217-021 FINAL Platte over Sand Creek Pavement …...Project Engineer Project Manager Independent Reviewer: Robert L. LaForce, P.E. Senior Project Manager 3-20-19 i Table of Contents

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Platte Avenue over Sand Creek Pavements

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Yeh Project No.: 217-021

March 20, 2019

Prepared for:

HDR, Inc. Attn: Tammy C. Heffron, PE, ENV SP

1670 Broadway, #3400 Denver, Colorado 80202

Prepared by:

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

627 Elkton Dr. Colorado Springs, CO 80907

Phone: 719-434-1643

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Platte Avenue over Sand Creek Pavements


Yeh Project No.: 217-021

March 20, 2019

Prepared by: Reviewed by: JG T. McCall, EIT Hai Ming Lim, P.E. Project Engineer Project Manager

Independent Reviewer: Robert L. LaForce, P.E. Senior Project Manager

3-20-19

i

Table of Contents

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

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

3 GEOLOGICAL SETTING ...................................................................................... 2

4 FIELD EXPLORATION ......................................................................................... 2

4.1 Subsurface Exploration ...................................................................................... 2

4.2 Groundwater ...................................................................................................... 3

5 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................................................... 3

6 SUBSURFACE AND SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................ 4

7 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................ 5

7.1 Site and Subgrade Preparation .......................................................................... 5

7.2 Fill Materials ....................................................................................................... 6

7.3 Site Grading ....................................................................................................... 6

7.4 Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) ........................................................................... 7

8 PAVEMENT DESIGN ............................................................................................ 7

8.1 Subgrade Strength ............................................................................................. 8

8.2 Traffic Loading ................................................................................................... 8

8.3 Pavement Thickness Design .............................................................................. 9

8.4 Pavement Materials ......................................................................................... 11

9 OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................ 11

9.1 Chemical Test Results ..................................................................................... 11

10 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................... 12

11 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 13

List of Tables

Table 6-1. Platte Ave. Existing Pavement Thickness ................................................................ 4

Table 6-2. Space Center Dr. Existing Pavement Thickness ...................................................... 4

Table 8-1. Design Subgrade Strength ........................................................................................ 8

Table 8-2. Traffic Volumes and Design ESAL ............................................................................ 9

Table 8-3. Pavement Design Parameters ................................................................................... 9

Table 8-4. Flexible Pavement Design Strength Coefficients ......................................................10

Table 8-5. Rigid Pavement Design Strength Coefficients ..........................................................10

ii

Table 8-6. Flexible Pavement Structural Number and Minimum Rigid Pavement Thickness .....10

Table 8-7. Recommended Minimum Flexible Pavement Thickness ...........................................11

Table 8-8. Recommended Minimum Mill and Overlay Thickness for Composite Pavement ......11

Table 8-9. Asphalt Mix Design Recommendations ....................................................................11

Table 9-1. Chemical Test Results ............................................................................................12

List of Appendices

Appendix A, Figure A-1 Boring Location Plan and Existing Conditions

Figure A-2 Pavement Repair Summary

Appendix B, Legend, Boring Logs, and Pavement Core Photos

Appendix C, Laboratory Test Results

Appendix D, Pavement Design Output Files and Traffic Data Memorandum

Geotechnical Engineering Report YA Project No. 217-021 Platte Avenue over Sand Creek Pavements March 20, 2019

1

1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

This report presents the results of Yeh and Associates, Inc.’s (Yeh) geotechnical engineering

study and pavement thickness recommendations for the proposed Platte Avenue pavement

rehabilitation associated with the bridge over Sand Creek replacement Project in Colorado

Springs, Colorado. The project location is shown in Figure1 presented before Appendix A. The

purpose of this study is to explore and evaluate the existing pavement and subsurface

conditions at the site, and present engineering recommendations for use by HDR, Inc. and the

City of Colorado Springs in the design and construction of the pavement sections. Subsurface

exploration and engineering recommendations for the bridge foundations and retaining walls are

presented in a separate report (Dated March 20, 2019, YA Project No. 217-021).

Our scope of services included the following:

• Advancing 11 borings along the roadway alignments to obtain existing pavement

thickness and subgrade information. Borings P-1 to P-8 were advanced along East

Platte Avenue and P-9 to P-11 were advanced along Space Center Drive.

• Performing laboratory tests on representative soil samples collected during the

subsurface exploration to determine the engineering characteristics.

• Preparing a report that:

o Summarizes field and laboratory data

o Presents the results of geotechnical engineering analyses

o Provides recommendations for pavement thickness design

2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

Our understanding of the proposed construction is based on our discussions with the project

team and review of the FOR plans dated December 13, 2018. As part of the Platte Ave. over

Sand Creek bridge replacement project, approximately 1,000 feet of E. Platte Ave. and 400 feet

of Space Center Dr. will be slightly re-aligned and the pavement will be removed and

reconstructed. The proposed new pavement will be Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement.

Depending on the final grade, the HMA may be constructed over an aggregate base course

(ABC), full depth reclaimed (FDR) subbase course, or existing Portland Cement Concrete

Pavement (PCCP). Traffic data used in our pavement thickness design was provided by HDR

and are presented in Appendix D.


2

3 GEOLOGICAL SETTING

The project area is located within the Young Alluvium Two (Qay2) and Middle Alluvium

Formation (Qam), and underlain by Pierre Shale Formation (Kp). The geological map of this

area is shown in Figure 2 presented before Appendix A. The Young Alluvium Two Formation

consists of poorly sorted sand, silty sand, minor pebble gravel, and several thin beds and lenses

of dark grayish brown to very dark grayish brown sediment. The Qay2 blankets large areas on

broad valley floors. Estimated thickness for Qay2 is 10 to 20 feet. The Middle Alluvium

Formation primarily consist of poorly sorted sand and subordinate amounts of gravel. This unit

underlies a terrace that is only slightly higher than Qay2. The estimated thickness for Qam is 20

to 50 feet. The Pierre Shale Formation is gray to dark-gray shale that weathers to brown and

olive green clay, lesser amounts of yellowish gray, medium to coarse grained sandstone. The

thickness in the quadrangle is about 5,000 feet. The encountered subsurface conditions in

general agrees with the geological descriptions.

4 FIELD EXPLORATION

4.1 Subsurface Exploration

Our subsurface exploration consisted of advancing 11 borings, borings P-1 to P-8 were

advanced along East Platte Ave. and Borings P-9 to P-11 were advanced along Space Center

Drive. The approximate boring locations are shown on Figure A-1, Boring Location Plan and

Existing Conditions in Appendix A. Vine Laboratories, Inc. under subcontract to Yeh, advanced

the borings with an ATV-mounted, CME 550 drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer with

an estimated energy transfer ratio of 75 percent. The drilling was performed with 4-inch outside

diameter (O.D.), continuous flight, solid stem augers. Prior to drilling, the pavement was cored

by Yeh using a 4-inch O.D. core barrel. Due to the thickness of the existing pavement, the

underlying PCCP pavement core in Boring P-4 could not be recovered.

Modified California (MC) tube, standard penetration test (SPT) split spoon samples, and bulk

samples of the cuttings were obtained by Yeh during the site exploration. The MC sampler has

an outside diameter of 2.5 inches, an interior diameter of 2.0 inches, is 12 inches in length, and

uses 4-inch long brass liners to collect samples. The SPT split spoon sampler has an outside

diameter of 2.0 inches, an interior diameter of 1.375 inches, and is 18 inches in length. The

samplers were seated at the bottom of the test hole, then advanced by a 140 pound automatic


3

hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The penetration resistance shown on the boring logs is

the total number of blows required to advance the sampler for the final two 6-inch intervals.

The subsurface conditions encountered in the borings were logged by a representative of Yeh.

The boring locations were located with and hand held GPS with 10-feet accuracy and site

features. The boring logs and legend to the logs are included in Appendix B. Photos of the

pavement cores are also presented in Appendix B.

4.2 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered within our borings at the time of our field exploration for the

pavement borings. Groundwater observations to document seasonal fluctuations is outside our

scope of services and was not completed. Groundwater conditions at the site may vary

considerably throughout the year and from year to year. Groundwater variations may be a

result of different seasons, following precipitation events, after site grading changes, changes in

local irrigation practices, and due to changes in surface and subsurface drainage characteristics

of the surrounding area.

5 LABORATORY TESTING

The samples collected during the subsurface exploration were transported to Yeh’s laboratory in

Colorado Springs, Colorado. They were examined and a program of laboratory testing was

developed to evaluate the engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Representative

soil samples were tested to evaluate their engineering properties, using the following tests:

• natural moisture content

• in-situ dry density

• grain size analysis

• Atterberg limits

• pH, resistivity, water soluble sulfates and chlorides

• Hveem stabilometer (R-value)

Results of the Atterberg limit tests and grain size analyses were used to classify the soils

according to AASHTO and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) standards. Atterberg

limits tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D4318, and the grain size

analyses were performed in general accordance with ASTM D421. Dry density tests and


4

moisture content tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D7263 and ASTM

D2216, respectively.

The test results are shown on the boring logs and are included in Appendix C. Following the

completion of the laboratory testing, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as

necessary and boring logs were finalized.

6 SUBSURFACE AND SITE CONDITIONS

This section presents the subsurface and site conditions at the site based on our observations

and explorations. The subgrade soils consist of silty to clayey sand with varying amounts of

gravel and classify as A-1-b to A-2-4 soils in accordance with AASHTO classifications.

Laboratory tests indicate the sand soils have a fines content (passing the #200 sieve) ranging

from 10 percent to 34 percent. Atterberg limits tests indicate soils are generally non-plastic to

low plasticity with liquid limit of 23 to 28, and plastic index of 3 to 11.

The existing asphalt concrete (AC) pavement along Platte Ave. was 6.5 to 9.5 inches thick with

no base course observed. PCCP was encountered beneath the asphalt concrete in two borings

at the west and east end of the west bound lanes of Platte Ave. The AC pavement was

observed to be 5 to 6-inches think along space center drive with no base course. Table 6-1 and

6-2 present a summary of the pavement thickness encountered.

Table 6-1. Platte Ave. Existing Pavement Thickness

Boring AC Thickness

(in) PCCP

Thickness (in) Boring

AC Thickness (in)

PCCP Thickness (in)

WB Platte Ave. EB Platte Ave.

P-1 5.5 6.0 P-5 6.5

Not Encountered

P-2 9.5 Not Encountered

P-6 9.0

P-3 9.0 P-7 8.5

P-4 10 8.0 P-8 8.0

Table 6-2. Space Center Dr. Existing Pavement Thickness

Boring AC Thickness (in) PCCP Thickness (in)

P-9 6.0

Not Encountered P-10 5.0

P-11 5.0


5

Based on visual observation, the existing pavement appears to be in good condition with little to

no obvious signs of distress. However, we understand the roadway was overlaid in 2016 or

early 2017 and is about 1 to 2 years old. Based on review of aerial photography (Google Earth

1999-2017), prior to the previous overlay, the pavement showed distress including moderate to

severe transverse and longitudinal cracks, and reflective cracks from the underlying PCCP on

the Platte Ave. westbound lanes.

7 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Earthwork and grading will be required to achieve the final proposed grade of the roadways, we

anticipate maximum cut and fill thicknesses to be 3 feet. All excavations and embankment

grading should be performed in accordance with the Section 200 of the City of Colorado

Springs, City Engineering Division, Standard Specifications (2005) (COS Standards), or Section

203 of Colorado DOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2017) (CDOT

2017) where it is not covered by the COS Standards.

7.1 Site and Subgrade Preparation

Initial site preparation for areas to receive new pavement sections should begin by stripping all

organic and other deleterious materials, and removing existing structures. The exposed

subgrade should be free of all organics, topsoil, debris, and loose or soft material. Deleterious

materials should be removed from the site or stockpiled for future use in proposed landscaped

or non-structural areas.

Following initial site preparation exposed pavement subgrade should be scarified to a minimum

depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and re-compacted in accordance with Section 205 of

the COS Standards. Based upon the subsurface conditions encountered, subgrade soils

exposed during construction are anticipated to be relatively stable. However, the stability of the

subgrade may be affected by drainage and precipitation. If unstable conditions are encountered

or develop during construction, stability may be improved by processing the subgrade soils or

with other ground improvement techniques.

Following subgrade preparation and prior to placement of structural fill or pavement sections,

visual inspection and proof rolling at the subgrade is required to identify potential areas where

the subgrade contains soft / loose soils. The proof roll should be in accordance with Section

205 of the COS Standards. Areas which deform non-uniformly under heavy wheel loads should


6

either be moisture conditioned and re-compacted or excavated and replaced with structural fill.

The depth of over-excavation, if required, should be determined during construction. We

recommend that the proof rolling activities and visual inspection of the subgrade soils be

observed and evaluated by an experienced geotechnical engineer or engineer’s representative.

7.2 Fill Materials

Embankment fill should conform to Section 203 of the COS Standards and should be approved

by the City and the geotechnical engineer. On-site sandy soils are appropriate for use as

embankment fill. Import fill and onsite soils used as fill should be placed and compacted in

accordance with Section 205 of the COS Standards.

All fill materials should be placed in horizontal lifts that are 8-inches or less in loose thickness,

using equipment and procedures that will produce a uniform fill with the recommended moisture

contents and densities throughout the lift. The required percent of relative compaction and

moisture content for the embankment materials are presented in Section 205 of the COS

Standards.

7.3 Site Grading

All site excavation and embankment grading should conform to Section 200 of the COS

Standards.

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

the proposed structures. Design of drainage should include prevention of ponding of water on

or immediately adjacent to pavement areas. Surface features that could retain water in areas

adjacent to the structures should be sealed or eliminated.

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

than 2.5 H: 1 V. Cut slopes should be protected from surface water runoff to prevent erosion

and slope failure. Landscape sprinklers should be frequently checked for leaks and maintained

in good working order. Surface drainage should be provided around all permanent cuts and fills

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

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

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


7

7.4 Full Depth Reclamation (FDR)

Full depth reclamation (FDR) is a pavement rehabilitation method that the full thickness of the

existing pavement is uniformly pulverized and blended with the underlying base course and/or

subgrade to create a subbase material. The FDR materials are either used to increase the

strength of the subgrade, or used as a subbase layer within the pavement structure. Based on

the encountered pavement thickness and subgrade materials, the FDR should be planned to

extend a minimum of 12 inches below the existing pavement surface during the mixing process.

The FDR should be performed in accordance with CDOT Section 310 (Special Provision), Full

Depth Reclamation of Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement.

8 PAVEMENT DESIGN

Based on the proposed construction we understand that all pavement will be reconstructed for

20-year design period. The current approach is to FDR the existing asphalt concrete pavement

with the subgrade, and the FDR material will be spread over the new roadway width to provide

uniform subbase course within the pavement structure. HMA will placed on top of FDR, or

where grade adjustment is required, imported aggregate base course (ABC) may be placed

over FDR material. In the WB lanes of Platte Ave where PCCP underlies the AC, the AC will be

milled and overlaid with new HMA.

Based on the current design approach, a portion of the roadway west of the proposed new

bridge approach will be constructed on fill materials. To meet the design criteria, embankment

within 3 feet below the bottom of the pavement (bottom of AC or FDR materials) should consist

of fill materials with minimum R-value of 50. Typical CDOT Class 1 structure backfill granular

materials should meet the minimum R-value requirements.

The extent of the pavement where AC overlaying PCCP is not known. We have evaluated the

extent of this type of pavement based on the aerial photos prior to the overlay (2015 aerial

photo). Based on the aerial photo, we estimated the extent of the PCCP as shown in Figure A-2

presented in Appendix A. Note that the limits of PCCP presented in this report are for

informational purposes only and should be confirmed during construction.

The following sections present our pavement design recommendations for the above

alternatives. Pavement design was completed in accordance with Section II of COS Engineering

Criteria Manual: Pavement Design Criteria Manual, current CDOT manual, and in general

accordance with 1993 AASHTO Design Guide.


8

8.1 Subgrade Strength

Based on our explorations and results of laboratory testing the pavement subgrade soils are

anticipated to consist primarily of sand with silt to silty sand, A-1-b to A-2-4. Subgrade soils are

relatively consistent along Platte Ave. and Space Center Drive, therefore one design subgrade

is used for our design. Based on R-value tests of 50 and 52 for combined bulk samples we have

assigned a design R-value of 51 to the existing subgrade soils. Design Resilient Modulus (Mr)

was calculated based on R-value on conversion guidelines presented in Section 4.2 of City of

Colorado Springs Pavement Design Manual. Effective modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value)

was calculated following Section 4.4 of COS Pavement Design Manual and a Loss of Support

value of 2.0. Table 8-1 presents the design subgrade strength parameters.

Table 8-1. Design Subgrade Strength

Parameter Design Value

Subgrade R-value 51

Subgrade Resilient Modulus (Mr), (psi)

13,500

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k-value), (pci) 695

Loss of Support (LS) 2.0

Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k-value), (pci)

60

8.2 Traffic Loading

Design traffic loads were calculated based on the data provided by HDR in the Technical

Memorandum dated June 27, 2018. This information was used to calculate the Average Annual

Daily Traffic (AADT) in 2019, growth rate, and determining the 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle

Loads (ESAL) loading for a 20-year design period. The truck factors and vehicle classifications

used in our 20-year ESAL calculation were selected in accordance with CDOT 2013 Pavement

Design Manual. The calculated 20-year ESAL was compared to COS default values present in

Table 4 of the COS Pavement Design Criteria Manual and the higher 20-year ESAL was used

for design.


9

Table 8-2. Traffic Volumes and Design ESAL

Design Parameter Platte Avenue Space Center Drive

Roadway Functional Classification

Major Arterial Major/ Minor Collector

2019 AADT2 41,280 N/A

Trucks Percent of AADT2 CDOT Class 4-7: 10.02 CDOT Class 7-13: 3.09

N/A

Estimated Growth Rate2 1.6 N/A

Design Period (years) 20 20

Total Calculated ESAL over Design Period 3

9,688,128- Flexible 13,044,668- Rigid

N/A

COS Default ESAL over Design Period 1,3

4,500,000- Flexible 6,250,000- Rigid

200,000- Flexible 200,000- Rigid

1. Based on Table 4 COS Pavement Design Criteria Manual 2. Based on Vehicle Classification Report provided by HDR Technical Memorandum dated

June 27, 2018 3. Flexible- Hot mix asphalt pavement; Rigid- Portland cement concrete pavement N/A: Not available

8.3 Pavement Thickness Design

Pavement design was performed using the AASHTOWare program DARWin, Version 3.1, and

following the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide and City of Colorado Springs Pavement

Design Manual. The outputs from the pavement design are attached to this report in Appendix

D. Tables 8-3 to 8-5 present a summary of the design parameters used for design.

Table 8-3. Pavement Design Parameters

Parameter Platte Ave. (Flexible)

Platte Ave. (Rigid)

Space Center Dr.

Design Period (yrs.) 20 20 20

18-kip ESAL over design period 9,688,128 13,044,668 200,000

Reliability (%) 95 95 90

Overall Standard Deviation 0.44 0.34 0.44

Initial Serviceability Index 4.5 4.5 4.5

Terminal Serviceability Index 2.5 2.5 2.0


10

Table 8-4. Flexible Pavement Design Strength Coefficients

Parameter Value

Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) 0.44

Drainage 1.0

FDR Subbase Course1 0.12

Aggregate Base Course (ABC) 2 0.12

Subgrade Soil Resilient Modulus (psi) 13,500

1. Based on laboratory produced FDR materials tested 2. ABC meeting COS Engineering Standard Specifications Manual

Table 8-5. Rigid Pavement Design Strength Coefficients

Parameter Value

Concrete Elastic Modulus (EC), (psi) 3,500,000

Concrete Modulus of Rupture (S’C), (psi) 650

Load Transfer Coefficient (J) 3.6

Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k-value), (pci) 60

Based on the above design parameters and coefficients, we have calculated a minimum

required structural number (flexible pavement) and minimum rigid pavement thickness for each

section as presented in Table 8-6. The recommended minimum pavement thickness are

presented in Tables 8-7. In the area where composite pavement comprised of asphalt concrete

overlaying PCCP was encountered (Platte Ave. westbound, east and west end), it is our

understanding mill and overlay with asphalt concrete pavement is preferred. The recommended

mill and overlay thickness at the composite pavement is presented in Table 8-8.

Table 8-6. Flexible Pavement Structural Number and Minimum Rigid Pavement Thickness

Roadway/Segment Calculated Minimum

Structural Number/ Rigid Pavement Thickness (in)1

Platte Ave – Flexible Pavement 4.07

Space Center Drive – Flexible Pavement 2.07

Platte Ave – Rigid Pavement 11.32

1. Based on 20-year design period


11

Table 8-7. Recommended Minimum Flexible Pavement Thickness

Location Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Platte Ave. 6” HMA 12” FDR

8” HMA 5” FDR

Space Center Dr. 4” HMA 6” FDR

HMA: Hot Mix Asphalt FDR: Full Depth Reclamation materials

Table 8-8. Recommended Minimum Mill and Overlay Thickness for Composite Pavement

East End of Platte Ave West End of Platte Ave

AC Mill Depth (in) 3 5.5

New HMA Thickness (in) 3 10.5

8.4 Pavement Materials

Hot mixed asphalt should meet the Pikes Peak Region Asphalt Paving Specifications. The

asphalt mix to be used for each pavement sections are presented in Table 8-9.

Table 8-9. Asphalt Mix Design Recommendations

Pavement Sections 20 Year

18K ESAL SuperPave

NDES Graded Binder

Aggregate Grading

Platte Ave.

Surface Course (2”) 9.7 million 100

PG 64-28 SX

Lower lifts (below surface course)

PG 64-28 S

Space Center

Dr.

Surface Course (2”) 200,000 100

PG 64-28 SX

Lower lifts (below surface course)

PG 64-28 S

9 OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

9.1 Chemical Test Results

Yeh performed chemical tests on samples obtained during the field exploration that are

considered representative of soils encounter in the borings. The test results can be found in

Appendix C. The test results are summarized in Table 9-1.


12

Table 9-1. Chemical Test Results

Samples Water Soluble Sulfates

Water Soluble Chlorides

pH Resistivity

YA-P-6 @ 10ft

<0.001% 0.0149% 7.1 2206 ohm.cm

YA-P-10 @ 2ft

<0.001% 0.0116% 7.8 3705 ohm.cm

These values should be used to select proper concrete type for the project in accordance with

Section 500 of COS Standards. A qualified corrosion engineer should review the laboratory

data and boring logs to determine the appropriate level of corrosion protection for materials in

contact with these soils.

10 LIMITATIONS

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of HDR, Inc. and the City of Colorado Springs.

Within the limitations of the scope, schedule, and budget, the work presented in this report was

performed in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices in this area at the

time this report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied.

The classifications, conclusions, and recommendations submitted in this report are based on

the data obtained from published and unpublished maps, reports, and geotechnical analyses.

Our conclusions and recommendations are based on our understanding of the project as

described in this report and the site conditions as interpreted from the explorations. This data

may not necessarily reflect variations in the subsurface conditions and water levels occurring at

other locations.

The nature and extent of subsurface variations may not become evident until excavation is

performed. Variations in the data may also occur with the passage of time. If during

construction, fill, soil, rock, or groundwater conditions appear to be different from those

described in this report, this office should be advised immediately so we could review these

conditions and reconsider our recommendations. If there is a substantial lapse of time between

the submission of this report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed

because of natural forces or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, we recommend

that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and

recommendations concerning the changed conditions or time lapse. We recommend on-site

observation of foundation excavations and foundation subgrade conditions by an experienced

geotechnical engineer or engineer’s representative.


13

The scope of work of this investigation did not include hazardous materials sampling or

environmental sampling, investigation, or analyses. In addition, we did not evaluate the site for

potential impacts to natural resources, including wetlands, endangered species, or

environmentally critical areas.

11 REFERENCES

AASHTO, 2017. AASHTO Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications, Seventh Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2017.

City of Colorado Springs, Engineering Criteria Manual, Pavement Design Criteria Manual

City of Colorado Springs, Standard Specification Manual, March, 2005.

Colorado Department of Transportation, 2013. 2013 Pavement Design Manual. Colorado Department of Transportation, 2017. CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and

Bridge Construction. 2017 Edition. Colorado Department of Transportation, M & S Standards, Denver, Colorado, July 2012 CGS, Madole, R.F. and Thorson, J.P., 2003. Geologic Map of the Elsmere 7.5 Minute

Quadrangle, El Paso County, Colorado.


14

Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map

(Google Earth)

Platte Avenue

Po

wers

Blv

d.

Project Site


15

Figure 2. CGS Geologic Map of Project Area, (Madole, R.F. and Thorson, J.P., 2003)

Project Site

Appendix A

Figure A-1 Boring Location Plan and Existing Conditions

Figure A-2 Pavement Repair Summary

6170

6170

6170

617

0

6170

617

5

6175

6175

617

5

6175

6175

6175

6175

617

5

6175

6175

6175

6175

6175

617

5

6180

6180

6180

618

0

6180

6180

6180

618

0

618

0

6180

6180

6180

6180

6180

618

0

6180

6180

6180

6180

6180

6180

6180

6180

6180

6180

6180

6180

6180

SA

TT

6185

6185

618

5

6185

6185

618

5

618

5

6185

6185

618

5

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

6185

618

5

618

5

6185

6185

6185

SA

SA

ST

ST

SA

T

T

T

TT

TT

ST

SA

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

61906190

6190

6190

61906190

6190619

0

6190 6190 6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

619

0

6190

6190

619

0

6190

6190

619

0

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

619

0

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

61906190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

61906190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

61906190

61906190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

6190

619

0

ST

TT

ST

TT

ST

SA

6195

6195

6195

619

5

619

5

6195

619

5

6195

6195

619

5

6195

6195

6195

6195

6195

6195

6195

6195

6195

619

5

6200

SA

TT

SA

SA

ST

ST

SA

T

T

T

TT

TT

ST

SA

ST

TT

ST

TT

ST

SA

REMOVED

CSG-L.57-08.99 TO BE

EXISTING STRUCTURE

REMOVED


EXISTING STRUCTURE

HCL E. PLATTE AVE

mwalz 2:4

2:5

1 P

M

pw:\\

pw

hdruscen01:H

DR_

US_

Central_

01\

Docu

ments\

City_

of_

CO_

Sprin

gs_

CO\

CO_

Sprin

gs_

Platte_

Ave_

Sand_

Crk\

6.0

_C

AD_

BI

M\

6.2

_W

ork_In_

Progress\

Geotech\

BX -Pave

ment Borin

g Pla

n

719-272-8800Phone:Print Date:

File Name:

Horiz. Scale:

Unit Information

Unit Information

Index of Revisions

No. Description Date

Colorado Springs, CO 80919

5555 Tech Center Drive, Suite 310Computer File Information

Structure:

Sheet Subset:

Subset Sheets:

Designer:

Cadd:

Checker:

Date:

Date:

Date:

PROJECT:

STREET:

JOB NO.

DRAINAGE BASIN:

SHEET OF

SCALE: HORIZ. VERT.

BENCHMARK:

1:100

BX -Pavement Boring Plan

7/6/2018 719-385-5918Phone:


30 S Nevada

SCOPE OF REVIEW ACCORDINGLY.

DESIGN. THE CITY HAS LIMITED ITS

AS HAVING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE

RECOGNIZES THE DESIGN ENGINEER

THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS

STATEMENT:

105

+00

110

+00

115

+00

10+00

21+00

22+00

23+00

24+00

P-1

P-2

P-5

P-6

P-3

P-7

P-4

P-86.5"P-5

9.5"P-2

9.0"P-6

9.0"P-3

8.5"P-7

8.0"P-8

6.0"P-9

5.0"P-10

5.0"P-11

6"5.5"P-1

8"10"P-4

BRIDGE

110+00109+00108+00 111+00

22

+00

23

+00

10

+00

SA

ND

CR

EE

K

PLAN

SAND CREEK WATERSHED

TO COLORADO SPRINGS

TO POWERS BLVD

30'0' 15' 60'

Consulting Engineers & Scientists


107+00106+00 112+00 113+00 114+00

HML

MJW

7/6/2018

7/6/2018

PLATTE AVE PAVEMENT BORING LOCATION PLAN

PLATTE AVE AND SPACE CENTER DRIVE

A-1

PLATTE AVE OVER SAND CREEK PAVEMENT

#" Exisiting PCCP thickness (inches)

#" Existing AC thickness (inches)

P-# - Approximate Boring Location

SA

TT

SA

SA

ST

ST

SA

T

T

T

TT

TT

ST

SA

ST

TT

ST

TT

ST

SA

REMOVED


EXISTING STRUCTURE

REMOVED


EXISTING STRUCTURE

HCL E. PLATTE AVE

mwalz 2:0

9:4

2

PM

pw:\\

pw

hdruscen01:H

DR_

US_

Central_

01\

Docu

ments\

City_

of_

CO_

Sprin

gs_

CO\

CO_

Sprin

gs_

Platte_

Ave_

Sand_

Crk\

6.0

_C

AD

_BI

M\

6.2

_W

ork_In_

Progress\

Geotech\

BX -Pave

ment Repair Su

mm

ary

719-272-8800Phone:Print Date:

File Name:

Horiz. Scale:

Unit Information

Unit Information

Index of Revisions

No. Description Date


5555 Tech Center Drive, Suite 310Computer File Information

Structure:

Sheet Subset:

Subset Sheets:

Designer:

Cadd:

Checker:

Date:

Date:

Date:

PROJECT:

STREET:

JOB NO.

DRAINAGE BASIN:

SHEET OF

SCALE: HORIZ. VERT.

BENCHMARK:

1:100

BX -Pavement Repair Summary

7/6/2018 719-385-5918Phone:


30 S Nevada

SCOPE OF REVIEW ACCORDINGLY.

DESIGN. THE CITY HAS LIMITED ITS

AS HAVING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE

RECOGNIZES THE DESIGN ENGINEER

THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS

STATEMENT:

105

+00

110

+00

115

+00

21+00

22+00

23+00

24+00

BRIDGE

110+00109+00108+00 111+00

22

+00

23

+00

10

+00

SA

ND

CR

EE

K

PLAN

SAND CREEK WATERSHED

TO COLORADO SPRINGS

TO POWERS BLVD

HML

MJW

7/6/2018

7/6/2018

30'0' 15' 60'

Consulting Engineers & Scientists


107+00106+00 112+00 113+00 114+00

Approximate Limits of AC Mill and Overlay

Estimated Limits of PCCP Under AC.

PLATTE AVE AND SPACE CENTER DRIVE

PLATTE AVE OVER SAND CREEK PAVEMENT

PLATTE AVE PAVEMENT REPAIR SUMMARY

Platte Ave Approximate Limits of FDR

Space Center Drive Approximate Limits of FDR

A-2

Appendix B

Legend and Boring Logs Pavement Core Photos

Project Number: 217-021

Platte Ave over Sand Creek Pavement

Lithology Symbols(see Boring Logs for complete descriptions)

Asphalt Fill USCS Silty Sand

Lab Test Standards Other Lab Test AbbreviationspH Soil pH (AASHTO T289-91)S Water-Soluble Sulfate Content (AASHTO T290-91,

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

ASTM D4327)S/C Swell/Consolidation (ASTM D4546)UCCS Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM D2166)R-Value Resistance R-Value (ASTM D2844)DS (C) Direct Shear cohesion (ASTM D3080)DS (phi) Direct Shear friction angle (ASTM D3080)Re Electrical Resistivity (AASHTO T288-91)PtL Point Load Strength Index (ASTM D5731)

Notes

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

ASTM D1140Atterberg Limits ASTM D4318AASHTO Class. AASHTO M145,

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

Auger Cuttings

Modified CaliforniaSampler(2.5 inch OD, 2.0inch ID)

StandardPenetration Test(ASTM D1586)

Sample Types

Legend for Symbols Used on Borehole Logs

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

1. "Penetration Resistance" on the Boring Logs refers to the uncorrected N value for SPT samples only, as per ASTMD1586. For samples obtained with a Modified California sampler, drive depth is 12 inches, and "PenetrationResistance" refers to the sum of all blows. Where blow counts were > 50 for the 3rd increment (SPT) or 2nd increment(MC), "Penetration Resistance" combines the last and 2nd-to-last blows and lengths; for other increments with > 50blows, the blows for the last increment are reported.2. The Modified California sampler used to obtain samples is a 2.5-inch OD, 2.0-inch ID (1.95-inch ID with liners),split-barrel sampler with internal liners, as per ASTM D3550. Sampler is driven with a 140-pound hammer, dropped 30inches per blow.3. "ER" for the hammer is the Reported Calibrated Energy Transfer Ratio for that specific hammer, as provided by thedrilling company.

118095.0

5-5-5

2-2-3

10

5

0.0 - 1.0 ft. 5.5" asphalt over 6" concretepavement.

1.0 - 6.5 ft. silty SAND, dark brown tobrown, moist.

Bottom of Hole at 6.5 ft.

Total Depth: 6.5 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location:

Groundwater Levels:

Logged By: R. Desterhouse

Final By: HML

SymbolDepthDate

Weather Notes:

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Boring Began: 5/8/2018

Boring Completed: 5/8/2018

Drilling Method(s): Solid-Stem Auger

Driller: Vine Laboratories

Drill Rig: CME 550

Hammer Type: Automatic (hydraulic)--

--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1

AASHTO& USCSClassifi-cations

Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex

Project Number: 217-021C o n s u l t i n g E n g i n e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s

Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: P-1

Yeh and Associates, Inc.E

leva

tion

(fee

t)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-0

21

PA

VE

ME

NT

GIN

T.G

PJ

201

5 Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

2015

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

6/1

9/1

8

San

d C

onte

nt(%

)

Gra

vel C

onte

nt(%

)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples

Material Description

217736.16-8-9

8-7-6

1-3

5-7

17

13

4

12

0.0 - 0.8 ft. 9.5" asphalt pavement.

0.8 - 11.0 ft. silty SAND FILL, with clayseams, dark brown to brown, moist.


Total Depth: 11.0 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location:

Groundwater Levels:


Final By: HML

SymbolDepthDate

Weather Notes:






Drill Rig: CME 550


--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex


Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: P-2


leva

tion

(fee

t)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

10

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-0

21

PA

VE

ME

NT

GIN

T.G

PJ

201

5 Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

2015

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

6/1

9/1

8

San

d C

onte

nt(%

)

Gra

vel C

onte

nt(%

)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples


2-3-2

2-1-1

1-1-1

1-1-1

5

2

2

2

0.0 - 0.8 ft. 9" asphalt pavement.

0.8 - 11.5 ft. silty SAND FILL, dark brown and brown,moist.



Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location:

Groundwater Levels:


Final By: HML

SymbolDepthDate

Weather Notes:






Drill Rig: CME 550


--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex


Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: P-3


leva

tion

(fee

t)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

10

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-0

21

PA

VE

ME

NT

GIN

T.G

PJ

201

5 Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

2015

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

6/1

9/1

8

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples


4-4-3

7-7-8

7

15

0.0 - 1.5 ft. 10" asphalt over 8" concrete pavement.

1.5 - 6.5 ft. silty SAND, brown, moist, mediumdense.


Total Depth: 6.5 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location:

Groundwater Levels:


Final By: HML

SymbolDepthDate

Weather Notes:






Drill Rig: CME 550


--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex


Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: P-4


leva

tion

(fee

t)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-0

21

PA

VE

ME

NT

GIN

T.G

PJ

201

5 Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

2015

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

6/1

9/1

8

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples


22 NPNV7539.6 121.612-15

12-13

4-5

5-6

27

25

9

11


0.6 - 11.0 ft. silty SAND with trace ofgravels, dark brown to light brown, moist,medium dense to loose.



Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location:

Groundwater Levels:


Final By: HML

SymbolDepthDate

Weather Notes:






Drill Rig: CME 550


--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex


Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: P-5


leva

tion

(fee

t)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

10

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-0

21

PA

VE

ME

NT

GIN

T.G

PJ

201

5 Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

2015

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

6/1

9/1

8

San

d C

onte

nt(%

)

Gra

vel C

onte

nt(%

)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples


24 1128

pH=7.1S=0.001%Chl=0.0149%Re=2206ohm·cm

10.9 123.37-7

12-15-13

14

28


0.8 - 6.5 ft. silty SAND FILL, dark brown to lightbrown, moist.


Total Depth: 6.5 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location:

Groundwater Levels:


Final By: HML

SymbolDepthDate

Weather Notes:






Drill Rig: CME 550


--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex


Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: P-6


leva

tion

(fee

t)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-0

21

PA

VE

ME

NT

GIN

T.G

PJ

201

5 Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

2015

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

6/1

9/1

8

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples


28 3236939.3

9-10

6-15-12

19

27


0.7 - 6.5 ft. silty SAND FILL, light brownto dark gray, moist.


Total Depth: 6.5 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location:

Groundwater Levels:


Final By: HML

SymbolDepthDate

Weather Notes:






Drill Rig: CME 550


--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex


Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: P-7


leva

tion

(fee

t)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-0

21

PA

VE

ME

NT

GIN

T.G

PJ

201

5 Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

2015

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

6/1

9/1

8

San

d C

onte

nt(%

)

Gra

vel C

onte

nt(%

)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples


34 5269.95-11-12

9-15

7-10-13

5-7-6

23

24

23

13


0.7 - 11.5 ft. silty SAND, brown to light brown, moist,medium dense.



Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location:

Groundwater Levels:


Final By: HML

SymbolDepthDate

Weather Notes:






Drill Rig: CME 550


--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex


Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: P-8


leva

tion

(fee

t)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

10

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-0

21

PA

VE

ME

NT

GIN

T.G

PJ

201

5 Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

2015

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

6/1

9/1

8

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples


177856.4

6-8-7

14-15-12

7-7-8

5-6-7

15

27

15

13


0.5 - 11.5 ft. silty SAND, dark gray togray, moist, medium dense.

-brown below 7'.



Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location:

Groundwater Levels:


Final By: HML

SymbolDepthDate

Weather Notes:






Drill Rig: CME 550


--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex


Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: P-9


leva

tion

(fee

t)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

10

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-0

21

PA

VE

ME

NT

GIN

T.G

PJ

201

5 Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

2015

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

6/1

9/1

8

San

d C

onte

nt(%

)

Gra

vel C

onte

nt(%

)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples


pH=7.8S=0.001%Chl=0.0116%Re=3705ohm·cm3-1-3

5-5-5

4

10


0.4 - 6.5 ft. silty SAND, brown, moist, mediumdense.


Total Depth: 6.5 ft

Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location:

Groundwater Levels:


Final By: HML

SymbolDepthDate

Weather Notes:






Drill Rig: CME 550


--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex


Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: P-10


leva

tion

(fee

t)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-0

21

PA

VE

ME

NT

GIN

T.G

PJ

201

5 Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

2015

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

6/1

9/1

8

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples


82 NP10996.32-2-5

6-5-6

8-7-6

6-6-6

7

11

13

12


0.4 - 11.5 ft. silty SAND, brown, moist,loose to medium dense.



Ground Elevation:

Coordinates: N: E:

Location:

Groundwater Levels:


Final By: HML

SymbolDepthDate

Weather Notes:






Drill Rig: CME 550


--

--

Night Work:

ProjectName:

PAGE1 of 1


Fin

es C

onte

nt(%

)

Pla

stic

ityIn

dex


Liqu

idLi

mit

Field Notesand

Other LabTests


AtterbergLimits

Boring No.: P-11


leva

tion

(fee

t)

Dep

th(f

eet)

5

10

Sam

ple

Typ

e/A

dvan

cem

ent M

etho

d

BO

RIN

G L

OG

201

5 2

17-0

21

PA

VE

ME

NT

GIN

T.G

PJ

201

5 Y

EH

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S T

EM

PLA

TE

.GD

T

2015

LIB

RA

RY

.GLB

6/1

9/1

8

San

d C

onte

nt(%

)

Gra

vel C

onte

nt(%

)

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)Blowsper6 in

Pen

etra

tion

Res

ista

nce

Lith

olo

gy

Soil Samples


PROJECT NO. 217-021

DRAWN: 5/16/2018

DRAWN BY: DG

CHECKED BY: HML

FILE NAME:

FIGURE

P-1

Pavement Core Photos

Boring: P-1

Platte Avenue over Sand Creek


PROJECT NO. 217-021

DRAWN: 5/16/2018

DRAWN BY: DG

CHECKED BY: HML

FILE NAME:


Boring: P-2

FIGURE

P-2Platte Avenue over Sand Creek


PROJECT NO. 217-021

DRAWN: 5/16/2018

DRAWN BY: DG

CHECKED BY: HML

FILE NAME:


Boring: P-3

FIGURE



PROJECT NO. 217-021

DRAWN: 5/16/2018

DRAWN BY: DG

CHECKED BY: HML

FILE NAME:


Boring: P-4

FIGURE



Note: Partial asphalt core over 10"

concrete core could not be retrieved from

this boring. Pavement was drilled through.

PROJECT NO. 217-021

DRAWN: 5/16/2018

DRAWN BY: DG

CHECKED BY: HML

FILE NAME:


Boring: P-5

FIGURE



PROJECT NO. 217-021

DRAWN: 5/16/2018

DRAWN BY: DG

CHECKED BY: HML

FILE NAME:


Boring: P-6

FIGURE



PROJECT NO. 217-021

DRAWN: 5/16/2018

DRAWN BY: DG

CHECKED BY: HML

FILE NAME:


Boring: P-7

FIGURE



PROJECT NO. 217-021

DRAWN: 5/16/2018

DRAWN BY: DG

CHECKED BY: HML

FILE NAME:


Boring: P-8

FIGURE



PROJECT NO. 217-021

DRAWN: 5/16/2018

DRAWN BY: DG

CHECKED BY: HML

FILE NAME:


Boring: P-9

FIGURE



PROJECT NO. 217-021

DRAWN: 5/16/2018

DRAWN BY: DG

CHECKED BY: HML

FILE NAME:


Boring: P-10

FIGURE



PROJECT NO. 217-021

DRAWN: 5/16/2018

DRAWN BY: DG

CHECKED BY: HML

FILE NAME:


Boring: P-11

FIGURE



Appendix C

Laboratory Test Results

Project No: Date: 6/18/2018

Gradation Atterberg

Chloride

%

P-1 5-6.5 SPT 5.0 - 9 80 11 - - - - - - - - A-1-b ( 0 ) SP-SM

P-3 2-3.5 SPT 6.1 - 3 77 21 - - - - - - - - A-2-4 ( 0 ) SM

P-5 2-3 MC 9.6 121.6 3 75 22 NV NP NP - - - - - A-2-4 ( 0 ) SM

P-6 2-3 MC 10.9 123.3 - - 24 28 17 11 - - - - - A-2-6 ( 0 ) SC

P-7 5-6.5 SPT 9.3 - 3 69 28 23 20 3 - - - - - A-2-4 ( 0 ) SM

P-8 2-3.5 SPT 9.9 - - - 34.2 26 21 5 - - - - - A-2-4 ( 0 ) SM

P-9 5-6.5 SPT 6.4 - 5 78 17 - - - - - - - - A-1-b ( 0 ) SM

P-11 2-3.5 SPT 6.3 - 9 82 10 - - - - - - - - A-1-b ( 0 ) SP-SM

P-1,2,3,5 0-5 BULK 9.1 - 3 67 30 25 17 8 - - - - 50 A-2-4 ( 0 ) SC

P-4,7,9,10,11 0-5 BULK 7.2 - 5 74 21 23 19 4 - - - - 52 A-1-b ( 0 ) SM-SC

25% AC Mix - - 2.4 - 16 67 17 NV NP NP - - - - 61 A-1-b ( 0 ) SM

PL PIAASHTO USCS

Resistivity

ohm.cm

R-

Value

CLASSIFICATIONWater

Soluble

Sulfate %

Sample

Type

Gravel

> #4

(%)

Sand

(%)

Fines <

#200

(%)

217-021 Project Name:

LL

YEH & ASSOCIATES, INC

Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Sample Location Natural

Moisture

Content

(%)

Natural

Dry

Density

(pcf)

PH


Boring No. Depth (ft)

Page 1 Summary 217-021

Drawn By: JTM

Date: 06/18/18

¾ "

½"

-

-

-

-

69

31

-

100

99

91

#200 11

Yeh & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants

SIEVE ANALYSIS

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

9

80

LL

PL

Platte Ave over Sand Creek

Bridge Pavement Project Name:

Sample ID: P-1

Sample

Depth (ft.):5'-6.5'

Sample

Description:A-1-b (0) / SP-SM

Project No.: 217-021

Figure No.: -

Fines (%) 11 PI -

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

Checked By: HML

-

-

-

3"

2 ½"

2"

⅜"

#4

#10

#40

1 ½"

1"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

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

Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis

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

1002"

Revised 04/27/2004

Drawn By: JTM

Date: 06/18/18

¾ "

½"

-

-

-

-

88

62

-

-

100

97

#200 21


SIEVE ANALYSIS

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

3

76

LL

PL



Sample ID: P-3

Sample

Depth (ft.):2'-3.5'

Sample

Description:A-2-4 (0) / SM


Figure No.: -

Fines (%) 21 PI -

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

Checked By: HML

-

-

-

3"

2 ½"

2"

⅜"

#4

#10

#40

1 ½"

1"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

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



1002"

Revised 04/27/2004

Drawn By: JTM

Date: 06/18/18

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

Checked By: HML

100

100

100

3"

2 ½"

2"

⅜"

#4

#10

#40

1 ½"

1"

Sample



Figure No.: -

Fines (%) 22 PI NP



Sample ID: P-5

Sample

Depth (ft.):2'-3'

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

3

75

LL

PL

¾ "

½"

NV

NP

100

100

86

59

100

100

100

97

#200 22


SIEVE ANALYSIS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

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



1002"

Revised 04/27/2004

Drawn By: JTM

Date: 06/18/18

¾ "

½"

23

20

100

100

86

64

100

100

100

97

#200 28


SIEVE ANALYSIS

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

3

69

LL

PL


Pavement Project Name:

Sample ID: P-7

Sample

Depth (ft.):5 - 6.5

Sample



Figure No.: -

Fines (%) 28 PI 3

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

Checked By: HML

100

100

100

3"

2 ½"

2"

⅜"

#4

#10

#40

1 ½"

1"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

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



1002"

Revised 04/27/2004

Drawn By: JTM

Date: 06/18/18

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

Checked By: HML

100

100

100

3"

2 ½"

2"

⅜"

#4

#10

#40

1 ½"

1"

Sample

Description:A-1-b (0) / SM


Figure No.: -

Fines (%) 17 PI -



Sample ID: YA-P-9

Sample

Depth (ft.):5 - 6.5

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

5

78

LL

PL

¾ "

½"

-

-

100

100

76

39

100

100

100

95

#200 17


SIEVE ANALYSIS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

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



1002"

Revised 04/27/2004

Drawn By: JTM

Date: 06/18/18

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

Checked By: HML

100

100

100

3"

2 ½"

2"

⅜"

#4

#10

#40

1 ½"

1"

Sample

Description:A-1-b (0) / SP-SM


Figure No.: -

Fines (%) 10 PI -



Sample ID: P-11

Sample

Depth (ft.):2 - 3.5

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

9

81

LL

PL

¾ "

½"

-

-

100

100

69

29

100

100

99

91

#200 10


SIEVE ANALYSIS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

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



1002"

Revised 04/27/2004

Drawn By: JTM

Date: 06/18/18

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

Checked By: HML

100

100

100

3"

2 ½"

2"

⅜"

#4

#10

#40

1 ½"

1"

Sample

Description:A-2-4 (0) / SC


Figure No.: -

Fines (%) 30 PI 8



Sample ID: P-1,2,3,5

Sample

Depth (ft.):0-5

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

3

67

LL

PL

¾ "

½"

25

17

100

100

85

59

100

100

100

97

#200 30


SIEVE ANALYSIS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

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



1002"

Revised 04/27/2004

Drawn By: JTM

Date: 06/18/18

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

Checked By: HML

100

100

100

3"

2 ½"

2"

⅜"

#4

#10

#40

1 ½"

1"

Sample

Description:A-1-b (0) / SM-SC


Figure No.: -

Fines (%) 21 PI 4



Sample ID: P-4,7,9,10,11

Sample

Depth (ft.):0-5

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

5

74

LL

PL

¾ "

½"

23

19

100

100

77

42

100

100

98

95

#200 21


SIEVE ANALYSIS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

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



1002"

Revised 04/27/2004

Drawn By: JTM

Date: 06/18/18

Sieve

Size

%

Passing

Checked By: HML

100

100

100

3"

2 ½"

2"

⅜"

#4

#10

#40

1 ½"

1"

Sample

Description:A-1-b (0) / SM


Figure No.: -

Fines (%) 17 PI NP



Sample ID: 25% Asphalt Mix

Sample

Depth (ft.):-

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

16

67

LL

PL

¾ "

½"

NV

NP

100

100

63

35

100

99

97

84

#200 17


SIEVE ANALYSIS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.11101001000

Perc

en

t P

assin

g

Particle Size (mm)

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



1002"

Revised 04/27/2004

Project Number: 217-021 Project Name: Platte Ave Over Sand CreekSample Id: Depth (ft): 0-5Location: Platte Ave Class: 0Date Sampled: 5/24/18 Date Tested: 6/6/18

R-Value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 50

Test Compact. Density Moist. Horizont. Sample Exud. R R

No. Press. (pcf) (%) Pressure Height Pressure Value Value(psi) (psi)'@ 160 psi (in). (psi) Correct.

1 300 121.2 7.0 48 2.61 640 57 622 300 119.2 8.0 59 2.61 416 49 543 300 122.8 9.0 68 2.55 226 43 48

Sampled by: Tested by: M.Aichiouene Checked by:B.LaForceRev.2-2/2011

P-1,2,3,5

Ming

YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INCR-Value Test Report

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

100200300400500600700800

R-V

alue

Exudation Pressure (psi)






1 300 123.3 6.0 44 2.59 575 60 652 300 120.8 7.0 50 2.60 397 55 573 300 126.9 8.0 56 2.49 216 50 48


P-4,7,9,10,11

Ming

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

100200300400500600700800

R-V

alue







1 300 119.4 7.0 28 2.65 542 73 762 300 121.5 8.0 40 2.56 401 63 683 300 130.0 9.0 44 2.41 234 59 57


25% Asphalt Mix

Ming

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

100200300400500600700800

R-V

alue


Appendix D

Pavement Design Output

Traffic Data Memorandum

Page 1

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWareComputer Software Product

Yeh & Associates, Inc.

Flexible Structural Design Module

Platte Ave.: New Asphalt Pavement with FDR

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 9,688,128 Initial Serviceability 4.5 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 95 %Overall Standard Deviation 0.44 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 13,500 psiStage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 4.07 in

Rigorous ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 20 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 41,280 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 2 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 90 %Percent Trucks in Design Direction 50 %

VehicleClass

Percent

ofADT

Annual

%Growth

Average InitialTruck Factor

(ESALs/Truck)

Annual %Growth in

TruckFactor

Accumulated18-kip ESALs

over PerformancePeriod

3 86.89 1.6 0.003 0 413,0207 10.02 1.6 0.249 0 3,953,187

13 3.09 1.6 1.087 0 5,321,920Total 100 - - - 9,688,128

Growth Compound

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 9,688,128

Specified Layer Design

Layer


StructCoef.(Ai)

DrainCoef.(Mi)

Thickness(Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in)1 HMA 0.44 1 6 - 2.642 FDR Material or ABC 0.12 1 12 - 1.44

Total - - - 18.00 - 4.08

Page 1






Platte Ave.: New Asphalt Pavement with Minimal Grade Change


18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 9,688,128 Initial Serviceability 4.5 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 95 %Overall Standard Deviation 0.44 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 13,500 psiStage Construction 1


Rigorous ESAL Calculation


VehicleClass

Percent

ofADT

Annual

%Growth


(ESALs/Truck)

Annual %Growth in

TruckFactor



3 86.89 1.6 0.003 0 413,0207 10.02 1.6 0.249 0 3,953,187

13 3.09 1.6 1.087 0 5,321,920Total 100 - - - 9,688,128

Growth Compound



Layer


StructCoef.(Ai)

DrainCoef.(Mi)

Thickness(Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in)1 HMA 0.44 1 8 - 3.522 FDR Material or ABC 0.12 1 5 - 0.60

Total - - - 13.00 - 4.12

Page 1






Spcae Center Dr.: New Asphalt Pavement with FDR


18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 200,000 Initial Serviceability 4.5 Terminal Serviceability 2 Reliability Level 90 %Overall Standard Deviation 0.44 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 13,500 psiStage Construction 1



Layer


StructCoef.(Ai)

DrainCoef.(Mi)

Thickness(Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in)1 New HMA 0.44 1 4 - 1.762 FDR Material or ABC 0.12 1 8 - 0.96

Total - - - 12.00 - 2.72

Page 1





Overlay Design Module

WB Platte Ave West Edge of Project Minimum Grade Change (remove all existing AC)

AC Overlay of AC/PCC Pavement

Pavement Thickness for Future Traffic 11.34 in

Design Method

Effective ExistingOverlay Thickness (in)

OverlayThickness (in)

Condition Survey 4.96 10.51

Pavement Thickness for Future Traffic

Future 18-kip ESALs Over Design Period 13,221,735 Initial Serviceability 4.5 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 PCC Modulus of Rupture 650 psiPCC Elastic Modulus 3,500,000 psiStatic k-value 60 psi/inReliability Level 95 %Overall Standard Deviation 0.34 Load Transfer Coefficient, J 3.6 Overall Drainage Coefficient, Cd 1.1

Calculated Thickness for Future Traffic 11.34 in

Effective Pavement Thickness - Condition Survey Method

Existing PCC Thickness 6 inExisting AC Thickness 5.5 inAC Milling Thickness 5.5 inRut Depth - inDurability Adjustment Factor 1 Fatigue Damage Adjustment Factor - AC Quality Adjustment Factor 0.9 Number of Deteriorated Joints - per miNumber of Deteriorated Cracks 0 per miNumber of Unrepaired Punchouts 0 per miNumber of Expansion Joints, - Exceptionally Wide Joints, or AC Full Depth Patches 70 per mi

Calculated Results

Calculated Joints and Cracks Adjustment Factor 0.83 Calculated Effective Pavement Thickness 4.96 in

Page 2

Future Rigorous ESAL Calculation


VehicleClass

Percent

ofADT

Annual

%Growth


(ESALs/Truck)

Annual %Growth in

TruckFactor



3 86.89 1.6 0.003 0 413,0207 10.02 1.6 0.285 0 4,524,733

13 3.09 1.6 1.692 0 8,283,982Total 100 - - - 13,221,735

Growth Compound


Layer Information

Layer


Thickness

(in)

One DirWidth

(ft)1 AC Overlay 10.5115704 -

Total - 10.51 -

Page 1





Overlay Design Module

WB Platte Ave East Edge of Project

AC Overlay of AC/PCC Pavement

Pavement Thickness for Future Traffic 11.32 in

Design Method

Effective ExistingOverlay Thickness (in)

OverlayThickness (in)

Condition Survey 9.76 3.13

Pavement Thickness for Future Traffic

Future 18-kip ESALs Over Design Period 13,044,668 Initial Serviceability 4.5 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 PCC Modulus of Rupture 650 psiPCC Elastic Modulus 3,500,000 psiStatic k-value 60 psi/inReliability Level 95 %Overall Standard Deviation 0.34 Load Transfer Coefficient, J 3.6 Overall Drainage Coefficient, Cd 1.1

Calculated Thickness for Future Traffic 11.32 in

Effective Pavement Thickness - Condition Survey Method

Existing PCC Thickness 8 inExisting AC Thickness 10 inAC Milling Thickness 3 inRut Depth - inDurability Adjustment Factor 1 Fatigue Damage Adjustment Factor - AC Quality Adjustment Factor 0.9 Number of Deteriorated Joints - per miNumber of Deteriorated Cracks 0 per miNumber of Unrepaired Punchouts 0 per miNumber of Expansion Joints, - Exceptionally Wide Joints, or AC Full Depth Patches 70 per mi

Calculated Results

Calculated Joints and Cracks Adjustment Factor 0.83 Calculated Effective Pavement Thickness 9.76 in

Page 2

Future Rigorous ESAL Calculation


VehicleClass

Percent

ofADT

Annual

%Growth


(ESALs/Truck)

Annual %Growth in

TruckFactor



3 86.89 1.6 0.003 0 407,4897 10.02 1.6 0.285 0 4,464,137

13 3.09 1.6 1.692 0 8,173,042Total 100 - - - 13,044,668

Growth Simple


Layer Information

Layer


Thickness

(in)

One DirWidth

(ft)1 AC Overlay 3.1326183 -

Total - 3.13 -

Location: PLATTE AVE WIO SAND CREEK BRIDGE

Date Range: 81112017 - 81712017

Site Code: 01DATA SOLUTIONS

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday8/112017 812/2017 8/3/2017 8/4/2017 816/2017 81612017 8/712017 MId-Week Average

Time EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total1200AM 105 66 171 105 66 1711:00AM 84 49 133 84 49 1332:00AM 68 42 110 68 42 1103:00AM 55 101 156 - - 55 101 156

4:00AM 125 184 309 125 184 3095:00AM 374 742 1,116 374 742 1,1166:00 AM 1330 1643 2,973

- 1,330 1,643 2,9737:00 AM 1,605 2292 3,897 - - - - - - 1,605 2,292 3,8978:00 AM 981 1,678 2,659 - 981 1678 2,6599:00 AM 820 1,339 2,159 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - 820 1339 2,15910:00AM 790 1,241 2,031 - - - - - - - - - 790 1,241 2,03111:00AM 864 1,192 2,056 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 864 1,192 2,05612:00 PM 1.073 1,176 2,249 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,073 1,176 2,2491:00 PM 957 1,105 2,062 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 957 1,105 2,0622:00PM 1,105 1,170 2,275 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,105 1,170 2,2753:00 PM 1,356 1478 2,836 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,358 1,478 2,8364:00 PM 1,801 1,626 3,427 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,801 1,626 3,4275:00PM 2,021 1,275 3,296 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,021 1,275 3,2966:00 PM 1.353 891 2,244 - - - - - - - - - - 1,353 891 2,2447:00 PM 825 599 1,424 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 825 599 1,4248:00PM 724 439 1,163 . - - . - - - - 724 439 1,1639:00 PM 526 298 824 - - - - - - - - - - . 526 298 82410:00PM 356 212 568 - - - - - - - - - - 356 212 56811:00PM 195 137 332 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 195 137 332

Total 19,496 20,975 40,470 - - - - - - - - - 19,495 20,975 40,470Percent 48% 62% - - - - - - - - - - - 43% 523’o -

1 Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday.

Nathan Warren: (720) 646-1008

[email protected]

Vehicle Classification Report Summary

DATA SOLUTIONS

Location: PLATTE AVE WIO SAND CREEK BRIDGECount Direction: Eastbound I WestboundDate Range: 81112017 to 81112017Site Code: 01

FHWA Vehicle Classification Total1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 Volume

Study TotalEastbound 162 12,109 4,736 46 1,601 206 0 104 251 135 14 9 122 19,495Percent 0.8% 62.1% 24.3% 0.2% 8.2% 1.1% 0.0% 0.5% 1.3% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.6% 100%Westbound 91 12,759 5,304 57 1,929 216 0 99 322 109 8 8 73 20,975Percent 0.4% 60.8% 25.3% 0.3% 9.2% 1.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 100%Total 253 24,868 10,040 103 3,530 422 0 203 573 244 22 17 195 40,470Percent 0.6% 61.4% 24.8% 0.3% 8.7% 1.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 100%

FHWA Vehicle ClassificationClass 1 - Motorcycles Class 8 - Four or Fewer Axle Single-Trailer TrucksClass 2 - Passenger Cars Class 9 - Five-Axle Single-Trailer TrucksClass 3 - Other Two-Axle, Four-Tire Single Unit Vehicles Class 10 - Six or More Axle Single-Trailer TrucksClass 4 - Buses Class 11 - Five or fewer Axle Multi-Trailer TrucksClass 5 - Two-Axle, Six-Tire, Single-Unit Trucks Class 12 - Six-Axle Multi-Trailer TrucksClass 6 - Three-Axle Single-Unit Trucks Class 13 - Seven or More Axle Multi-Trailer TrucksClass 7 - Four or More Axle Single-Unit Trucks

Nathan Warren: (720) [email protected]

PLATTE AVE WIO SAND CREEK BRIDGE8/112017 to 81112017

01

FHWA Vehicle Classification TotalTime 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume

12:00AM 0 85 11 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1051:00AM 3 59 16 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 842:00AM 0 44 11 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 683:00AM 0 40 10 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 554:00AM 2 77 19 1 17 1 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 1255:00AM 1 234 78 1 47 1 0 2 5 5 0 0 0 3746:00AM 9 839 311 0 132 7 0 7 12 8 0 1 4 1,3307:00AM 14 1,048 353 6 109 13 0 6 20 21 2 2 9 1,6058:00AM 4 544 285 4 93 17 0 3 17 9 0 0 5 9819:00AM 4 446 211 2 92 16 0 5 18 9 3 0 14 82010:00AM 8 441 188 6 77 20 0 6 30 5 1 0 8 79011:00AM 9 478 228 5 83 15 0 7 22 7 1 0 9 86412:00PM 13 641 259 5 90 16 0 9 15 12 0 0 13 1,0731:00PM 8 552 254 3 86 10 0 5 23 8 2 0 6 9572:00PM 9 625 306 4 91 26 0 7 22 9 0 2 4 1,1053:00PM 13 806 344 3 105 21 0 13 25 8 0 2 18 1,3584:00PM 16 1,130 467 1 128 16 0 8 13 9 2 0 11 1,8015:00PM 15 1,339 468 2 141 14 0 11 9 9 0 1 12 2,0216:00 PM 10 896 319 0 101 6 0 2 4 5 1 1 8 1,3537:00 PM 9 547 189 0 65 4 0 4 4 3 0 0 0 8258:00 PM 7 480 175 0 52 1 0 3 1 4 0 0 1 7249:00 PM 3 363 121 0 33 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 52610:00 PM 3 254 75 0 20 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 35611:00PM 2 141 38 0 12 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 195Total 162 12,109 4,736 46 1,601 206 0 104 251 135 14 9 122 19,495Percent 0.8% 62.1% 24.3% 0.2% 8.2% 1.1% 0.0% 0.5% 1.3% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.6%

Nathan Warren: (720) 646-1008

Location:Date Range:Site Code:

Tuesday, August 1, 2017Eastbound

DATA SOLUTIONS

[email protected]

Location: PLATTE AVE WIO SAND CREEK BRIDGEDate Range: 8/112017 to 811!2017Site Code: 01

Tuesday, August 1, 2017DATA SOLUTIONS

Westbound

FHWA Vehicle Classification TotalTime 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume

12:00AM 0 47 8 0 7 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 661:00AM 1 36 6 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 492:00AM 1 22 14 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 423:00AM 0 57 28 0 11 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1014:00AM 1 119 39 0 17 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1845:00AM 10 456 187 0 65 9 0 0 11 3 0 1 0 7426:00AM 7 1007 424 2 151 15 0 4 20 7 1 2 3 1,6437:00AM 7 1417 601 5 220 4 0 6 18 4 1 1 8 2,2928:00AM 3 1038 423 4 154 14 0 4 22 11 0 1 4 1,6789:00AM 5 806 337 5 122 14 0 9 21 13 1 0 6 1,33910:00AM 5 753 316 3 114 11 0 6 20 5 0 1 7 1,24111:00AM 5 721 296 6 105 12 0 10 22 10 0 0 5 1,19212:00PM 2 674 306 4 111 14 0 8 37 7 2 0 11 1,1761:00PM 4 593 283 7 148 20 0 6 33 5 0 0 6 1,1052:00PM 10 653 302 5 123 27 0 15 22 7 1 0 5 1,1703:00PM 3 896 353 7 136 28 0 4 28 14 0 1 8 1,4784:00PM 7 1,014 392 7 136 20 0 12 21 14 0 0 3 1,6265:00PM 7 792 339 0 98 11 0 8 11 3 0 0 6 1,2756:00 PM 5 573 229 1 63 5 0 2 8 3 0 1 1 8917:00 PM 5 372 159 0 57 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 5998:00PM 2 272 113 0 40 1 0 3 5 2 1 0 0 4399:00 PM 1 200 68 1 23 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 29810:00PM 0 153 41 0 16 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 21211:00PM 0 88 40 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 137Total 91 12,759 5,304 57 1,929 216 0 99 322 109 8 8 73 20,975Percent 0.4% 60.8% 25.3% 0.3% 9.2% 1.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%

Nathan Warren: (720) [email protected]

Documents

217-021 FINAL Platte over Sand Creek Pavement …...Project Engineer Project Manager Independent Reviewer: Robert L. LaForce, P.E. Senior Project Manager 3-20-19 i Table of Contents