16-Attachment B - GEO - Rpt Rev1 SS.pdf

5911 Breckenridge Parkway, Suite G, Tampa, Florida 33610

Office: (813) 623-3399, Fax: (813) 623-6636 www.mc2engineers.com

MC Squared, LLC

Geotechnical Engineering Services Report

Revision 1

CR 584 (Waters Avenue) from Anderson Road to

Florida Mining Boulevard Intersection Improvements

CIP 69679026

Hillsborough County, Florida

Prepared for: Element Engineering Group, LLC

1713 E. 9th Ave.

Tampa, FL 33605

Prepared by: MC Squared, LLC

5911 Breckenridge Parkway, Suite G

Tampa, Florida 33610

MC2 Project No. T072004.113

May 2, 2025

5911 Breckenridge Parkway, Suite G, Tampa, Florida 33610

Office: (813) 623-3399, Fax: (813) 623-6636 www.mc2engineers.com

May 2, 2025

Mr. Vicken Serpekian, PE, PTOE

Element Engineering Group, LLC

1713 E. 9th Ave.

Tampa, FL 33605

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Services Report – Revision 1

Florida Mining Boulevard Intersection Improvements

CIP 69679026

MC2 Project Number No. T072004.113

Dear Mr. Serpekian:

MC Squared, LLC (MC2) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the referenced project in general accordance with our proposal (T072004.113_G) dated November 13, 2020. The accompanying report contains the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, evaluation of the data, and our geotechnical recommendations for use in the design and construction of the project. It has been prepared for the exclusive use of Element and Hillsborough

County for specific application to the subject project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. This revised report addresses the foundation change at mast arm 2 from a drilled shaft to spread footing due to existing utilities in the area.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any questions and/or comments on the contents of our report, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully submitted, MC2

This item has been digitally signed and sealed by:

Kristina LaCava, P.E. Jeffery Sizemore, P.E.

Project Manager Chief Engineer

Florida PE License No. 77594 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.

MC2 Project Number. T072004.113 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND DESCRIPTION

2 SCOPE

3 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA

3.1 SOIL SURVEY MAPS

3.2 USGS QUADRANGLE MAPS

4 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM

4.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) BORINGS

4.2 PAVEMENT CORES

4.3 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS

4.4 HAND AUGER BORINGS

4.5 TEST LOCATIONS

5 LABORATORY TESTING

6 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 PAVEMENT CORES AND HA

6.2 GROUNDWATER LEVELS

7 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 SIGNALIZATION FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations

7.1.2 Spread Footing Foundations

7.2 PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY

7.3 ROADWAY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDRESSING EXISTING PAVEMENT CONDITIONS

7.4.1 General

7.4.2 Milling and Resurfacing Considerations

7.4.3 Reconstruction Considerations

7.4.4 Full Depth Reclamation Considerations

8 REPORT LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX

Pavement Core Summary (4 Pages)

Project Location Map – Sheet 1

Boring Location Map – Sheet 2

USDA Soil Survey and USGS Topographic Maps – Sheet 3

Subsurface Boring Profiles – Sheet 4

Report of Core Borings – Sheet 5

Test Procedures

Important Information About this Geotechnical-Engineering Report

1 PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND DESCRIPTION

Improvements are proposed along CR 584 (Waters Avenue) from Anderson Road to Florida

Mining Boulevard in Hillsborough County, Florida. The following are proposed at the subject site:

• Two new mast arms at the northwest and southeast corners of the intersection at CR 584

(Waters Avenue) and Florida Mining Boulevard.

o Pole 1, located at the northwest corner of Waters Avenue and Florida Mining

Boulevard, will be placed on a drilled shaft foundation.

o Due to the presence of abundant utilities, Pole 2, located at the southeast corner of the intersection, is planned to be placed on a shallow foundation. A steel plate will be placed between the bottom of the spread footing and ground surface to protect the underground utilities. It should be noted that constructing a foundation on top of any existing utilities is not recommended due to the risk of future issues/damages the utilities and future issues with access and repairs to the utilities.

• Roadway widening at the northeast corner of the intersection at CR 584 (Waters Avenue) and Florida Mining Boulevard.

• Widening of existing eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes on CR 584 (Waters

Avenue) approaching Florida Mining Boulevard.

• Widening of existing westbound left-turn lanes on CR 584 (Waters Avenue) approaching

Anderson Road

• Milling and resurfacing as a result of the proposed improvements.

CR 584 (Waters Avenue) currently exists as a six-lane divided roadway with associated left and right turn lanes. The shoulders at the subject site consist of greenspace areas with sidewalks and overhead powerlines. The approximate site location is shown on an aerial photograph obtained from Google Earth presented on Sheet No.1 in the Appendix.

2 SCOPE

To achieve the project objective, the following scope of services was completed in accordance with our proposal dated November 13, 2021:

1. Reviewed readily available/published data from Soil Survey and Topographic Maps.

2. Coordinated the required permitting (including utility locates) and access to test boring/pavement core locations.

3. Performed two (2) Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) at the proposed mast arm locations to 25-feet below ground surface (bgs).

4. Performed four (4) pavement cores and associated hand auger (HA) borings through the subbase to approximately 5-feet below existing grade in tandem with Dynamic Cone

Penetrometer (DCP) testing. The pavement cores were performed at locations requested by Element.

5. Performed three (3) HA borings at roadway widening areas to a depth of 5-feet bgs or to borehole collapse, whichever came first.

6. Visually classified all soil samples retrieved from the field followed by laboratory tests on selected representative soil samples.

7. Analyzed the subsurface conditions with regards to the proposed construction as it relates to foundation and pavement design.

8. Prepared this report to document the results of our field exploration, engineering analysis, and recommendations

3 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA

3.1 Soil Survey Maps

Based on the Web Soil Survey for Hillsborough County, Florida as prepared by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, the site is located in an area mapped within three mapping units: Malabar fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (27), Myakka fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (29), Myakka-Urban land complex (32).

Malabar fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (27) has a parent material of sandy and loamy marine deposits and a typical profile of fine sand from zero to 42-in. bgs, fine sandy loam from 42 to 59-

in. bgs, and loamy fine sand from 59 to 80-in. bgs. The material is poorly drained and has very high capacity to transmit water. The depth to the groundwater table is about 3 to 18 inches.

Myakka fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (29) has a parent material of sandy marine deposits and a typical profile of fine sand from zero to 80-in. bgs. The material is poorly drained and has a moderately high to high capacity to transmit water. The depth to the groundwater table is about

6 to 18 inches.

Myakka-Urban land complex (32) has a parent material of sandy marine deposits and a typical profile of fine sand from zero to 80-in. bgs. The material is poorly drained and has a moderately high to high capacity to transmit water. The depth to the groundwater table is about 6 to 18 inches.

Please refer to Sheet No. 3 in the Appendix for the mapped locations of individual soil units.

3.2 USGS Quadrangle Maps

Based on our review of the Citrus Park, Florida U.S.G.S. quadrangle map, the existing ground surface elevation at the subject intersection is approximately +25 feet NAVD88. The approximate site location is shown superimposed on a portion of the Citrus Park, Florida U.S.G.S. quadrangle map presented on Sheet No. 3 in the Appendix.

4 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM

Our field exploration program consisted of performing two (2) SPT borings, four (4) pavement cores, and three (3) HA borings within the proposed improvement areas. The pavement cores and HA borings were performed on March 22, 2021, and the SPT borings were performed on

March 29, 2021. The field exploration services were performed by MC2 personnel and overseen by one of its Florida State licensed professional geotechnical engineers.

4.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Borings

The SPT is a widely accepted test method of in-situ testing of foundation soils. A 2-foot long, 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler attached to the end of a string of drilling rods is driven 18 inches into the ground by successive blows of a 140-pound hammer freely dropping 30 inches. The number of blows needed for each 6 inches of penetration is recorded. The sum of the blows required for penetration of the second and third 6-inch increments of penetration constitutes the test result or N-value. After the test, the sampler is extracted from the ground and opened to allow visual description of the retained soil sample. The N-value has been empirically correlated with various soil properties allowing a conservative estimate of the behavior of soils under load. The tests are usually performed at 5-foot intervals. The test holes are advanced to the test elevations by rotary drilling with a cutting bit, using circulating fluid to remove the cuttings and hold the fine grains in suspension. The circulating fluid, which is a bentonitic drilling mud, is also used to keep the hole open below the water table by maintaining an excess hydrostatic pressure inside the hole. In some soil deposits, particularly highly previous ones, flush-coupled casing must be driven to just above the testing depth to keep the hole open and/or prevent the loss of circulating fluid. After completion of the test boring, the hole is then sealed by backfilling with cement grout.

4.2 Pavement Cores

The pavement cores were performed using a 6-inch diameter core barrel that was advanced through the asphalt layer. This was followed by HA borings through the base and subbase material to a depth of up to 5-feet bgs. In tandem with the HA borings, DCP tests were performed to collect data that could be used to determine the in-place Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) values of the soils.

4.3 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Tests

The DCP tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D6951 (Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications) using a Kessler K-

100 Model DCP, consisting of a 10.1 pound. steel mass falling 22.6 inches to strike an anvil and cone into the subbase material. The DCP is used to estimate the in-situ LBR value. This LBR value is not related to a laboratory soaked LBR test but is more of an indicator of current conditions on site. The DCP testing was performed continuously from the base course to approximately 4 feet bgs when using the Kessler K-100 Model DCP. Continuous testing was generally interrupted when

+40 material was encountered and was resumed when the material type appeared to change.

4.4 Hand Auger Borings

The HA borings were completed at the site in general accordance with ASTM D1452 (Standard

Practice for Soil Exploration and Sampling by Auger Borings) using a 3 ¼ inch diameter auger bucket.

4.5 Test Locations

The approximate locations of the borings/pavement cores are illustrated on a site aerial photograph shown on the Sheet No.2 in the Appendix. The locations were determined in the field by estimating distances from existing site features and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method of measurement used.

5 LABORATORY TESTING

Representative soil samples obtained during our field sampling operation were packaged and transferred to our office and, thereafter, examined by a geotechnical engineer to obtain more accurate descriptions of the existing soil strata. Laboratory testing was performed on selected samples as deemed necessary to aid in soil classification and to further define the engineering properties of the soils. A summary of the laboratory tests is tabulated below:

Table 1: Summary of Laboratory Testing

Boring ID

(Depth)

(ft)

Moisture

Content

Percent

Passing No.

200 Sieve

Organics

Liquid

Limit Plastic

Limit Plasticity

Index

AASHTO/USCS

Classification

PC-1 (3.5-5) 23.5 2.2 - - - - A-3

PC-2 (2.5-3) 17.3 2.2 - - - - A-3

PC-3 (4-5) 23.9 3.9 - - - - A-3

PC-4 (3-5) 19.7 5.3 - - - - A-3

HA-1 (2.5-4.5) 18.2 5.2 - - - - A-3

HA-2 (2.5-5) 6.8 3.5 - - - - A-3

Boring ID

(Depth)

(ft)

Moisture

Content

Percent

Passing No.

200 Sieve

Organics

Liquid

Limit Plastic

Limit Plasticity

Index

AASHTO/USCS

Classification

HA-3 (2-3) 8.9 5.9 - - - - A-3

PC-1 (1.2-2.5) 10.3 - 1.2 - - - A-3

HA-2 (0-2.5) 21.1 - 0.7 - - - A-3

SPT-1 (23.5-25) 21.5 4.5 - - - - SP

SPT-2 (8-10) 22.1 16.9 - 21 11 10 SC

The test results are presented on the soil boring profiles sheets (Sheet Nos. 4 and 5 in the

Appendix) at the depths from which the samples were recovered. The soil descriptions shown on the boring profiles are based upon visual-manual procedures in accordance with local practice. Soil classification is in general accordance with applicable AASHTO standards for HA borings, the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487) for SPT borings, and is also based on visual-manual procedures.

Additionally, soil samples from the SPT borings were selected for environmental corrosion tests consisting of soil pH (FM 5-550), resistivity (FM 5-551), chlorides (FM 5-552), and sulfates (FM 5-

553). The results are summarized below.

Table 2: Summary of Corrosion Series Testing

Sample ID and Depth

(ft) pH Resistivity

(ohm-cm)

Sulfates

(ppm)

Chlorides

(ppm)

Individual Environmental

Classification*

Steel Concrete

SPT-1

(4-6)

8.4 2,200 72 30

Moderately

Aggressive

Moderately

Aggressive

SPT-2

(2-6)

7.9 6,500 6 15

Slightly

Aggressive

Slightly

Aggressive

*Note: FDOT Structures Design Guidelines (Version 2021) Section 1.3.2, Table 1.3.2-1

All soil samples retrieved during the field exploration program will be saved for 60 days from the date of this report and subsequently discarded unless requested otherwise in writing.

6 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The general subsurface conditions encountered during the field exploration are shown on the soil boring profiles presented on Sheet Nos. 4 and 5 and the pavement core summary pages in the Appendix. Soil stratification is based on examination of recovered soil samples and interpretation of the field boring logs. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between the soil types; the actual transitions may be gradual.

A generalization of subsurface soil conditions encountered in the SPT borings is described below.

Depth

From To Soil Description

Ground Surface 8’ Loose to medium dense poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM).

8’ 18.5’ Loose clayey SAND (SC).

18.5’ 25’ Loose to medium dense poorly graded SAND (SP), poorly graded

SAND with silt (SP-SM), and clayey SAND (SC).

6.1 Pavement Cores and HA

Four (4) asphalt pavement cores were performed and labeled PC-1 through PC-4. The asphalt pavement thickness ranged from 3 ¼ to 6 ¼ inches. Limerock base was observed beneath all pavement cores ranging from 10 to 18 inches. Detailed information regarding the pavement cores and their subsequent hand auger borings and DCP tests, including pavement core photographs, are summarized in each Pavement Core Summary sheet in the Appendix.

In general, the HA borings encountered a soil profile generalized as poorly graded SAND to poorly graded SAND with silt (A-3) from the ground surface to a depth of 5 feet below the existing ground surface.

6.2 Groundwater Levels

The groundwater level was measured in the boreholes during and/or immediately upon completion of drilling. As shown on Sheet Nos. 4 and 5 and the Pavement Core Summary sheets in the Appendix, groundwater was encountered at depths that ranging between 4.3 to 5.3 feet bgs on the dates indicated. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year primarily due to seasonal variations in rainfall and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were conducted.

The absence of groundwater data at some of the boring/core locations indicated that groundwater was not encountered within the vertical reach of the borings on the date drilled.

For borings referenced “GNA” at the top of the boring profiles on Sheet No. 5, groundwater was not encountered within the top 6 feet (and could not be measured below a depth of 6 feet due to introduction of drilling mud into the borehole). However, this does not necessarily mean that groundwater would not be encountered within the vertical reach of the borings/cores or within the top 6 feet of the borings referenced “GNA” at some other time.

The estimated seasonal high-water table (SHWT) at each boring location is provided in the table below.

Table 3: Summary of Groundwater Information and Seasonal High Groundwater

Borehole

Number

Measured

Groundwater

Depth

(ft.)

USDA

Groundwater

Depth

(ft.)

Estimated

SHWT

(ft.)

USDA Mapping Unit USDA Soil Survey

Typical Profile (in.)

SPT-1 5.3 0.5 – 1.5 3.5

Myakka fine sand (29), 0 to 2 percent slopes Fine sand: 0 – 80

SPT-2 GNA 0.5 – 1.5 3.5

Myakka fine sand (29), 0 to 2 percent slopes Fine sand: 0 – 80

PC-1 GNE 0.25 – 1.5 3.5

Malabar fine sand (27), 0 to 2 percent slopes

Fine sand: 0 – 42

Sandy loam 42 – 59

Loamy sand: 59 – 80

PC-2 5 0.5 – 1.5 3.5

Myakka fine sand (29), 0 to 2 percent slopes Fine sand: 0 – 80

PC-3 5 0.5 – 1.5 3.5

Myakka fine sand (29), 0 to 2 percent slopes Fine sand: 0 – 80

PC-4 5 0.5 – 1.5 3.5

Myakka fine sand (29), 0 to 2 percent slopes Fine sand: 0 – 80

HA-1 4.3 0.5 – 1.5 3

Myakka fine sand (29), 0 to 2 percent slopes Fine sand: 0 – 80

HA-2 5 0.5 – 1.5 3

Myakka fine sand (29), 0 to 2 percent slopes Fine sand: 0 – 80

HA-3 GNE 0.5 – 1.5 3.5

Myakka fine sand (29), 0 to 2 percent slopes Fine sand: 0 – 80

7 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Signalization Foundation Considerations

The locations of the SPT borings are shown in the Appendix. When underground utilities are installed within a green area or near other previous improvements, the soils encountered may not have been properly backfilled and compacted in the past. As a result, the degree of compaction and characteristics of the soils may vary considerably within a small area.

7.1.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations

The proposed mast arm pole at the northwest corner of the subject intersection will be constructed on a drilled shaft foundation installed in accordance with the requirements of

Section 455 of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Due to the presence of cohesionless soils, and because the drilled shaft will extend well below the ambient groundwater level, we anticipate that the drilled shaft will be installed using a slurry displacement (wet) drilling method. The slurry should be tested to ensure it meets FDOT requirements. We further anticipate that a temporary casing will be necessary to stabilize the near surface soils. We recommend that the plan sheets include a note advising the foundation contractor that the subsurface materials encountered during our site exploration may become unstable and cave in during excavation of the drilled shaft. To keep with conservative design methods, it was assumed that the groundwater level could rise to be near the ground surface.

The soil properties for each significant stratum were averaged and are presented in the following tables corresponding to the soil types encountered for each boring. The soil properties presented include cohesive strength, c, in pounds per square foot (psf); the angle of internal friction, φ, in degrees; the total unit weight, γt, in pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and the soil buoyant unit weight, γb, in pcf. These values are based on published empirical correlations from field SPT N-values.

SPT-1 (NW Corner)

Depth Below

Ground Surface

(ft)

Average SPT

N-Value

Soil Type

(USCS)

Approx. Soil

Unit Weight Angle of

Internal

Friction, φ

(degrees)

Cohesion, c

(psf) γt

(pcf) γb

(pcf)

0 – 6 4 SP-SM 105 42.6 29 0

6 – 13.5 10 SP-SM, SC 110 47.6 30 0

13.5 – 23.5 5 SP-SM, SC 105 42.6 29 0

23.5 – 25 14 SP 110 47.6 30 0

According to the 2024-2025 FDOT Standard Plans Index 649-030, drilled shaft foundations and base plates for standard mast arm assemblies are predesigned based on the soil criteria listed in the table below.

Required Conditions for Standard Drilled Shaft Design

Soil Classification: Cohesionless (fine sand)

Friction Angle: 30° or greater

Unit Weight: 50 pcf or greater*

N-value: 15 or greater

* The above values assume that the design groundwater level is at the ground surface.

The estimated strength parameters for the borings are lower than the minimum criteria applicable to mast arm foundations predesigned per Standard Plans Index 649-030;

consequently, a site specific design will be required using the estimated parameters listed above.

7.1.2 Spread Footing Foundations

Due to the abundance of underground utilities, the proposed mast arm pole at the southeast corner of the subject intersection is to be constructed on a spread footing. Based on the signal plans dated February 17, 2023, the spread footing is 13 feet long by 13 feet wide and is between

2.5 and 4 feet thick. The footing will be constructed directly above the existing utilities. Therefore, a steel plate will be placed between the bottom of the footing and ground surface to protect the existing utilities.

It should be noted that constructing a foundation on top of any existing utilities is not recommended due to the risk of future issues/damages to the utilities and future issues with access and repairs to the utilities.

Due to the existing utilities being directly below the bottom of the spread footing, a steel plate is proposed to be placed directly beneath the footing in order to protect the existing utilities.

Therefore, the existing soils cannot be excavated at least 18 inches below the bottom of the spread footing design elevation, structural fill cannot be added and compacted to ensure a strong and uniform bearing pad.

After footing excavation and prior to placement of the steel plate, the contractor should provide adequate compactive effort to the bearing soils, as to not damage the existing utilities. This shall be verified in the field with testing (e.g. static cone penetrometer reading) prior to foundation construction by an experienced engineering technician working under the direction of a licensed

Geotechnical Engineer.

An nominal bearing resistance of 2,750 pounds per square foot (psf) can be used for the mast arm pedestal spread footing design assuming that the site preparation, compaction criteria, and foundation recommendations presented in this report are followed. The respective soil parameters provided in the table below, should be used for design of the spread footing foundations.

SPT-2 (SE Corner)

Depth Below

Ground Surface

(ft)

Average SPT

N-Value

Soil Type

(USCS)

Approx. Soil

Unit Weight Angle of

Internal

Friction, φ

(degrees)

Cohesion, c

(psf) γt

(pcf) γb

(pcf)

0 – 4 Hand Auger SP-SM 105 42.6 29 0

4 – 8 15 SP-SM 110 47.6 30 0

8 – 23.5 7 SC 105 42.6 29 0

23.5 – 25 11 SC 110 47.6 30 0

The immediate settlement of shallow foundations supported on sandy soils should occur rapidly during construction as dead loads are imposed at the footing locations. Provided that the recommended subsurface preparations operations stated above are properly performed, the total settlements should not exceed 1 inch. Discussions should be had with each utility owner if their existing utilities will be able to tolerate the calculated immediate and total settlements.

7.2 Pavement Condition Survey

MC2 has completed a field review to evaluate the existing pavement conditions at the intersection of Florida Mining Blvd and W Waters Ave, including documentation on the roadway surface conditions. The survey was divided into three (3) sections, as shown below. We noted pavement changes, distressed areas, roughness and patching. Photos are also included to provide examples of each distress type observed throughout all sections.

Section Approximate Limits Distance

(ft.)

1 195’N of intersection (Florida Mining Blvd.) 195

2 1,280’W to 305’E of intersection (W Waters Ave WB direction.) 1,585

3 1,280’W to 305’E of intersection (W Waters Ave EB direction.) 1,585

Figure 1: Block Cracking (Class I)

[850’west of intersection along W Waters Ave EB.]

Figure 2: Longitudinal Cracking

[600’ west of intersection along W Waters Ave EB]

Figure 3: Raveling and Weathering

[190’north of intersection along Florida Mining Blvd, both directions]

Figure 4: Reflection Cracking at Joints

[450’ west of intersection along W Waters Ave, EB Lane]

Figure 5: Transverse cracking

[450’ west of intersection along W Waters Ave, EB Lane.]

Block cracking (Class II), longitudinal cracking (Class II), raveling and weathering, reflection cracking at joints (Class II) and transverse cracking (Class II) are present at several locations and are generally caused by deficiencies within the pavement and base materials.

Figure 6: Alligator (Fatigue) Cracking

[275’ west of intersection along W Waters Ave., WB Lane]

Figure 7: Edge Cracking

[175’ east of intersection along W Waters Ave., WB Lane]

Figure 8: Patch/Patch Deterioration

[125’ west of intersection along W Waters Ave., EB Lane]

Figure 9: Polished Aggregate

[100’ south of intersection along Symmes Rd., NB Lane]

Figure 10: Potholes

[280’ west of intersection along W Waters Ave, WB Lane.]

Figure 11: Rutting

[150’ north of intersection along Florida Mining Blvd., both directions]

Figure 12: Shoving

[Just at intersection along Florida Mining Blvd., SB Lane]

Alligator (Fatigue) cracking (Class II), edge cracking (Class II), patch/patch deterioration, polished aggregates, potholes, rutting, and shoving are present at several locations as seen in the previous figures and are generally present due to the vehicle traffic load exceeding the design criteria of the roadway.

Based on the Pavement Condition Survey performed by MC2, the pavement conditions along the three (3) sections of the intersection of Florida Mining Blvd and W Waters Ave are shown below.

These values were determined in general accordance with the 2017 FDOT Flexible Pavement

Condition Survey Handbook.

Section Approximate Limits Crack

Rating Rut Rating Condition

1 195’N of intersection (Florida Mining Blvd.) 8 7 Fair

1,280’W to 305’E of intersection (W Waters

Ave WB direction.)

7 9 Fair

1,280’W to 305’E of intersection (W Waters

Ave EB direction.)

7 7 Poor

7.3 Roadway Design Considerations

Pavement design was not a part of our scope of services for this project. However, we have developed pavement core information that could be used in the roadway design and this is summarized in the Pavement Core Summary Sheets in the Appendix.

Considerations to perform full depth reclamation (FDR) followed by milling and overlaying may be options to address the existing pavement conditions. Although pavement design was not included as part of our scope of services, we have included in this section some roadway design considerations that we believe could be useful, should complete reconstruction be required.

FDOT Flexible Pavement Design Manual (January 2018 Manual) should be followed in order to determine if the current roadway design meets minimum FDOT and Hillsborough County design requirements.

At the time of preparing this report, the Resilient Modulus (MR) was unknown. In addition, no information regarding the minimum Required Structural Number (SNR) or traffic studies has been provided to MC2.

The January 2018 Manual specifies a minimum base clearance above the seasonal high ground water of 3-ft. When the clearance is less than 3-ft., the pavement designer must reduce the design resilient modulus by 25% for a 2-ft. base clearance and by 50% for a 1-ft. base clearance.

Based on the DCP values recorded, the upper foot of the subbase encountered has an apparent

LBR value of at least 40 (the minimum FDOT requirement). It should be noted that no laboratory testing was performed to determine the LBR values of the subbase. Information pertaining to individual boreholes can be found in the Appendix of this report.

7.4 Recommendations for Addressing Existing Pavement Conditions

7.4.1 General

Certain criteria should be considered when deciding between milling and resurfacing versus complete reconstruction of the road. Milling may be appropriate for removing cracked asphalt, avoiding excessive raising of the grade, removing rut susceptible pavement, elimination of an existing mix design problem, etc. However, if subsurface conditions need repair/stabilization, complete reconstruction may be necessary.

7.4.2 Milling and Resurfacing Considerations

If milling and resurfacing are selected, the January 2018 Manual recommends leaving at least ¾-

in. of asphalt over the base throughout the project to protect it from traffic and rain. However, if this is not possible because of lack of adequate asphalt thickness, the entire asphalt structure can be milled out, as long as contract provisions allow for maintenance of traffic and protection of the base, such as placement of the first lift of structural asphalt no later than the day after the surface was milled.

7.4.3 Reconstruction Considerations

Our findings indicated that the soils found at the boring locations where soil has been classified as A-3 would be suitable for supporting a reconstructed roadway and for reuse as structural fill and general backfill, if needed. The A-3 soils are considered as Select Fill in accordance with FDOT

Standard Plans Index 120-001. A-2-4 soils are considered Select Fill as well, however, certain types of A-2-4 material are likely to retain excess moisture and may be difficult to dry and compact. They should be used in the embankment above the groundwater level existing at the time of construction. They may be used in the subgrade portion of the roadbed when approved by the Project Engineer. A-2-4 material placed below the existing groundwater level must be non-plastic and contain less than 15% passing the No. 200 U.S. Standard Sieve.

In accordance with the January 2018 Manual, Section 5.2.2 “Design Base High Water Clearance”, a clearance of 3-ft. between the design high water and the base is recommended. For clearance less than 3 feet, a thicker pavement structure may be required along with a reduction of the

Design Resilient modulus of 25% for a 2-ft. base clearance and 50% for a 1-ft. base clearance.

Clearances less than 1 foot will require underdrains. Superpave Type B – 12.5 base, or equivalent, is an option and a thinner lift can be used to increase the base clearance.

The base material requires a well-compacted stabilized subgrade with a minimum LBR value of

40. Therefore, it may be necessary to keep a 2-foot clearance above groundwater to achieve compaction in the top foot of subgrade. In areas where this cannot be achieved, dewatering to lower the groundwater during construction may be necessary.

These recommendations are based solely on the visual observations of the pavement sections and the field and laboratory test data obtained. The final pavement design should be performed by others using the information provided in this report, traffic data, types of vehicles, design life and latest FDOT Flexible Pavement Design Manual.

7.4.4 Full Depth Reclamation Considerations

An alternative to Complete Reconstruction is Full Depth Reclamation. With this option, existing base and asphalt material will be grinded and pulverized in place while being mixed with cement and asphalt emulsion. This creates a new flexible, stabilized base material that can be incorporated as part of the new pavement. Resurfacing will then be performed to complete the improvement of the roadway. A benefit of FDR is the reduced risk of base course deterioration resulting from water table fluctuation. Depending on the project, this option can be cost effective over time while still providing a similar Structural Number, as compared to the Pavement

Reconstruction option, and should be considered by the pavement design engineer.

8 REPORT LIMITATIONS

The analysis and recommendations in this report are based on the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the approximate locations indicated on Sheet No. 2 in the Appendix.

This report does not reflect any variations that may occur adjacent to or between the borings.

The nature and extent of variations may not become evident until during the course of construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary for a reevaluation of the recommendations of this report to be made after performing on-site observations during the construction period and noting the characteristics of any variations.

When the final design and specifications are completed, we would like the opportunity to review them to determine whether changes in the original concept may have affected the validity of our recommendations and whether these recommendations have been implemented in the design and specifications.

While the borings are representative of subsurface conditions at their respective locations and for their respective vertical reaches, local variations characteristic of the subsurface materials of the region are anticipated and may be encountered. The boring profiles and related information are based on the field logs and visual examination of selected samples in the laboratory. The delineation between soil types shown on the boring profiles is approximate and the description represents our interpretation of subsurface conditions at the designated boring locations and on the particular date drilled.

This study is based on a relatively shallow exploration and is not intended to be an evaluation for sinkhole potential. This study does not include an evaluation of the environmental (ecological or hazardous/toxic material related) condition of the site and subsurface.

For additional reference describing the scope and limitations of this geotechnical report, please review the document enclosed in the Appendix titled, “Important Information About this

Geotechnical-Engineering Report”.

APPENDIX

Pavement Core Summary (4 Pages) Project Location Map – Sheet 1 Boring Location Map – Sheet 2

USDA Soil Survey and USGS Topographic Maps – Sheet 3 Subsurface Boring Profiles – Sheet 4

Report of Core Borings – Sheet 5 Test Procedures

Important Information About this Geotechnical-Engineering Report

Pavement Core Summary

PROJECT NAME: CR 584 from Anderson Rd to Florida Mining Blvd

CORE ID: PC-1

PROJECT NO.: T072004.113 STREET: W. Waters Ave.

CLIENT: Element Engineering LANE: Turn Lane/Median

DATE PERFORMED: 03/23/2021 LOCATION: Lat: 28°1'32.18"N, Long: 82°32'9.06"W

PAVEMENT AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Layer Depth (in) Thickness (in)

Description From To

0 5 5 Asphalt

5 15 10 Limerock Base

15 60 45 Dark Gray Poorly Graded SAND to SAND with silt (A-3)

Water Table Depth (ft): GNE Notes:

DCP TEST RESULTS (using a 10.1-lb hammer, K-100 Model)

Depth Interval (in)

No. of Blows Estimated LBR

Value* Estimated MR

Value* Soil Type

8-12 40 40+ 12,000+ Limerock Base

12-14 40/2” 40+ 12,000+ Limerock Base

14-18 40 40+ 12,000+ A-3

18-22 47 40+ 12,000+ A-3

22-24 40/2” 40+ 12,000+ A-3

30-34 23 40+ 12,000+ A-3

34-38 15 38 12,000 A-3

38-42 8 20 7,500 A-3

42-46 15 38 12,000 A-3 *LBR and MR values are empirical estimates based on the blow count. They should be considered as in-situ values because no laboratory testing was performed. The Pavement Design Engineer should evaluate the information contained within the report and may consider the LBR and MR Values presented above.

NOTE: Pavement core photograph may not be representative of the entire pavement core section observed. Pavement core locations were determined in the field by estimating distances from existing site features. Coordinates presented above should be considered approximate.

CORE ID: PC-2

PROJECT NO.: T072004.113 STREET: W. Waters Ave.

CLIENT: Element Engineering LANE: Left Turn Lane, EB

DATE PERFORMED: 03/23/2021 LOCATION: Lat: 28°1'32.03"N, Long: 82°32'1.79"W

(in)

Description From To

0 4 ¾ 4 ¾ Asphalt

4 ¾ 15 10 ¼ Limerock Base

15 24 9 Brown Poorly Graded SAND to SAND with silt (A-3)

24 36 12 Yellowish Brown Poorly Graded SAND to SAND with silt (A-3)

36 60 24 Light Greenish Gray Poorly Graded SAND to SAND with silt (A-3)

Water Table Depth (ft): 5 Notes:

DCP TEST RESULTS (using a 10.1-lb hammer, K-100 Model)

Depth Interval (in)

No. of Blows Estimated LBR

Value* Estimated MR

Value* Soil Type

6-10 35 40+ 12,000+ Limerock Base

10-12 40/2” 40+ 12,000+ Limerock Base

20-24 48 40+ 12,000+ A-3

24-26 40/2” 40+ 12,000+ A-3

38-42 22 40+ 12,000+ A-3

42-46 36 40+ 12,000+ A-3 *LBR and MR values are empirical estimates based on the blow count. They should be considered as in-situ values because no laboratory testing was performed. The Pavement Design Engineer should evaluate the information contained within the report and may consider the LBR and MR Values

NOTE: Pavement core photograph may not be representative of the entire pavement core section observed. Pavement core locations were determined in the field by estimating distances from existing site features. Coordinates presented above should be considered approximate.

CORE ID: PC-3

PROJECT NO.: T072004.113 STREET: Florida Mining Blvd.

CLIENT: Element Engineering LANE: Left Turn Lane, SB

DATE PERFORMED: 03/23/2021 LOCATION: Lat: 28°1'32.92"N, Long: 82°32'0.56"W

(in)

Description From To

0 3 ¼ 3 ¼ Asphalt

3 ¼ 21 ¼ 18 Limerock Base

21 ¼ 24 2 ¾ Light Gray Poorly Graded SAND to SAND with silt (A-3)

24 36 6 Light Grayish Brown Poorly Graded SAND to SAND with silt (A-3)

36 60 24 Pale Brown Poorly Graded SAND to SAND with silt (A-3)

Water Table Depth (ft): 5 Notes:

DCP TEST RESULTS (using a 10.1-lb hammer, K-100 Model)

Depth Interval (in)

No. of Blows Estimated LBR

Value* Estimated MR

Value* Soil Type

6-8 40 40+ 12,000+ Limerock Base

28-32 18 40+ 12,000+ A-3

32-36 39 40+ 12,000+ A-3

36-40 42 40+ 12,000+ A-3

40-44 46 40+ 12,000+ A-3

44-48 44 40+ 12,000+ A-3

48-52 41 40+ 12,000+ A-3 *LBR and MR values are empirical estimates based on the blow count. They should be considered as in-situ values because no laboratory testing was performed. The Pavement Design Engineer should evaluate the information contained within the report and may consider the LBR and MR Values

NOTE: Pavement core photograph may not be representative of the entire pavement core section observed. Pavement core locations were determined in the field by estimating distances from existing site features. Coordinates presented above should be considered approximate.

CORE ID: PC-4

PROJECT NO.: T072004.113 STREET: W. Waters Ave.

CLIENT: Element Engineering LANE: Left Turn Lane, WB

DATE PERFORMED: 03/23/2021 LOCATION: Lat: 28°1'32.12"N, Long: 82°31'59.17"W

(in) Description

From To

0 6 ¼ 6 ¼ Asphalt

6 ¼ 18 11 ¾ Limerock Base

18 24 6 Grayish Brown Poorly Graded SAND to SAND with silt (A-3)

24 60 36 Light Gray Poorly Graded SAND to SAND with silt (A-3)

Water Table Depth (ft): 5 Notes:

DCP TEST RESULTS (using a 10.1-lb hammer, K-100 Model)

Depth Interval (in)

No. of Blows Estimated LBR

Value* Estimated MR

Value* Soil Type

8-10 ¼ 40 40+ 12,000+ Limerock Base

12-13 ½ 40 40+ 12,000+ Limerock Base

20-24 33 40+ 12,000+ A-3

24-28 41 40+ 12,000+ A-3

28-32 50 40+ 12,000+ A-3

32-34 40/2” 40+ 12,000+ A-3

40½-44 17 40+ 12,000+ A-3

44-48 25 40+ 12,000+ A-3 *LBR and MR values are empirical estimates based on the blow count. They should be considered as in-situ values because no laboratory testing was performed. The Pavement Design Engineer should evaluate the information contained within the report and may consider the LBR and MR Values

NOTE: Pavement core photograph may not be representative of the entire pavement core section observed. Pavement core locations were determined in the field by estimating distances from existing site features. Coordinates presented above should be considered approximate.

NAMEDATE APPROVED BY:REVISION

SUPERVISED BY:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

SHEET NO.MC PROJ. NO.

5808-A Breckenridge Parkway

Tampa, FL 33610

Ph:813-623-3399 Fax:813-623-6636

Geotechnical Consultants

MC SQUARED, INC.

Project Location Map

DATE

NAME

LEGEND:

Source: Google Earth

Image Date: 12/7/2019

Graphic Scale (feet)

Approximate Project

Location

T072004.113

KF

KF 3/30/2021

3/30/2021

5/20/2021

Approximate Project Location

CR 584 (Waters Avenue) from Anderson Road to

Florida Mining Boulevard Intersection Improvements

Hillsborough County, Florida

ED

SG

0' 2000'1000'

CIP NO: 69679026

PC-1

SPT-1

HA-1

HA-2

HA-3

SPT-2

PC-3

PC-4

PC-2

CHECKED BY:

NAMEDATE APPROVED BY:REVISION

SUPERVISED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

SHEET NO.MC PROJ. NO.

5808-A Breckenridge Parkway

Tampa, FL 33610

Ph:813-623-3399 Fax:813-623-6636

Geotechnical Consultants

MC SQUARED, INC.

Boring Location Map

DATE

NAME

T072004.113

KF

KF 3/30/2021

3/30/2021

5/20/2021

ED

SG

LEGEND:

Approximate Hand Auger Boring Location

Approximate SPT Boring Location

Graphic Scale (feet)

Source: Google Earth

Image Date: 12/7/2019

0' 150' 300'

Approximate Pavement Core Location

CIP NO: 69679026

CR 584 (Waters Avenue) from Anderson Road to

CHECKED BY:

NAMEDATE APPROVED BY:REVISION

SUPERVISED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

SHEET NO.MC PROJ. NO.

5808-A Breckenridge Parkway

Tampa, FL 33610

Ph:813-623-3399 Fax:813-623-6636

Geotechnical Consultants

MC SQUARED, INC.

USDA Soil Survey and USGS Topographic Map

DATE

NAME

T072004.113

KF

KF 3/30/2021

3/30/2021

5/20/2021

ED

SG

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service

The survey data is Version 20 dated Jun 8, 2020, with aerial images taken Dec 6, 2018-Dec 17, 2018

CITRUS PARK QUADRANGLE

FLORIDA-HILLSBOROUGH CO.

7.5 MINUTE SERIES TOPOGRAPHIC

NAVD: 1988 - DATE: 2021

Approximate Project

Location

CIP NO: 69679026

CR 584 (Waters Avenue) from Anderson Road to

HA-1

3-22-21

HA-3

3-22-21

BORING NO.

DATE

HA-2

3-22-21

D E

P T

H

F

E E

T

D E

P T

H

F

E E

T

BORING NO.

DATE

BORING NO.

DATE

GNE

NMC: 6.8%

-200: 3.5%

NMC: 18.2%

-200: 5.2%

NMC: 8.9%

-200: 5.9%

NMC: 21.1%

OC: 0.7%

NOTES:

WATER TABLE

GNE GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED

LEGEND

Poorly graded SAND to SAND with silt (A-3)1

NMC NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

-200 FINES PASSING A NO. 200 SIEVE (%)

OC ORGANIC CONTENT

NAMEDATE APPROVED BY:REVISION

SUPERVISED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

SHEET NO.MC PROJ. NO.

5808-A Breckenridge Parkway

Tampa, FL 33610

Ph:813-623-3399 Fax:813-623-6636

Geotechnical Consultants

MC SQUARED, INC.

Subsurface Boring Profiles

DATE

NAME

CHECKED BY:

T072004.113

KF

KF 3/30/2021

3/30/2021

5/20/2021

ED

SG

CIP NO: 69679026

CR 584 (Waters Avenue) from Anderson Road to

SPT-1

SPT-2

D E

P T

H

F

E E

T

D E

P T

H

F

E E

T

BORING NO.

DATE

SPT-1

3/29/21

HA

HA

Boring Terminated at 25 ft.

N

Gray and brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM)

BORING NO.

DATE

SPT-2

3/29/21

HA

HA

Boring Terminated at 25 ft.

N

Grayish brown and light brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM)

GNA

NMC: 21.5%

-200: 4.5%

NMC: 22.1%

-200: 16.9%

LL: 21

PL: 11

Light gray, poorly graded SAND (SP)

Brown, clayey SAND (SC)

Light brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM)

Brown, clayey SAND (SC)

LEGEND

GRANULAR MATERIALS- RELATIVE DENSITY

SPT (BLOWS/FT)

VERY LOOSE

LOOSE

MEDIUM DENSE

DENSE

VERY DENSE

£ 4

4-10

10-30

30-50

GREATER THAN 50

SILTS AND CLAYS CONSISTENCY

VERY SOFT

SOFT

FIRM

STIFF

VERY STIFF

HARD

£ 2

2-4

4-8

8-15

15-30

GREATER THAN 30

SPT (BLOWS/FT)

(SP-SM) Poorly graded SAND with silt

N SPT N-VALUE

NMC NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

WATER TABLE

-200 FINES PASSING A NO. 200 SIEVE (%)

HA HAND AUGER

LL LIQUID LIMIT

GNA GROUNDWATER NOT APPARENT

PL PLASTIC LIMIT

(SC) Clayey SAND

(SP) Poorly graded SAND

NAMEDATE APPROVED BY:REVISION

SUPERVISED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DESIGNED BY:

SHEET NO.MC PROJ. NO.

5808-A Breckenridge Parkway

Tampa, FL 33610

Ph:813-623-3399 Fax:813-623-6636

Geotechnical Consultants

MC SQUARED, INC.

DATE

NAME

CHECKED BY:

T072004.113

KF

KF 3/30/2021

3/30/2021

5/20/2021

ED

SG

CIP NO: 69679026

0' 100' 200'

Approximate SPT Boring Location

LEGEND:

Graphic Scale (feet)

Source: Google Earth

Image Date: 12/7/2019

Report of Core Borings

CR 584 (Waters Avenue) from Anderson Road to

TEST PROCEDURES

The general field procedures employed by MC Squared, Inc. (MC2) are summarized in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D420 which is entitled "Investigating and Sampling Soil and Rock". This recommended practice lists recognized methods for determining soil and rock distribution and groundwater conditions. These methods include geophysical and in-situ methods as well as borings.

Standard Drilling Techniques To obtain subsurface samples, borings are drilled using one of several alternate techniques depending upon the subsurface conditions. Some of these techniques are:

In Soils:

a) Continuous hollow stem augers.

b) Rotary borings using roller cone bits or drag bits, and water or drilling mud to flush the hole.

c) "Hand" augers.

In Rock:

a) Core drilling with diamond-faced, double or triple tube core barrels.

b) Core boring with roller cone bits.

The drilling method used during this exploration is presented in the following paragraph.

Hollow Stem Augering: A hollow stem augers consists of a hollow steel tube with a continuous exterior spiral flange termed a flight. The auger is turned into the ground, returning the cuttings along the flights. The hollow center permits a variety of sampling and testing tools to be used without removing the auger.

Core Drilling: Soil drilling methods are not normally capable of penetrating through hard cemented soil, weathered rock, coarse gravel or boulders, thin rock seams, or the upper surface of sound, continuous rock. Material which cannot be penetrated by auger or rotary soil-drilling methods at a reasonable rate is designated as “refusal material”. Core drilling procedures are required to penetrate and sample refusal materials.

Prior to coring, casing may be set in the drilled hole through the overburden soils, to keep the hole from caving and to prevent excessive water loss. The refusal materials are then cored according to ASTM D-2113 using a diamond-studded bit fastened to the end of a hollow, double or triple tube core barrel. This device is rotated at high speeds, and the cuttings are brought to the surface by circulating water. Core samples of the material penetrated are protected and retained in the swivel-mounted inner tube. Upon completion of each drill run, the core barrel is brought to the surface, the core recovery is measured, and the core is placed, in sequence, in boxes for storage and transported to our laboratory.

Sampling and Testing in Boreholes Several techniques are used to obtain samples and data in soils in the field; however the most common methods in this area are:

a) Standard Penetrating Testing

b) Undisturbed Sampling

c) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Testing

d) Water Level Readings

The procedures utilized for this project are presented below.

Standard Penetration Testing: At regular intervals, the drilling tools are removed and soil samples obtained with a standard 2 inch diameter split tube sampler connected to an A or N-size rod. The sampler is first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, and then driven an additional 12 inches with blows of a 140 pound safety hammer falling 30 inches. Generally, the number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is designated the "penetration resistance" or "N" value, in blows per foot (bpf). The split barrel sampler is designed to retain the soil penetrated, so that it may be returned to the surface for observation.

Representative portions of the soil samples obtained from each split barrel sample are placed in jars, sealed and transported to our laboratory.

The standard penetration test, when properly evaluated, provides an indication of the soil strength and compressibility. The tests are conducted according to ASTM Standard D1586. The depths and N-values of standard penetration tests are shown on the Boring Logs. Split barrel samples are suitable for visual observation and classification tests but are not sufficiently intact for quantitative laboratory testing.

Water Level Readings: Water level readings are normally taken in the borings and are recorded on the Boring Records. In sandy soils, these readings indicate the approximate location of the hydrostatic water level at the time of our field exploration. In clayey soils, the rate of water seepage into the borings is low and it is generally not possible to establish the location of the hydrostatic water level through short-term water level readings. Also, fluctuation in the water level should be expected with variations in precipitation, surface run-off, evaporation, and other factors. For long-term monitoring of water levels, it is necessary to install piezometers.

The water levels reported on the Boring Logs are determined by field crews immediately after the drilling tools are removed, and several hours after the borings are completed, if possible.

The time lag is intended to permit stabilization of the groundwater level that may have been disrupted by the drilling operation.

Occasionally the borings will cave-in, preventing water level readings from being obtained or trapping drilling water above the cave-in zone.

BORING LOGS

The subsurface conditions encountered during drilling are reported on a field boring log prepared by the Driller. The log contains information concerning the boring method, samples attempted and recovered, indications of the presence of coarse gravel, cobbles, etc., and observations of groundwater. It also contains the driller's interpretation of the soil conditions between samples. Therefore, these boring records contain both factual and interpretive information. The field boring records are kept on file in our office.

After the drilling is completed a geotechnical professional classifies the soil samples and prepares the final Boring Logs, which are the basis for our evaluations and recommendations.

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Soil classifications provide a general guide to the engineering properties of various soil types and enable the engineer to apply his past experience to current problems. In our investigations, samples obtained during drilling operations are examined in our laboratory and visually classified by an engineer.