13. 2022.08.03 PHAR - Final Concepts Report_3_Rev-Redacted 10-8-24signed.pdf

ADMINPK1 (24,517 SF)

ADMINPK2 (33,041 SF)

ADMINRD1 (7,479 SF)

CIDOCKPK1 (34,981 SF)

CIDOCKPK2 (27,706 SF)

CIDOCKPK3 (24,822 SF)

PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

Pharr Land Port of Entry

Pharr, Texas

FINAL

SUBMITTED TO

CUSHING TERRELL

BY

HVJ, INC.

Austin, Texas July 7, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION

2 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

3 TRAFFIC DATA

4 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN

5 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN

6 RECOMMENDED DESIGNS

7 LIMITATIONS

APPENDICES

USDA SOIL MAPS ......................................................................................................................................... A

SOILS DATA ................................................................................................................................................... B

CORING AND LAB REPORT .................................................................................................................... C

TRAFFIC DATA AND ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... D

PAVEMENT DESIGN SOFTWARE OUTPUT ..................................................................................... E

CRCP AND CPCD DETAIL ......................................................................................................................... F

1 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION

HVJ Associates, Inc.® (HVJ) was retained by the Cushing Terrell to provide pavement design services for several Land Ports of Entry (LPOEs) managed by the U.S General Services Administration (GSA). This report includes designs for reconstruction of 12 sections of the Pharr LPOE, as shown in Table 1:

Table 1. Pharr Sections and Pavement Types Section ID Pavement Type COMMPRD1 Portland Cement Concrete COMMPRD2 Portland Cement Concrete COMMSRD1 Portland Cement Concrete FMCSAPK1 Portland Cement Concrete FMCSARD1 Portland Cement Concrete GANTRYRD1 Portland Cement Concrete KENNELPK2 Asphalt Pavement KENNELRD1 Asphalt Pavement PORTRD1 Portland Cement Concrete POVPPK1 Asphalt Pavement POVPRD1 Portland Cement Concrete POVSPK1 Asphalt Pavement

2 GEOTECHICAL DATA

A local map of gypsum content and Plasticity Index (PI) was generated from the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, and is included in Appendix A. A basic summary and analysis of the soils is included in Appendix B.

The soil types encountered within the project area are Harlingen Clay and Runn Silty Clay as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Predominant Soil Types Within Project Area

Soil Type Sulfates (ppm)

Total Area

Plasticity Index (PI)

Harlingen Clay 0 66 56.2 Runn Silty Clay 0 34 27.2

The soil map shows that the soils underlying this project are of medium to high plasticity. Sulfates are not found in this area at the depths likely to be incorporated into a pavement design. Due to the lack of sulfates and high plasticity, lime will be the stabilizing agent for these soils.

3 TRAFFIC DATA

Traffic data was collected and classified by Gram Traffic Counting, Inc. The traffic count was conducted at an exit of the facility such that all trucks entering the U.S were counted. The counts were summarized for each FWHA class of vehicle. The contribution of daily Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) was calculated and summarized for each FHWA class, assuming legally-loaded trucks. The number ESALs induced by each vehicle type were found using American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials methodology (the AASHTO formula).

Approximately 2,600 vehicles enter the U.S. through the port per day. Projections of ESALs over 20 years (for both asphalt and rigid pavements) are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of Traffic Data.

Count Location 24 hours Count

VPD (2022)

Projected VPD* (2042)

Full Traffic Load (20 Year Flex ESALs)

Full Traffic Load (20 Year Rigid ESALs)

Port Exit to U.S. 2,632 5,545 59,448,953 94,152,649

*Annual growth of 4% is assumed: Traffic2022 x 1.04^(20-1) = Traffic2042 fractions, pavement sections are expected to bear 10% to 100% of the measured facility traffic, designed to be trafficked only by privately owned vehicles (e.g. non-commercial passenger cars) are limited to reasonable design traffic, regardless of the overall port traffic. The parking lot FMCSAPK1 will be traversed by heavy traffic which controls its design.

A new corridor is planned for inspection of empty trucks. This route will be constructed of concrete and is designed for 10% of the ESALs of the overall port.

For the sections of Pharr under consideration, the following factors and design traffic applies.

Table 4. Traffic Data by Section.

Section Section Factor

Calculated Section Traffic

Design Section Traffic (ESALs)**

**Includes traffic limits on flexible and rigid sections designated for light vehicle use only.

4 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN

The jointed Concrete Pavement Contraction Design (CPCD) designs were prepared using the AASHTO DARWin program based on the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design procedure. The TxDOT Pavement Design Manual (June 2021) was used to determine concrete pavement design parameters.

The design and performance constraints include reliability level and overall standard deviation, performance period, initial serviceability index after construction, terminal serviceability index, 28 day mean PCC modulus of rupture and Modulus of Elasticity, drainage coefficient, and load transfer. A 20-year performance period was used for all rigid pavement designs.

Drainage

A drainage coefficient (Cd) of 1.03 was selected based on the TxDOT recommended range (1.01 < Cd <1.05) for annual rainfall between 30-

Properties of the concrete are also in accordance with TxDOT recommendations:

28-day Concrete Modulus of Rupture = 620 psi

28-day Mean Elastic Modulus of Slab= 5,000,000 psi

Reliability Level and Overall Standard Deviation

A reliability level (R) of 95% was selected for the pavement design performance. A mean value of the overall standard deviation (So) is 0.39.

Initial and Terminal Serviceability

The serviceability of a pavement is defined as its ability to serve the type of traffic that uses the facility. The condition of the pavement after the performance period is characterized by a Terminal Serviceability Index (Pt), which is a function of the pavement structure. A Terminal Serviceability Index (Pt) of 2.5 was used for jointed pavement design. The initial serviceability (Po) value was selected as 4.5.

Load Transfer

The load transfer coefficient (J) is a factor used in rigid pavement design to account for the ability of a concrete pavement structure to transfer load across discontinuities (i.e., joints and cracks) and selected according to the AASHTO suggestion for pavement types based on design condition (i.e., jointed reinforced versus plain jointed). A mean value of the load transfer coefficient of 3.2 was selected for the design of CPCD based on the assumed use of dowel bars for joint load transfer at all joints. Although TxDOT recommends a lower load transfer coefficient of 2.9, the more conservative J-value of 3.2 was selected for the design.

Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (K-value)

Based on the estimated subgrade resilient modulus of 8,0 effective modulus of subgrade reaction was calculated using DARWin, which resulted in an k-value equal to 300 psi/in.

CRCP Designs

Continuously- Mechanistic/Empirical program TxCRCP-ME. This was done using input parameters recommended in the TxDOT Pavement Manual, which are at or near the above values used in DARWin. All input parameters for both programs are available in Appendix E.

Design Regression Curves

Many rigid pavement designs are required at port facilities where the only design variable that changes is the traffic, expressed as ESALs. To expedite ESAL-based thickness calculations, the number of ESALs of life available at each half-inch increment of thickness was calculated. This was done for CPCD using DARWin as well as for CRCP using TxCRCP-ME. The thickness/ESAL plots follow logarithmic trends almost perfectly. The concrete thickness, before rounding to the nearest half-inch, is as follows:

For CPCD/DARWin designs Thickness (in) = 1.7054 x ln(Million ESALs)+6.9006

For CRCP/TxCRCP-ME designs Thickness (in) = 1.4205 x ln(Million ESALs)+6.679

Fig. 1 CPCD and CRCP Design Curves (Calculation for COMMSRD1 Shown)

5 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN

Recommendations from the TxDOT Pavement Manual1, and TxDOT software were utilized to develop flexible pavement designs. A 20-year design life is required, with a minimum of maintenance issues (and no overlays required) in the first 15 years.

Pavement Thickness Design Criteria and Performance Constraints t design software FPS-21.

Input values were selected in accordance with the TxDOT Pavement Manual. The roadways are be designed to accommodate a 4% yearly increase in traffic.

Material Properties

These flexible pavements will utilize subgrade stabilization, flexible base, and Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete (HMAC) layers. Design moduli for these layers are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Material Design Inputs

Material Design Modulus Ratio

New Dense- Graded HMAC Total HMAC) 0.35

Flex Base 50,000 psi 0.35

Stabilized Subgrade 35,000 psi 0.30

Subgrade 8,000 psi 0.40

Basic Design Criteria

The basic design criteria for the pavement section design are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: FPS 21 - Basic Design Criteria

Parameter Value

Design Confidence Level (%) 95

Design life (yrs) 20

Initial Serviceability Index 4.5

Terminal Serviceability Index 2.5

Time to First Overlay (yrs) 10

Time between Overlays (yrs) 8

Design software output including many other details can be found in Appendix E.

The recommended designs in Section 6 pass all mechanistic and triaxial design checks.

1 Pavement Manual, Texas Department of Transportation; Revised June 2021

6 RECOMMENDED DESIGNS

The following flexible pavement designs will provide a minimum 20-year service life for kennel and personal vehicle roadways and parking lots.

KENNELRD1

HMAC Surface: SS 3076 D-Gr TY C PG 70-22 Prime Coat: Item 310 MC-30

Flexible Base: Item 247, Ty A, Gr-1-2 Prime Coat: Item 310 MC-30 Item 260 Stabilization, Est. 6% Lime

KENNELPK2, POVPPK1 and POVSPK1

3.5 HMAC Surface: SS 3076 D-Gr TY C PG 70-22

Prime Coat: Item 310 MC-30

6 Flexible Base: Item 247, Ty A, Gr-1-2 Prime Coat: Item 310 MC-30 Item 260 Stabilization, Est. 6% Lime

While CRCP generally provides more life (as measured in ESALs) than CPCD before the pavement reaches unacceptable condition, it may not be as practical to construct as CPCD when considering the size and shape of the section.

Another consideration is the recommended range of thickness for each pavement type. Minimum thickness for CPCD and CRCP is 6 and 7 inches, respectively. Maximum thickness (before a second mat of reinforcement steel is required) for CPCD and CRCP is 12 and 13 inches, respectively.

Most rigid pavements in Texas utilize the following base layer and subgrade treatment. This is recommended for the foundation of all CPCD and CRCP pavements at Pharr:

HMAC Base: SS 3076 D-Gr TY B, PG 64-22 Treated Subgrade, Item 260 Est. 6% Lime

The concrete layer thickness and type depends primarily on the design traffic and size/shape of the section. For Pharr, both thicknesses are provided for each section in Appendix E. If desired, one pavement type may be substituted for the other. The recommendations are based on the size and shape of the section as well as thickness limitations.

The following rigid pavement thicknesses, in combination with the above HMAC base and subgrade treatment, will provide a minimum 20-year service life.

May 18, 2022

Mr. Robert F. Carmichael, PE Branch Manager HVJ Associates, Inc.

1701 Directors Boulevard, Suite 910 Austin, TX 78744

Re: GSA Various LPOE PH5 Cores - Pharr Owner: General Services Administration HVJ No. AG 21 10322

Dear Mr. Carmichael, Submitted herein is the summary memo for the asphaltic concrete and base thickness to provide field and testing services for the Geotechnical Investigation for the General Services Administration Land Port of Entry Phase 5 (GSA LPOE PH5) facilities improvements project located at Pharr Port of Entry, Pharr, Texas. We understand pavement improvements to various facilities in south Texas located at Laredo, Eagle Pass, Del Rio, Brownsville and Pharr Ports of Entry are planned. This memorandum was prepared in accordance with our proposal number AG 21 10322 dated September 22, 2021.

1. Objectives and Scope of Work

HVJ South Central Texas M&J, Inc. (HVJ SCTx) was retained by HVJ Associates, Inc. to provide pavement and base thicknesses, field testing, and laboratory testing information to aide in the GSA LPOE PH5 project improvements at Pharr, Texas. A total of four (4) pavement core locations have been investigated.

2. Geotechnical Field Exploration

Coring operations for the field exploration program were performed between Jan 26, 2022 and Mar 9, 2022. The cores were advanced using a 6-inch electric core drilling machine to core through the pavement and base. The coring locations were provided by HVJ Associates, Inc. and are shown on the Plan of Cores, Appendix A. The following table provides general core information.

4201 Freidrich Lane, Suite 110

Austin, Texas 78744

512.447.9081 Ph

512.443.3442 Fax

www.hvj.com

Table 2-1: Core Information

Core Name Northing Easting Elevation (ft.) +/- 5ft.

C1 16558220.5 1083687.8 94 C2 16558174.9 1083064.3 94 C3 16557830.0 1083022.7 95 C4 16556920.4 1083653.1 96

Note: Core locations were not professionally surveyed and were taken from a hand held GPS device. The grid coordinates are based on the Texas State Plane Coordinate System, Central Zone, NAD 83(93). Elevations are based on Google Earth 2019. Units: Survey Feet.

Cores were obtained, when possible, from cracked locations near and slightly offset of the wheel paths. The extracted concrete cores were carefully placed (taped together if cracked) in containers and transported to the laboratory for further examinations. Upon completion of coring activities, the core holes were drained out, backfilled with mix of sand and gravel, and topped with a single lift of cold mix asphalt patch to match the existing pavement.

3. Pavement Thickness

The pavement structure was observed to consist of 9.75 to 10.5 inches of concrete overlaying 3.5 to

16.5 inches of flexible base material. Table 3-1 below provides the pavement and base thicknesses.

Table 3-1: Existing Pavement Details

Core Name

Concrete Thickness

(in)

Base Thickness

(in)

Base Classification Subgrade Classification

C1 10.0 * Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC) Sandy Fat Clay (CH)

C2 9.75 17.5 Silty Clayey Gravel with Sand

(GC-GM)

Fat Clay (CH)

C3 10.5 19 Silty Clayey Gravel with Sand

(GC-GM)

Fat Clay (CH)

C4 10.0 16.5 Silty Clayey Gravel with Sand

(GC-GM)

Fat Clay (CH)

*Base thickness not available.

Base and subgrade samples were collected using a hand auger. Upon completion of coring activities, the core holes were drained out and topped with a single lift of cold mix asphalt patch or concrete mix to match the existing pavement. The base material was observed to consist of light brown Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC) and Silty Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC-GM). The subgrade was found underlying the base material at a depth of 26.5 to 29.5-inches below grade. The subgrade material was visually classified as dark brown Fat Clay to Sandy Fat Clay (CH). Photographs were taken of all concrete cores and are presented in Appendix B.

4. Dynamic Cone Penetration

Four Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) tests were performed at the project site. This test measures the penetration rate of the dynamic cone penetrometer with a 17.6 lb weight dropped from 2.26 feet (575 mm). The penetration of the cone is measured after each blow or every inch and is recorded to provide a continuous measure of shearing resistance up to 30 inches below the ground surface. Test results can be correlated to California Bearing Ratios, in-situ density, resilient modulus, and bearing capacity. The results for these tests are presented in Appendix C.

5. Laboratory Testing

General

Base and subgrade samples transported to our laboratory were further examined and described and a preliminary soil classification was assigned to each soil sample based on ASTM D 2487 Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes.

Classification testing, which included moisture contents, Atterberg limits and percent passing the No. 200 sieve, were subsequently conducted on select samples. All the testing was performed in accordance with the relevant ASTM and TxDOT Standards as required. The results of these tests were used to confirm or modify the preliminary soil classifications.

The laboratory test results are provided in the Laboratory Tests Results Summary, Appendix D.

Atterberg Limits

Select samples were tested to determine the Atterberg Limits in accordance with ASTM D4318 (TEX-104-E, and 105-E). The Atterberg Limit test is used to classify the soil using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The Atterberg Limit test consists of two parts: a liquid limit test and a plastic limit test. The liquid limit equipment setup consists of a brass cup partially filled with soil which is grooved with a specialized grooving tool, and then dropped freely from a specified height to the rubber base below at a constant rate of 2 drops per second. The liquid limit test is performed on soil that has been sieved through the No. 40 sieve and brought to a moisture content that would close the ½-inch groove within 20 to 30 blows for two consecutive tests. The moisture content of the soil is then measured and recorded as the liquid limit. The second part of the test consists of a rolling a remolded sample between the tips of the fingers and a glass plate until transverse cracks appear at a rolled diameter of 1/8-inch. The moisture content of the rolled sample is taken and recorded as the plastic limit.

Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve

Select soil samples were tested in accordance with ASTM D1140 (TEX-111-E) to determine the amount of material finer than the No. 200 sieve for use in classification. An oven dried sample of material is weighed then washed over a 75-µm (No. 200) sieve, allowing clay and other particles to be dispersed and removed from the soil. The retained material is oven dried then reweighed. The loss in mass resulting from the washing is calculated as mass percent of the original sample and is reported as the percentage of material finer than a No. 200 sieve.

Moisture Content

Moisture content testing was performed on select soil samples to determine the in-situ state of moisture of the soil. A fresh sample was weighed before being placed in an oven with a controlled temperature of 230°F and dried back to a constant mass. Upon the drying and reweighing of the sample, the total mass of water lost was recorded. The ratio of the water loss to the dried mass is recorded as the moisture content. This test was performed in accordance with ASTM D2216 (TEX- 103-E).

Sieve Analysis

Sieve analyses were performed on select samples to determine the particle size distribution of the soil for use of the Unified Soil Classification System. This test was performed in accordance with ASTM D422. Oven dried material was weighed and then mechanically shaken through a full set of sieves, ranging in size from 4.75 mm through 75-results are provided in Appendix E.

Specific Gravity

A specific gravity test was performed on a soil sample in accordance with ASTM D854-02 Method B. The soil sample is oven dried and passed through a No. 4.75mm sieve. The mass of a clean and dry Pycnometer is measured and then the mass of oven dried sample added to the Pycnometer is weighed. De-aired water is added to 1/3 depth of pycnometer to cover the soil. The contents are agitated well and boiled to remove the entrapped air. Water is filled to the full depth and measured.

The Pycnometer is then cleaned and dried to fill with only water and measured. The results for this test can be found in Appendix F.

6. Limitations

This memorandum was performed for the exclusive use of HVJ Associates, Inc. for General Services Administration Land Port of Entry Phase 5 (GSA LPOE PH5) facilities improvements project at Pharr Port of Entry, Pharr, Texas. HVJ SCTx has endeavored to comply with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices common in the local area. HVJ SCTx makes no warranty, express or implied. Any analysis and recommendation contained in this report are based on data obtained from subsurface exploration, and laboratory testing performed and our experience with similar soils and site conditions.

The methods used indicate subsurface conditions only at the specific locations where samples were obtained, only at the time they were obtained, and only to the depths penetrated. Samples cannot be relied on to accurately reflect the strata variations that usually exist between sampling locations.

Should any subsurface conditions other than those described in our boring logs be encountered, HVJ SCTx should be immediately notified so that further investigation and supplemental recommendations can be provided.

In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project are made, any conclusion and recommendation in this report should not be considered valid until the changes are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations modified or verified in writing by HVJ SCTx.

Sincerely, HVJ South Central Texas M&J, Inc.

Texas Firm Registration No. F-18091

DRAFT

Leo Ruiz, PE Project Manager

Bhupendra Chand, PE Project Engineer

Copies submitted: (1) Electronic

Appendices:

Appendix A: Plan of Cores Appendix B: Core Pictures Appendix C: Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Results Appendix D: Laboratory Test Results Summary Appendix E: Sieve Analysis Test Results Appendix F: Specific Gravity Test Results

Project Name: GSA LPOE PH5 Cores

Project No: 2021AG_AP2110322 Location: Pharr Core ID: C1 Depth of Penetration: 13.5" - 19.5"

# Blows Penetration

(in) Cumulative

Blows Cumulative Penetration

CBR E (ksi)

0 0 0 0.00 14 1 14 1.0 149.8 62.9 8 2 22 2.0 80.1 42.1

14 3 36 3.0 149.8 62.9 2 4 38 4.0 16.9 15.6 3 5 41 5.0 26.7 20.9 3 6 44 6.0 26.7 20.9

APPENDIX C

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TESTING

0 10 20 30 40 50

D ep th (in

Cumulative Blows

DCP C1

C-1 Subgrade 55 51 33 18.0 C-2 Subgrade 96 58 38 23.7 C-3 Subgrade 94 57 38 21.7 C-4 Subgrade 97 57 39 27.3

Moisture Content

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SUMMARY

GSA LPOE PH5 Cores - Pharr

Project Number: 2021AG_AP2110322

Core Number Depth

(ft)

% Passing No. 200

Sieve

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

Project No: 2021AG_AP2110322 Boring: Pharr C1 Project Name: GSA LPOE Depth: Subgrade

Date: 3/25/2022 Sample No: (27/30)

Visual Classification Light Brown, Sandy Fat Clay (CH) Percent Soil Passing No. 4 Tare No Gu Tare wt. (g) 194.24 Wet wt. + Tare wt. (g) 481.54 Wet wt. Tare wt. (g) 287.3 Dry wt. + Tare wt. (g) 431.66 Dry wt. Tare wt. (g) 237.42 Dry Mass Retained on No.4 118.56 Dry Mass Passing No.4 121.6 Percent Soil Passing No.4(%) 51 Method used (A or B) Method B 45g of sample added to 250ml flask

ID and Volume of Pycnometer Flask "E" 250 ml Avg. Calibrated Mass Mp (g) 83.05 Avg. Calibrated Volume Vp (g/ml3) 249.784

Mass of Pycn. +Soil +Water and Temperature after Boiling/Equilibration Mass Mpws,t (g) 360.1 Tare wt. (g) 192.91 Dry soil + Tare (g) 237.67 Mass of dry soil, Ms (g) 44.76 Temperature, Tt (° C) 23.6

Specific Gravity at 20° C Density of water at Tt 0.9974 Mas of Pycn.+ water Mpw,t (g) 332.185 Specific gravity at Tt 2.657 Temperature Coefficient, Kt 0.99919 Specific gravity at 20° C 2.66

SD Leo Ruiz, PE Performed by Reviewed by

Firm PE Registration No. F 18091

* Calculations for Specific Gravity *

Determining Specific Gravity of Soil Solids: D854 02

4201 Freidrich Lane, Suite 110

Austin, Texas 78744

512.447.9081 Ph

512.443.3442 Fax

www.hvj.com

Our letters and reports are for the exclusive use of the client. The use of our name must receive our prior written approval. Our letters and reports apply only to the material(s) tested and/or inspected and are not necessarily indicative of the qualities of apparently identical or similar materials(s). This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without consent of HVJ Associates, Inc.

Project No: 2021AG_AP2110322 Boring: Pharr C2

Date: 3/6/2022 Sample No: (5/24)

Visual Classification Brown, Fat Clay (CH) Percent Soil Passing No. 4 Tare No Kg Tare wt. (g) 192.87 Wet wt. + Tare wt. (g) 402.86 Wet wt. Tare wt. (g) 209.99 Dry wt. + Tare wt. (g) 362.74 Dry wt. Tare wt. (g) 169.87 Dry Mass Retained on No.4 76.79 Dry Mass Passing No.4 92.94 Percent Soil Passing No.4(%) 72 Method used (A or B) Method B 45g of sample added to 250ml flask

ID and Volume of Pycnometer Flask "A" 250 ml Avg. Calibrated Mass Mp (g) 126.66 Avg. Calibrated Volume Vp (g/ml3) 249.82

Mass of Pycn. +Soil +Water and Temperature after Boiling/Equilibration Mass Mpws,t (g) 404.02 Tare wt. (g) 194.8 Dry soil + Tare (g) 239.58 Mass of dry soil, Ms (g) 44.78 Temperature, Tt (° C) 22.4

Specific Gravity at 20° C Density of water at Tt 0.99768 Mas of Pycn.+ water Mpw,t (g) 375.900 Specific gravity at Tt 2.688 Temperature Coefficient, Kt 0.99947 Specific gravity at 20° C 2.69

SD Leo Ruiz, PE Performed by Reviewed by

Firm PE Registration No. F 18091

* Calculations for Specific Gravity *

Determining Specific Gravity of Soil Solids: D854 02

Our letters and reports are for the exclusive use of the client. The use of our name must receive our prior written approval. Our letters and reports apply only to the material(s) tested and/or inspected and are not necessarily indicative of the qualities of apparently identical or similar materials(s). This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without consent of HVJ Associates, Inc.

4201 Freidrich Lane, Suite 110

Austin, Texas 78744

512.447.9081 Ph

Project No: 2021AG_AP2110322 Boring Pharr C3 Project Name: GSA LPOE Depth Subgrade

Date: 3/21/2022 Sample No (23/24)

Visual Classification Light Brown, Fat Clay (CH) Percent Soil Passing No. 4 Tare No Eddy Tare wt. (g) 194.65 Wet wt. + Tare wt. (g) 402.78 Wet wt. Tare wt. (g) 208.13 Dry wt. + Tare wt. (g) 364.77 Dry wt. Tare wt. (g) 170.12 Dry Mass Retained on No.4 75.99 Dry Mass Passing No.4 93.47 Percent Soil Passing No.4(%) 55 Method used (A or B) Method B 45g of sample added to 250ml flask

ID and Volume of Pycnometer Flask "E" 250 ml Avg. Calibrated Mass Mp (g) 83.05 Avg. Calibrated Volume Vp (g/ml3) 249.784

Mass of Pycn. +Soil +Water and Temperature after Boiling/Equilibration Mass Mpws,t (g) 360.33 Tare wt. (g) 162.85 Dry soil + Tare (g) 207.51 Mass of dry soil, Ms (g) 44.66 Temperature, Tt (° C) 23.2

Specific Gravity at 20° C Density of water at Tt 0.99749 Mas of Pycn.+ water Mpw,t (g) 332.207 Specific gravity at Tt 2.701 Temperature Coefficient, Kt 0.99929 Specific gravity at 20° C 2.70

SD Leo Ruiz, PE Performed by Reviewed by

Firm PE Registration No. F 18091

* Calculations for Specific Gravity *

Determining Specific Gravity of Soil Solids: D854 02

Our letters and reports are for the exclusive use of the client. The use of our name must receive our prior written approval. Our letters and reports apply only to the material(s) tested and/or inspected and are not necessarily indicative of the qualities of apparently identical or similar materials(s). This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without consent of HVJ Associates, Inc.

4201 Freidrich Lane, Suite 110

Austin, Texas 78744

512.447.9081 Ph

Project No: 2021AG_AP2110322 Boring: Pharr C4

Date: 3/16/2022 Sample No: (17/24)

Visual Classification Light Brown, Fat Clay (CH) Percent Soil Passing No. 4 Tare No Miller Tare wt. (g) 172.51 Wet wt. + Tare wt. (g) 397.23 Wet wt. Tare wt. (g) 224.72 Dry wt. + Tare wt. (g) 353.91 Dry wt. Tare wt. (g) 181.4 Dry Mass Retained on No.4 39.55 Dry Mass Passing No.4 141.64 Percent Soil Passing No.4(%) 78 Method used (A or B) Method B 45g of sample added to 250ml flask

ID and Volume of Pycnometer Pycn "D" 250 ml Avg. Calibrated Mass Mp (g) 82.358 Avg. Calibrated Volume Vp (g/ml3) 249.794

Mass of Pycn. +Soil +Water and Temperature after Boiling/Equilibration Mass Mpws,t (g) 359.71 Tare wt. (g) 195.6 Dry soil + Tare (g) 240.95 Mass of dry soil, Ms (g) 45.35 Temperature, Tt (° C) 23

Specific Gravity at 20° C Density of water at Tt 0.99754 Mas of Pycn.+ water Mpw,t (g) 331.538 Specific gravity at Tt 2.640 Temperature Coefficient, Kt 0.99933 Specific gravity at 20° C 2.64

SD Leo Ruiz, PE Performed by Reviewed by

Firm PE Registration No. F 18091

* Calculations for Specific Gravity *

Determining Specific Gravity of Soil Solids: D854 02

4201 Freidrich Lane, Suite 110

Austin, Texas 78744

512.447.9081 Ph

512.443.3442 Fax

www.hvj.com

Our letters and reports are for the exclusive use of the client. The use of our name must receive our prior written approval. Our letters and reports apply only to the material(s) tested and/or inspected and are not necessarily indicative of the qualities of apparently identical or similar materials(s). This report

GRAM Traffic Counting, Inc.

512-832-8650

HRLT

harr light vehicle roads harr harr harr Hidalgo harr Hidalgo