints stained, some joints may show thin clay coatings, crystals in broken face show
bright. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline.
Slight Rock generally fresh, joints stained, and discoloration extends into rock up to 1 in. Joints may contain clay.
In granitoid rocks some occasional feldspar crystals are dull and discolored. Crystalline rocks ring under
hammer.
Moderate Significant portions of rock show discoloration and weathering effects. In granitoid rocks, most feldspars are
dull and discolored; some show clayey. Rock has dull sound under hammer and shows significant loss of
strength as compared with fresh rock.
Moderately severe All rock except quartz discolored or stained. In granitoid rocks, all feldspars dull and discolored and majority
show kaolinization. Rock shows severe loss of strength and can be excavated with geologist’s pick.
Severe All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock “fabric” clear and evident, but reduced in strength to
strong soil. In granitoid rocks, all feldspars kaolinized to some extent. Some fragments of strong rock
usually left.
Very severe All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock “fabric” discernible, but mass effectively reduced to “soil”
with only fragments of strong rock remaining.
Complete Rock reduced to ”soil”. Rock “fabric” not discernible or discernible only in small, scattered locations. Quartz
may be present as dikes or stringers.
HARDNESS (for engineering description of rock – not to be confused with Moh’s scale for minerals)
Very hard Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp pick. Breaking of hand specimens requires several hard blows of
geologist’s pick.
Hard Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty. Hard blow of hammer required to detach hand
specimen.
Moderately hard Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves to ¼ in. deep can be excavated by hard blow of
point of a geologist’s pick. Hand specimens can be detached by moderate blow.
Medium Can be grooved or gouged 1/16 in. deep by firm pressure on knife or pick point. Can be excavated in small
chips to pieces about 1-in. maximum size by hard blows of the point of a geologist’s pick.
Soft Can be gouged or grooved readily with knife or pick point. Can be excavated in chips to pieces several
inches in size by moderate blows of a pick point. Small thin pieces can be broken by finger pressure.
Very soft Can be carved with knife. Can be excavated readily with point of pick. Pieces 1-in. or more in thickness can
be broken with finger pressure. Can be scratched readily by fingernail.
a
Joint, Bedding and Foliation Spacing in Rock
Spacing Joints Bedding/Foliation
Less than 2 in. Very close Very thin
2 in. – 1 ft. Close Thin
1 ft. – 3 ft. Moderately close Medium
3 ft. – 10 ft. Wide Thick
More than 10 ft. Very wide Very thick
b
Rock Quality Designator (RQD) Joint Openness Descriptors
RQD, as a percentage Diagnostic description Openness Descriptor
Exceeding 90 Excellent No Visible Separation Tight
90 – 75 Good Less than 1/32 in. Slightly Open
75 – 50 Fair 1/32 to 1/8 in. Moderately Open
50 – 25 Poor 1/8 to 3/8 in. Open
Less than 25 Very poor 3/8 in. to 0.1 ft. Moderately Wide
Greater than 0.1 ft. Wide
a. Spacing refers to the distance normal to the planes, of the described feature, which are parallel to each other or nearly so.
b. RQD (given as a percentage) = length of core in pieces 4 in. and longer/length of run.
References: American Society of Civil Engineers. Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice - No. 56. Subsurface Investigation for Design
and Construction of Foundations of Buildings. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1976.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering Geology Field Manual.
Exhibit C-3

1 3 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1 3 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Geotechnical Engineering Report

71st Avenue Reconstruction

Appendix A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

 Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

Terracon Project No. 21105020

 subsurface soil and bedrock

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

2.2 Site Location and Description

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile

Sandstone/siltstone bedrock Encountered at 9½ to 17 feet Weathered to Very Hard

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

4.1.1 Bridge Abutment Foundations

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

4.1.2 71st Avenue Reconstruction

4.2.1 Site Preparation

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

4.2.2 Excavation and Dewatering

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

4.2.3 Import Material Specifications

Gradation Percent finer by weight (ASTM C136)

 Liquid Limit……………………………………………………35 (max)

4.2.4 Fill Materials and Placement

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

4.2.5 Compaction Requirements

4.2.6 Grading and Drainage

4.2.7 Corrosion Protection

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

4.3.1 Design Recommendations – Driven Piles

 the size and type of the pile

Ultimate Pile Point Resistance, Allowable Pile Point

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

4.3.1.1 Construction Considerations – Driven Piles

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

4.3.2 Design Recommendations – Drilled Piers

4.3.2.1 Construction Considerations – Drilled Piers

4.3.3 Lateral Load Design Considerations

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

Depth Intervals, ft.

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

4.4 Seismic Considerations

Code Used Site Classification

4.5.1 Design Recommendations

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

 Mill/overlay with a 1½ inch mill depth

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

Boring No. / (Station) HMA Thickness, in. ABC Thickness, in.

Average Asphalt Thickness, in. Average ABC Thickness, in.

Mill Depth, Approximate Completed Total Thickness

Recommended Pavement Thickness, in.

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

4.5.2 Construction Considerations

 site grading at a minimum 2% grade away from the pavements;

Reliable ■ Responsive ■ Convenient ■ Innovative

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS