FINAL REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PAVEMENT DESIGN ARROYO SECO ROAD
CA PFH 129-1(2)
LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2012
YA Project No. 211-156
Prepared for: Jacobs Engineering Group 707 17th Street, Suite 2300
Denver, CO 80202 And
Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division
12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Prepared by:
Yeh and Associates, Inc. 570 Turner Drive, Suite D Durango, Colorado 81303
i Yeh and Associates, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1
2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 2
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3
3.1 TERRAIN 3
3.2 CLIMATE 3
3.3 PAVEMENT CONDITION 3
3.4 RETAINING WALLS 4
4.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 4
4.1 EXPLORATORY BORINGS 5
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING 5
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6
5.1 PAVEMENT BORINGS 6
5.2 RETAINING WALL BORINGS 7
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 8
6.1 OVERVIEW 8
6.2 MITIGATION OPTIONS 9
6.2.1 Wall Replacement 9
6.2.2 Partial Wall Replacement – Subgrade Improvement 10
6.2.3 Ground Anchor Tieback Support 11
7.0 SOIL CORROSIVITY 12
8.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 13
8.1 SUBGRADE STRENGTH 13
8.2 TRAFFIC LOADING 13
8.3 RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT THICKNESS 13
8.4 BINDER AND MIX RECOMMENDATIONS 14
8.5 DRAINAGE 15
8.6 EARTHWORK 15
9.0 REFERENCES 16
10.0 LIMITATIONS 16
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Site Map
Appendix B – Exploratory Boring Logs
Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D – Pavement Condition Photographs
Appendix E - Wall Photographs Appendix F – Pavement Design Calculations
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
1
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
Yeh and Associates, Inc., as a subconsultant to Jacobs Engineering Group, Denver,
Colorado, was retained by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Central Federal Lands
Highway Division (CFLHD) to provide geotechnical and pavement recommendations for preliminary
and final design of improvements to the Arroyo Seco Road in the Los Padres National Forest in
Monterrey County, California. Arroyo Seco Road (Forest Highway 129) begins at the Arroyo Seco
Campground and proceeds eastward for approximately 4.5 miles to the intersection with County
Road G16 (Carmel Valley Road). The route is almost entirely within Monterey County and serves
local needs including school buses, mail delivery, commercial supply and access to private property
with the Forest. The roadway is owned and maintained by Monterey County. The project location
is shown on Figure 1.1.
The proposed road reconstruction will consist of replacing/rehabilitating the existing roadway
surface by pulverizing the existing asphalt and constructing a new asphalt surface course. Erosion
along the roadside will be addressed with roadside ditch improvements, outlet and inlet protection
and channel realignments. The project includes minor roadside grading, drainage improvements,
erosion-related rockfall mitigation, intersection improvements at County Road G16, placement of
pulverized base and asphalt pavement, minor signing, striping, and other safety-related features
necessary to meet current design practice. The scope of the project has been defined in the
October 27, 2010 Trip Report prepared by Jacobs Engineering.
The pavement above the retaining structures near Mile 4.0 shows signs of settlement
related to lateral movement of the walls. The improvements will address drainage and settlement
issues associated with the existing embankment and retaining walls. The improvements will be
designed and implemented in accordance with CFLHD, and American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Design Standards, in cooperation with the United
States Forest Service and the CFLHD Denver Service Center.
The purpose of the geotechnical investigation is to evaluate geologic and subsurface
conditions in the project area and provide recommendations for design of pavements and an
evaluation of options to mitigate settlement at the distressed retaining walls. This report presents
the results the geotechnical investigation along Arroyo Seco Road. The design recommendations
include pavements, surface and subsurface drainage, grading, corrosivity of soil materials and
preliminary recommendations retaining wall rehabilitation. This report addresses potential
geotechnical constraints for the proposed improvements, existing pavement conditions along the
Arroyo Seco Road, and includes recommendations for pavement section thickness designs and
alternatives for retaining wall repair.
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
2
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
Figure 1.1: Project Location Map
2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING
Arroyo Seco Road is located in the Central Coast Region of California, in eastern Monterey
County. The Arroyo Seco River has cut a deep, steep sided valley as it flows east from the Sierra
de Salinas Mountains in the western part of the county. The bedrock exposed on the canyon walls
consists of Miocene marine rocks of Oligocene to Pliocene age. These rocks are composed
primarily of sandstone with mudstone as the secondary rock type. The formations also can include
siltstone, evaporate and conglomerate.
The road follows the western side of the canyon through most of the project area. In the
valley bottom, the road was constructed on alluvium. At higher elevations, the road was
constructed by cutting into the steeply dipping Monterey Shale. The thinly bedded shale and
mudstone is exposed above and below the road at several locations. Rockfall from the rock cut
slopes consists primarily of shale fragments that have eroded from the slopes and accumulated on
the shoulder of the road.
Project Location
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
3
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 Terrain
The site is located in mountainous terrain with vegetation consisting of small deciduous
trees, grasses and shrubs. Arroyo Seco Road is winding and has moderate to steep grades as it
traverses in and out of the valley floor. As the road approaches the Arroyo Seco Campground, the
grades flatten and the alignment enters a broad portion of the valley.
3.2 Climate
Climate data is based on records for Greenfield, CA, the nearest population center. The
area has a mild climate typical of the semi-arid regions of central California. The average annual
precipitation is about 12 inches, most of which occurs from January through March. Average
annual high temperature is 86o F and average annual low temperature is about 53o F. The annual
high temperatures occur in July and August and the annual low temperatures occur in December
and January.
3.3 Pavement Condition
The pavement is in fair to poor condition throughout the project. Linear cracking in
moderately deteriorated condition is prevalent. Figure 3.1 shows a typical condition found in much
of the project; linear cracking with some block and fatigue cracking progressing. This photograph is
also a location where it is suspected that water comes off the hill side and drains across the road.
Figure 3.1: Thermal and block cracking patterns near center of project
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
4
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
Figure 3.2 shows one of the most deteriorated locations on the project. The fatigue cracking
is starting to progress to alligator cracking and potholes near the entrance to the fire station. This is
another location where poor surface drainage may be contributing to the pavement deterioration
because the shallow ditches are not adequate to carry runoff away from the pavement. Additional
photographs of pavement conditions throughout the project are presented in Appendix D.
Figure 3.2: Fatigue cracking starting to pothole near fire station
3.4 Retaining Walls
Settlement of the pavement surface was observed in the area of two retaining walls near
Mile 4.0. The embankment at this location consists of fill that is supported by metal retaining walls
constructed of aircraft landing ramps and railroad rails. The pavement has reportedly been patched
several times by Monterey County road crews. Bulges in the faces of the walls and outward
rotation of the structures are indications that the walls may no longer be adequately supporting the
fill.
4.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Yeh and Associates contracted with Precision Sampling, Inc. of Stockton, California to drill
exploratory borings for the geotechnical investigation along Arroyo Seco Road. Traffic control
during drilling was provided by Road Safety, Inc of Rocklin, California. The borings were drilled on
September 15 and 16, 2011.
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
5
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
4.1 Exploratory Borings
Borings AH-1 through AH-19 were drilled at approximately ¼-mile intervals near the center
of the eastbound and westbound travel lanes of the road. Odd numbered borings were generally
located in the westbound lane and even numbered borings were in the eastbound lane. The
borings were drilled to evaluate subgrade conditions for pavement design and corrosivity of the
soils.
Borings R-001-11, R-002-11 and R-003-11 were drilled from the roadway above the location
of the distressed retaining walls near Mile 4.0. The borings were drilled in the shoulder of the road
at the locations three to four feet from the wall facing as shown Sheet A-1 in Appendix A. The
borings were drilled to evaluated subsurface conditions behind the retaining walls.
The borings were drilled with a truck-mounted CME 75 drilling rig using 8-inch O.D. hollow
stem auger. Samples were obtained at selected intervals using a 1.5-inch I.D. split-spoon sampler.
The split-spoon sampler was driven into the subsoils with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.
The number of blows needed to drive the sampler 12 inches constitutes the blow count, N, reported
on the Boring Logs (Appendix B). The blow count can be used as a relative measure of the
material stiffness or density. Bulk samples of auger cuttings were also obtained from the borings at
selected intervals. Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with auger cuttings. The
pavement was patched with cold asphalt patch mix.
4.2 Laboratory Testing
Samples retrieved during the field exploration were returned to our laboratory for
observation by the project geotechnical engineer. An applicable program of laboratory testing was
developed to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Following the
completion of the laboratory testing, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary
and boring logs were prepared.
Laboratory tests performed included gradation (ASTM D 421, C 136 and AASHTO T 27),
Atterberg limits (AASHTO T 89/T 90), moisture content (AASHTO T 265), R-value (ASTM D 2844),
sulfate content (AASHTO T290), pH (ASTM D 4972/AASHTO T 289), chloride ion content (ASTM D
4327) and soil resistivity (AASHTO T 288). Gradation and Atterberg limits test results were used to
classify the soils in accordance with the AASHTO classification system and the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS). Moisture content provides an estimate of the moisture conditions of
the subgrade and underlying materials. Soil R-value is a measure of soil subgrade strength used
for pavement design. Tests for soluble sulfate content, pH, chloride content and resistivity are used
to evaluate the potential of the soil to be aggressive to concrete and to corrode buried metal. The
laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C and on the boring logs in Appendix B. Photos
of the pavement conditions and boring locations along the project are presented in Appendix D.
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
6
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
5.1 Pavement Borings
The thickness of asphalt pavement encountered in the exploratory borings ranged from 0.1
to 0.3 feet (1.2 to 3.6 inches). The measured asphalt thickness includes the Hot Asphalt Concrete
Pavement (HACP) and chip seal applications that occurred before and after the HACP was placed.
Accurately distinguishing individual layers of the pavement surface was not possible due to the
destructive nature of the drilling process. An obvious layer of aggregate base course was not
encountered in the borings. Gravelly soils encountered below the asphalt may be remnants of an
earlier gravel surface course. The asphalt surface course thicknesses and brief descriptions of the
underlying fill and native subgrade materials are summarized in Table 5.1. Laboratory tests
performed on samples of the subgrade soils and bedrock are presented in Appendix C.
Subgrade materials encountered along Arroyo Seco Road are composed of alluvial silty to
clayey sand with gravel. The native soil materials are difficult to distinguish from possible fill
materials in the exploratory borings because the fill materials were likely produced from nearby road
cuts. Embankment fill encountered in Borings AH-4, AH-5, AH-6 and AH-8 consists of silty to
clayey sand with subangular to subrounded gravel. The fill encountered in Borings AH-10 through
AH-12 and AH-16 through AH-18 consists of silty sand with subangular to subrounded gravel. The
subgrade materials have 14 to 54 percent fines consisting of clay and silt and plasticity indices that
range from non-plastic to 17. The natural moisture contents of the samples range from 6.5 to 37.3.
The higher moisture contents were from borings where poor surface drainage or irrigation may have
contributed to subsurface moisture. R-value tests were performed on three combined bulk samples
of the subgrade soils from Borings AH-1 and AH-3 (Bulk Sample 1), AH-11 and AH-12 (Bulk
Sample 2) and AH-17 and AH18 (Bulk Sample 3). The R-value of Bulk Sample 1 was 40; the R-
value of Bulk Sample 2 was 58; and the R-value of Bulk Sample 3 was 46. The silty sand and silty
gravel subgrade soils have AASHTO classifications of A-1-a, A-1-b, A-2-4, A-2-5, A-4 and A-2-7.
The clayey sand soils have AASHTO classifications of A-4 and the sandy silt soil classifies as A-6.
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
7
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
Table 5.1: Pavement and Subgrade Summary
Boring Asphalt
(ft)
Fill
(ft.)
Embankment Fill
Description
Native Subgrade Soil
Description
AH-1 0.2 - - silty Sand with Gravel
AH-2 0.2 - - silty Sand with Gravel
AH-3 0.3 - - silty Sand with Gravel
AH-4 0.3 1.2 silty Sand with Gravel clayey Sand with Gravel
AH-5 0.3 4.7 clayey Sand with Gravel -
AH-6 0.2 0.5 silty Sand with Gravel sandy Silt with Gravel
AH-7 0.2 - - clayey Sand with Gravel
AH-8 0.3 4.7 silty/clayey Sand with Gravel -
AH-9 0.2 - silty Sand with Gravel
AH-10 0.3 4.7 silty Sand with Gravel -
AH-11 0.3 1.6 silty Sand with Gravel, silty Sand and Gravel
AH-12 0.3 1.6 silty Sand with Gravel silty Sand and Gravel
AH-13 0.3 - - silty Sand with Gravel
AH-14 0.3 - - silty Gravel and Sand
AH-15 0.1 - - silty Gravel and Sand
AH-16 0.1 3.9 silty Sand with Gravel -
AH-17 0.3 4.7 silty Sand with Gravel -
AH-18 0.3 4.7 silty Sand with Gravel -
AH-19 0.3 - - silty Sand with Gravel
5.2 Retaining Wall Borings
Borings R-001-11, R-002-11 and R-003-11 encountered very loose to medium dense silty
sand and gravel fill below the pavement section to depths approximately equal to the wall heights at
the boring locations. Native soils consisting of loose to medium dense silty sand with gravel were
encountered in Boring R-001-11 and R-003-11 at depths of 7 and 8 feet respectively. The fill and
native soils have AASHTO classifications of A-2-7 and A-7-5. Moderately cemented zones and
calcareous deposits were encountered in Boring R-001-11 below 10 feet to the bedrock surface.
Sandy claystone bedrock of the Monterey Formation was encountered in Boring R-001-11 at 18
feet in Boring R-002-11 at 9 feet and in Boring R-003-11 at 8 feet. The bedrock is described as
slightly to moderately weathered, medium hard to hard and moist. Split-spoon sampler blow counts
(N) in the bedrock ranged from 14 for 12 inches of penetration to 50 for 4 inches of penetration.
Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the retaining wall site.
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
8
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Overview
Yeh and Associates was requested to provide general observations and recommendations for the
two existing retaining walls located near Mile 4.0 on the downhill (fill) side of the road. Based on
survey data provided by others, the walls are located between Sta. 10+00 and 15+35 and range
from 3 to 12 feet in height. The walls appear to be constructed of vertical railroad rails (vertical
piles) and aircraft landing mats (lagging). The facing of the walls tilt and bulge outward in some
areas and the welds that connect the soldier piles and lagging have failed at some locations.
Settlement of the pavement surface above the walls has previously been reported and was
observed at the time of the investigation. Figure 6.1 depicts the top of the wall looking down the
roadway alignment showing pavement distress and Figure 6.2 depicts the wall face from below.
Additional wall condition photographs are presented in Appendix E.
Figure 6.1: Top of Existing Retaining Wall
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
9
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
Figure 6.2: Face of Existing Retaining Wall
Borings R-001-11, R-002-11, and R-003-11 were drilled in the roadway behind the walls.
The borings encountered gravelly, silty sand and silty, sandy gravel soils. Sandy claystone shale
was encountered at depths ranging from 9 to 23 feet below the pavement surface. The soils were
described by the field geologist as loose to dense with low moisture content. Zones of moderate
soil cementation were encountered a few feet above the bedrock. The cementation may be an
indication of previous groundwater flow through the fill and native soils that deposited minerals
leached from the surrounding bedrock.
The observed bulging and outward tilting of the wall face appears to be caused by lateral
earth pressures that exceed the resisting capacity of the retaining walls. Saturated soil conditions
during season heavy precipitation may be contributing to the higher lateral earth pressures. The
deflection of the wall face over-stressed the pile and lagging welded connections, causing them to
fail. Outward movement of the wall has allowed the settlement of the roadway fill to occur. There
also appears to be loss of backfill material through the aperture facing of the wall system. Wire
rope wraps that may be for deadman support are visible in Figure 6.2.
6.2 Mitigation Options
Based on our evaluation of the existing walls and understanding of the nature of the project,
we are providing three mitigation alternatives to prevent or reduce future settlement of the roadway
embankment at this location.
6.2.1 Wall Replacement
Replace the existing walls with new retaining structures such as Mechanically Stabilized Earth
(MSE) walls or a Shored MSE Wall. Properly designed and constructed MSE walls or shored MSE
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
10
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
walls will support the embankment virtually eliminating roadway settlement. The design should
include high strength horizontal reinforcing elements such as geogrids, a subsurface drainage
system and a facing that can tolerate some movement while protecting the reinforcing from
damage. The distinction between MSE walls and Shored MSE walls is a function of the availability
of space for construction. Shored MSE Walls are proposed to maintain one lane of traffic during
construction and can be reviewed in CFL document FHWA-CFL/TD-06-011 – February 2006. The
shored MSE wall will be needed where the existing wall height exceeds about 8 feet and shoring
must be used to support the roadway so that traffic may be maintained. This is a permanent
mitigation option that addresses the issues of piping, existing wall failure, and long term
maintenance. Figure 6.2.1 depicts a generalized shored MSE wall.
Figure 6.2.1: Generalized Depiction of a Shored MSE Wall.
6.2.2 Partial Wall Replacement – Subgrade Improvement
Partial replacement consists of removing between 4 and 6 feet of the backfill material at the
top of the existing retaining wall and reconstructing a GRS (tightly spaced grid) wall immediately
behind the existing retaining wall and below the pavement subgrade. Removing and replacing the
backfill materials with geogrid reinforced granular soil will greatly reduce the horizontal earth
pressure at the top of the existing retaining wall and will act to “bridge” settlement prone materials in
the base of the existing wall. It is estimated the reinforcement grid for the 4 to 6 foot high wall
would need to extend to the centerline of the existing roadway or extend back to the face of a stable
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
11
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
temporary cut. Design of the partial wall replacement/subgrade improvement alternate will require
evaluation of the surcharge loading condition on the base of the existing wall system because the
re-compacted material will likely be of greater density than the existing fill materials. Existing
tieback “deadman” restraining wire ropes may be present in the existing wall system and would
need to be left in place or stabilized during construction.
Figure 6.2.2: Generalized Depiction of Partial Wall Replacement/Subgrade Improvement
This alternate would need further evaluation but could stabilize the roadway subgrade under
the pavement for 5 to 15 years. Construction of the reinforced zone may increase stresses on the
existing wall face, accelerating failure of the existing welds and metal plate structure. Loss of fine
soils due to piping could still occur below the improved section of wall.
6.2.3 Ground Anchor Tieback Support
A third alternate for stabilizing the existing retaining wall is the installation of a ground
anchor tieback system. This alternate would involve drilling ground anchors on an 8-foot center to
center spacing at a downward angle of approximately 30 degrees to penetrate the bedrock.
Installing the anchors would require drilling through the face of the wall using a drill rig that is
positioned on the existing road. A specialty contractor will be needed to perform the work. The
ground anchors would need to be post tensioned after installation. The capacity of the anchors
would be dependent on the depth of the bedrock penetration. A continuous horizontal waler system
would be needed to distribute the anchor forces along the face of the wall. This option could be
designed to use the strength of the existing system of tiebacks to limit lateral movement. The
ground anchor alternate will not prevent settlement of the pavement subgrade due to loss of soil by
piping through voids within the existing wall backfill.
Existing Wall
GRS Wall
Center Line
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
12
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
Figure 6.2.3: Generalized Depiction of a Ground Anchor Tieback System
Design of this option would require further evaluation of the current condition of the existing
retaining wall and how the structure may respond to induced loading from the tiebacks.
7.0 SOIL CORROSIVITY
Samples from Borings AH-2 and AH-16 had water soluble sulfate concentrations of 0.017,
0.8 percent respectively. The sample from Boring AH-16 has a very high percentage of water
soluble sulfates and these soils will be aggressive toward buried concrete. Sulfate resistant cement
is recommended for all buried concrete in the alignment.
The pH of the sample from Boring AH-2 was 8.2 and the pH of the sample from Boring AH-
16 was 7.7. Chloride content of the samples from Borings AH-2 and AH-16 were below the
detection limit of 0.01 percent for the test method used.
Resistivity measurements of 2555 ohm-cm for the sample from Boring AH-2 and 1083 ohm-
cm for the sample from Boring AH-16 indicate the soils will be aggressive to buried metal. Metal
culvert pipes and ground anchors should be corrosion protected. We recommend a corrosion
engineer review the requirements for correction protection for any buried metal. Permanent
anchors and anchor hardware such as end plates used for retaining walls should be epoxy coated
to resist corrosion.
Existing Wall
Ground Anchor
Tiebacks
Center Line
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
13
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
8.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Subgrade Strength
The following equations are from NCHRP Study 128, which was used in the AASHTO 1993
Pavement Design Guide.
S1 = [(R-5)/11.29] + 3 (Eq. 2.1) MR = 10[S
1 + 18.72)/6.24] (Eq. 2.2)
Where: MR = resilient modulus (psi) S1 = the soil support value R = the R-value obtained from the Hveem Stabilometer (AASHTO T190)
R-values measured in accordance with AASHTO T190 on the soils from the project, were
40, 46 and 58. Using these equations, an R-value of 40 was used to calculate a resilient modulus
of 9,497 psi. This resilient modulus value was used as one of the inputs for the DARWin Pavement
Design computer program to determine recommended pavement thickness for Arroyo Seco Road.
The DARWin pavement design computer program generally follows the AASHTO 1993 Pavement
Design Manual.
Other structural layer coefficients used in design were found in the “FHWA CFL Project
Development and Design Manual (PDDM)”, March 2008.
8.2 Traffic Loading
No formal traffic information was available for this location, so the recommended minimum
of 50,000 Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) was used the pavement design.
8.3 Recommended Pavement Thickness
Based on discussions with the Forest Service and county personnel, the preferred
rehabilitation treatment for the existing pavement is to pulverize and place a new Hot Asphalt
Concrete Pavement (HACP). Using the strength information from the laboratory testing and the
strength coefficients from the PDDM for the treatments, the recommended treatment is to pulverize
the existing pavement to a depth of 4 inches followed by placement of a 3.0 inch HACP pavement.
The pavement thicknesses listed in Table 5.1 show that there is adequate thickness of HACP for
this treatment. Table 8.3 contains the input parameters used for the pavement thickness design.
The parameters were taken from the FHWA Project Development and Design Manual March 2008
based on the traffic loading and treatments for this pavement. The output from the DARWin
Pavement Design Program is presented in Appendix F.
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
14
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
Table 8.3 - Pavement Design Parameters and Thickness Results
Design Parameter Parameter Value Design Parameter Parameter Value
18-kip ESALs 50,000 Resilient Modulus MR 9,497
Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.0
Reliability 75% Structural Number 1
Pulverization, in. 4 HACP thickness, in. 3.0
8.4 Binder and Mix Recommendations
Using the Long Term Pavement Performance binder selection program LTPPBind, the 98%
reliability binder recommended for the closest weather station in King City, Ca. is PG 64-10. Figure
8.4 shows the print-out from the program based on historic weather information from the King City
Weather Station.
Figure 8.4 - Recommended Mix Binder
The new HACP overlay should be a nominal ½-inch mix with the above recommended
binder. Grading Designation E mix is recommended (as per FP-03). A Hveem mix design using a
½ inch nominal mix is also recommended. The quantity of binder can be estimated at 6% by weight
of the mix and the unit weight can be estimated at 145 lbs/ft3.
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
15
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
This project is in a relatively remote location and we understand the asphalt batch plant may
be several miles from the construction site. Loss of temperature and segregation of the hot asphalt
mix can occur during long distance transport. We recommend the project specifications require the
use of a material transfer device at the point of placement to insure uniform temperatures and
prevent segregation of the mix during placement. Use of a material transfer device is especially
important if the mix is placed in cool weather.
The application of tack coat (at 0.10 gallons/ yd2) is required on the pulverized base material
prior to paving. The tack coat material should be CSS-1, CSS-1h, SS-1, or SS-1h. A tack coat at
the above rate should be included between each lift of HACP.
Pulverized material or aggregate base course should receive a prime coat of an emulsion
blended as a penetrating prime at a rate of 0.33 gallons/yd2.
8.5 Drainage
Surface drainage adjacent to the existing road is generally fair except several locations
where it is suspected that water drains across the pavement and may have caused excess moisture
into the subgrade, weakening the pavement structure and causing deterioration. The depressions
and ridges in the pavement surface are probably the result of surface moisture infiltration.
Improving ditches at the sides of the road to provide positive surface drainage away from the
pavement will protect the subgrade from saturation.
The collection and diversion of surface drainage away from paved areas is extremely
important to the satisfactory performance of the pavement structure. Proper design of drainage
should include prevention of ponding of water on or immediately adjacent to pavement areas.
Over-spray from agricultural irrigation sprinklers should be minimized and surface drainage near
irrigated areas should be improved to collect and divert runoff. Slopes and other stripped areas
should be protected against erosion by re-vegetation or other methods.
8.6 Earthwork
The soils encountered in the exploratory borings are suitable for use as embankment fill
under roadways. Metz Sand and Gravel in Greenfield, California is a nearby supplier of
construction aggregates. Embankment materials should be placed and compacted in accordance
with the Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway
Projects. Cut and fill slopes should be graded at 3 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. Slopes should
be protected from erosion by re-vegetation or other means.
Clearing debris from the existing ditches and constructing paved shoulders and concrete
curbs at the toes of slopes will reduce the effort required to remove accumulations of rockfall debris
in the future. These measures fit within the scope of the 3R project but do not prevent or mitigate
rockfall that could reach the travel lanes.
Pavement Design Report for Arroyo Seco Road May 1, 2012 CA PFH 129-1(2) YA Project No.: 211-156
16
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
Soft soils may be encountered or the pulverized base may become unstable during
construction when subjected to traffic loads or following precipitation events. The upper 1.5 feet of
the soft material should be removed and replaced with compacted Subbase Fill, Grading A or B or
ABC. The required depth of removal and replacement can be reduced if a geosynthetic
reinforcement or separator fabric is used below the Subbase Fill.
9.0 REFERENCES
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2003, Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP-03. Google Earth, 2011 AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Guide The Weather Channel, LLC weather.com Jennings, C.W., Strand, R.G., and Rogers, T.H., 1977, Geologic map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:750,000.
10.0 LIMITATIONS
This study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
practices in this area for use by the client for design and construction purposes. The conclusions
and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from exploratory
borings and field review and the proposed type of construction. Subsurface variations across the
site are likely and may not become evident until excavation is performed. If during construction, fill,
soil, rock or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein, this office should
be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations may be made. We recommend on-site
observation of excavations and pavement subgrade conditions by a representative of the
geotechnical engineer.
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Thomas L. Allen, P.E.
Appendix A – Site Map ________________________________________________________________
Wall Boring Locations04/17/12
211-156 Wall Borings
212-156 A-1
Arroyo Seco Road
Appendix B – Exploratory Boring Logs ________________________________________________________________
7/2/3MC= 8.7 %#200= 14 %LL= NVPL= NPPI= NPAASHTO: A-1-b (0)USCS: SM
0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT.0.2 - 4.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, lightbrown, no plasticity, moist, loose, subangular.
Bottom of Hole at 4.0 ft.
5
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 4.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-01Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
3/4/4
MC= 15.3 %#200= 33 %LL= 33PL= 24PI= 7AASHTO: A-2-4 (0)USCS: SMMC= 22.2 %#200= 23 %LL= 51PL= 39PI= 12pH= 8.2S= 0.017 %Re= 2555 ohms-cmAASHTO: A-2-7 (0)USCS: SM
0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT.0.2 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, lightbrown to brown, no plasticity, dry, loose,subangular.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
8
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-02Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
6/6/6MC= 14.4 %#200= 42 %LL= 28PL= 21PI= 7AASHTO: A-4 (0)USCS: SM-SC
0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) and gravel,reddish brown, moist, medium dense, subangularto subrounded.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
12
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-03Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
12/10/7MC= 14.3 %#200= 39 %LL= 32PL= 22PI= 10AASHTO: A-4 (1)USCS: SC
0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 1.5 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,reddish brown, dry, subangular.1.5 - 5.0 ft. clayey SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, moist, medium dense, subangular.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
17
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-04Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
3/4/3MC= 15.7 %#200= 47 %LL= 28PL= 20PI= 8AASHTO: A-4 (1)USCS: SC
0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. clayey SAND (FILL) with gravel,light brown, dry, loose, subangular tosubrounded.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
7
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-05Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
2/4/5MC= 18.7 %#200= 54 %LL= 36PL= 25PI= 11AASHTO: A-6 (4)USCS: ML
0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT.0.2 - 0.7 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, lightbrown, dry.0.7 - 5.0 ft. sandy SILT (FILL) with gravel, darkbrown, moist, stiff.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
9
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-06Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
2/2/4MC= 14.5 %#200= 42 %LL= 30PL= 20PI= 10AASHTO: A-4 (1)USCS: SC
0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT.0.2 - 5.0 ft. clayey SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, low plasticity, moist, loose, subangular tosubrounded.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
6
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-07Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
1/1/1MC= 11.8 %#200= 48 %LL= 21PL= 17PI= 4AASHTO: A-4 (0)USCS: SM-SC
0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, darkbrown, moist, very loose.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
2
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-08Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
1/3/3MC= 23.8 %#200= 34 %LL= 33PL= 28PI= 5AASHTO: A-2-4 (0)USCS: SM
0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT.0.2 - 4.5 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, moist, loose, subangular.
4.5 - 5.0 ft. gravelly COBBLES, Cobbles andBoulders.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
6
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-09Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
2/3/2MC= 20 %#200= 31 %LL= 44PL= 34PI= 10AASHTO: A-2-5 (0)USCS: SM
0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, gray -brown, dry, loose, subangular to subrounded.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
5
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-10Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
17/15/15MC= 14.5 %#200= 26 %LL= 35PL= 26PI= 9AASHTO: A-2-4 (0)USCS: GM
0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 1.8 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, moist, subangular.
1.8 - 3.2 ft. silty GRAVEL (FILL) with sand, gray- brown, moist, medium dense, subangular.
3.2 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, lightbrown, moist, medium dense, subangular.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
30
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-11Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
12/15/16MC= 12.2 %#200= 20 %LL= 33PL= 25PI= 8AASHTO: A-2-4 (0)USCS: GM
0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 1.8 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, moist, subangular.
1.8 - 3.5 ft. silty GRAVEL (FILL) with sand,brown, moist, dense, subangular.
3.5 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, moist, subangular.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
31
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-12Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
3/4/5MC= 29 %#200= 24 %LL= 52PL= 42PI= 10AASHTO: A-2-5 (0)USCS: SM
0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, darkbrown, moist, loose, subangular.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
9
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-13Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
2/2/1MC= 37.3 %#200= 32 %LL= 56PL= 39PI= 17AASHTO: A-2-7 (0)USCS: GM
0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty GRAVEL (FILL) with sand, darkbrown, moist, very loose.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
3
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-14Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
3/6/6MC= 19.5 %#200= 15 %LL= 41PL= 39PI= 2AASHTO: A-1-a (0 )USCS: GM
0.0 - 0.1 ft. ASPHALT.0.1 - 4.0 ft. silty GRAVEL (FILL) with sand, lightbrown, dry, medium dense, subangular.
Bottom of Hole at 4.0 ft.
12
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 4.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-15Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
3/5/5
MC= 22.2 %#200= 23 %LL= 51PL= 39PI= 12pH= 7.7S= 0.8 %Re= 1083 ohms-cmAASHTO: A-2-7 (0)USCS: SM
0.0 - 0.1 ft. ASPHALT.0.1 - 4.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown-gray, dry, loose, subangular.
4.0 - 5.0 ft. Sandy Claystone, light gray, moist,hard, slightly weathered.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
10
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-16Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
2/2/2MC= 9.1 %#200= 40 %LL= NVPL= NPPI= NPAASHTO: A-4 (0)USCS: SM
0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, moist, loose, subrounded.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
4
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-17Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
3/3/4MC= 6.5 %#200= 23 %LL= 22PL= 21PI= 1AASHTO: A-2-4 (0)USCS: SM
0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel, lightbrown, moist, loose, subangular to subrounded.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
7
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-18Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
1/1/1MC= 21.9 %#200= 26 %LL= 30PL= 27PI= 3AASHTO: A-2-4 (0)USCS: SM
0.0 - 0.3 ft. ASPHALT.0.3 - 5.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) with gravel,brown, moist, very loose, subangular tosubrounded.
Bottom of Hole at 5.0 ft.
2
Boring Began: 9/15/2011
Drilling Method: Solid-Stem Auger
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/15/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/15/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 5.0 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: AH-19Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 1
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
1/2/1
1/2/1
2/3/5
1/6/3
12/14/9
10/23/17
MC= 18.7 %#200= 28 %LL= 51PL= 40PI= 11AASHTO: A-2-7 (0)USCS: SMMC= 19.8 %#200= 20 %USCS: SM
MC= 25.1 %#200= 33 %LL= 53PL= 42PI= 11AASHTO: A-2-7 (0)USCS: SM
MC= 22 %#200= 13 %USCS: GM
0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT CONCRETE.0.2 - 7.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL) and Gravel,brown, dry, loose, subangular.
7.0 - 18.0 ft. silty SAND with gravel, brown, dry,loose, subangular, moderate cementation.
18.0 - 40.3 ft. SANDY CLAYSTONE, light gray,slightly weathered, hard, moist.
3
3
8
9
23
40
Boring Began: 9/16/2011
Drilling Method: Hollow-Stem Auger (8" O.D.)
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/16/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/16/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 40.3 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: R-001-11Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 2
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
12/20/16
14/14/24
50:4''Bottom of Hole at 40.3 ft.
36
38
50:4''
Soil Samples
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab TestsR
un /
Sam
ple
Typ
e
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: R-001-11Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 2 of 2
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
1/2/1
3/11/5
2/3/11
7/16/18
12/8/13
14/21/14
MC= 24.5 %#200= 31 %LL= 50PL= 37PI= 13AASHTO: A-2-7 (0)USCS: SM
MC= 20.1 %#200= 23 %USCS: GM
0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT CONCRETE.0.2 - 9.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL), with gravel, lightbrown, dry, very loose to medium dense,subangular.
9.0 - 35.4 ft. SANDY CLAYSTONE, light gray tolight brown, moderately weathered, hard, moist.
3
16
14
34
21
35
Boring Began: 9/16/2011
Drilling Method: Hollow-Stem Auger (8" O.D.)
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/16/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/16/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 35.4 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: R-002-11Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 2
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
7/19/34
50:5''Bottom of Hole at 35.4 ft.
53
50:5''
Soil Samples
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab TestsR
un /
Sam
ple
Typ
e
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: R-002-11Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 2 of 2
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
3/4/3
1/1/3
2/2/4
9/3/2
4/5/7
14/19/14
MC= 17 %#200= 23 %LL= 50PL= 36PI= 14AASHTO: A-2-7 (0)USCS: SMMC= 18.8 %#200= 21 %USCS: SM
MC= 22.7 %#200= 39 %LL= 62PL= 39PI= 23AASHTO: A-7-5 (4)USCS: SM
MC= 24.3 %#200= 18 %USCS: SM
MC= 25 %#200= 10 %USCS: GM
0.0 - 0.2 ft. ASPHALT CONCRETE.0.2 - 8.0 ft. silty SAND (FILL), poorly graded,with gravel, light brown, dry, loose, subangular.
8.0 - 23.0 ft. silty SAND with gravel, dark brown,dry, loose to medium dense, angular.
23.0 - 36.5 ft. SANDY CLAYSTONE, light grayto light gray, slightly weathered, medium hard,moist.
7
4
6
5
12
33
Boring Began: 9/16/2011
Drilling Method: Hollow-Stem Auger (8" O.D.)
Drill: CME 75
Driller: Precision Sampling
Logged By: W. Hoon
Final By: M. Aichiouene
Inclination: Vertical
Completed: 9/16/2011Drill Bit:Casing:Weather:
Ground Water Notes:
DepthDateTime
Dry9/16/11
-
---
---
---
Total Depth: 36.5 ftGround Elevation:Location:Coordinates: N: E:
Soil Samples
5
10
15
20
25
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab Tests
Run
/ S
ampl
e T
ype
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: R-003-11Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 1 of 2
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
8/20/28
10/18/25
Bottom of Hole at 36.5 ft.
48
43
Soil Samples
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
N
Project: Jacobs CFL Arroyo Seco Road
Lith
olo
gy
Rock
MaterialDescription
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
RQ
D
Rec
over
y (%
)
Blowsper6 in
YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Field Notesand
Lab TestsR
un /
Sam
ple
Typ
e
Dep
th(f
eet)
Ele
vatio
n(f
eet)
Boring: R-003-11Project Number: 211 - 156 Date: 10/20/11 Sheet 2 of 2
BO
RIN
G L
OG
211
-15
6 B
OR
ING
LO
GS
.GP
J Y
EH
AS
SO
CIA
TE
S.G
DT
12
/21
/11
Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results ________________________________________________________________
Project No: Date: 10/10/2011
Gradation Atterberg
AH-1 2-3.5 SPT 8.7 27 59 14 NV NP NP A-1-b ( 0 ) SM
AH-2 2-3.5 SPT 15.3 22 45 33 33 24 7 A-2-4 ( 0 ) SM
AH-2 1.7-5.0 BULK 22.2 36 41 23 51 39 12 8.2 0.017 ND 2555 A-2-7 ( 0 ) SM
AH-3 2-3.5 SPT 14.4 15 43 42 28 21 7 A-4 ( 0 ) SM-SC
AH-4 2-3.5 BULK 14.3 13 48 39 32 22 10 A-4 ( 1 ) SC
AH-5 2-3.5 SPT 15.7 17 36 47 28 20 8 A-4 ( 1 ) SC
AH-6 2-3.5 SPT 18.7 12 34 54 36 25 11 A-6 ( 4 ) ML
AH-7 2-3.5 SPT 14.5 15 43 42 30 20 10 A-4 ( 1 ) SC
211-156
Sample Location
Sample
Type
Natural Dry
Density
(pcf)PL
Resistivity
OHMS per
cmDepth (ft)
Gravel
> #4
(%)
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%) USCSAASHTOPI
Water
Soluble
Sulfate
%
% Swell
(+) /
Consoli-
dation (-)
pH
YEH & ASSOCIATES, INC
Arroyo Seco Road
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
CLASSIFICATION
Sand
(%)
Fines
< #200
(%)
LL
Chloride
%Boring #
Project Name:
AH-7 2-3.5 SPT 14.5 15 43 42 30 20 10 A-4 ( 1 ) SC
AH-8 2-3.5 SPT 11.8 4 48 48 21 17 4 A-4 ( 0 ) SM-SC
AH-9 2-3.5 SPT 23.8 24 42 34 33 28 5 A-2-4 ( 0 ) SM
AH-9 BULK 24.4 25 46 29 36 28 8 A-2-4 ( 0 ) SM
AH-10 2-3.5 SPT 20.0 21 48 31 44 34 10 A-2-5 ( 0 ) SM
AH-11 2-3.5 SPT 14.5 37 37 26 35 26 9 A-2-4 ( 0 ) GM
AH-12 2-3.5 SPT 12.2 44 36 20 33 25 8 A-2-4 ( 0 ) GM
AH-13 2-3.5 SPT 29.0 28 48 24 52 42 10 A-2-5 ( 0 ) SM
AH-14 2-3.5 SPT 37.3 36 32 32 56 39 17 A-2-7 ( 0 ) GM
AH-15 2-3.5 SPT 19.5 44 41 15 41 39 2 A-1-a ( 0 ) GM
AH-16 2-3.5 SPT 22.2 36 41 23 51 39 12 A-2-7 ( 0 ) SM
AH-16 BULK 7.7 0.8 ND 1083 SM
AH-17 2-3.5 SPT 9.1 5 55 40 NV NP NP A-4 ( 0 ) SM
AH-18 2-3.5 SPT 6.5 15 62 23 22 21 1 A-2-4 ( 0 ) SM
AH-19 2-3.5 SPT 21.9 19 55 26 30 27 3 A-2-4 ( 0 ) SM
Project No: Date: 10/10/2011
Gradation Atterberg
R-001-11 2-3.5 SPT 18.7 24 48 28 51 40 11 A-2-7 ( 0 ) SM
R-001-11 5-6.5 SPT 19.8 39 41 20 NA NA NA NA NA
R-001-11 10-11.5 SPT 25.1 23 44 33 53 42 11 A-2-7 ( 0 ) SM
R-001-11 15-16.5 SPT 22.0 53 34 13 NA NA NA NA NA
R-001-11 20-21.5 SPT 25.9 46 39 15 NV NP NP A-1-a ( 0 ) GM
R-001-11 24.5-26 SPT 6.2 61 32 7 NA NA NA NA NA
R-001-11 30-31.5 SPT 23.2 50 40 10 NA NA NA NA NA
211-156
Sample Location
Sample
Type
Natural Dry
Density
(pcf)PLDepth (ft)
Gravel
> #4
(%)
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%) USCSAASHTO
Max Dry
Density
AASHTO
T180-API
Water
Soluble
Sulfate
%
% Swell (+) /
Consoli-
dation (-)
pH
YEH & ASSOCIATES, INC
Arroyo Seco Road
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
CLASSIFICATION
Sand
(%)
Fines
< #200
(%)
LL
Chloride
%Boring #
Project Name:
R-001-11 30-31.5 SPT 23.2 50 40 10 NA NA NA NA NA
R-001-11 35-36.5 SPT 25.6 49 38 13 NA NA NA NA NA
R-002-11 2-3.5 SPT 24.5 29 40 31 50 37 13 A-2-7 ( 0 ) SM
R-002-11 5-6.5 SPT 20.1 43 34 23 NA NA NA NA NA
R-002-11 10-11.5 SPT 21.8 60 31 9 NV NP NP A-1-a ( 0 ) GM
R-002-11 15-16.5 SPT 19.3 43 43 14 NA NA NA NA NA
R-002-11 20-21.5 SPT 18.4 42 44 14 NV NP NP A-1-a ( 0 ) SM
R-002-11 25-26.5 SPT 24.0 54 39 7 NA NA NA NA NA
R-002-11 30-31.5 SPT 21.4 50 36 14 NV NP NP A-1-a ( 0 ) GM
R-002-11 35-36.5 SPT 19.3 28 50 22 NA NA NA NA NA
100 0
100 0
100 0
100 0
100 0
Appendix D – Pavement Condition Photographs ________________________________________________________________
Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Pavement Condition Photographs 9/8-9/11 211-156
1 All mileages are from the bridge at the campground entrance
Boring 1 - 1/4 mile east of campground entrance - Best pavement condition with only transverse
cracks - note drainage from hill side on north carries across the pavement
Boring 2 - 1/2 mile east - note alligator cracking in wheel paths and fill on south side of
pavement
Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Pavement Condition Photographs 9/8-9/11 211-156
2 All mileages are from the bridge at the campground entrance
Boring 4 - 1 mile east, alligator across entire pavement probably from aged pavement and loads
when subgrade was wet.
Boring 6 - 1.5 miles east thermal cracking at approximately 15 feet
Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Pavement Condition Photographs 9/8-9/11 211-156
3 All mileages are from the bridge at the campground entrance
Boring 7 - 1.75 miles east - thermal and block cracking from pavement aging with minor fatigue
cracking in wheelpaths
Boring 10 - 2.5 miles east - severe alligator cracking and thermal cracking also east end of
rough pavement section where subgrade moisture or lack of compaction and settlement are believed to be a possible cause
Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Pavement Condition Photographs 9/8-9/11 211-156
4 All mileages are from the bridge at the campground entrance
Boring 11 - 2.75 miles east - Thermal and block cracking probably from aged asphalt and
alligator cracking in the wheel patch which may be load associated Also utility cut in background
Boring 13 - 3.25 miles east of campground - severely deteriorated alligator cracking at fire
station entrance
Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Pavement Condition Photographs 9/8-9/11 211-156
5 All mileages are from the bridge at the campground entrance
Boring 15 - 3.75 miles east fatigue cracking, patching and settlement of wall on south side of
pavement - questionable drainage on north side
Boring 17 - 4.25 miles east, deteriorated transverse cracking, block cracking and patching on
right in distance
Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Pavement Condition Photographs 9/8-9/11 211-156
6 All mileages are from the bridge at the campground entrance
Boring 19 near intersection looking east - prevalent fatigue cracking
Intersection of Arroyo Seco and Carmel Valley Road - Intersection may be realigned to better
configuration for turns
Appendix E – Wall Condition Photographs ________________________________________________________________
Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Retaining Wall Photographs (9/8‐9/11) 211‐156
West end of west wall section, few problems in this area
Start of patching and settlement in west wall
Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Retaining Wall Photographs (9/8‐9/11) 211‐156
Worst visible area of wall rotation and cracking
Cracking in fill material at edge of pavement
Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Retaining Wall Photographs (9/8‐9/11) 211‐156
Rock outcrop separating west and east wall sections
Looking west at Boring 4, full lane width patching for east wall section
Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Retaining Wall Photographs (9/8‐9/11) 211‐156
Wall construction ‐ west section
Wall construction and bracing rail
Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Retaining Wall Photographs (9/8‐9/11) 211‐156
Vegetation below and through wall
Close‐up of construction method, plates, vertical anchored railroad rail supports and cable ties with
some welded horizontal rail supports
Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Retaining Wall Photographs (9/8‐9/11) 211‐156
Fill Materials loss behind plates
Material loss under plates
Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Retaining Wall Photographs (9/8‐9/11) 211‐156
Patched plates near boring W‐3 at east end of west wall section
Typical section of east wall section above Miller's Resort Parking Lot
Arroyo Seco Road, Ca. Retaining Wall Photographs (9/8‐9/11) 211‐156
Typical east section wall near boring W‐5
Typical Wall Section near Boring W‐4
Appendix F – Pavement Design Calculations ________________________________________________________________