Roadway Geotechnical Engineering Report

Roadway GeotechnicalEngineering Report

Grand Avenue Frontage Road ImprovementsUS 60 – Greenway Road to Thompson Ranch TI

El Mirage, ArizonaADOT Tracs No. 060 MA 145 H8874 01D

Federal Aid No. 060-B(224)sTerracon Project No. 65165128

June 27, 2017

Prepared for:Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Tempe, Arizona

Prepared by:Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Tempe, Arizona

Terracon Consul tants, Inc. 4685 South Ash Avenue, Suite H-4, Tempe, Ar izona 85282P [480] 897-8200 F [480]-897-1133 terracon.com

June 27, 2017

Burgess & Niple, Inc.1500 North Priest DriveSuite 101Tempe, Arizona 85281

Attn: Mr. Todd Cencimino, P.E.

Re: Roadway Geotechnical Engineering ReportGrand Avenue Frontage Road ImprovementsUS 60 – Greenway Road to Thompson Ranch TIEl Mirage, ArizonaADOT Project No. 060 MA 145 H8874 01DFederal Aid No. 060-B(224)sTerracon Project No. 65165128

Dear Mr. Cencimino:

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed geotechnical engineering services for theproposed Grand Avenue Frontage Road Improvements project located in El Mirage, Arizona.This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal number P65165128R1,dated May 4, 2016. Terracon has prepared a Pavement Design Summary and Materials DesignReport for the project issued under separate cover.

We appreciate being of service to you in the pavement engineering phase of this project. If youhave any questions concerning this report or any of our testing, inspection, design andconsulting services, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Ramon Padilla, P.E. Donald R. Clark, P.E.Geotechnical Project Manager Senior Principal

Copies to: Addressee (1 via email)

Roadway Geotechnical Engineering ReportGrand Avenue Frontage Road Improvements ■ El Mirage, ArizonaJune 27, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No. 65165128

Resourceful ■ Responsive ■ Reliable

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................12.0 PROJECT INFORMATION .............................................................................................2

2.1 Project Description ...............................................................................................22.2 Site Description ....................................................................................................3

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................33.1 Subsurface Soil Conditions ..................................................................................33.2 Existing Pavement Section ..................................................................................43.3 Laboratory Test Data – Subgrade Soils ...............................................................4

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ......................................44.1 Geotechnical Considerations ...............................................................................44.2 Pavement Subgrade Parameters .........................................................................54.3 General Earthwork Considerations.......................................................................54.4 Earthwork Factors and Slopes .............................................................................64.5 Water ...................................................................................................................64.6 Corrosion Potential ..............................................................................................6

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS .................................................................................................7

Exhibit No.Appendix A – Field Exploration

Site Plan and Boring Locations Diagram ..................................................................... A-1Field Exploration Description ....................................................................................... A-2General Notes ............................................................................................................. A-3Unified Soil Classification System ................................................................................ A-4Boring Logs ............................................................................................ A-5 through A-12

Appendix B – Laboratory TestingLaboratory Test Description ......................................................................................... B-1Atterberg Limits Results............................................................................................... B-2Grain Size Distribution .................................................................................... B-3 and B-4R-Value .................................................................................................... B-5 through B-7Summary of Laboratory Results .................................................................................. B-8

Resourceful ■ Responsive ■ Reliable 1

ROADWAY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORTGRAND AVENUE FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENTSUS 60 – GREENWAY ROAD TO THOMPSON RANCH TI

EL MIRAGE, ARIZONA

Terracon Project No. 65165128June 27, 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposedGrand Avenue Frontage Road Improvements project located from approximately GreenwayRoad to Thompson Ranch TI in El Mirage, Arizona. The purpose of these services is to provideinformation and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to the planned earthworkand pavement improvements. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are basedon the results of field and laboratory testing, experience with similar soil conditions andpavements, and our understanding of the proposed project.

Our geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included the advancement of eight (8)shallow borings, laboratory testing, geotechnical engineering analysis, and preparation of thisreport. Logs of the borings along with a Site Plan and Boring Locations diagram (Exhibit A-1) areincluded in Appendix A of this report. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soilsamples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included in Appendix B of this report.Descriptions of the field exploration and laboratory testing are included in their respectiveappendices.



2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Improvements

Based on the Final Project Assessment, we understand the length of the proposedFrontage Road improvements is approximately 1.2 miles. The majority of theexisting AC pavement is in fair apparent condition. The existing 11.5-inch pavementsection consists of 7.5 inches of AC pavement and 4 inches of Class 2 aggregatebase course (ABC). The following improvement options were evaluated:

■ Mill and Replace the existing top layer of AC pavement. This option isconsidered a feasible alternative for the majority of the existing ACpavement if existing curb on both sides of the pavement remains.

■ Full Depth Reconstruction of the existing pavement structural section.This option would update the roadway section width and cross slope andreconstruct the outside curb and gutter.

Note: We understand Full Depth Reconstruction was selected for the project.

The City’s standard arterial roadway structural section consists of 5 inches of ACover 12 inches of ABC (with a total thickness of 17 inches), which variesconsiderably when compared to the existing pavement thickness (totaling 11.5inches). The City’s 17-inch pavement section consists of 1 ½-inch Asphalt-RubberAsphaltic Concrete (ARAC) Surface Course on 3 ½-inch AC Base Course on 12inches of ABC.

In addition, we understand the project will include relocating the Frontage Roadconnection to US 60 at Acoma Drive by removing the existing midblock accessconnection south of the intersection to better align with Acoma Drive to complete afour way intersection. The new location of the connection will require that a portionof the raised median along US 60 be removed and paved to extend the US 60-to-connector left turn lane. We understand the length of this improvement will be lessthan 200 feet. At the current connection location, the concrete box culverts andchannel lining will be removed. The concrete box culverts and channel lining will bereconstructed at the new location to match the previous drainage structure.

Grading Finished grades are anticipated to generally remain the same with the proposedimprovements. Therefore, no cuts and fills are anticipated for the project.

Traffic Loading

The following traffic data was provided to us for use in our pavement structuredesign:Frontage Road, NW of Acoma Drive, 2013 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 2,800vehicles.Frontage Road, NW of Thompson Ranch Rd, 2011 ADT of 1,130 vehicles.Traffic volumes growth of less than 10 percent from 2011 to 2035.Five percent trucks was estimated.



2.2 Site Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Location The project site is located along Grand Avenue Frontage Road fromapproximately Greenway Road to Thompson Ranch TI in El Mirage, Arizona.

ExistingImprovements

n We understand the existing Grand Avenue Frontage Road is classifiedas a collector street and consists of a two (2) lane roadway (1 lane ineach direction) located adjacent and parallel to US 60 (Grand Avenue).Both the Frontage Road and US 60 are oriented northwest to southeast.

n The Frontage Road pavement is bounded to the southwest by curb,gutter, sidewalk, landscaped areas, and generally followed bycommercial developments and occasional vacant lots. The FrontageRoad pavement is bounded to the northeast by curb, gutter, a relativelylarge storm-drainage canal (approximately 30 feet wide and 10 feetdeep), and followed by US 60.

n As previously mentioned, an existing box culvert bridge locatedapproximately 150 feet southeast of Acoma Drive provides a midblockaccess connection between the Frontage Road and US 60.

Current Ground CoverAsphalt concrete pavement on the roadway, Portland cement concretesidewalks, landscaped areas, and adjacent storm drainage canal had aconcrete cover.

Existing Topography Appears to be relatively flat sloping gently down towards the southeast.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Subsurface Soil Conditions

Specific conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logsincluded in Appendix A of this report. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent theapproximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may begradual. Based on conditions encountered in the borings, subsurface conditions on the project sitecan be generalized as follows:

DescriptionApproximate

Depth to Bottomof Stratum (feet)

Material Encountered

Stratum 11 1 to 4 FILL: Poorly graded gravel with clay and sand, well graded gravelwith sand, and poorly graded sand with gravel.

Stratum 2 5 (maximumdepth explored)

Clayey sand, silty clayey sand, sandy silty clay, and silty clay withsand.

1 Fill was encountered at the location of Borings B-2, B-3, and B-6. Fill at the location of Boring B-2extended beyond the depth of boring.



Laboratory tests consisting of dry unit weight, moisture content, Atterberg Limits, grain sizedistribution, R-value, and pH and resistivity were conducted on selected soil samples and thetest results are summarized below and presented in Appendix B.

3.2 Existing Pavement Section

As previously outlined, the existing roadway consist of an asphalt concrete (AC) pavedroadway. Based on the Final Project Assessment, we understand the existing pavement sectionfor the Grand Avenue Frontage Road has a total thickness of 11.5-inches consisting of 7.5inches of AC pavement and 4 inches of Class 2 aggregate base course (ABC).

3.3 Laboratory Test Data – Subgrade Soils

For purposes of subgrade evaluation, the results of the laboratory testing, including tested andcorrelated R-Values, are summarized in the following table:

SUMMARY OF TESTED AND CORRELATED R-VALUES

Boring Approximate Station; Offset Depth (ft.) LL PI -#200 R-ValueTested

R-ValueCorrelated

B-1 108+00; ±20’R 1-4 30 11 47 24 34B-2 116+00; ±20’R 1-3.5 31 12 8 --- 56B-3 123+00; ±110’L 1-2 26 9 26 --- 49B-4 130+00; ±20’R 1.5-4 25 7 41 --- 43B-5 138+00; ±20’R 1-4 23 6 45 32 42B-6 145+70; ±15’R 2.5-5 23 7 57 --- 35B-7 153+60; ±20’R 0.5-5 25 5 81 34 27B-8 162+00; ±20’R 1-3 22 4 43 --- 47

Count 3 8Average 30 41.7

Standard Deviation 5.3 9.4Rmean 35.3

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

Geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of earth connectedphases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this report arebased upon the results of the test borings performed by Terracon (which are presented in



Appendix A) and laboratory testing (which is presented in Appendix B), engineering analyses,and our current understanding of the proposed project.

4.2 Pavement Subgrade Parameters

The laboratory test data was used to establish one mean R-Value for pavement design withinthe project limits. The data indicates the existing subgrade soils at the site have relatively goodsupport characteristics for the planned pavement sections.

For purposes of pavement subgrade evaluation, the results of the laboratory testing, includingcorrelated and tested R-Values, in accordance with the ADOT Preliminary Engineering andDesign Manual (PEDM) were previously summarized in a table above. Based on the laboratorytest results, the average R-value tested was 30 and the average correlated R-value wasapproximately 42. The calculated mean R-Value for the project is approximately 35. Weunderstand no significant earthwork is anticipated and the existing subgrade is planned tosupport the proposed improvements. Therefore, we recommend a design R-value of 30 (of theexisting subgrade soils) be used for design purposes. The corresponding resilient modulus is17,875 pounds per square inch (psi) for a seasonal variation factor of 1.0 for Phoenix, Arizona.

4.3 General Earthwork Considerations

The following presents recommendations for excavation and subgrade preparation on theproject. Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by a licensed geotechnicalengineer. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill,subgrade preparation, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of theproject.

It is anticipated that excavations for much of the proposed construction can be accomplishedwith conventional earthmoving equipment. Based upon the subsurface conditions determinedfrom the geotechnical exploration, most of the subgrade soils exposed during construction areexpected to be relatively stable. The stability of the subgrade may be affected by repetitiveconstruction traffic, moisture, or other factors.

Exposed areas which will receive fill or aggregate base course, once properly cleared andbenched where necessary, should be scarified to a minimum depth of six (6) inches, moistureconditioned, and compacted in accordance with ADOT specifications. Exposed surfaces shouldbe free of mounds and depressions which could prevent uniform compaction.

All fill that will be placed in the project should conform to the latest ADOT standard specificationsfor embankment material and have equal or greater support characteristics than the on-sitesoils. Finished grades after the proposed improvements are anticipated to remain approximatelythe same as existing grades; therefore, significant amounts of imported fill are not anticipated. Fill



soils placed within 3 feet of the finished roadway subgrade should exhibit an R-value of 35 ormore. Fill soils to be utilized within the top 3 feet below the proposed pavement base shouldmeet the requirements of the Subgrade Acceptance Chart provided in the Materials DesignReport.

4.4 Earthwork Factors and Slopes

Based on the anticipated improvements, earthwork factors and ground compaction areestimated to be relatively small amounts and new cut or fill slopes are not anticipated.Recommended slopes and shrinkage due to re-compaction of materials is presented in thefollowing table:

Location EarthworkFactor

Ground Compaction(feet)

Recommend Slope(horizontal: vertical)

Grand Avenue Frontage Road andUS 60-to-Connector Left Turn Lane <5% shrink <0.1

Fill Slopes: 3:1, or flatterCut Slopes: 3:1, or flatter

Construction of fill slopes should be in accordance with Section 203-10 of the ADOT StandardSpecifications (ADOT, 2008). Slopes constructed at slope inclinations steeper than 3H:1Vshould have surface erosion measures considered in the design.

The face of all slopes should be compacted to the minimum specification for fillembankments. Fill slopes can be over-built and trimmed to expose a compacted slope surface.

4.5 Water

For balancing grading plans, approximately 90 gallons of water per cubic yard should beestimated for compaction of base materials. Approximately 90 gallons of water per cubic yardshould be estimated for compaction of subgrade materials.

The application of water estimated for subgrade materials is considerably higher than theamount calculated based upon the difference between in-situ and optimum compaction moisturecontent, and includes a conservative overrun for losses due to seepage, evaporation,inadequate mixing, spillage, etc. Precipitation during and/or before construction, or otherweather conditions may reduce the required amount of water.

4.6 Corrosion Potential

Laboratory testing was performed on selected samples obtained from our borings andsummarized in the table below:



Summary of Chemical Laboratory Testing

Boring Depth(feet)

ApproximateStation; Offset pH Minimum Resistivity

(ohm-cm)Sulfates(ppm)

Chlorides(ppm)

B-3 1 – 2 123+00; ±110’L 8.4 1,815 193 39B-4 1.5 – 4 130+00; ±20’R 8.3 859 164 63B-6 2.5 – 5 145+70; ±15’R 8.2 859 284 38

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so commentscan be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendationsin the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation andtesting services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-relatedconstruction phases of the project.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtainedfrom the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed inthis report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between boring locations,across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature andextent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variationsappear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplementalrecommendations can be provided.

The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication anyenvironmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification orprevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about thepotential 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 theproject discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnicalengineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Sitesafety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In theevent that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report areplanned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be consideredvalid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of thisreport in writing.



APPENDIX AFIELD EXPLORATION

W

.

S

A

N

T

A

F

E

L

N

B-3

W

.

T

H

O

M

P

S

O

N

R

A

N

C

H

R

D

VENTURA ST

A

C

O

M

A

D

R

N. E

L M

IR

AG

E R

D

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-2

B-1

GREENWAY BLVD

ALT

O S

T

PR

IM

RO

SE

S

T

LU

NA

S

T

G

R

A

N

D

A

V

E

F

R

O

N

T

A

G

E

R

D

PA

LM

S

T

EL F

RIO

S

T

T

H

O

M

P

S

O

N

R

A

N

C

H

R

D

Project No.

N

Scale:

Date:

File No.

SITE PLAN AND BORING LOCATIONS

DRC

RP

KLJ

RP

08/22/2016

65165128.DWG

AS SHOWN

65165128Project Mngr:

Approved By:

Checked By:

Drawn By:

EXHIBIT

ADOT Project No.: 060 MA 145 H8874 01D Federal Aid No.: 060-B(224)s

SITE

A-1PH. (480) 897-8200

Consulting Engineers and Scientists

Tempe, AZ 852824685 South Ash Avenue, Suite H-4FAX. (480) 897-1133

NOT TO SCALE

VICINITY MAPS

N

LEGEND:

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

HAND AUGER BORINGS

APPROXIMATE SCALE

0300' 600'

N. E

L MI

RAGE

RD

N

60

101 51

PHOENIX

SCOTTSDALE

MESA

QUEEN

CREEK

CHANDLER

SURPRISE

101

101

202

202

202

6060

303

303

GILBERT

TEMPE

GLENDALE

PEORIA

CAVE

CREEK

AVONDALE

BUCKEYE

GOODYEAR

FOUNTAIN

HILLS

EL MIRAGE

TOLLESON

60

W. GREENWAY RD

N. D

YSAR

T R

D

W. THUNDERBIRD RD

U

.

S

.

6

0

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-8

B-7

B-6

B-5

B-4

17

10 10

10

10

17

60

60

SITE

W. BELL RD

W. CACTUS RD

N. 11

1 th

AVE

N. LI

TCHF

IELD

RD

ZOOMED

IN VIEW

G

R

A

N

D

A

V

E

N. B

ULLA

RD A

VE

N. 10

7 th

AVE

Grand Avenue Frontage Road

US60 - Greenway Road to Thompson Ranch TI, El Mirage, Arizona

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOTE: SITE IMAGES FROM GOOGLE EARTH, PRO, AND GOOGLE ONLINE MAPS, 2016 SITE IMAGES FROM GOOGLE EARTH, PRO, AND GOOGLE ONLINE MAPS, 2016SITE IMAGES FROM GOOGLE EARTH, PRO, AND GOOGLE ONLINE MAPS, 2016IMAGES FROM GOOGLE EARTH, PRO, AND GOOGLE ONLINE MAPS, 2016


Resourceful ■ Responsive ■ Reliable Exhibit A-2

Field Exploration Description

A total of eight (8) test borings were advanced at the site on July 29, 2016. The borings wereadvanced utilizing hand auger methods to depths of up to approximately five (5) feet below theexisting ground surface. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached Site Planand Boring Locations diagram, Exhibit A-1.

The borings were located in the field utilizing an aerial photograph and a hand held GPS unit.Latitude and longitude coordinates for each boring were obtained from Google Earth Pro andshould be considered approximate. The borings were backfilled with cuttings.

Continuous lithologic logs of each boring were recorded by the field engineer during the drillingoperations. Penetration resistance measurements were also obtained by driving a DynamicCone Penetrometer at selected depths. Blows for three (3) consecutive 1.75-inch penetrometerdrives totaling 5.25-inches of penetration (unless otherwise noted) were measured and arepresented on the boring logs at the corresponding depths. These penetration resistance valuessubjected to empirical correlations and used in estimating the consistency or relative density ofmaterials encountered. The correlation of dynamic cone penetrometer tests to N-Value is basedon a paper prepared by Sowers and Hedges, Special Technical Bulletin 399, dated 1966. Bulksamples of subsurface materials were also obtained from the auger cuttings.

Groundwater conditions were evaluated in the borings at the time of site exploration.

Water levels indicated on the soil boringlogs are the levels measured in theborehole at the times indicated.Groundwater level variations will occurover time. In low permeability soils,accurate determination of groundwaterlevels is not possible with short termwater level observations.

NoRecovery

ModifiedDames & MooreRing Sampler

GrabSample

ModifiedCalifornia

Ring Sampler

GENERAL NOTES

4 - 8

Unconfined CompressiveStrength, Qu, psf

ST

RE

NG

TH

TE

RM

S

Over 12 in. (300 mm)12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mmPassing #200 sieve (0.075mm)

Particle Size

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

< 55 - 12> 12

Percent ofDry Weight

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES

01 - 1011 - 30

> 30

Plasticity Index

SA

MP

LIN

G

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

> 99 4,000 to 8,000

2,000 to 4,000

MacroCore

1,000 to 2,000

500 to 1,000

less than 500

Stiff59 - 98

19 - 5810 - 29

Soft7 - 18

Very Soft0 - 60 - 3Very Loose

Hard

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

Includes gravels, sands and silts.

Percent ofDry Weight

Major Componentof Sample

Water Level After aSpecified Period of Time

Water InitiallyEncountered

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

< 1515 - 29> 30

Term

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

8 - 15

RockCore

Split SpoonShelby Tube

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

30 - 50

5 - 9Medium-Stiff

3 - 42 - 44 - 9

< 30 - 1

Very Dense

Dense

Medium Dense

Ring SamplerBlows/Ft.

Ring SamplerBlows/Ft.

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

Very Stiff

Loose

Descriptive Term(Consistency)

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

TraceWithModifier

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

Water Level Aftera Specified Period of Time

TraceWithModifier

Bulk

Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dryweight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils haveless than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, andsilts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may beadded according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are definedon the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracyof such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey wasconducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographicmaps of the area.

> 8,000

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field

visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance

(HP)

(T)

(b/f)

N

(PID)

(OVA)

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Standard PenetrationTest (blows per foot)

N value

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

_

> 42> 30

19 - 4215 - 30> 50

10 - 18

BouldersCobblesGravelSandSilt or Clay

Non-plasticLowMediumHigh

Descriptive Term(Density)

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FIE

LD

TE

ST

S

jrhuston

Exhibit A-3

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group Symbol Group Name B

Coarse Grained Soils: More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels: More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels: Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines: More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands: 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands: Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines: More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils: 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays: Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line J CL Lean clay K,L,M PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays: Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles

or boulders, or both” to group name. C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded

gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc = 6010

230

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name. I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name. J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,”

whichever is predominant. L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to

group name. M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name. N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O PI 4 or plots below “A” line. P PI plots on or above “A” line. Q PI plots below “A” line.

jrhuston

Exhibit A-4

4730-19-11

7-15-14

70/1.75"4.0

CLAYEY SAND (SC), red to brown, medium dense, trace gravel

dense to very denseAuger Refusal at 4 Feet

Hammer Type: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

516

512

8.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T

8/20

/16

SITE:

Page 1 of 1

Advancement Method:Hand Auger

Abandonment Method:Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.

4685 S Ash Ave Ste H-4Tempe, AZ

Notes:

Project No.: 65165128

Drill Rig: Hand Auger

Boring Started: 7/29/2016

BORING LOG NO. B-1Burgess & Niple, Inc.CLIENT:Tempe, Arizona

Driller: Terracon

Boring Completed: 7/29/2016

Exhibit: A-5

See Exhibit A-2 for description of fieldproceduresSee Appendix B for description of laboratoryprocedures and additional data (if any).

From Greenway Rd to Thompson Ranch TI El Mirage, Arizona

PROJECT: Grand Avenue Frontage Road Improvements

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

DC

P(b

low

s/5.

25 in

ches

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

DEPTH

LOCATION

Latitude: 33.62258° Longitude: -112.33021°

See Exhibit A-1

Groundwater not encounteredWATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

831-19-12

25-52-753.8

FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND SAND(GP-GC), brown, dense to very dense, with cobbles

Auger Refusal at 3.8 Feet


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

516

512

8.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T

8/20

/16

SITE:

Page 1 of 1




Notes:





Driller: Terracon


Exhibit: A-6




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

DC

P(b

low

s/5.

25 in

ches

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-1


2626-17-975/1.5"

75/0.25"

1.0

2.0

FILL - WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW), brown,dense to very dense

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), brown, dense to verydense

Auger Refusal at 2 Feet


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

516

512

8.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T

8/20

/16

SITE:

Page 1 of 1




Notes:





Driller: Terracon


Exhibit: A-7




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

DC

P(b

low

s/5.

25 in

ches

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-1


4125-18-78-10-12

18-18-274.0

SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), brown, loose to medium dense

medium dense



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

516

512

8.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T

8/20

/16

SITE:

Page 1 of 1




Notes:





Driller: Terracon


Exhibit: A-8




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

DC

P(b

low

s/5.

25 in

ches

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-1


4523-17-67-8-10

75/1"4.0

SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), trace gravel, brown, loose tomedium dense

dense to very dense



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

516

512

8.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T

8/20

/16

SITE:

Page 1 of 1




Notes:





Driller: Terracon


Exhibit: A-9




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

DC

P(b

low

s/5.

25 in

ches

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-1


5723-16-7

2.5

5.0

FILL - POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP-SM),brown, with cobbles

SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), brown, trace gravel

Boring Terminated at 5 Feet


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

516

512

8.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T

8/20

/16

SITE:

Page 1 of 1




Notes:





Driller: Terracon


Exhibit: A-10




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

DC

P(b

low

s/5.

25 in

ches

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-1


8125-20-5

4-6-6

9-20-175.0

SILTY CLAY WITH SAND (CL-ML), brown, medium stiff

Boring Terminated at 5 Feet


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

516

512

8.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T

8/20

/16

SITE:

Page 1 of 1




Notes:





Driller: Terracon


Exhibit: A-11




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

DC

P(b

low

s/5.

25 in

ches

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-1


4322-18-48-10-10

75/1"3.0

SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), brown, loose to medium dense,trace gravel

dense to very dense



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

516

512

8.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T

8/20

/16

SITE:

Page 1 of 1




Notes:





Driller: Terracon


Exhibit: A-12




PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

DC

P(b

low

s/5.

25 in

ches

)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

DEPTH

LOCATION


See Exhibit A-1




APPENDIX BLABORATORY TESTING


Resourceful ■ Responsive ■ Reliable Exhibit B-1

Laboratory Testing

Samples retrieved during the field exploration were taken to the laboratory for furtherobservation by the project geotechnical engineer and were classified in accordance with theUnified Soil Classification System (USCS) described in Appendix A. At that time, the fielddescriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testingprogram was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials.

Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented inthis appendix. The laboratory test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses,and the development of recommendations. Laboratory tests were performed in generalaccordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards.

Selected soil samples obtained from the site were tested for the following engineeringproperties:

n Sieve Analysisn Atterberg Limits

n pH & Minimum Resistivityn Soluble Sulfates and Chlorides

n R-value

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

CH o

r

OH

CL o

r

OL

ML or OL

MH or OH

PL PIBoring ID Depth Description

CLAYEY SAND

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY and SAND

CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND

SANDY SILTY CLAY

SILTY CLAY with SAND

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND

SC

GP-GC

SC

SC-SM

SC-SM

CL-ML

CL-ML

SC-SM

Fines

PLASTICITY

INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT

"U" L

ine

"A" L

ine

30

31

26

25

23

23

25

22

19

19

17

18

17

16

20

18

11

12

9

7

6

7

5

4

47

8

26

41

45

57

81

43

LL USCS

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTSASTM D4318

1 - 4

1 - 3.5

1 - 2

1.5 - 4

1 - 4

2.5 - 5

0.5 - 5

1 - 3


PROJECT NUMBER: 65165128PROJECT: Grand Avenue Frontage Road

Improvements

SITE: From Greenway Rd to ThompsonRanch TI

El Mirage, Arizona

CLIENT: Burgess & Niple, Inc. Tempe, Arizona

EXHIBIT: B-2

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

AT

TE

RB

ER

G L

IMIT

S 6

5165

128.

GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

15.G

DT

8/

22/1

6

CL-ML

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

30

31

26

25

23

5.075

0.117

0.173

26.743

0.891

0.199

0.201

31.5

75

31.5

25

19

6 16 20 30 40 501.5 2006 810

7.1

66.0

22.0

3.4

4.1

0.121

14

46.8

8.4

26.0

41.4

44.9

%Fines

LL PL PI

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

221.63

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarse fine

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

19

19

17

18

17

11

12

9

7

6

7.98

D100

Cc Cu

SILT OR CLAY

4

%Sand%GravelD30 D10

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

USCS Classification

46.1

20.8

52.0

55.2

51.1

D60

coarse medium

Boring ID Depth

Boring ID Depth

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with CLAY and SAND (GP-GC)

CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC)

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM)


ASTM D422 / ASTM C136

1 - 4

1 - 3.5

1 - 2

1.5 - 4

1 - 4

1 - 4

1 - 3.5

1 - 2

1.5 - 4

1 - 4



Improvements


El Mirage, Arizona


EXHIBIT: B-3

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E: U

SC

S-2

651

651

28.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T 8

/22/

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

B-6

B-7

B-8

23

25

22

0.093

0.221

31.5

4.75

19

6 16 20 30 40 501.5 2006 810

4.8

0.0

7.1

14

56.7

80.7

43.3

%Fines

LL PL PI

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

B-6

B-7

B-8

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarse fine

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

16

20

18

7

5

4

D100

Cc Cu

SILT OR CLAY

4

%Sand%GravelD30 D10

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

USCS Classification

38.6

19.3

49.6

D60

coarse medium

Boring ID Depth

Boring ID Depth

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)

SILTY CLAY with SAND (CL-ML)


ASTM D422 / ASTM C136

2.5 - 5

0.5 - 5

1 - 3

2.5 - 5

0.5 - 5

1 - 3



Improvements


El Mirage, Arizona


EXHIBIT: B-4

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E: U

SC

S-2

651

651

28.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T 8

/22/

16

PROJECT: Grand Avenue Frontage Road JOB NO: 65165128LOCATION: US60-Greenway Rd to Thompson Ranch TI, El Mirage, AZ WORK ORDER NO: 65165128MATERIAL: Clayey Sand (SC) LAB NO: B-1SAMPLE SOURCE: B-1 @ 1-4 DATE SAMPLED: 08/08/16

SPECIMEN I. D. A B C

Moisture Content 16.3% 15.0% 13.7%Compaction Pressure (psi) 100 150 325Specimen Height (inches) 2.59 2.53 2.45Dry Density (pcf) 114.1 117.3 122.3Horiz. Pres. @ 1000lbs (psi) 51.0 37.0 24.0Horiz. Pres. @ 2000lbs (psi) 122.0 97.0 60.0Displacement 4.12 4.07 3.87Expansion Pressure (psi) 0.3 0.7 3.1Exudation Pressure (psi) 224 344 514R Value 17 29 52

R Value at 300 PSI = 24

RESISTANCE R-VALUE AND EXPANSION PRESSURE OF COMPACTED SOILS (ASTM D2844)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

050100150200250300350400450500550600650700750800

R-V

alue

Exudation Pressure (psi)

rpadilla

Exhibit: B-5

PROJECT: Grand Avenue Frontage Road JOB NO: 65165128LOCATION: US60-Greenway Rd to Thompson Ranch TI, El Mirage, AZ WORK ORDER NO: 65165128MATERIAL: Silty, Clayey Sand (SC-SM) LAB NO: B-5SAMPLE SOURCE: B-5 @ 1-4 DATE SAMPLED: 08/08/16





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

050100150200250300350400450500550600650700750800

R-V

alue


rpadilla

Exhibit: B-6

PROJECT: Grand Avenue Frontage Road JOB NO: 65165128LOCATION: US60-Greenway Rd to Thompson Ranch TI, El Mirage, AZ WORK ORDER NO: 65165128MATERIAL: Silty, Clayey Sand (SC-SM) LAB NO: B-7SAMPLE SOURCE: B-7 @ 0.5-5.0 DATE SAMPLED: 08/08/16





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

050100150200250300350400450500550600650700750800

R-V

alue


rpadilla

Exhibit: B-7

B-1 1.0 - 4.0 SC 47 30 19 11B-2 1.0 - 3.5 GP-GC 8 31 19 12

B-3 1.0 - 2.0 SC 26 26 17 9 8.4 1815 193 39

B-4 1.5 - 4.0 SC-SM 41 25 18 7 8.3 859 164 63B-5 1.0 - 4.0 SC-SM 45 23 17 6

B-6 2.5 - 5.0 CL-ML 57 23 16 7 8.2 859 284 38B-7 0.5 - 5.0 CL-ML 81 25 20 5

B-8 1.0 - 3.0 SC-SM 43 22 18 4

50pH Resistivity

(ohm-cm)Sulfates(ppm)

Chlorides(ppm)

DryDensity

(pcf)

Expansion(%)

Corrosivity

Dry Density(pcf)

Atterberg Limits

In-Situ Properties

Passing#200

Sieve (%)

Classification

PL PI

WaterContent

(%)

Remarks

Expansion Testing

Surcharge(psf)

WaterContent (%) LL

USCSSoil

Class.Expansion

IndexEI

REMARKS1. Dry Density and/or moisture determined from one or more rings of a multi-ring sample.2. Visual Classification.3. Submerged to approximate saturation.4. Expansion Index in accordance with ASTM D4829-95.5. Air-Dried Sample

BoreholeNo.

Depth(ft.)

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS

PROJECT: Grand Avenue Frontage Road Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: 65165128


SITE: From Greenway Rd to Thompson Ranch TI El Mirage, Arizona

PH. 480-897-8200 FAX. 480-897-1133


EXHIBIT: B-8

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

S

OIL

PR

OP

ER

TIE

S 2

651

6512

8.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2012

.GD

T 8

/24/

16

Documents

Roadway Geotechnical Engineering Report