2-03 Geotechnical Report.pdf

PDF 2 MB Posted May 4, 2026

Attached to: Parks Maintenance Storage Expansion
Solicitation number: CSP #41-01-26
Issued by: Bell County, Texas

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · May 12, 2026

This is a Geotechnical Report prepared by Langerman Engineering for Clark Associates on behalf of the City of Temple Parks Department for a Parks Maintenance Storage Expansion project located at 1701 North General Bruce Drive, Temple, Texas. The project involves construction of six equipment parking structures (approximately 2,500 square feet each) and a storage facility (approximately 12,000 square feet with 15 units), along with approximately 10,240 square yards of new paved parking areas and associated infrastructure. The geotechnical investigation, conducted on August 1, 2025, included nine borings (B-1 through B-5, S-1, S-2, T-1, and T-2) drilled to depths of 5 to 10 feet, with subsurface materials tested using split spoon sampling, standard penetration testing, and NX-size core drilling. The engineer's estimate of probable cost for the overall project is $3,833,604, with work anticipated to be completed within 360 consecutive calendar days from Notice to Proceed. Laboratory testing included Atterberg limits, sieve analysis, moisture content, soil classification, and unconfined compression tests performed in accordance with ASTM standards.

The site is underlain by the Austin Chalk Formation consisting of fat clay, gravelly lean clay, lean clay, severely weathered limestone, weathered limestone, and gray fractured limestone encountered at depths ranging from 0 to 15 feet. The report provides two primary foundation options: Option 1 uses drilled piers with a slab-on-grade offering low risk of future foundation movements at moderate construction costs, with piers founded in tan weathered limestone or gray limestone at depths of 4.5 to 13 feet and sized for an allowable end-bearing capacity of 40,000 psf with a minimum pier length of 10 feet; Option 2 uses a stiffened slab-on-grade with perimeter and interior grade beams offering lower initial costs but low to moderate risk of foundation movements due to expansive clay soils. Pavement design recommendations include three options using either 3-inch asphalt or 6-inch reinforced concrete pavement with varying base course thicknesses (6 to 11 inches of crushed limestone base), with designs based on 100,000 equivalent 18-kip single axle load applications over a 20-year design life and a resilient modulus value of 3,200 psi. The report emphasizes critical requirements for site preparation, including removal of vegetation and unsuitable materials, proof-rolling to detect soft spots, proper grading and drainage to prevent water ponding, select fill placement and compaction to 95 percent of maximum dry density, and construction observation by Langerman Engineering on a full-time basis during subgrade and foundation installation.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
1-01 CSP 41-01-26 Parks Maintenance Storage Expansion.pdf	PDF	May 4, 2026
9-02 Plans Specifications.pdf	PDF	May 4, 2026
6-04 Required Form - Proposer Information Form.pdf	PDF	May 4, 2026
5-09 Required Form, if applicable - Conflict of Interest Form.pdf	PDF	May 4, 2026
7-05 Required Form - Proposal Supplemental Information.pdf	PDF	May 4, 2026
4-07 Required Form - Bid Bond.pdf	PDF	May 4, 2026
8-06 Required Form - Pricing Sheet.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 4, 2026
3-08 Required Form - Bond Requirement Affidavit.pdf	PDF	May 4, 2026

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

2000 South 15th Street, Waco, Texas 76706 Ph: 254-235-1048 LFEctx.com

September 9, 2025

Clark Associates 215 North Main Street Temple, Texas 76501

Attention: Mr. Monty Clark, P.E.

Reference: Geotechnical Report City of Temple Parks Department Additions Temple, Texas LE Project No. W25-052

Dear Mr. Clark:

This letter transmits our geotechnical report, which has been electronically produced. We appreciate the opportunity to provide engineering services for you.

Once the project plans and specifications are completed, we would be pleased to review those portions that pertain to this report. We would also appreciate the opportunity to provide construction phase services such as materials testing as a part of the success of the project.

If you have any questions regarding our report, please call me at (254) 235-1048 or email JElmshaeuser@LFEctx.com.

Best Regards, LANGERMAN ENGINEERING

Texas Registered Engineering Firm No. F-13144

Jakob S. Elmshaeuser, EIT Graduate Engineer

Distribution List:

• Clark Associates- Mr. Monty Clark, P.E. (MClark@Clark-Assoc.com)

• Clark Associates- Mr. Dana Reid (DReid@Clark-Assoc.com)

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

City of Temple Parks Department Additions

Temple, Texas

LE Project No. W25-052

Report Prepared For:

Clark Associates Temple, Texas

September 9, 2025

Report Prepared By: Report Reviewed By:

Jakob S. Elmshaeuser, EIT Graduate Engineer

Scott M. Langerman, P.E.

Principal / Geotechnical Engineer

2000 South 15th Street, Waco, Texas 76706 Ph: 254/235-1048 LFEctx.com

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

CITY OF TEMPLE PARKS DEPARTMENT ADDITIONS

TEMPLE, TEXAS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Purpose: The purpose of this geotechnical report is to provide geotechnical design and construction criteria for new Additions to the City of Temple Parks Department. Geotechnical data and recommendations are provided in a brief, and hopefully user-friendly manner.

Authorization: Services were performed in general accordance with LE Proposal No.

GEO25-091, dated July 22, 2025. Authorization to proceed was provided by Mr. Monty Clark, P.E. on July 22, 2025.

2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

Drilling Dates: August 1, 2025

Boring Layout: The boring locations were staked in the field by Langerman Engineering personnel based on a site plan provided by Clark Associates. Plates 1 and 2 show the approximate boring locations.

If precise location and elevation data are desired, then a licensed professional land surveyor should be retained to locate the borings and determine the ground surface elevations.

Sampling Methods: Push tubes were used to sample the upper soils. A split spoon sampler was used in less cohesive soils, severely weathered limestone, and limestone.

The split spoon sampler was used in conjunction with standard penetration tests, and N-Values were recorded on the boring logs.

Weathered Limestone and Limestone were cored with an NX-size (2-inch) cutting bit. Water was used to cool the bit and discharge cuttings.

3.0 LABORATORY TESTS

Test Procedures: The following tests were conducted in general conformance with the standards noted in Table 3.1.

TABLE 3.1: LABORATORY TESTS

Test Name Test Method

Atterberg Limits ASTM D 4318

-#200 Mesh Sieve ASTM D 1140

Moisture Content ASTM D 2216

Soil Classification ASTM D 2487

Unconfined Compression (rock) ASTM D 7012

Unconfined Compression (soil) ASTM D 2166

Test Results: Laboratory test results are shown on Plate 3 in the Appendix, and selected test results on the boring logs.

4.0 SUBSURFACE MATERIALS AND SITE OBSERVATIONS

Stratigraphy: Major strata types for the building borings are listed in Table 4.1.

Individual boring logs are contained in the Appendix. Material descriptions are general and range of depths approximate because boundaries between different strata are seldom clear and abrupt in the field.

TABLE 4.1: MAJOR STRATA TYPES

Strata Depth to Top of

Strata (ft) Depth to Base of

Strata (ft) General Description

I 0 2.5 to 7

FAT CLAY, GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY, and LEAN CLAY;

dark brown, brown, light gray, and tan, with sand, limestone fragments, and iron oxide stains

II 2.5 to 5 4.5 to 10 SEVERELY WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, consists of broken limestone interbedded with marly clay (All Borings except B-2)

III 10 13

WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, fractured (Boring B-4 only)

IV 4.5 to 13 15 LIMESTONE; gray, fractured

Strata changes are approximate, and in-situ transitions are usually gradual.

Geology: Based on the available geologic map1 of the area, and the contents of the borings, the site is located within the Austin Chalk Formation.

The Austin Chalk is considered a relatively soft limestone based on universal rock classification systems but is considered relatively hard rock in the Central Texas area. Although the Austin Chalk is usually described as limestone, it is comprised of chalk, limestone, and marl (marl is calcareous clay). The unweathered Austin Chalk is gray in color.

Severely weathered limestone is a transition between clay and rock. At this site, its composition varies from broken limestone to marly clay. For discussion purposes in this report, severely weathered limestone is mostly soil-like. However, there are layers of hard broken limestone.

Groundwater: Foundation Borings B-1 through B-4, S-1, and S-2 were each drilled to depths of 5 to 10 feet prior to using water to core weathered limestone and limestone. Weathered limestone and limestone were cored with water to cool the cutting bit and discharge cuttings. Groundwater was not observed prior to the rock coring process. However, once water was added in the drilling process, further groundwater level readings were meaningless.

Pavement borings T-1 and T-2 were drilled to a depth of 6 feet using dry drilling methods, meaning that water was not used in the drilling process.

Groundwater was not observed during drilling.

Transient groundwater is common in the area, and may be present during construction. The water tends to percolate down through the surficial soils until encountering a relatively impervious layer, and then either flow down gradient or become trapped. Water also flows through fractures in weathered limestone and limestone.

The water observations conducted for this investigation are short-term and should not be interpreted as a groundwater study. However, the presence of groundwater may affect construction and long-term performance of the proposed foundations and pavements. If persistent groundwater is encountered during construction, then drain systems may be needed.

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Project Summary: The project consists of new additions. The additions will include six equipment parking structures and a storage facility. The equipment parking structures will each have a plan area of approximately 2,500 square feet. The storage facility will have a foundations area of approximately 12,000 square feet and include 15 units.

Geotechnical recommendations for the new equipment parking structures and storage facility are included in Sections 5 and 6 of this report.

Pavement recommendations are contained in Section 7.

Structural Loads: Details concerning structural design loads were not available for the preparation of this report. We assume that column loads will be similar to other structures, perhaps on the order of 50 to 150 kips. If actual loads will be higher, then we should be contacted to re-evaluate our recommendations.

Expansive Soil: Clay soils in the Central Texas area are subject to expansive soil movements, which include swelling under moist conditions and shrinking under dry conditions. Moisture fluctuations occur due to seasonal wet and dry cycles, but are also influenced after construction by site grading, drainage, landscaping, and groundwater. Actual soil movement is difficult to determine due to the many unpredictable variables involved.

TxDOT uses the Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) procedure to estimate soil movements. For purposes of this project, the results of the laboratory tests, engineering judgment, and experience have also been considered.

The approximate PVR for a typical ground supported slab will range from approximately ½ to 1½ inches, which is considered low for the Central Texas area.

Actual soil movements will depend on the subsurface moisture fluctuations over the life of the structure. Soil movements may be less than those calculated if moisture variations are minimized after construction. However, significantly larger soil movements than estimated could occur due to inadequate site grading, poor drainage, ponding of rainfall, and/or leaking utilities.

Foundation Type: Based on the types of soils encountered in the borings, as well as our understanding of the project, two primary options are available for foundation support. Be aware that these options are not equal in terms of expected performance or initial cost. Mixed foundation systems (such as combining the options) should not be used.

Option 1: Use a Slab on Grade in conjunction with Drilled Piers. This option consists of using drilled piers to support the column loads, but with an interior slab on grade. The piers should extend into tan weathered limestone and gray limestone that was initially encountered at depths ranging from 4.5 to 13 feet. There is a low risk of future foundation movements, and construction costs will be relatively moderate.

Option 2: Use a Stiffened Slab on Grade. This option consists of using a simple slab with perimeter and interior grade beams. At least 12 inches of the surficial soil must be removed and replaced with select fill. There is a low to moderate risk of future foundation movements, and construction costs will be relatively low.

OPTION 1: DRILLED PIERS WITH A SLAB ON GRADE

Figure 5.1: Sketch of Drilled Piers with a Slab on Grade (not to scale)

Risk: A properly designed and constructed foundation system consisting of drilled piers with a slab on grade, in conjunction with select fill, will offer a low risk of future foundation movements.

Straight-shaft Piers: Straight-shaft piers founded in tan WEATHERED LIMESTONE or gray

LIMESTONE, which was encountered at depths ranging from 4.5 to 13 feet, may be sized for an allowable end-bearing capacity of 40,000 pounds per square foot with a minimum pier length of at least 10 feet.

An allowable side friction capacity of 3,000 psf (either tensile or compressive) may be used in gray LIMESTONE after an initial penetration of 2 feet.

The piers should be specified to terminate on a hard layer, and not a softer marly clay layer, after the required penetration is achieved.

Transient Loads: The allowable end-bearing and side friction values may be increased by

30% for transient loads. However, that increase may not be combined with reduced ASD load combinations.

Uplift: Uplift forces from clay soils on drilled piers are expected to be minor.

However, we recommend that at least ½ percent steel be used in the piers.

Pier Spacing: The side friction for piers spaced horizontally less than 3 diameters (center to center) should be multiplied by a reduction factor of 50%. Piers with horizontal spacing of 3 diameters or more are not subject to a side friction capacity reduction factor.

Settlement: Properly designed and constructed drilled shafts are expected to have a settlement of ½ inch or less.

Casing: Groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration, but may be present at the time of construction. Temporary steel casing may be necessary to seal out groundwater and prevent caving of the piers. We recommend that the contractor verify the drilling and groundwater conditions prior to commencing drilled shaft installation. Any adjustments to the pier depths must be made by LE.

Interior Slab: The interior floor slab must be supported in a uniform manner. We recommend that at least 12 inches of the existing subgrade be removed, and then replaced with select fill. Select fill must extend a minimum horizontal distance of 2 feet beyond the building perimeter. Specifications for select fill are in Section 6 of this report. Carton forms below the grade beams are not necessary.

OPTION 2: STIFFENED SLAB ON GRADE

Figure 5.2: Stiffened Slab Foundation Sketch (not to scale)

Risk: A properly designed and constructed stiffened slab on grade will offer a low to moderate risk of future foundation movements. The adverse movements will occur as a result of shrinking and swelling of expansive clay soils, which may result in cracking and differential movement of the slab. A stiffened slab on grade foundation will be more likely to settle relative to the existing foundation as compared to a foundation with drilled piers.

Bearing Stratum: Native Soils or Select Fill

Bearing Pressure: An allowable bearing pressure of 3,500 psf can be used. Grade beams or footings should bear at a depth of at least 24 inches below the final ground surface.

Stiffened Slab: The Wire Reinforcement Institute has a published design procedure for slabs on expansive soils (WRI TF 700-R-07). The method utilizes an effective PI of the subsurface soils and a Regional Climatic Index of Cw=19 for Temple. The effective PI is 22.

Select Fill: The interior floor slab must be supported in a uniform manner. We recommend that at least 12 inches of the existing subgrade be removed, and then replaced with select fill. Select fill must extend a minimum horizontal distance of 2 feet beyond the building perimeter. Specifications for select fill are in Section 6 of this report. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 kcf may be used. The net PVR will be about ½ to 1 inch.

MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN ITEMS:

Seismic: For structural designs based upon the 2018 IBC, the following criteria will apply. The Site Class is B. The Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at short periods (SS) is about 0.08g, and the Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at a 1 second period (S1) is about 0.04g. Site Coefficients are as follows: Fa= 0.9 and Fv= 0.8.

Hazards associated with slope stability, soil liquefaction, surface rupture, and lateral spreading are not considered an issue with this site due to the study area being in a seismically inactive area and the site being underlain at a shallow depth by bedrock.

Vapor Barriers: The need for vapor barriers, and where to place them, must be determined by the architect or structural engineer based on the proposed floor treatment, building function, concrete properties, placement techniques, code requirements, and the construction schedule. When moisture barriers are used, precautions should be taken during the initial floor slab concrete curing period to reduce differential curing and possible curling of the slabs.

Impervious Seal: We recommend that an impervious seal consisting of at least 12 inches of clay soil be constructed on top of the backfill material around the building perimeter. The intent of this impervious seal is to reduce surface runoff water from infiltrating the backfill. The seal must be sloped away from the foundation. In addition, a “plug” of clay soil must be placed at the exit points of the utilities from the foundation to reduce water intrusion into utility trenches.

Subgrade Improvement: Some of the onsite soils may be subject to pumping of the subgrade, and we should be contacted if this situation occurs. Clean crushed stone may be placed at the base of the excavations to create a firm working surface where needed and/or specified. We expect that a layer of about 6 to 8 inches in thickness will be needed if soft and/or wet subgrade conditions are present, but field conditions may dictate an increased thickness. If more than about 10 inches is needed, then a filter fabric may be needed to avoid migration of fines.

The crushed stone must be clean, and should generally range in size from 3 to 6 inches. Compaction specifications do not apply; however, the stone should be placed in such a manner that will stabilize the bottom of the excavations. This type of clean stone is normally used to stabilize construction entrances, and should be readily available. Be aware that plumbing and other features that require trenching will be difficult to install if the trenches extend into the clean stone.

Utility Connections: Utilities are subject to soil movements. Utility connections should account for such movement potential, such as using flexible connections.

If granular backfill materials are used for the utility lines, then a clay plug must be placed at the exterior foundation penetrations to avoid water intrusion and collection within the utility trenches.

Review by MEP: We recommend that this report be provided to the project Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing engineers (MEP’s). Their designs should account for the estimated soil movement potential. We are available to help with questions they may have about soil movements.

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

Site Preparation: Surficial vegetation, root systems, existing fill, existing utilities, old foundations, and any underground structures must be removed below the building pads. The stripping depth must be based on field observations with attention given to old drainage areas, uneven topography, and wet soils. Proof-rolling should be used to detect soft spots or pumping subgrade areas. Proof-rolling should be performed using a heavy pneumatic tired roller, loaded dump truck, or similar piece of equipment weighing at least 25 tons.

Grading: Grading, landscaping, and drainage pose a significant risk factor for future performance of the foundation systems. Prevention of water ponding around the foundation is critical. We suggest the following general guidelines for perimeter drainage:

1. The building pad or the finished floor elevation must be elevated from the exterior finished grade to assist in draining the surface water away from the structure.

2. Where possible, extend paved surfaces up to the building line to serve as a barrier to soil moisture evaporation and infiltration. These surfaces must slope away from the building.

3. Outlets for gutter systems must rapidly discharge water away from the foundation.

4. Roots from trees and decorative vegetation remove moisture from soils, which causes soil shrinkage (settlement). Trees should have root blockers near the foundation or be located as far away from the foundation as practical.

5. Sprinkler systems must be properly maintained and over-watering of the soils should be avoided.

Subgrade: The subgrade soils must be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D698 (or TEX-113-E) maximum dry density at 0 to +3% of the optimum moisture content. A maximum compacted lift thickness of six inches must be specified, with each lift tested for compliance prior to the addition of subsequent lifts. The placement and compaction of fill material must be observed, monitored, and tested by LE on a full-time basis. Proof-rolling may be used in lieu of compaction testing of the subgrade, but will require approval by LE on a case-by-case basis.

Select Fill: Imported Select Fill should meet the requirements of 2014 TxDOT Item 247, Type A or D, Grade 3 or better. The select fill material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D698 (or TEX-113-E) maximum dry density at 0 to +3% of the optimum moisture content. Crusher fines are not acceptable.

A maximum compacted lift thickness of six inches must be specified, with each lift tested for compliance prior to the addition of subsequent lifts.

The placement and compaction of fill material must be observed, monitored, and tested by LE on a full-time basis.

Foundation: Foundation and drilled shaft construction recommendations are listed below.

1. A minimum pier shaft diameter of 24 inches is normally specified to allow for cleaning, minimum construction tolerances, and conventional concrete mix designs. Smaller diameters may be used at the discretion of the structural engineer.

2. The foundation construction must be observed by LE to determine that the proper bearing material has been reached in accordance with the recommendations given herein.

3. Prior to the placement of concrete, water must be removed from the foundation excavations. Prolonged exposure or inundation of the bearing surface with water may result in changes in bearing strength and compressibility characteristics. If delays occur, drilled shaft excavations should be deepened and cleaned, in order to provide a fresh bearing surface.

4. Concrete must be placed promptly after the excavations are completed, cleaned, and observed. Drilled piers must be concreted before the end of the work day.

5. The reinforcement steel cage placed in the shaft must be designed from the standpoint of meeting at least two requirements: (1) the structural requirements for the imposed loads; and (2) stability requirements during the placement of concrete.

6. Groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration, but may be present during construction. Temporary steel casing will likely be required to seal out groundwater and/or prevent the pier holes from caving. Special concrete design and construction procedures as described in ACI 336.1 and ACI 336.3R should be specified in order to properly extract the casing during concrete placement. The pier concrete should be placed at a minimum slump of 6 inches when temporary steel casing is used. We advise that the bid schedule include installation of temporary casing as a separate unit-price bid item.

7.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Pavement: New parking spaces and a driveway will be constructed. We anticipate that trash trucks and other heavy trucks will be restricted to specific areas.

The dumpster pads and aprons in front of the dumpsters must be constructed with concrete.

Risk: Pavement design methods are intended to provide an adequate thickness of structural materials over the subgrade to support the wheel loads.

Design methods do not account for shrink and swell movements of expansive clays or settlement of poorly compacted fill materials. The pavement may be adequate from a structural standpoint, yet still experience cracking due to movement of the subgrade. It is critical to minimize moisture changes in the subgrade.

The pavement and adjacent areas must be well drained. Proper maintenance must be performed on cracks in the pavement surface to prevent water passing through to the base or subbase material. Extending the base material out about 2 feet from the edge of the pavement curb will also aid in reducing edge related cracking. Even with these precautions, some movements and related cracking may still occur.

Routine maintenance is essential.

Using geogrid will help reduce damage from soil settlement, but will usually increase the cost of the initial pavement installation. In the long-term, it has been our experience that using geogrid reduces maintenance costs and extends the pavement life.

Pavement “islands” often provide a means of water infiltration into the base and subgrade materials below the pavement. If islands are used, then we recommend that a synthetic lining or clay soils be used to limit infiltration of water into the base and subgrade. Water entry into the base and subgrade will cause softening of the materials, and will cause potholes and/or ruts to form.

The presence of trees and vegetation adjacent to paved areas will exacerbate the formation of cracks in pavements due to moisture loss in the subgrade from transpiration to the root systems of the vegetation. Soil moisture loss from vegetation can extend a distance from the vegetation about equal to its height.

Traffic Types: We anticipate that traffic will consist of service trucks and trailers. Because exact traffic data were not available for this project, we have made assumptions based on past experience and traffic criteria used for other projects. These estimates should be reviewed by the owner because the traffic information has an impact on the pavement thickness and future performance.

Traffic Loads: For pavement design purposes, traffic volumes are expressed as the number of Equivalent 18-kip single axle load applications (ESAL) over a 20-year theoretical pavement design life. We have summarized values for three primary traffic conditions in Table 7.1.

We have computed the approximate types and volumes of different vehicles to aid in the owner’s evaluation of the intended uses of the pavements.

TABLE 7.1: TRAFFIC ESTIMATES

Traffic Area Typical Traffic ESAL’s Reference Table

Service Trucks

Heavy Duty Various Service Trucks and Trailers 100,000 Table 7.2

TABLE 7.2: ESTIMATED TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS

(100,000 ESAL’S – TRUCK AREAS)

Vehicle Type Gross Vehicle Weight (lbs) Vehicles per Day

(per lane)

Cars / Pickups 4,000 2,000

Medium Trucks 20,000 20

Heavy Trucks 60,000 to 80,000 4

Subgrade: Based on the subsurface materials observed at the boring locations, the primary subgrade at this site will be a mixture of clay, sand, and gravel. A resilient modulus value of 3,200 psi has been assigned to the subgrade-based correlations between soil index properties and resilient modulus values.

The assigned modulus value does not account for weak or otherwise unsuitable soils that must be removed and/or properly compacted during the construction process.

Design Method: AASHTO and American Concrete Institute guidelines.

Thickness: Pavement thickness designs are provided in Table 7.3. A reliability value of 80 percent was assigned to the pavement that corresponds to occasional interruption of traffic for pavement repairs. These designs reflect a theoretical "design life" of 20 years.

The "design life" of a pavement is defined as the expected life at the end of which reconstruction of the pavement will need to occur. Normal maintenance, including crack sealing, slurry sealing, and/or chip sealing, should be performed during the life of the pavement.

TABLE 7.3: PAVEMENT THICKNESS OPTIONS

Design Condition Option Surface Course Base Course

Service Trucks Heavy Duty

100,000 ESAL

Concrete is preferred for durability

1- Asphalt 3” DG-C or D 6” CLB and GRID(1)

2- Asphalt 3” DG-C or D 11” CLB(2)

3- Concrete(3) 6” RCP 6” CLB(1)

DG-C or DG-D… Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete, TxDOT Item 341 CLB… Crushed Limestone Base or Crushed Concrete Base GRID… Tensar HX5.5 Geogrid RCP… Reinforced Concrete Pavement

(1)Low risk of cracking due to expansive soils

(2)Moderate risk of cracking due to expansive soils

(3)It is possible to place concrete pavement directly on the prepared subgrade without base in conjunction with increasing the concrete thickness by 1 inch. However, doing that will create a higher risk of premature failure of the concrete due to swelling clay soils.

Site Preparation: Surficial vegetation, trees, root systems, existing fill, existing foundation elements, and utilities (to the extent practical), and all underground structures must be removed below the new pavement areas. The stripping depth must be based on field observations with attention given to old drainage areas, uneven topography, and wet soils. Where practical, proof-rolling should be used to detect soft spots or pumping subgrade areas.

Proof-rolling should be performed using a heavy pneumatic tired roller, loaded dump truck, or similar piece of equipment weighing at least 25 tons.

Geogrid: Geogrid (GRID) acts as reinforcement in asphalt pavement sections to help reduce pavement cracking in existing fill materials. It also allows the use of thinner base sections. Geogrid may not completely prevent cracking in the pavement, but it will help to reduce cracking, especially linear cracking.

Clean Stone: Many of the onsite soils are subject to instability, especially in the presence of water. When unstable or pumping soils are encountered during construction, then clean stone may be used to improve the subgrade.

Clean crushed stone should be placed to create a firm working surface where needed and/or specified. We expect that a layer of about 6 to 8 inches in thickness will be needed if soft and/or wet subgrade conditions are present, but field conditions may dictate an increased thickness. If more than about 10 inches is used, then a filter fabric should be placed on top of the stone to prevent migration of fines.

The crushed stone must be clean and should generally range in size from 3 to 6 inches. Compaction specifications do not apply; however, the stone should be placed in such a manner that will stabilize the subgrade. This type of clean stone is normally used to stabilize construction entrances and should be readily available. Be aware that plumbing and other features that require trenching will be difficult to install if the trenches extend into clean stone.

Specifications: Pavement specifications. The TxDOT citations below reference the 2024

Edition unless stated otherwise.

1. Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete (HMAC): TxDOT Item 341, DG-C or DG-D, as shown in Table 7.3.

2. Crushed Concrete Base or Crushed Limestone Base (CLB): TxDOT

Item 247, Type A or D, Grade 1-2. Compact to at least 95% of ASTM D1557 (or 100% of TEX-113) at a moisture content range of 0 to +3% of optimum moisture content in 6-inch compacted lifts.

3. Reinforced Concrete Pavement (RCP): TxDOT Item 360, Concrete Pavement. The concrete class should be specified as Class P in accordance with TxDOT Item 421, Portland Cement Concrete.

TxDOT requires a strength of 4,000 psi at 28 days, along with other requirements in the specification. When sawcut joints are used, the cuts must be made within a few hours of concrete placement.

Sawcuts must not be delayed to the following day.

4. Geogrid: Tensar HX5.5 installed according to the manufacturer’s recommendations.

5. Subgrade: Scarify and re-compact the existing subgrade to at least 95% of ASTM D698 (or TEX-113-E) maximum dry density at a moisture content range of 0% to +3% of optimum moisture content.

6. Transitions: Transitions from an asphalt pavement to a rigid pavement are often problematic in that over time a depression usually forms in the asphalt at the joint. This is caused when vehicle tires pass from the rigid concrete pavement to the flexible asphalt pavement. One method to reduce this effect is to continue a “lip” of concrete under the asphalt.

7. Drainage: The pavement must have positive drainage, and water must not pond in areas directly adjoining paved sections. Excess watering with sprinkler systems near the pavement should be avoided.

8.0 DESIGN REVIEW AND LIMITATIONS

Design Review: The recommendations contained in this report were based on preliminary site plans and design information provided by the Client. Our recommendations may not be applicable if changes have been made to the original information that formed the basis for this report, and we must be retained to make a determination if changes have been made. We also must be given the opportunity to review construction documents to affirm that our recommendations have been interpreted correctly. We cannot be responsible for misinterpretations if not given the opportunity to review aspects of the project that are based on the contents of this report.

A review is considered an additional service.

Limitations: This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client and their designated project design team. Preparation of the report has been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable geotechnical engineers practicing in the same locality. No warranties, express or implied, are intended or made.

As stated in the attachment “Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report”, the subsurface conditions are interpreted from samples taken only at the boring locations. During construction, variations will be encountered, and will require interpretation by LE to verify the adequacy of the geotechnical recommendations. Other concerns and limitations are discussed in the attachment.

This investigation did not include environmental testing or evaluations, and does not address whether landfilling operations, as defined by the State of Texas, have occurred on the property. An environmental professional should be retained to address environmental issues.

9.0 REFERENCES:

1. Geologic Atlas of Texas, Waco Sheet, Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 1970.

APPENDIX

Site Location Map Boring Location Sketch Laboratory Test Results Boring Logs Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

SITE LOCATION MAP

LE PROJECT NO. W25-052

PLATE

Parks Department Additions

BORING LOCATION MAP

B - 2

B - 1

B - 3

B - 5

T - 1

T - 2

B - 4

S - 1

S - 2

BORING LOCATION MAP

B - 2

B - 1

B - 3

B - 4

T - 1

T - 2

B - 5

S – 1 S - 2

Base sketch provided by Clark Associates, dated 4-4-2025

B-1 0.0 - 2.0 34 15 19 70 4 B-1 2.5 - 3.4 73 7 B-1 5.0 - 10.0 16.6 4.5 B-1 7.4 - 52.8 4.4 B-1 11.8 - 54.3 3.0 B-2 1.0 - 2.0 54 7 B-2 2.5 - 4.0 31 15 16 89 11 B-2 4.5 - 6.0 58 19 39 93 25 B-2 10.1 - 58.0 4.3 B-3 0.0 - 2.0 43 19 24 63 8 B-3 2.5 - 3.2 53 7 B-3 10.1 - 33.3 3.4 B-4 0.0 - 2.0 84 6 B-4 2.5 - 3.3 36 15 21 92 9 B-4 4.5 - 4.7 58 7 B-4 10.7 - 79.2 1.9 B-4 12.4 - 80.6 3.6 B-5 0.0 - 2.0 10 96.3 8.0 1.6 B-5 2.0 - 4.0 36 16 20 71 8 B-5 4.5 - 4.9 69 9 B-5 6.5 - 6.9 67 9 B-5 10.5 - 94.8 2.2 S-1 0.0 - 2.0 39 16 23 61 8 S-1 2.0 - 4.0 40 18 22 72 13 S-1 4.5 - 5.2 79 15 S-1 10.1 - 11.3 2.0 S-2 0.0 - 2.0 20 97.0 6.6 1.9 S-2 2.0 - 4.0 49 19 30 88 15 S-2 4.5 - 5.8 85 11 S-2 10.1 - 45.3 2.1 T-1 0.0 - 0.8 73 7 T-2 0.0 - 2.0 77 7 T-2 2.5 - 3.1 59 7 T-2 4.5 - 4.9 60 8

Liquid Limit

Unconfined Compressive

Strength (tsf)

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

Project: City of Temple Parks Department Additions

Project Number: W25-052

Summary of Laboratory Results

Moisture Content

Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve

Sample Depth

(ft.)

Boring No.

Strain at Failure

Unit Dry Weight

(pcf)

Plate 3

4.4 4.5

3.0

52.8 16.6

54.3

(72)

(88)

4.5+ 34 15 70

19ST

GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY; tan, with limestone fragments

SEVERELY WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, consists of broken limestone interbedded with marly clay

LIMESTONE; gray, fractured

14-50/5"

50/3"

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

Remarks:

Completion Depth:

Date Started:

Completed:

Logged by:

Boring was advanced to a depth of 5 feet before using water in the rock core drilling process. Groundwater was not observed above that depth.

S T

R A

T F

U R

U N

C O

N F

D C

O M

P R

E S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

G R

A P

D E

P T

H (f t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

R E

C O

V E

R Y

Q D

P O

C K

E T

P E

(t sf

S T

E S

C O

N T

E N

M O

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

S T

D E

S A

M P

Y P

D R

Y U

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

15 ft.

8/1/25

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. B-1

CLIENT Clark Associates

PROJECT NUMBER W25-052

PROJECT NAME City of Temple Parks Department Additions

PROJECT LOCATION Temple, TX

G E

R M

A N

F O

S T

E R

O E

A T

S T

D U

S L

A B

.G D

Z :\G

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, C

O F

T E

M P

A R

K S

D E

P A

R T

M E

N T

A D

S .G

P J

Langerman Engineering Waco and Harker Heights (Killeen), Texas Ph: 254-235-1048 www.LFECTX.com

4.358.0

(60)

4.5+

GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY; brown and tan, with limestone fragments

LEAN CLAY; tan and light gray

FAT CLAY; tan and light gray, with iron oxide stains

LIMESTONE; gray, fractured

20-24-30 (54)

7-21-40 (61)

50/5"

33-50/4"

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

Remarks:

Completion Depth:

Date Started:

Completed:

Logged by:

Boring was advanced to a depth of 10 feet before using water in the rock core drilling process. Groundwater was not observed above that depth.

S T

R A

T F

U R

U N

C O

N F

D C

O M

P R

E S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

G R

A P

D E

P T

H (f t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

R E

C O

V E

R Y

Q D

P O

C K

E T

P E

(t sf

S T

E S

C O

N T

E N

M O

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

S T

D E

S A

M P

Y P

D R

Y U

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

15 ft.

8/1/25

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. B-2

CLIENT Clark Associates

PROJECT NUMBER W25-052

PROJECT NAME City of Temple Parks Department Additions

PROJECT LOCATION Temple, TX

G E

R M

A N

F O

S T

E R

O E

A T

S T

D U

S L

A B

.G D

Z :\G

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, C

O F

T E

M P

A R

K S

D E

P A

R T

M E

N T

A D

S .G

P J

Langerman Engineering

3.433.3

(56)

4.5+ 43 19 63

24ST

GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY; brown and tan

SEVERELY WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, consists of broken limestone interbedded with marly clay

LIMESTONE; gray, fractured

25-50/2"

50/3"

50/5"

50/3"

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

Remarks:

Completion Depth:

Date Started:

Completed:

Logged by:

Boring was advanced to a depth of 10 feet before using water in the rock core drilling process. Groundwater was not observed above that depth.

S T

R A

T F

U R

U N

C O

N F

D C

O M

P R

E S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

G R

A P

D E

P T

H (f t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

R E

C O

V E

R Y

Q D

P O

C K

E T

P E

(t sf

S T

E S

C O

N T

E N

M O

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

S T

D E

S A

M P

Y P

D R

Y U

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

15 ft.

8/1/25

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. B-3

CLIENT Clark Associates

PROJECT NUMBER W25-052

PROJECT NAME City of Temple Parks Department Additions

PROJECT LOCATION Temple, TX

G E

R M

A N

F O

S T

E R

O E

A T

S T

D U

S L

A B

.G D

Z :\G

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, C

O F

T E

M P

A R

K S

D E

P A

R T

M E

N T

A D

S .G

P J

Langerman Engineering

1.9

3.6

79.2

80.672 (60)

4.5+

36 15

LEAN CLAY; tan and brown, with sand

LEAN CLAY; tan, with limestone fragments

SEVERELY WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, consists of broken limestone interbedded with marly clay

WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, fractured

LIMESTONE; gray, fractured

12-50/4"

50/2"

50/3"

50/4"

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

Remarks:

Completion Depth:

Date Started:

Completed:

Logged by:

Boring was advanced to a depth of 10 feet before using water in the rock core drilling process. Groundwater was not observed above that depth.

S T

R A

T F

U R

U N

C O

N F

D C

O M

P R

E S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

G R

A P

D E

P T

H (f t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

R E

C O

V E

R Y

Q D

P O

C K

E T

P E

(t sf

S T

E S

C O

N T

E N

M O

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

S T

D E

S A

M P

Y P

D R

Y U

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

15 ft.

8/1/25

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. B-4

CLIENT Clark Associates

PROJECT NUMBER W25-052

PROJECT NAME City of Temple Parks Department Additions

PROJECT LOCATION Temple, TX

G E

R M

A N

F O

S T

E R

O E

A T

S T

D U

S L

A B

.G D

Z :\G

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, C

O F

T E

M P

A R

K S

D E

P A

R T

M E

N T

A D

S .G

P J

Langerman Engineering

1.6

2.2

8.0

94.8

(54)

4.5+

4.5+ 36 16 71

LEAN CLAY; brown and tan, with limestone fragments

SEVERELY WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, consists of broken limestone interbedded with marly clay

LIMESTONE; gray, fractured

50/5"

50/6"

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

Remarks:

Completion Depth:

Date Started:

Completed:

Logged by:

Boring was advanced to a depth of 10 feet before using water in the rock core drilling process. Groundwater was not observed above that depth.

S T

R A

T F

U R

U N

C O

N F

D C

O M

P R

E S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

G R

A P

D E

P T

H (f t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

R E

C O

V E

R Y

Q D

P O

C K

E T

P E

(t sf

S T

E S

C O

N T

E N

M O

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

S T

D E

S A

M P

Y P

D R

Y U

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

15 ft.

8/1/25

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. B-5

CLIENT Clark Associates

PROJECT NUMBER W25-052

PROJECT NAME City of Temple Parks Department Additions

PROJECT LOCATION Temple, TX

G E

R M

A N

F O

S T

E R

O E

A T

S T

D U

S L

A B

.G D

Z :\G

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, C

O F

T E

M P

A R

K S

D E

P A

R T

M E

N T

A D

S .G

P J

Langerman Engineering

2.011.3

(88)

4.5+

GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY; brown, with sand

LEAN CLAY; tan, with sand and limestone fragments

SEVERELY WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, consists of broken limestone interbedded with marly clay

LIMESTONE; gray, fractured

5-50/2"

50/5"

50/4"

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

Remarks:

Completion Depth:

Date Started:

Completed:

Logged by:

Boring was advanced to a depth of 10 feet before using water in the rock core drilling process. Groundwater was not observed above that depth.

S T

R A

T F

U R

U N

C O

N F

D C

O M

P R

E S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

G R

A P

D E

P T

H (f t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

R E

C O

V E

R Y

Q D

P O

C K

E T

P E

(t sf

S T

E S

C O

N T

E N

M O

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

S T

D E

S A

M P

Y P

D R

Y U

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

15 ft.

8/1/25

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. S-1

CLIENT Clark Associates

PROJECT NUMBER W25-052

PROJECT NAME City of Temple Parks Department Additions

PROJECT LOCATION Temple, TX

G E

R M

A N

F O

S T

E R

O E

A T

S T

D U

S L

A B

.G D

Z :\G

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, C

O F

T E

M P

A R

K S

D E

P A

R T

M E

N T

A D

S .G

P J

Langerman Engineering

1.9

2.1

6.6

45.3

(74)

4.5+

4.5+ 49 19 88

LEAN CLAY; dark brown, with limestone fragments

SEVERELY WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, consists of broken limestone interbedded with marly clay

LIMESTONE; gray

27-45- 50/4"

37-50/6"

50/6"

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

Remarks:

Completion Depth:

Date Started:

Completed:

Logged by:

Boring was advanced to a depth of 10 feet before using water in the rock core drilling process. Groundwater was not observed above that depth.

S T

R A

T F

U R

U N

C O

N F

D C

O M

P R

E S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

G R

A P

D E

P T

H (f t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

R E

C O

V E

R Y

Q D

P O

C K

E T

P E

(t sf

S T

E S

C O

N T

E N

M O

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

S T

D E

S A

M P

Y P

D R

Y U

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

15 ft.

8/1/25

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. S-2

CLIENT Clark Associates

PROJECT NUMBER W25-052

PROJECT NAME City of Temple Parks Department Additions

PROJECT LOCATION Temple, TX

G E

R M

A N

F O

S T

E R

O E

A T

S T

D U

S L

A B

.G D

Z :\G

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, C

O F

T E

M P

A R

K S

D E

P A

R T

M E

N T

A D

S .G

P J

Langerman Engineering

73 7SS

GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY; tan, with limestone fragments SEVERELY WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, consists of broken limestone interbedded with marly clay

15-50/3"

50/5"

50/3"

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

Remarks:

Completion Depth:

Date Started:

Completed:

Logged by:

Boring was advanced to a depth of 6 feet using dry drilling techniques.

Groundwater was not observed above that depth.

S T

R A

T F

U R

U N

C O

N F

D C

O M

P R

E S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

G R

A P

D E

P T

H (f t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

R E

C O

V E

R Y

Q D

P O

C K

E T

P E

(t sf

S T

E S

C O

N T

E N

M O

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

S T

D E

S A

M P

Y P

D R

Y U

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

6 ft.

8/1/25

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. T-1

CLIENT Clark Associates

PROJECT NUMBER W25-052

PROJECT NAME City of Temple Parks Department Additions

PROJECT LOCATION Temple, TX

G E

R M

A N

F O

S T

E R

O E

A T

S T

D U

S L

A B

.G D

Z :\G

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, C

O F

T E

M P

A R

K S

D E

P A

R T

M E

N T

A D

S .G

P J

Langerman Engineering

4.5+ 77

LEAN CLAY; brown and tan, with sand

SEVERELY WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, consists of broken limestone interbedded with marly clay

LIMESTONE; gray, fractured

36-50/1"

50/5"

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

Remarks:

Completion Depth:

Date Started:

Completed:

Logged by:

Boring was advanced to a depth of 6 feet using dry drilling techniques.

Groundwater was not observed above that depth.

S T

R A

T F

U R

U N

C O

N F

D C

O M

P R

E S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

G R

A P

D E

P T

H (f t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

R E

C O

V E

R Y

Q D

P O

C K

E T

P E

(t sf

S T

E S

C O

N T

E N

M O

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

S T

D E

S A

M P

Y P

D R

Y U

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

6 ft.

8/1/25

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. T-2

CLIENT Clark Associates

PROJECT NUMBER W25-052

PROJECT NAME City of Temple Parks Department Additions

PROJECT LOCATION Temple, TX

G E

R M

A N

F O

S T

E R

O E

A T

S T

D U

S L

A B

.G D

Z :\G

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, C

O F

T E

M P

A R

K S

D E

P A

R T

M E

N T

A D

S .G

P J

Langerman Engineering

Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.

Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.

Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this Report Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities.

The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations.

Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific Times Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.

Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical-engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.

Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:

•	for a different client;
•	for a different project or purpose;
•	for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of

the original site); or

• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;

e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.

Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated May 12, 2026.