15-E6. Geotech Report.pdf

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

COLLIER PARKWAY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS

LUTZ, FLORIDA 33549

AREHNA PROJECT NO. B-23-157

January 18, 2024

Prepared For:

Ayres Associates

8875 Hidden River Parkway, Suite 200

Tampa, Florida 33637

Prepared By:

AREHNA Engineering, Inc.

5012 West Lemon Street

Tampa, Florida 33609 www.arehna.com

5012 West Lemon Street

Tampa, Florida 33609

Ph 813.944.3464 │ Fax 813.944.4959

January 18, 2024

Mr. Jeffrey Siewert, P.E.

Ayres Associates

8875 Hidden River Parkway, Suite 200

Tampa, Florida 33637

Email: SiewertJ@AyresAssociates.com

Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration

Collier Parkway Sidewalk Improvements

East of Hwy 301 and Hunters Haven Blvd.

Lutz, Florida

AREHNA Project B-23-157

AREHNA Engineering, Inc. (AREHNA) is pleased to submit this report of our geotechnical exploration for the proposed project. Services were conducted in general accordance with AREHNA Proposal B.Prop-23-168, dated July 19, 2023. The purpose of our geotechnical study was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions for the project site. The project will include the addition of a proposed sidewalk along the north side of Collier Parkway to the west of the intersection.

This report presents our understanding of the project, outlines our exploratory procedures, documents the field data obtained and includes our recommendations for the proposed constructions.

AREHNA appreciates the opportunity to have assisted you on this project. Should you have any questions with regards to this report, or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact this office.

Best Regards, AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 28410

This item has been digitally signed and sealed by:

Roberto Rodriguez, P.E. Kirk M. Eastman, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer Sr. Geotechnical Engineer

Florida Registration 89382 Florida Registration 50733 On the date adjacent to the seal.

Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies

Distribution: 1 – Addressee - Electronic

1 – File

Report of Geotechnical Exploration January 18, 2024

Collier Parkway Sidewalk Improvements AREHNA Project B-23-157 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION AND SCOPE OF WORK

1.1 Site Description and Project Characteristics

1.2 Scope of Work

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Field Exploration

2.2 Laboratory Testing

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 USGS Topographic Data

3.2 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Data

3.3 Subsurface Conditions

3.4 Groundwater Conditions

3.6 Estimated Seasonal High-Water Level

4.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 General

4.2 Soil Suitability

4.3 Organic Soils

4.4 Global Stability Analysis

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Site Preparation

5.2 Embankment Construction

5.3 Excavation and Backfill

5.4 General Construction Monitoring and Testing Guidelines

5.5 Construction Plans and Speficiations Review

6.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

1 | P a g e

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

USDA & USGS Vicinity Maps – Sheet 1

Boring Location Plan – Sheets 2A to 2B

Roadway Soil Survey (Soil Profiles) – Sheet 3A

Report of Core Borings – Sheet 3B

Roadway Soil Survey (Cross Section Soil Survey) – Sheets 3C to 3D

APPENDIX B

Summary of USDA Soil Survey – Table 1

Summary of Laboratory Results – Table 2

Summary of Seasonal High-Water Table – Table 3

Laboratory Test Result

APPENDIX C

Global Stability Analysis

APPENDIX D

FHWA Checklist

2 | P a g e

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION AND SCOPE OF WORK

1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

The project site is located at the intersection of Collier Parkway and Livingston Avenue in Lutz, Pasco County, Florida. The project will include the addition of a proposed sidewalk along the north side of Collier Parkway to the west of the subject intersection. The sidewalk alignment is approximately 900 feet in length and will connect to the existing sidewalk to the west of the site. A new embankment is proposed extending 13 feet north of the existing guardrail at a 2:1 slope to tie into the existing grades. The embankment topography is expected to slope downward approximately 5 to 7 feet to the wetland area.

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

The purpose of our geotechnical study was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions at the proposed project site. The subsurface materials encountered were evaluated with respect to the available project characteristics. In this regard, engineering assessments for the following items were formulated:

• Identification of the existing groundwater levels and estimated normal seasonal high groundwater fluctuations.

• General location and description of potentially deleterious materials encountered in the borings which may have an impact on the proposed construction.

• Evaluate global stability of the proposed embankment reconfiguration.

The following services were performed to achieve the above-outlined objectives:

• Performed site reconnaissance and staked boring locations.

• Requested utility location services from Sunshine811.

• Performed a total of 6 hand auger borings extending to an approximate depth of 4 to 7 feet below existing ground surface or auger refusal. The borings were performed at an approximate interval of

150 feet.

• Performed one Standard Penetration Test (SPT) boring to a depth of 25 feet below existing grades at the bottom of the sloped embankment to the north of Collier Parkway. The boring was used to provide empirical soil data for a slope stability analysis of the proposed reprofiled embankment.

• Visually classified and stratified soil samples in the laboratory using the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Classification System.

• Visually classified and stratified soil samples in the laboratory using the Unified Soil Classification

System (USCS).

• Performed a laboratory testing program consisting of natural moisture content tests, -200 wash gradations, and organic content tests, to verify the engineer’s visual classification.

• Reported results of the field exploration and engineering analysis. The results of the subsurface exploration will be presented in a written report signed and sealed by a professional engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering.

3 | P a g e

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

Our scope included one SPT boring (B-01) extending to an approximate depth of 25 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). A total of 6 hand augers (HA-01 through HA-06) were also completed to depths ranging from 4 to 7 feet below the existing ground surface. The majority of the hand augers were terminated due to shallow water table. Boring and test locations were selected AREHNA.

The hand auger borings were performed by manually advancing a 3-inch diameter, 6-inch-long sampler into the soil until the sampler was full. The sampler was then retrieved and the soils in the sampler removed and visually classified. The soil sampling was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation

D-1452, entitled “Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings”. Samples will be retained for 90 days after the date of the report and then disposed, unless other arrangements have been made. Upon completion of the borings, the boreholes were backfilled with native soils, as required.

The SPT boring was performed with the use of a Power Drill Rig using Bentonite “Mud” drilling procedures.

Samples were collected and Standard Penetration Test resistances were measured at approximate intervals of two feet for the top ten feet and at approximate intervals of five feet thereafter. The upper 4 feet was manually hand augered to avoid potential underground utility conflicts. The soil sampling was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1586, entitled “Penetration Test and Split-Barrel

Sampling of Soils”. Upon completion, the borehole was backfilled with cement grout and left level with surrounding grade.

Representative portions of these soil samples were sealed in glass jars, labeled and transferred to AREHNA’s

Tampa Office for visual classification by a geotechnical professional engineer. Samples will be retained for

90 days after the date of this report unless other arrangements have been made.

The Boring Location Plan on Sheet 2 in Appendix A provides a boring location site plan showing the approximate relationship of existing and proposed features to the test locations. The test locations were located in the field by measuring from existing features and using GPS coordinates.

2.2 LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing consisting of natural moisture content (AASHTO T265/ASTM D2974), single sieve (#200) gradation testing (AASHTO T11/D1140), and organic content of soil by loss of ignition (FM 1-T 267/D2974) were performed on representative soil samples from the hand auger and SPT borings. The results of the laboratory testing are presented on the Soil Boring Profiles on Sheet 3C in Appendix A and are summarized on the Roadway Soil Survey in Appendix A and Table 2 in Appendix B.

4 | P a g e

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC DATA

The topographic survey map published by the United States Geological Survey was reviewed for ground surface features at the proposed project location (Sheet 1 in Appendix A). Based on this review, the natural ground surface elevations at the project site is approximately between +65 to +70 feet National Geodetic Vertical

Datum of 1929 (NGVD). Tin files were provided by Ayres Associates. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations ranged from 63.7 to 67 feet.

3.2 USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE DATA

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) survey for Hillsborough County and Pasco County indicates that the soils at the project site consist of the following soil units:

Table 3.2 Summary of USDA Soil Survey

Soil Unit

Number Soil Name

Depth Below Natural

Grade to High Water

Table (feet)

Pasco County, Florida

21 Smyrna fine sand 1.0 – 3.5

99 Water -

Hillsborough County, Florida

29 Myakka fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.5 – 1.5

52 Smyrna fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0.5 – 1.5

53 Tavares-Millhopper fine sands, 0 to 5 percent slopes 3.5 – 5.0

The USDA Soil Survey map for the project site is attached as Sheet 1 in Appendix A. The summary of the

USDA soil types is provided on Table 1 in Appendix B.

5 | P a g e

3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The soils were visually classified by a Geotechnical Engineer with index property tests performed on select samples to verify visual classification. In this regard, the surficial soils were categorized into two strata. The strata were determined based on their engineering properties, regarding suitability for roadway construction per FDOT Standard Index 120-001 and are summarized in the following table:

Table 3.3 Summary of Subsurface Condition for Auger Borings

Stratum Soil Description AASHTO Soil

Classification

Brown Slightly Silty Fine to Medium SAND Occasionally with

Few Limerock Fragments A-3

2 Dark Brown Organic Silty Fine to Medium SAND A-8

A pictorial representation of the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings is shown on the Roadway

Soil Profiles in Appendix A. These profiles and the above soil conditions highlight the general stratification.

The Roadway Soil Profiles in Appendix A should be consulted for a detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered at each boring location. Subsurface soil conditions may vary between, and away from, boring locations.

The SPT boring (B-01) performed for global stability of the embankment reconfiguration generally encountered very loose to loose SAND with varying amounts of silty/clayey fines (SP, SM, SC) from the existing ground surface to depth of approximately 25 feet bgs. The silty/clayey sand layer was encountered 10 feet to

25 feet depth.

3.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

The groundwater level was encountered at approximate depths ranging from 1.3 to 6.5 feet below existing grades (El. 62.4 to 60.5 feet). Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be expected due to seasonal climatic changes, construction activity, rainfall variations, surface water runoff, and other site-specific factors. Since groundwater level variations are anticipated, design drawings, and specifications should accommodate such possibilities and construction planning should be based on the assumptions that variations will occur. A summary of the groundwater level measurements is presented on Table 3 in Appendix B.

6 | P a g e

3.6 ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH-WATER LEVEL

The Seasonal High-Water Table (SHWT) is the highest average depth of soil stratification during the wet season in a normal year. The procedures for estimating SHWT include an examination of county soil surveys, field verification by observation, and identification of indicators within the soil profile.

A review of the Hillsborough County and Pasco County Soil Survey indicated that the project site is located within an area classified as Smyrna fine sand (Map Unit 21), Myakka fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Map

Unit 29), Smyrna fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Map Unit 52), and Tavares-Millhopper fine sands, 0 to 5 percent slopes. The depth to the water table is noted as 3.5-6.0 feet, 1.0-3.5 feet, 0.5-1.5 feet, 0.5-1.5 feet, and 3.5-5.0 feet below natural grade for Map Units 6, 21, 29, 52, and 53, respectively. It should be noted that the soil survey does not account for man-made fill that may have been placed above the natural ground surface during the construction of the adjacent roadway.

Based on the groundwater table encountered within the borings, the Hillsborough County and Pasco

County Soil Survey, soil information obtained from the site, and site topography, the SHWT is estimated to be at depths of approximately 4.0 feet below the existing ground surface. This corresponds to an elevation of +62 NAVD88 based upon the provided cross sections and approximate location of the test locations. A summary of the estimated SHWT is presented on Table 3 in Appendix B.

7 | P a g e

4.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GENERAL

In general, the existing shallow subsurface soils are suitable to support the proposed sidewalk improvements after proper subgrade preparation. Shallow soils are generally consistent with A-3 (Select) classification. A-8 soils were found within the upper 1 foot at HA-03 and from depths between 2 to 4.5 feet below existing grades in HA-03 and between 2 to 3 feet in HA-05.

If the final sidewalk alignment or improvements are significantly different from those described, or if the subsurface conditions during construction are different from those revealed by our borings, we should be notified immediately so that we might review our recommendations presented in this report.

4.2 SOIL SUITABILITY

FDOT Standard Plan Indices 120-001 and 120-002 should be followed for soil suitability along the vertical and horizontal extent of the alignment. In this regard, the soil strata encountered during our geotechnical exploration and their suitability have been summarized and presented on the Roadway Soil Survey sheet presented in Appendix A.

1. The material from Stratum 1 (A-3) is Select (S) A-3 and appears satisfactory for use in embankment when utilized in accordance with FDOT Standard plan Index 120-001.

2. The material from Stratum 2 (A-8) is Muck (M) A-8 and is unsatisfactory for use in embankment when utilized in accordance with FDOT Standard plan Index 120-001. This stratum was only encountered within the upper 4.5 feet in HA-03 and from 2 to 3 feet with HA-05. This material should be removed in accordance with FDOT Standard Index 120-02.

4.3 ORGANIC SOILS

Organic soil (A-8) was encountered at depths 2 to 4.5 feet in hand auger borings HA-03 A (approx. elevation from 62.2 to 59.7 feet) and between 2 to 3 feet in HA-05 (approx. elevation from 61.7 to 60.7 feet). Laboratory tests were performed for boring HA-03 with organic content results of 69% and tests performed on HA-05 yielded a result of 14%. If encountered, organic soil shall be removed with Standard Plan Index 120-002. Based on the results of borings HA-03 and HA-05, we recommend the limits of this organic material (A-8) be from

Station 3+11 to 4+11 (C/L Construction).

The organic material encountered in HA-03 and HA-05 may remain in place due to the stratum depth. One layer of R-4 B-axial reinforcement Geogrid and one layer of Geotextile shall be placed from Station 2+18 to

7+99 (C/L Construction) as follows:

• The geogrid shall meet the requirements of Standard Specification 985 and have a minimum nominal long term reinforcement tensile resistance of 340 lb/ft.

8 | P a g e

• The layer of bi-axial geogrid should be placed at the top of the existing grade after stripping operations, and prior to placing new fill. A geotextile (Type D-4) for grade separation shall be placed at the top of the existing grade after stripping operations, and prior to placing new fill and geogrid.

• The geogrid should extend a minimum 12 inches from the interior and exterior edges of the new proposed sidewalk.

• The geogrid should overlap a minimum of three feet in accordance with the manufacture’s specification.

• The geogrid shall be placed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification and as shown on the typical section.

• This approach would alleviate differential settlements but may not alleviate total settlements along the alignment.

4.4 GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS

The proposed Collier Parkway sidewalk improvement alignment will have embankment reconfiguration varying from 1:2 (V:H) to 2.00% grade near the top of the embankment at approximate stations STA. 1+00 to STA. 7+00.

A global stability analysis was performed at Station 2+50.00 based on the cross-section information provided by Ayres Associates using GeoStudio 2021.4 (11.3.0.23668) software (Slope/W Module). This cross section was selected as the tallest cross section along the alignment and therefore the most critical for global stability purposes. Boring data from B-01 was used for the analysis. The soil shear strength parameters used in our analysis were based on published empirical correlations and available laboratory test data. The analysis was solved using the Morgenstern-Price methodology.

The global stability analyses results are presented in Appendix C. For Station 2+50.00, a factor of safety of

2.3 was calculated. Generally, regulatory agencies such as the FDOT require a minimum factor of safety of

1.33 (i.e. resistance factor of 0.75) for well-defined soil parameters and a slope that is not supporting structures.

9 | P a g e

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

The following recommendations are based upon our understanding of the project information, as outlined in Section 1.0 of this report, and the data gathered during this subsurface exploration. If revised project information is developed, we should be notified so that our recommendations can be reviewed. The stratification and consistency of the subsurface materials encountered may vary with even short lateral distances; therefore, any subsurface encountered during construction or any additional exploration that deviates from that documented in this exploration should be reported to us so that our recommendation can be reviewed.

5.1 SITE PREPARATION

In general, the existing shallow subsurface soils encountered in the borings performed are suitable for supporting the proposed sidewalk improvements after proper subgrade preparation except at location HA-

03 where unsuitable material Muck (A-8) was found. If buried organic soils, plastic, debris, or other unsuitable soils are encountered during construction, they should be removed and replaced with clean, compacted, sandy (A-3) soils.

All fill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report, FDOT Index 120-

001, and the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. The suitability of the soil for reuse in construction shall be evaluated against FDOT engineering fill requirements. Existing shallow soils should be suitable for re-use (i.e., compacted in place after removal of topsoil and roots) for the intended construction.

5.1.1 Clearing and Grubbing – The initial step in the new concrete sidewalk, embankment and subgrade preparation within the subject construction area should generally consist of the removal of heavily forested area and any topsoil or organic soils encountered.

The stripping operations should be observed and documented by qualified personnel (defined as a geotechnical engineer or engineering technician working under the direction of a geotechnical engineer or

CEI/FDOT construction personnel) in order to confirm that conditions are as anticipated to evaluate the acceptability of the exposed materials as well as the unacceptability of the removed material.

5.1.2 Surface Water and Shallow Groundwater Control – Dewatering may be required depending on groundwater levels at the time of construction to achieve compaction requirements or trench excavations for utilities or drainage structures. It should be performed in accordance with Section 455-28 of the Standard

Specifications. Excavations should be made in accordance with Section 125 and 455-29 of the Standard

Specifications. If compaction cannot be achieved due to disturbed clays or pumping soils, these soils may be removed to depths of 1 to 2 feet below design grades and backfilled with structural fill as long as FDOT

Standard Plans Indices 120-001 and 120-002 are followed.

10 | P a g e

5.1.3 Exposed Soil Treatment – Following the stripping operations and documentation of the acceptability of the exposed surface by qualified personnel, the exposed sandy soils should be compacted in accordance with Section 120-9 of the Standard Specification.

Fill Placement and Compaction – All fill and/or backfill should consist of select soils, as required in accordance with Index 120-001, and be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 120-7, 120-8 and

120-9 of the Standard Specifications. Certain types of A-2-4 materials may be more difficult to compact than cleaner sands due to their fines content and associated moisture sensitivity.

5.1.4 Erosion Control – Erosion control should be established in accordance with Section 104 of the

Standard Specification.

5.2 EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION

Based on the soils encountered by the borings in most of the sidewalk construction areas, the requirements of Section 120 of the Standard Specifications with regards to sidewalk subgrade and embankment construction should be achievable in most cases. The acceptable existing, near-surface sandy (A-3 and A-

2-4) soils or similar fill can be generally be improved or stabilized by blending them with shell, clay fines, or crushed rock to increase their in-place LBR values after compaction. Florida limerock can also be used to stabilize the fine sandy subgrade soils. The subgrade should be stabilized in accordance with Section 160 of the Standard Specifications.

5.3 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL

Excavations, whether they be utility trenches or footing excavations, should be constructed in accordance with the latest OSHA guidelines. All excavations should be made in accordance with Section 125 and 455-

1.2 of the Standard Specifications. Granular select fill or backfill, as required, should be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 125-8, 120-8, and 120-9 of the Standard Specifications.

5.4 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND TESTING GUIDELINES

All cleared and grubbed areas in the proposed roadway construction areas should be observed by qualified personnel (as defined previously in this report) prior to any fill or backfill placement to confirm that all undesirable materials have been removed. Before any filling operations begin, representative samples of exposed existing soils and off-site borrow materials should be collected. These samples should be tested in the laboratory to determine their maximum dry density, optimum moisture content, natural moisture content, gradation, plasticity, and in the case of potential pavement subgrade soils, compacted LBR values.

Additional testing may be necessary if different soil types are encountered during actual construction operations. These tests are needed to quality control during compaction and also to help determine if the fill material is acceptable.

All fill and backfill placement compaction operations should be observed and documented by a qualified engineering technician working under the direction of the CEI or FDOT engineer. Significant deviations, 11 | P a g e either from FDOT specifications or good practice, should be brought to the attention of the FDOT’s project engineer along with appropriate recommendations. In-place field density tests should be performed at representative locations in the existing compacted soils and within the fill/backfill material at appropriate intervals in order to confirm the degree of compaction being achieved. In-place density testing frequencies should be based on the requirements outlined in the current FDOT Materials, Sampling, Testing and

Reporting Guide.

5.5 CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPEFICIATIONS REVIEW

It is recommended that this office be provided the opportunity to make general review of the plans, and special provisions, or specifications prepared from the recommendations presented in this report. We would then suggest any modifications so that our recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented.

Our report has been written in a guideline recommendation format that is not appropriate for use as a specification without in-part being reworded into a specification-type format. It is recommended that this report not be made part of the contract documents; however, it should be made available to prospective contractors for information purposes.

12 | P a g e

6.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated. Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical exploration, there is always a possibility that conditions may be different from those at specific boring locations and that conditions will not be as anticipated by the designer or contractors. In addition, the construction process itself may alter soil conditions. AREHNA is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations made by others based on the data presented in this report.

The assessment of site environmental conditions or the presence of contaminants in the soil, rock, surface water or groundwater of the site is beyond the scope of this exploration. Any statements in this report regarding odors, staining of soils, or other unusual conditions observed are strictly for the information of

Ayres Associates.

This report was prepared exclusively for Ayres Associates. The quality of information conclusions and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in AREHNA’s services and based on i:) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources and iii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report. This report is intended to be used by

Ayres Associates only, subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with Ayres Associates. Any other use of, or reliance on, this report by any third party is that party’s sole risk.

APPENDIX A

USGS/USDA Vicinity Map – Sheet 1

Boring Location Plan – Sheets 2A to 2B

Soil Boring Profiles – Sheet 3A

Report of Core Borings – Sheet 3B

Roadway Soil Survey (Cross Section Soil Survey) – Sheets 3C to 3D

N N

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTIONBYDATEDESCRIPTIONBYDATE

NAME DATENAME DATE

DESIGNED

BY

BY

CHECKED CHECKED

BY

BY

DRAWN

SUPERVISED BY

COLLIER PKWY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

Florida P.E. No. :

Kirk M. Eastman, P.E.

50733

PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDARR

KE

DG

KE

ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT

SHEET NO.

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609 1

1/24

1/24

1/24

1/24

AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

5012 W. LEMON STREET

O CO

T Y

NU

A P

S C

A

ORID

L F

O CO

T Y

NU

A P

S C

A

ORID

L F

USDA & USGS VICINITY MAPS

COUNTY PROJECT NO.

SHEET

NO.

USDA SOIL SURVEY MAP USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

Feet

0 250 1000

Feet

0 250

SECTION:

RANGE:

TOWNSHIP:

SECTION:

RANGE:

TOWNSHIP:

REFERENCE: USDA SOIL SURVEY OF PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA

19 E

26 S

APPROXIMATE PROJECT LOCATION APPROXIMATE PROJECT LOCATION

19 E

27 S

REFERENCE: "LUTZ, FLORIDA" USGS QUADRANGLE MAP

19 E

26 S

19 E

27 S

REVISIONS NAME DATE NAME DATE

DATE BY DESCRIPTION DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED

BY

RR 1/24

DRAWN

DG 1/24

BY

CHECKED KE 1/24 CHECKED KE 1/24

BY BY

SUPERVISED BY

HA-01

COLLIER PKWY

ENGINEER Of RECORD:

Kirk M. Eaat.man, P.E.

Florida P.E. No. 50733

AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

5012 W. LEMON STREET

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609

HA-02

1-- 1...J

V') lJJ ex::

a -J a a

PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA

ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT

COUNTY PROJECT NO. SHEET

NO.

0 10 50

HA-03

Feet

SHEET NO.

COLLIER PKWY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS >------<1

BORING LOCATION PLAN 2A

DATE BY DESCRIPTION

HA-04

REVISIONS

DATE BY DESCRIPTION

I

HA-05

COLLIER PKWY

NAME DATE NAME DATE

DESIGNED

RR 1/24

DRAWN

DG 1/24

BY BY

CHECKED KE 1/24 CHECKED KE 1/24

BY BY

SUPERVISED BY

HA-06

ENGINEER Of RECORD:

Kirk M. Eaat.man, P.E.

Florida P.E. No. 50733

8-01

AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

5012 W. LEMON STREET

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609

Ip

COUNTY PROJECT NO.

0 IO 50

Feet

E COUNTY LINE RD

LEGEND

SHEET

NO.

-$- APPROXIMATE SPT BORING LOCATION

-$- APPROXIMATE HAND AUGER BORING LOCATION

PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA

SHEET NO.

COLLIER PKWY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS >------<1

ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT BORING LOCATION PLAN 2B

I COUNTY PROJECT NO. I SHEET

NO.

I - I-

HA-01 HA-02 HA-03 HA-04 HA-05 HA-06

LEGEND STA. 0+73 STA. 2+18 STA. 3+61 STA. 5+04 STA. 6+52 STA. 7+99

(£ COLLIER PKWY (£ COLLIER PKWY (£ COLLIER PKWY (£ COLLIER PKWY (£ COLLIER PKWY (£ COLLIER PKWY

37 LT 36 LT 41 LT 46 LT 46 LT 47 LT

28.1713322 28.1713231 28.1713282 28.1713324 28.1713255 28.1713231 1. BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM -82.4306838 -82.4302324 -82.4297903 -82.4293444 -82.4288861 -82.4284323 SAND OCCASIONALLY WITH FEW LIMEROCK ELEV. 65.8 ELEV. 65.7 ELEV. 64.2 ELEV. 64.4 ELEV. 63.7 ELEV. 65.3 FRAGMENTS (A-3)

12/22/2023 12/22/2023 12/22/2023 12/22/2023 12/22/2023 12/22/2023

2. DARK BROWN ORGANIC SILTY FINE TO

o:i' 70� -70 o:i'

MEDIUM SAND (A-8)

co co

A-3 AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION GROUP - -

aa - SYMBOL AS DETERMINED BY VISUAL ::,.

GNE - <'( REVIEW AND/OR LABORATORY TESTING <: 65 -

- - - 65 <:

i-.:- -

-2

- - - i-.:- :sz GROUNDWATER LEVEL ENCOUNTERED lJJ - :sz

- lJJ DURING INVESTIGATION lJJ 1 J_ 1 lJJ

!::. - 1 :sz :sz 1 1 - !::.:sz 2

- :sz 2

GNE GROUNDWATER TABLE NOT ENCOUNTERED < 60 - 60 <

� 1

0 ..... - - I-

I-lJJ lJJ lJJ 55- -55 lJJ

REVISIONS

I NAME I DATE I I NAME I DATE

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

SHEET NO.

DATE

I

BY

I

DESCRIPTION

I

DATE

I

BY

I

DESCRIPTION

I DES�fED I RR I 1/24 I ORAWN I DG I 1/24 AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA COLLIER PKWY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS BY

I I I I I

CH��KED

I I I

CHE�KED

I I Kirk M. Ealltman, P.E. 5012 W. LEMON STREET

ROADWAY SOIL SURVEY KE 1/24 KE 1/24

Florida.P.E.No.: 50733 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 3A

SUPERVISED BY

B0R # B-01

STA. 8+22

REF. (£ COLLIER PKWY

OFF. 65 LT

ELEV. 67.0

DATE 12/22/2023

DRILLER M. SEIBERT

HAMMER AUTOMATIC

RIG CME-45

ci:i'

65 BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (SP)

o:i a 60 BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (SP-SM)

<: 55 i-:- NMC=21

LJJ -200=47 GRAY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SC)

LJJ 50

<: 45 0 BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

"' 40 ::,.

LJJ BORING TERMINATED AT -..J

LJJ 35 ELEVATION 42.0 FT (NAVO 88)

30 LATITUDE: N 28.1713718

LONGITUDE: W 82.4283613

REVISIONS NAME DATE NAME DATE

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

DATE BY DESCRIPTION DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED

BY

RR 1/24 ORAWN

DG 1/24

BY

CHECKED

KE 1/24 CHECKED

KE 1/24

Kirk M. Ealltman, P.E.

BY BY Florida.P.E.No.: 50733

SUPERVISED BY

ci:i' o:i

60 a

55 <:

1--'

LJJ

50 LJJ

45 <:

40 "'

LJJ

-..J

35 LJJ

AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

5012 W. LEMON STREET

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609

COUNTY PROJECT NO.

LEGEND

[] SAND

[TI SILTY SAND

� CLAYEY SAND

SP UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2488)

GROUP SYMBOL AS DETERMINED BY VISUAL REVIEW

HA HAND AUGER

:SZ GROUNDWATER TABLE

N NUMBERS TO THE LEFT OF BORINGS INDICATE

SPT VALUE FOR 12 INCHES OF PENETRATION

(UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED).

NMC NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

-200 FINES PASSING THE #200 STANDARD SIEVE (%)

SAFETY HAMMER AUTOMATIC HAMMER

GRANULAR MATERIALS- SPT N-VALUE SPT N-VALUE

RELATIVE DENSITY (BLOWS/FT.) (BLOWS/FT.)

VERY LOOSE LESS THAN 4 LESS THAN 3

LOOSE 4 to 10 3 to 8 MEDIUM DENSE 10 to 30 8 to 24 DENSE 30 to 50 24 to 40

VERY DENSE GREATER THAN 50 GREATER THAN 40

SILTS AND CLAYS SPT N-VALUE SPT N-VALUE

CONSISTENCY (BLOWS/FT.} (BLOWS/FT.)

VERY SOFT LESS THAN 2 LESS THAN 1

SOFT 2 to 4 1 to 3 FIRM 4 to 8 3 to 6 STIFF 8 to 15 6 to 12 VERY STIFF 16 to 30 12 to 24

HARD GREATER THAN 30 GREATER THAN 24

SHEET

NO.

SHEET NO.

COLLIER PKWY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS >------<1 PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA

ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT OF CORE BORINGS 3B

DATE OF SURVEY: DECEMBER 2023

SURVEY MADE BY: AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

SUBMITTED BY: KIRK M. EASTMAN, P.E.

ORGANIC MOISTURE

CONTENT CONTENT

STRATUM NO. OF % NO. OF MOISTURE NO. OF 10

NO. TESTS ORGANIC TESTS CONTENT TESTS MESH

1 -- -- 2 18-31 2 --

2 2 14-69 2 51-313 -- --

NOTES:

SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS

PERCENT PASS(%)

40 60 100

PASCO COUNTY

COUNTY PROJECT NO.

PROJECT NAME: COLLIER PKWY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS

CROSS SECTION SOIL SURVEY FOR THE DESIGN OF ROADS

SURVEY BEGINS STA. : 0+00 SURVEY ENDS STA. 8+50

REFERENCE: � COLLIER PKWY

ATTERBERG

LIMITS(%)

DESCRIPTION

200 NO. OF LIQUID PLASTIC AASHTO

MESH MESH MESH MESH TESTS LIMIT INDEX GROUP

6-9 -- -- -- A-3 BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND OCCASIONALLY WITH

FEW LIMEROCK FRAGMENTS

-- -- -- -- A-8 DARK BROWN ORGANIC SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND

EMBANKMENT AND SUBGRADE MATERIAL

STRATA BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE. MAKE FINAL CHECK AFTER GRADING.

"'Sl - GROUNDWATER TABLE ENCOUNTERED

GNE - GROUNDWATER TABLE NOT ENCOUNTERED

DATE I BY I

I I

1. THE MATERIAL FROM STRATUM 1 (A-3) APPEARS SATISFACTORY FOR USE IN THE EMBANKMENT WHEN UTILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD PLANS, INDEX 120-001.

2. THE MATERIAL FROM STRATUM 2 IS ORGANIC SILTY SAND (A-8) AND SHALL BE REMOVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD PLANS, INDEX 120-002 EXCEPT AT LOCATIONS SHOWN IN TABLE 2 ON SHEET 3D. STRATUM 2 (A-8) WAS ENCOUNTERED IN BORINGS FROM APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN O TO 1 AND 2 TO 4.5 FEET IN HA-03 AND 2 TO 3 FEET IN HA-05 BELOW EXISTING GROUND SURFACE. SEE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF REMOVAL DUE TO THE STRATUM DEPTH ON TABLE 1 IN SHEET 3D. DUE TO THE STRATUM DEPTH, IT MAY REMAIN IN PLACE AND 1 LAYER OF GEOGRID PLACED. SEE TABLE 2 IN SHEET 3D FOR APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT. SEE NOTE 3 FOR MORE GEOGRID DETAILS.

3. R-4 BI-AXIAL GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE LIMITS SHOWN IN TABLE 2 IN SHEET 3D AS FOLLOWS:

a. THE GEOGRID SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 985 AND HAVE A MINIMUM NOMINAL LONG TERM REINFORCEMENT TENSILE RESISTANCE (TA) OF 340 LB/FT.

b. THE FIRST LAYER OF BI-AXIAL GEOGRID SHALL BE PLACED AT THE TOP OF THE EXISTING GRADE AFTER STRIPPING OPERATIONS, AND PRIOR TO PLACING NEW FILL. A GEOTEXTILE (TYPE D-4) FOR

SEPARATION SHALL BE PLACED AT THE TOP OF THE EXISTING GRADE AFTER STRIPPING OPERATIONS AND PRIOR TO PLACING NEW FILL AND GEOGRID.

c. THE GEOGRID SHALL EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES FROM THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR EDGES OF THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK.

d. THE GEOGRID SHALL OVERLAP A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION.

e. THE GEOGRID SHALL BE PLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND AS SHOWN ON THE TYPICAL SECTION.

f. THIS APPROACH WOULD ALLEVIATE DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT, BUT MAY NOT ALLEVIATE TOTAL SETTLEMENTS ALONG THE ALIGNMENT.

REVISIONS I NAME I DATE I I NAME I DATE ENGINEER OF RECORD:

DESCRIPTION I DATE I BY I

I I I DESCRIPTION I OES�fEO I RR I 1/24 I DRAWN I DG I 1/24 BY

I CH��KEO I KE I 1/24 I CHE�KED I KE I 1/24 Kirk M. Ealltman, P.E.

Florida.P.E.No.: 50733

I SUPERVISED BY

AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

5012 W. LEMON STREET

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609

PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA

ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT

I COUNTY PROJECT NO. I 5���

I-

ROAD NO.: '"'N'-'/ A-'-------

COUNTY: PASCO

CORROSION TEST RESULTS

NO. OF RESISTIVITY CHLORIDE SULFATES pH

TESTS ohm-cm ppm ppm

SHEET NO.

COLLIER PKWY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS >-----<1

ROADWAY SOIL SURVEY 3C

I COUNTY PROJECT NO. I SHEET

NO.

I - I-

TABLE 1 ESTIMATED REMOVAL OF UNSUITABLE SOILS

APPROX. ELEVATION OF BOTTOM

FROM TO OF UNSUITABLE SOILS NOTES

(FEET, NAVDBB)

3+11 4+11 63.2 SEE NOTE 2 (ORGANIC SILTY SAND, A-8)

TABLE 2 ESTIMATED LIMITS OF GEOGRID

FROM TO # LAYERS NOTES

2+18 7+99 1 SEE NOTE 2 (ORGANIC SILTY SAND, A-8)

REVISIONS I NAME I DATE I I NAME I DATE

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

SHEET NO.

DATE I BY I DESCRIPTION I DATE I BY I DESCRIPTION I DES�fED I RR I 1/24 I ORAWN I DG I 1/24 AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA COLLIER PKWY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS BY

I I I I I I

CH��KED

I I I

CHE�KED

I I Kirk M. Ealltman, P.E. 5012 W. LEMON STREET

ROADWAY SOIL SURVEY KE 1/24 KE 1/24

Florida.P.E.No.: 50733 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT

I SUPERVISED BY

SHEET NO. SHEET NO.

rrodriguez Text Box 3D

APPENDIX B

Summary of USDA Soil Survey – Table 1

Summary of Laboratory Results – Table 2

Summary of Seasonal High-Water Table – Table 3

Laboratory Test Results

Depth

(feet)

Duration

(months) Kind Steel Concrete

21 - Smyrna fine sand - - - - - - - - - -

0-5 Fine sand A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM, SP 12.0 - 40.0

5-13 Fine sand A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM, SP 12.0 - 40.0

13-25 Sand, fine sand, loamy fine sand

A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM, SP 1.0 - 12.0

25-80 Sand, fine sand A-3 SP-SM, SP 12.0 - 40.0

0-5 Fine sand A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM, SP 12.0 - 40.0

5-13 Fine sand A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM, SP 12.0 - 40.0

13-25 Sand, fine sand, loamy fine sand

A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM, SP 1.0 - 12.0

25-80 Sand, fine sand A-3 SP-SM, SP 12.0 - 40.0

Pasco County, Florida

AASHTOUSDA Soil Description

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF USDA SOIL SURVEY

Collier Parkway Sidewalk Improvements

AREHNA Project No. B-23-157

Lutz, Florida

USDA Soil Type Depth

(inches)

Risk of Corrosion

USCS Permeability (ft/day)

Seasonal High Groundwater

Smyrna, non-hydric Apparent

Smyrna, hydric Apparent

HighHigh

0.5-1.5 Jun-Sep

0-0.5 Sep

Duration

(months) Kind Steel Concrete

AASHTOUSDA Soil Description

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF USDA SOIL SURVEY

Collier Parkway Sidewalk Improvements

AREHNA Project No. B-23-157

Lutz, Florida

USDA Soil Type Depth

(inches)

Risk of Corrosion

USCS Permeability (ft/day)

Seasonal High Groundwater

0-6 Fine sand A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM- SM 12.0 - 40.0

6-20 Sand, fine sand A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM- SM 12.0 - 40.0

20-36 Fine sand, sand A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM- SM 1.0 - 12.0

36-80 Fine sand, sand A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM- SM 12.0 - 40.0

0-4 Fine sand A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM, SM 12.0 - 40.0

4-13 Fine sand, sand A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM, SM 12.0 - 40.0

13-18 Fine sand, sand A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM, SM 1.0 - 12.0

18-49 Fine sand, sand A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM, SM 12.0 - 40.0

49-80 Fine sand, sand A-2-4, A-3 SP-SM, SM 12.0 - 40.0

53 - Tavares -

Millhopper fine sands, 0 to 5 percent slopes

29 - Myakka fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes

52 - Smyrna fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Apparent

Apparent

0.5-1.5 Jun-Nov

0.5-1.5 Jun-Nov Moderate

High

High

High

Hillsborough County, Florida

Duration

(months) Kind Steel Concrete

AASHTOUSDA Soil Description

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF USDA SOIL SURVEY

Collier Parkway Sidewalk Improvements

AREHNA Project No. B-23-157

Lutz, Florida

USDA Soil Type Depth

(inches)

Risk of Corrosion

USCS Permeability (ft/day)

Seasonal High Groundwater

0-6 Fine sand SP-SM, SM A-2-4, A-3 12.0 - 40.0

6-60 Fine sand, sand SP-SM, SM A-2-4, A-3 12.0 - 40.0

0-6 Fine sand SP-SM, SM A-2-4, A-3 12.0 - 40.0

6-64 Fine sand, sand SP-SM, SM A-2-4, A-3 12.0 - 40.0

64-76 Sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam

SC-SM, CL, SM A-2-4, A-4, A-6 4.0 - 12.0

76-80 Sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam

CL, SC, SM A-2-4, A-6 2.0 - 4.0

3.5-5.0 Jun-Oct

Tavares Apparent3.5-6.0 Jun-Dec

Perched

HighModerate

Millhopper

#200

HA-01 0.0-0.5 A-3 9 - 18

HA-03 3.0-3.5 A-8 - 69 313

HA-05 2.0-2.5 A-8 - 14 51.1

HA-05 2.5-3.0 A-3 6 - 31

B-01 13.5-15.0 SC 47 - 21

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Collier Parkway Sidewalk Improvements

AREHNA Project No. B-23-161 Lutz, Florida

Boring No.

Sample

Depth

(feet)

Natural

Moisture

Content

Sieve Analysis

(% Passing)AASHTO/USCS

Classification

Organic

Content

Latitude

N

Longitude

W

Depth

(feet) Approx. Elevation(2)

(feet, NAVD 88)

Date

Recorded Depth(1)

(feet)

Elevation

(feet, NAVD 88)

Map

Symbol

Estimated

SHGWT Depth(3)

(feet)

Depth

(feet)

Elevation

(feet, NAVD 88)

HA-01 28.171332 -82.4306838 7 65.8 12/22/2023 5.0 60.8 52 0.5 - 1.5

HA-02 28.171323 -82.4302324 7 65.7 12/22/2023 4.5 61.2 52 0.5 - 1.5

HA-03 28.171328 -82.4297903 5 64.2 12/22/2023 2.5 61.7 52 0.5 - 1.5

HA-04 28.171332 -82.4293444 4.5 64.4 12/22/2023 2.7 61.7 52 0.5 - 1.5

HA-05 28.171326 -82.4288861 4 63.7 12/22/2023 1.3 62.4 52 0.5 - 1.5

HA-06 28.171323 -82.4284323 7 65.3 12/22/2023 GNE GNE 52 0.5 - 1.5

B-01 28.171372 -82.4283613 25 67.0 12/22/2023 6.5 60.5 52 0.5 - 1.5

(1) Depth below existing grade at time of field work.

(2) Elevation data estimated based upon surveying data provided by Ayres Associates Inc. and approximate hand auger location.

(3) Seasonal high water table depth per Hillsborough and Pasco County, Florida USDA Soil Survey information.

(4) GNE: Groundwater table not encountered within the boring termination depth.

4.0 +62.0 ± 0.5

Boring

No.

Boring Location Boring Measured Groundwater Table USDA Soil Survey Estimated SHWT

AREHNA Project Number: B-23-157

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE ESTIMATE

Collier Parkway Sidewalk Improvements

APPENDIX C

Global Stability Analysis

2.318

Distance (ft)

-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0

E le va tio n ft)

01/15/2024

STA. 2+50.00.gsz

SLOPE/W Analysis

1:135

APPENDIX D

FHWA Checklist

*A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

"GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW CHECKLISTS"

The following checklists cover the major information and recommendations which should be addressed in project geotechnical reports.

Section A covers site investigation information which will be common to all geotechnical reports for any type of geotechnical feature.

Sections B through I cover the basic information and recommendations which should be presented in geotechnical reports for specific geotechnical features: centerline cuts and embankments, embankments over soft ground, landslides, retaining walls, structure foundations and material sites.

Subject Page

SECTION A, Site Investigation Information SECTION B, Centerline Cuts and Embankments SECTION C, Embankments Over Soft Ground SECTION D, Landslide Corrections SECTION E, Retaining Walls SECTION F, Structure Foundations - Spread Footings SECTION G, Structure Foundations - Piles SECTION H, Structure Foundations - Drilled Shafts SECTION I, Material Sites

In most sections and subsections the user has been provided supplemental page references to the Soils and Foundations Workshop Manual. These page numbers appear in parentheses ( ) immediately adjacent to the section or subsection topic. Generalist engineers are particularly encouraged to read these references. Additional reference information on these topics is available in the Geotechnical Notebook, a copy of which is kept in all Division Offices by either the Bridge Engineer or the engineer with the soils responsibility.

Certain checklist items are of vital importance to have been included in the geotechnical report. These checklist items have been marked with an asterisk (*). A negative response to any of these asterisked items is cause to contact the geotechnical engineer for clarification of this omission.

-12-

"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (SITE INVESTIGATION)

A. Site Investigation Information

Since the most important step in the geotechnical design process is the conduct of an adequate site investigation, presentation of the subsurface information in the geotechnical report and on the plans deserves careful attention.

Geotechnical Report Text (Introduction) (Pages 322-325)

Yes

No

Unknown or N/A

1. Is the general location of the investigation described an/or a vicinity map included?

2. Is scope and purpose of the investigation summarized?

3. Is concise description given of geologic setting and topography of area?

4. Are the field explorations and laboratory tests on which the report is based listed?

5. Is general description of subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions given?

*6. Is the following information included with the geotechnical report (typically included in report appendices):

a. Test hole logs? (Pages 25-33)

b. Field test data?

c. Laboratory test data? (Pages 74-75)

d. Photographs (if pertinent)?

Plan and Subsurface Profile (Pages 24, 47-49, 335)

*7. Is a plan and subsurface profile of the investigation site provided?

-13-

A. Site Investigation Information (Cont.)

or N/A

8. Are the field explorations located on the plan view?

*9. Does the conducted site investigation meet minimum criteria outlined in Table 2?

10. Are the explorations plotted and correctly numbered on the profile at their true elevation and location?

11. Does the subsurface profile contain a word description and/or graphic depiction of soil and rock types?

12. Are groundwater levels and date measured shown on the subsurface profile?

Subsurface Profile or Field Boring Log (Pages 16-17, 25-29)

13. Are sample types and depths noted?

*14. Are SPT blow counts, percent core recovery, and RQD values shown?

15. If cone penetration tests were made, are plots of cone resistance and friction ratio shown with depth?

Laboratory Test Data (Pages 60, 74-75)

*16. Were lab soil classification tests such as natural moisture content, gradation, Atterberg limits, performed on selected representative samples to verify field visual soil identifications?

17. Are laboratory test results such as shear strength (Page 62), consolidation (Page 68), etc., included and/or summarized?

-14-

"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (CENTERLINE CUTS AND EMBANKMENTS)

B. Centerline Cuts and Embankments (Pages 6-9)

In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the project geotechnical report?

Are station to station descriptions included for:

or N/A

1. Existing surface and subsurface drainage?

2. Evidence of springs and excessively wet areas?

3. Slides, slumps, and faults noted along the alignment?

Are station to station recommendations included for the following:

General Soil Cut or Fill

4. Specific surface/subsurface drainage recommendations.

5. Excavation limits of unsuitable materials?

*6. Erosion protection measures for backslopes, side slopes, and ditches, including riprap recommendations or special slope treatments?

Soil Cuts (Pages 101-102)

*7. Recommended cut slope design?

8. Are clay cut slopes designed for minimum F.S. = 1.50?

9. Special usage of excavated soils?

10. Estimated shrink-swell factors for excavated materials?

11. If answer to 3 is yes, are recommendations provided for design treatments?

-15-

B. Centerline Cuts and Embankments (Cont.)

Fills (Pages 77-79)

12. Recommended fill slope design?

13. Will fill slope design provide minimum F.S. = 1.25?

Rock Slopes

*14. Are recommended slope designs and blasting specifications provided?

*15. Is the need for special rock slope stabilization measures, e.g., rockfall catch ditch, wire mesh slope protection, shotcrete, rock bolts, addressed?

16. Has the use of "template" designs been avoided (such as designing all rock slopes on ¼ to 1 rather than designing based on orientation of major rock jointing)?

*17. Have effects of blast induced vibrations on adjacent structures been evaluated?

-16-

"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (EMBANKMENTS OVER SOFT GROUND)

C. Embankments Over Soft Ground

Where embankments must be built over soft ground (such as soft clays, organic silts, or peat), stability and settlement of the fill should be carefully evaluated. In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the project geotechnical report?

Embankment Stability (Pages 77-79, 95-97)

*1. Has the stability of the embankment been evaluated for minimum safety factors of 1.25 for side slope stability and 1.30 for end slope stability of bridge approach embankments?

*2. Has the shear strength of the foundation soil been determined from lab testing and/or field vane shear or static cone penetrometer tests?

*3. If the proposed embankment does not provide minimum factors or safety given above, are recommendations given for feasible treatment alternates which will increase factor of safety to minimum acceptable (such as change alignment, lower grade, use stabilizing counterberms, excavate and replace weak subsoil, fill stage construction, lightweight fill, geotextile fabric reinforcement, etc.)?

*4. Are cost comparisons of treatment alternates given and a specific alternate recommended?

Settlement of Subsoil (Pages 146-160)

5. Have consolidation properties of fine grained soils been determined from laboratory consolidation tests?

*6. Have settlement amount and settlement time been estimated?

7. For bridge approach embankments, are recommendations made to get the settlement out before the bridge abutment is constructed (waiting period, surcharge, or wick drains)?

-17-

C. Embankments Over Soft Ground (Cont.)

8. If geotechnical instrumentation is proposed to monitor fill stability and settlement, are detailed recommendations provided on the number, type, and specific locations of the proposed instruments?

9. Construction Considerations: (Pages 183, 331-334)

a. If excavation and replacement of unsuitable shallow surface deposits (peat, muck, topsoil) is recommended - are vertical and lateral limits of recommended excavation provided?

b. Where a surcharge treatment is recommended, are plan and cross-section of surcharge treatment provided in geotechnical report for benefit of the roadway designer?

c. Are instructions or specifications provided concerning instrumentation, fill placement rates and estimated delay times for the contractor?

d. Are recommendations provided for disposal of surcharge material after the settlement period is complete?

-18-

"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (LANDSLIDE CORRECTIONS)

D. Landslide Corrections (Pages 77-80, 103-105)

In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the landslide study geotechnical report?