Note: Fields with no data or with a value of "Unknown" will not be displayed on the print out.
Project ID: 993333 DEA: 04264724 EFIS: 0419000068
QA Service Level: 1
DIST-CO-RTE-PM: 04-MRN-101-R20.8/27.1
Work Description: CIP BRIDGES, CONSTRUCT ROADWAY, RETAINING WALLS AND MODIFY ELECTRICAL.
Location Description: MARIN COUNTY IN AND NEAR NOVATO FROM 0.1 MILE SOUTH OF FRANKLIN AVENUE OVERHEAD TO 0.5 MILE SOUTH OF SAN ANTONIO CREEK BRIDGE
Contractor Name: GHILOTTI CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. (RILEY GENAZZI & JOSH SERAFINO)
Contractor Address: 246 GHILOTTI AVE., SANTA ROSA, CA 95407
Resident Engineer: Fabio La Serna Structure Rep.: Jeremy Light
DIME Sample ID: 2023-02-21-52
TL Number from the TL Form:
Sample Submitted By Organization: CT D04 - Petaluma Field Laboratory
Sample Organization Contact: (510) 385-6841
Type of Sample: Quality Assurance
Type of Material: Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement
Sample Taken Date: 02/21/2023
Date that the sample was received by the laboratory/organization performing the testing: 02/21/2023
The quantity of what the sample constitutes: 2 bags
A brief description of the sample: 3/4 HMA-SP Type A
From where was the sample collected: Supplier
Laboratory sample identification:
Structure unique identifier:
Structure name:
The fabricator/manufacturer/facility name: Dutra Richmond
RAP Source: Dutra Richmond
Aggregate Size: 1/2
Aggregate Source:
RAP Stockpile: Continuous
Stockpile Size (tons):
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Mix Number:
DIME Test ID: 2023-02-21-52-1
Test Method: AASHTO T30-19: Standard Method of Test for Mechanical Analysis of Extracted Aggregate (Mechanical Analysis)
Verified Date: 05/03/2023
Date Tested: 02/23/2023
Submitted By Organization: CT D04 - Petaluma Field Laboratory
Organization Address: 5675 Gibraltar Dr.,
Organization City: Pleasanton
Organization State: CA
Organization Zipcode: 94588
Organization Email: glenn.cea@dot.ca.gov
Organization Phone: (510) 385-6841
General Comments for this Test:
Test Result Compliance: complies
Additional Comments When Verified:
|
Is an aggregate correction factor used?
|
Yes
|
|
Aggregate correction factor for the 2 in. sieve (% passing)
|
0.0 %
|
|
Aggregate correction factor for the 1 1/2 in. sieve (% passing)
|
0.0 %
|
|
Aggregate correction factor for the 1 in. sieve (% passing)
|
0.0 %
|
|
Aggregate correction factor for the 3/4 in. sieve (% passing)
|
0.0 %
|
|
Aggregate correction factor for the 1/2 in. sieve (% passing)
|
0.0 %
|
|
Aggregate correction factor for the 3/8 in. sieve (% passing)
|
0.6 %
|
|
Aggregate correction factor for the #4 sieve (% passing)
|
-1.1 %
|
|
Aggregate correction factor for the #8 sieve (% passing)
|
-1.2 %
|
|
Aggregate correction factor for the #16 sieve (% passing)
|
-0.9 %
|
|
Aggregate correction factor for the #30 sieve (% passing)
|
-1.1 %
|
|
Aggregate correction factor for the #50 sieve (% passing)
|
-0.8 %
|
|
Aggregate correction factor for the #100 sieve (% passing)
|
-0.6 %
|
|
Aggregate correction factor for the #200 sieve (% passing)
|
-0.2 %
|
|
Cumulative percent passing the 2 in. sieve
|
100 %
|
|
Cumulative percent passing the 1 1/2 in. sieve
|
100 %
|
|
Cumulative percent passing the 1 in. sieve
|
100 %
|
|
Cumulative percent passing the 3/4 in. sieve
|
100 %
|
|
Cumulative percent passing the 1/2 in. sieve
|
100 %
|
|
Cumulative percent passing the 3/8 in. sieve
|
98 %
|
|
Cumulative percent passing the #4 sieve
|
66 %
|
|
Cumulative percent passing the #8 sieve
|
48 %
|
|
Cumulative percent passing the #16 sieve
|
35 %
|
|
Cumulative percent passing the #30 sieve
|
26 %
|
|
Cumulative percent passing the #50 sieve
|
18 %
|
|
Cumulative percent passing the #100 sieve
|
12 %
|
|
Cumulative percent passing the #200 sieve
|
10.7 %
|
