My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 10/26/2021
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2021
>
Agenda - Council - 10/26/2021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 3:15:39 PM
Creation date
1/11/2022 3:29:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/26/2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
383
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
cracking are cracks perpendicular to the roadway centerline or laydown direction. These are often <br />caused by shrinkage of the pavement surface, reflective cracking from an underlying layer or top - <br />down cracking. Alligator or fatigue cracking can be symptomatic of poor subgrade soils and/or <br />inadequate pavement thickness. <br />Photographs of the bituminous cores are presented in the Appendix. <br />Aggregate Base An apparent aggregate base layer was observed below the pavements at each <br />boring location. The apparent aggregate base appeared to contain little gravel and because of that <br />it is identified as Possible Aggregate Base on the boring logs. Based on our observations the <br />aggregate base or Possible Aggregate Base may not meet MN/DOT gradation specifications for <br />Class 5 aggregate base. It is possible that the Possible Aggregate base was initially placed as new <br />or virgin Class 5 aggregate base but has degraded over time. <br />Subgrade Soils The borings generally encountered sandy subgrade soils including; poorly graded <br />sand, poorly grades sand with silt and silty sand which correspond to the ASTM Classifications <br />SP, SP-SM, SM, respectively. The sand soils (SP, SP-SM, SM) encountered in the borings are <br />generally well suited for pavement and/or pipe support and the soil classified as SP and SP-SM <br />are generally considered non -frost susceptible soils and are also free draining materials. The soil <br />classified as SM can be moderately to highly frost susceptible. Frost susceptibility or frost heave <br />refers to the soils ability to heave when frozen. Heave results from frost penetration and the <br />formation of ice lenses within the soil. Heave can result in cracks in the pavement and reduced <br />pavement life. The amount of heave depends, in -part on the available moisture in the subgrade <br />and the subgrade soil type. Silt and clay rich soil are more likely to form ice lenses because of their <br />high capillarity which enables them to draw up moisture. These soils are also slow draining <br />materials and retain moisture. The frozen soil can also experience detrimental strength loss and <br />settlement when they thaw. <br />Soil borings SB-09 and SB-12 encountered buried topsoil and/or relatively thin layers of buried <br />topsoil. The "buried topsoil" is generally a poor -quality soil for pavement support and typically <br />do not recommend supporting pavements on topsoil, buried topsoil or other organic soils. <br />The "buried topsoil" at soil boring SB-09 was encountered at a depth of about 91/2 feet below the <br />ground surface and the laboratory organic content test yielded an organic content of 1 percent. <br />Organic contents less that 2 percent are generally considered non -organic. Based on the organic <br />content result and the depth below the pavement surface, it our opinion that the buried topsoil <br />need not necessarily be removed. <br />The apparent buried topsoil encountered near the surface in soil boring SB-12 may not necessarily <br />need to be removed. However, if new storm sewer utilities will be installed in this area, we <br />anticipate that the buried topsoil will be removed incidental to pipe installation. We do not <br />recommend that the buried topsoil be reused as fill or backfill. <br />Groundwater Ground water was encountered in 11 of the soil borings at depths ranging from <br />about 5 to 10 1/2 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater was not encountered in the <br />remaining borings while drilling and sampling or after removing the augers from the boreholes. <br />We generally do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during shallow utility <br />construction or reconstruction and generally do not anticipate that dewatering will be required. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.