2019803 Addendum 4-Part2 of 2.pdf

FB-Deep B-4-Void-21.0ft_Preform(-35ft).in Tue Sep 5 15:43:59 2023

SSP-111D

FB-Deep B-4-Void-21.0ft_Preform(-35ft).in Tue Sep 5 15:44:46 2023

SSP-112D

Gbesing Cross-Out

APPENDIX – C

PILE DATA TABLE

SPP-113D

PIER

or

BENT NUMBER

PILE

SIZE

(in)

NOMINAL

BEARING

RESISTANCE

(tons)

NOMINAL

UPLIFT

RESISTANCE

(tons)

MINIMUM TIP

ELEVATION

(ft)

TEST PILE

LENGTH (ft)

REQUIRED

JET

ELEVATION

(ft)

REQUIRED

PREFORM

ELEVATION

(ft) *

FACTORED

DESIGN

LOAD (tons)

FACTORED

DESIGN

UPLIFT LOAD

(tons)

DOWN DRAG

(tons)

TOTAL

SCOUR

RESISTANCE

(tons)

NET

SCOUR

RESISTANCE

(tons)

100-YEAR

SCOUR

ELEVATION

(ft)

LO

N

G T

E R

M S

C O

U R

E

LE

V

A

TI

O N

(f t)

R E

S

IS

TA

N

C E

F A

C

TO

R

Φ (U pl ift

R E

S

IS

TA

N

C E

F A

C

TO

R

Φ (C om pr es si on

EB 1 18 167 N/A -37.0 76 N/A -35.0 108.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.8 N/A N/A 0.65

IB 2 18 202 N/A -46.0 93 N/A -35.0 131.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.2 N/A N/A 0.65

IB 3 18 211 N/A -61.0 98 N/A -35.0 137.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A -6.4 N/A N/A 0.65

IB 4 18 212 N/A -51.0 106 N/A -35.0 137.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A -6.4 N/A N/A 0.65

IB 5 18 171 N/A -46.0 102 N/A -35.0 111.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.2 N/A N/A 0.65

EB 6 18 126 N/A -37.0 76 N/A -35.0 81.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.8 N/A N/A 0.65

* - Required preform elevation -35.0 feet is needed to penetrate the hard limestone/sand layer.

Note:

PILE INSTALLATION NOTES:

UPLIFT RESISTANCE - The ultimate side friction capacity that must be obtained below Contractor to verify location of all utilities prior to any pile driving.

the 100 year scour elevation to resist pullout of the pile (Specify only when design require uplift capacity). Minimum Tip Elevation is required for lateral stability or tension capacity at all

TOTAL SCOUR RESISTANCE - An estimate of the ultimate static side friction locations and shall meet the requirements of section 455 of the specifications.

resistance provided by the scourable soil.

NET SCOUR RESISTANCE - An estimate of the ultimate static side friction When a required jetting elevation is shown, the jet shall be resistance provided by the soil from the lowered to the elevation and continue to operate at this elevation required preformed or jetting elevation until the pile driving is completed. If jetting or preforming elevations to the scour elevation. differ from those shown on the table, the Engineer shall be responsible

100-YEAR SCOUR ELEVATION- Estimated elevation of scour due to the 100 year for determination of the required driving resistance.

storm event.

LONG TERM SCOUR ELEVATION - Estimated elevation of scour used in design for extreme event loading.

(Factored Design Load + Net Scour Resistance + Down Drag) ≤ Nominal Bearing Resistance Φ

No jetting will be allowed without the approval of the Engineer

The Contractor should not anticipate being allowed to jet piles below the minimum tip elevation.

At each Bent, pile driving is to commence at the center of the Bent and proceed outward.

XXXXXX

+14.5

+14.7

+14.4

+14.3

+14.2

+13.7

TABLE - C1

[PBC PROJECT NO.: 2019803]

PILE DATA TABLE

BRIDGE

No.

INSTALLATION CRITERIA DESIGN CRITERIA MAX PILE CUT-OFF ELEVATIONS

SSP-114D

Date: October 21, 2022

Prepared by: GCME, Inc.

TO: Stanley Consultants, Inc

1641 Worthington Road, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33409

Attention: Mr. Amin Ahmed, P.E.

Senior Project Manager

SUBJECT: Geotechnical Services Report – Preliminary Roadway Improvements CR-880: Sam Senter Road over SFWMD Ocean Canal Palm Beach County, Florida PBC Project No.: 2019803 GCME Project No.: 2000-01-21005

Dear Mr. Ahmed, GCME, Inc. has completed the Preliminary Geotechnical Report for the roadway improvement in connection with the subject project. The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical information to the roadway engineers and for preparation of the plans for the proposed improvements. The following report includes the methods of study, evaluations, and recommendations concerning geotechnical aspects for the proposed roadway improvements.

The work was completed following our contract with your firm and followed the basic guidelines of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Soils and Foundations Handbook, 2020. This report is written using English units.

SSP-115D

SSP-116D

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM ......................................................................................................................... PAGE NUMBER

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION

3.0 LABORATORY TESTS

4.0 USDA, SCS SOIL SURVEY

5.0 PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY

6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Stratigraphy

6.2 Groundwater

7.0 ROADWAY EMBANKMENT EVALUATION

8.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

8.1 General

8.2 Roadway Widening Over Existing Peat With Rigid Inclusion

9.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION

10.0 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ........................................................... TABLE – 1

SUMMARY OF INDEX PROPERTY TEST RESULTS ................................................. TABLE – 1A

SUMMARY OF PEAT CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS ........................................... TABLE – 2

SUMMARY OF LBR TEST RESULTS .............................................................................. TABLE – 3

SUMMARY OF CORROSION TEST RESULTS ................................................................ TABLE - 4

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION.................................................................................... TABLE - 5

MUCK PROBE INFORMATION ........................................................................................ TABLE – 6

SSP-117D

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)

ITEM ......................................................................................................................... PAGE NUMBER

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION PLAN ................................................ PLATES 1 THRU. 11

CROSS SECTION SOIL SURVEY ............................................................................ FIGURE RSS - 1

SOIL PROFILES - ROADWAY ............................................................................... FIGURES 1 THRU. 5

USDA, SCS SOIL INFORMATION .................................................................................. APPENDIX – A

SETTLEMENT ANALYSES ............................................................................................ APPENDIX – B

SSP-118D

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The project site is located along CR-880 and Sam Senter Road, in Palm Beach County. Land in the project vicinity is rural. Terrain in the area is relatively flat. The subject project corridor consists of generally one (1) lane of through traffic in each direction, eastbound and westbound.

The limit of this project extends from 2,300 feet west, 1,900 feet east, and 400 feet north of the intersection of CR-880 and Sam Senter Road. The scope of the project consists of widening an approximately 0.8-mile section of CR-880 to the south, and either reconstructing or milling and resurfacing the existing CR-880.

The details of the field exploration performed as per our scope of services authorized/negotiated with Palm beach County are as follows:

1. For the proposed roadway widening:

a. Drill six (6) SPT borings (1,000 feet spacing) to depths of 20 feet to get to the bottom of organic soil / muck.

b. Drill twenty-two (22) SPT borings (200 feet spacing) to depths of 10 feet.

c. Muck Probes.

d. Collect two (2) undisturbed Shelby tube samples of the organics soils for consolidation testing.

e. Samples of the soils encountered will be obtained and the depth to the groundwater level will be measured and recorded for each of the borings.

Following completion of the drilling and testing, the boreholes will be backfilled with grout.

f. Collect 2 bulk subgrade samples for Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) determinations.

2. For the existing roadway:

a. Perform six (6) asphalt cores.

b. Drill six (6) SPT borings (1,000 feet spacing) to depths of 20 feet to get to the bottom of organic soil / muck.

c. Collect one (1) undisturbed Shelby tube samples of the organics soils for consolidation testing.

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION

In summary, our field testing program for the project consisted of drilling thirty-one (31) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings, seven (7) pavement cores and four (4) undisturbed shelby tube samples along the project corridor for roadway improvements. The borings were drilled to depths of 10 to 20 feet below existing grade. We also performed sixty-seven (67) muck probes to find out the limit and thickness of muck at toe of existing embankment along the south side of roadway corridor.

The numbering schedule and location of the borings drilled for the proposed improvements of the roadway corridor are as follows:

SSP-119D

• Along south side of CR-880: Twenty-two (22) borings, R-101 thru. R-122 (10’ SPT Borings)

• Along Sam Senter Road: Three (3) borings, R-201 thru. R-203 (10’ SPT Borings)

• Along south side of CR-880: Six (6) borings, R-301 thru. R-306 (20’ SPT Borings)

• Along CR-880: Six (6) pavement cores, PC-1 thru. PC-6 (Cores & 20’ SPT Borings)

• Along Sam Senter Road: One (1) pavement core, PC-7

• Along CR-880: Four (4) Shelby tube samples

• Along south side of CR-880: Two (2) LBR samples, LBR-1 & LBR-2

• Along south side of CR-880: Sixty-seven (67) Muck Probes, 1A thru. 42A

The approximate locations of the borings and pavement cores are presented on ‘Approximate Boring Location Plan’, Plate 1 through 11.

The SPT borings were advanced using mud rotary procedures. The borings were drilled to depth of 10 to 20 feet below grade. Samples of the in-place materials were recovered with a standard split barrel advanced with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches (the SPT after ASTM D 1586).

Soil samples were field classified, placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory for further analysis by a soils engineer. Classification of the subsoils found in the boring followed the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASSHTO) Soil Classification System.

3.0 LABORATORY TESTS

Representative samples recovered from the borings were visually reviewed in the laboratory by a geotechnical engineer to confirm the field classification. The recovered samples for the borings were classified in general accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASSHTO) Soil Classification System. The visual classification of the soil was confirmed with the use of the laboratory test results. Laboratory index tests consisting of natural moisture content, organic content determination and sieve analyses were performed on selected samples. The laboratory index property test results of samples recovered from the borings are presented on Table – 1 and are also summarized in the Table – 1A.

In addition to the index property testing performed, three (3) consolidation tests were completed on the undisturbed Shelby tube samples taken from the organic (muck) soil layer to evaluate the compressibility aspects of the peat. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 2435.

The results of the consolidation tests indicate that the peat samples along the project corridor are

SSP-120D

over-consolidated, with pre-consolidation pressures in the range of 1934 psf to 2960 psf.

Compression index values ranged between 3.73 and 4.47. Recompression index values varied from

0.36 to 0.64. Coefficient of consolidation values mostly ranged between 0.024 and 3.531 foot2/day for applied stresses from 60 psf to 8000 psf. A summary of the consolidation test results is presented in Table – 2.

As described above, the laboratory results indicate that the peat is over-consolidated (please note, one sample is obtained from below existing embankment/asphalt pavement, one sample was obtained from embankment shoulder, and one sample is obtained from toe of embankment.) with an average maximum past vertical stress of about 2600 psf, which is higher than the present vertical stress of the peat inside or outside of the embankment. This is somewhat surprising since peat is a young “soil” and there should not have historically been a naturally occurring layer of overburden soil above it. It is difficult to know the source of the historical overburden. It may have been man placed fill that was removed at some point in the past or it may be the result of vehicle traffic and/or desiccation of the peat.

In addition, bulk samples of the upper 1 to 3 feet of soils were collected at two (2) different locations along the project corridor roadway for determination of the Limerock Bearing Ratio. The results are presented in Table – 3, followed by the graphs.

The corrosion parameters of pH, resistivity, sulfates and chlorides were measured for canal water samples and soil sample from the borings. The test results were compared with FDOT criteria for corrosivity to enable the materials to be classified accordingly. Corrosion series tests results are presented in Table – 4.

4.0 USDA, SCS SOIL SURVEY

Research of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of the Palm Beach County indicates the presence of different soil map units along the roadway sections. The soil map units present along the project corridor are described in details in Appendix – A. A segment of the USDA Soils Map showing the proposed roadway section and the surrounding areas is also presented in Appendix – A.

5.0 PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY

The pavement cores and pavement condition summary data for the roadway corridor are provided in a separated report. Please note, the soil profiles for the borings drilled at the pavement core locations are utilized and provided in this report.

6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The borings disclosed that the project corridor is generally underlain with sands or interlayering of sands, silty sands, silt, limestone and organic soils (OL/Peat). The subsurface geologic profiles encountered at the roadway boring location, along with the SPT results, are presented on Figures 1 through 4. The subsurface geologic profiles encountered at the pavement cores / borings location are presented on Figure – 5. The soil profiles are drawn with reference to elevations. The station, SSP-121D offset and elevation information of borings are provided by the project surveyor.

The subsurface conditions found in the borings located within the roadway generally consisted of about 12 to 26 inches of asphaltic concrete over about 2 to 6 feet of embankment fill materials (i.e.

sand with some shell fragments and limerock gravels).

Beneath the fill (and starting at the ground surface at the off-road boring locations at shoulder / toe of embankment) there is silty to clayey peat. The peat thickness ranged between 2 and 10 feet.

The peat thickness was greater beneath the existing embankment (where it ranged from 5 to 10 feet thick) than it was in the off-road borings. The peat thickness generally ranged from 4 to 5 feet in the borings at shoulder, and generally ranged from 2 feet in the borings at toe of embankment. The reason for this is not clear but it could possibly be that during the original embankment construction the first few feet of fill that was placed over the naturally occurring peat. This additional peat might have been obtained during excavation of the canal to the north.

A formation of silty, sandy limestone (that is sometimes highly weathered to the state of a shelly clayey sand or sandy clay) was generally found below the peat. In most of the borings the limestone is interlayered by fine silty sand or stiff silt with trace to some shell fragments and limestone fragments. This limestone layer generally extends to the maximum depth of exploration (approximately elevation -35 feet, NAVD, as indicated in the bridge boring soil profiles).

Descriptions of the various strata found in the borings are presented in following section.

6.1 Stratigraphy

Soils and soil profiles encountered in SPT borings drilled underneath the roadway / pavement for the project roadway corridor study generally consisted of ten (10) general types:

Stratum P: Asphalt pavement.

Stratum 1: Base – Light brown to gray fine to medium Sand, some shell fragments and limerock gravels, some clayey sand lenses (A-1-b, A-2-4).

Stratum 1A: Dark brown to brown Sand with trace roots (Topsoil / A-8).

Stratum 2: Dark brown to black silty, clayey Peat (A-8).

Stratum 3: Light brown to gray silty, sandy Limestone, shell fragments, weakly to well cemented.

Stratum 4: Light gray weathered Limestone.

Stratum 5: Light brown to gray Silty Sand with few to some limestone fragments and shell fragments (A-1-b, A-2-4).

Stratum 5A: Light brown to gray Silt with trace to few limestone fragments (A-4).

Stratum 5B: Brown Sand with silt, trace to few limerock fragments (A-3).

SSP-122D

Stratum 5C: Light brown Silty Sand and some shell fragments (A-1-b).

Stratum P is asphalt pavement.

Stratum 1 is base and is classified as A-1-b or A-2-4, consists of select materials and is adequate for subgrade and embankment support.

Stratum 1A is topsoil (A-8) and considered to be unsuitable material and shall be removed in accordance with subsoil excavation referenced in FDOT Standard Plans 120-002 and Standard Specification Section 120.

Stratum 2 consists of organic soils classified as A-8 materials. These soils are found along the project corridor with organic content ranging from 6.1% to 89.3%.

Stratum 3 and 4 consist of limestone.

Stratum 5 is silty sand with fine content ranging from 11.8% to 35.2%. Stratum 5 soils are classified as A-1-b and A-2-4, consist mainly of soils with high fines content and are likely to retain some excess moisture and could be difficult to handle, place and compact compared to A-3 materials.

Stratum 5A is silt material with fine content ranging from 37.2% to 60.4%. Stratum 5A soils are classified as A-4 (plastic soil). These soils are usually present about 2 feet or more below the existing grade. Based on the proposed final grade of the improved roadway, removal of these soils will not be necessary.

Stratum 5B classified as A-3, consists of select material and is adequate for subgrade and embankment support, and should be utilized according to Standard Plans, Index 120-001.

Stratum 5C is silty shelly sand with fine content ranging 11.9%. Stratum 5C soils are classified as A-1-b, consist mainly of soils with high fines content and are likely to retain some excess moisture and could be difficult to handle, place and compact compared to A-3 materials.

Figures RSS-1, Cross Section Soil Survey for the Design of Roads, describes the various strata that were encountered during the study of the project corridor and presents test results for each stratum and general recommendation for handling each soil stratum.

6.2 Groundwater

The depths to the groundwater table measured in each of the borings are indicated in the soil profiles on Figures 1 through 5, and are present in Table – 5.

For all the borings (including bridge borings) drilled along the project corridor, the overall groundwater depth varied from 2.5 to 12.7 feet, which corresponding to elevation +4.1 feet to +10.1 feet, NAVD.

SSP-123D

For the 20 feet SPT borings drilled at the pavement core locations along CR-880, groundwater was generally not encountered excepting at one boring PC-5 (where groundwater depth was 11.3 feet, corresponding to elevation +6.4 feet NAVD).

For the borings drilled along CR-880 at shoulder, groundwater was generally not encountered within upper 10 feet, excepting at four (4) boring locations (where groundwater depth varied from

9.0 to 11.5 feet, corresponding to elevation +6.2 to +8.1 feet, NAVD) which are located at east of Sam Sent Road.

For the borings drilled along CR-880 at toe of embankment slope, groundwater depth varied from

2.5 to 4.5 feet, corresponding to elevation +5.2 to +10.1 feet, NAVD) which are located at east of Sam Sent Road.

For the borings drilled along Sam Sent Road at shoulder, groundwater depth varied from 9.0 to 10.0 feet, excepting at one (1) location R-201 (where groundwater was not encountered), corresponding to elevation +4.7 to +6.2 feet, NAVD.

The groundwater levels along the project corridor will be largely impacted by controlled water level in the SFWMD Ocean Canal running parallel along the north side the project corridor.

Groundwater levels were reported in each of the borings. Based on our experience, water levels encountered in the test borings may not have sufficient time to achieve equilibrium prior to reading measurements. Therefore, groundwater levels encountered in the field during construction may be higher (or lower) than that indicated on the test boring logs. Fluctuation should be anticipated due to environmental variation and seasonal condition, such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences, such as existing canals, swales, drainage ponds, and under drains. We recommend that the contractors determine the actual groundwater levels prior to the time of the construction to evaluate groundwater impact on their construction procedure.

7.0 ROADWAY EMBANKMENT EVALUATION

The findings of field and laboratory analytical data for this study indicate that the roadway alignment is generally suitable for the planned construction when viewed from a geotechnical engineering perspective. The subsurface conditions of the roadway alignment will impose some constraints or limitations on the design or construction of the planned project from a soil mechanics, foundation engineering or engineering geology standpoint. The position of the groundwater table must also be generally considered during final design phase and construction.

The majority of the project corridor is underlain with interlayering of Strata 1A, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 5A soils.

Stratum 1 (base material) consists of select material and are adequate for subgrade and embankment support. However, portions have high fine content (average fines content 24.7%) and are likely to retain some excess moisture and could be difficult to handle, place and compact compared to ordinary A-3 materials.

SSP-124D

Stratum 3 and 4 consist of Limestone. Specialized tools and equipment are necessary to excavate and/or penetrate the limestone layer.

Stratum 5 soils are silty soils with average fines content 21.6%. These soils due to high fines content are likely to retain excess moisture and could be difficult to handle, place and compact. A- 2-4 material placed below the existing water level must contain less than 15% passing the No. 200 U.S. Standard sieve. These soils may be used in the roadway subgrade with extra caution, and proper supervision and quality control. However, the District Materials Engineer (along with the CEI team) has the authority to approve or disapprove the use of these soils based on existing site conditions during construction and efficiency of the contractor’s means and methods for handling these soils.

Stratum 5A soils are silt material with average fines content 49.7%. These soils due to high fines content are likely to retain excess moisture and could be difficult to handle, place and compact.

These A-4 material need to be removed to 2 feet below base and replaced with embankment fill, as per FDOT Standard Plans Index 120-002. However, based on existing roadway grades and proposed improvements, removal of this A-4 soil layer will not be necessary.

Stratum 5B and 5C consist of select material and are adequate for subgrade and embankment support, and should be utilized according to Standard Plans, Index 120-001.

Stratum 2 consists of organic soils classified as A-8 materials. These soils are found along the project corridor with average organic content 62.4%. We understand that the proposed improvements include mainly milling and resurfacing of the corridor with widening being proposed along CR-880 corridor. As per FDOT Standard Plans Index 120-002, these soils need to be removed and replaced with select embankment fill. However, we believe that based on the proposed project corridor improvement; and the location, extent, depth, and organic content of these soils; removal and replacement of the organic soils with select fill materials may not be a feasible option applicable to these locations.

We performed sixty-seven (67) muck probes to determine the limit and thickness of muck at toe of existing embankment along the south side of roadway corridor. The details are present in Table – 6.

We understand that the organic soils will not be removed and rigid inclusions will be performed along the project corridor. The detail of analysis of rigid inclusions is present in the next section.

The recommendations of handling of each soil layer (Stratum 1 through 5C) are presented in Figure RSS - 1, Cross Section Soil Survey for the Design of Roads.

8.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

8.1 General

The proposed project is considering to widen the roadway to the south of it. Based on the information obtained from our geotechnical exploration, peat exists within the embankment and gradually to the south of it (toe of existing embankment slope). The peat is weak and its

SSP-125D

compressibility must be accounted for in the project design and construction.

We believe Palm Beach County has completed a geotechnical study for about 19 miles along County Road (CR) 880. The study limits of the roadway is located between Main Street in Belle Glade and State Road (SR) 80. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the option of mitigating the effect of the existing organic (muck) soils in reference to the proposed improvement / widening. Based on the study, various options were evaluated and the most feasible option ‘Rigid Inclusion’ was recommended.

This project site is along CR 880, for a length of about 4200 feet and is part of the study corridor.

We understand Palm Beach County’s decision to utilize the concept of rigid inclusion along this small corridor, and evaluate the effect and performance of the recommended alternative.

The following section provides a discussion of anticipated roadway settlement if the peat layer is left in place and the proposed widening are designed with Rigid Inclusion.

8.2 Roadway Widening Over Existing Peat With Rigid Inclusion

This option will treat the peat layer beneath the 15 ft wide extension using Rigid Inclusions. This consists of inserting shallow unreinforced concrete “piles” on a grid pattern through the peat. We anticipate that the inclusions would be installed to a depth of 20 feet below working grade and on a center to center spacing of about 6 ft (conservative), with three rows of inclusions beneath the widening. A relieving platform [Load Transfer Platform (LTP)] consisting of granular fill with 2 layers of geogrid reinforcement would be constructed over the rigid inclusions. We anticipate that this LTP would be about 2 ft (minimum) thick and would exist between the bottom of the base course and the top of the inclusions. Please note the system described is conceptual after discussion with an experienced specialty contractor with experience in performing rigid inclusion. The actual design would need to be completed by the specialty contractor’s engineer.

We estimated the settlement under the roadway widening if the organic soils (muck) is left in place. The settlement estimates were performed for one (1) typical section (with maximum length) assuming the road is widening to south / right side for approximate 15 feet. The organic soils (muck) layer under the existing embankment and widening portion is conservatively estimated to 10 feet thick in the settlement analysis. The consolidation lab data from three Shelby tube samples are analyzed respectively. The settlement analysis is performed using FoSSA 2.0 program.

The settlement at the center of existing roadway embankment, and the settlement at the center of the widening section, are analyzed. The settlement analysis is performed as following:

i. The muck layer below existing roadway and slope (proposed roadway) was conservatively estimated to be 10 feet.

ii. A representative subsurface soil stratum was chosen based on all borings detailed and shown on Sheet B-1 in Appendix – B.

iii. For the loading, we used a 3 feet pavement section and traffic loading of 250 psf.

iv. Settlement was calculated at two (2) points, as mentioned above.

v. Consolidation test results from all three (3) tests were used for the calculation.

SSP-126D

The summary of settlement analysis is presented in Table – B1, and the details of analysis (including FoSSA outputs) are presented in Appendix – B. The estimates of settlement include compression of the granular soils and primary consolidation of the peat and do not include long term secondary compression (which is estimated to be about 1 to 2 inches over 20 years).

The results indicate that the settlement at the center of existing roadway embankment will be minimal. Please note, the settlement shown at the center of the existing roadway is between 2.5 and 4 inches. Most of this settlement has already occurred. There will be minor settlement due to the additional embankment widening. However, the settlement of the widening section varies between 2 to 4 inches. We understand Rigid Inclusion will help to mitigate this settlement.

In reference to our meeting with a specialty contractor with experience in designing and installing Rigid Inclusion, the conservative cost of Rigid Inclusion will be $25 to $28 / sq. ft with 20 feet depth with 6 feet grid. Assuming a length of 4200 feet with 15 feet of widening, the total anticipated cost for Rigid Inclusion will be approximately $ 1.6 to $1.8 million.

9.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

We understand that the recommended option appears to be widening the existing CR 880 roadway after installing rigid inclusions through the peat, as 3 rows of 20 ft deep rigid inclusions that penetrate through the peat beneath the widening area. The actual design of the rigid inclusions system would need to be performed by a specialty contractor. Also, this alternative has some risk of long term settlement beneath the existing roadway footprint (and differential settlement) as the underlying peat just north of the rigid inclusions continues to undergo long term compression but the widened area above the inclusions remains relatively still. For this reason, periodic asphalt concrete overlays may be needed to reestablish grade and/or appropriate roadway cross slopes for drainage.

10.0 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

The geotechnical engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice contained herein are preliminary and have been presented after being prepared following generally accepted professional engineering practice in the fields of foundation engineering, soil mechanics and engineering geology. This company is not responsible for the conclusion, opinion, or recommendations made by others based on this data.

No other warranties are expressed or implied.

This report is prepared based on information received from your office via telephone conversations and emails and are mentioned in the report. If any of this information is not correct, or if the location of the proposed structure is changed, or if the loads or foundation type change, please contact us so that the recommendation provided in the report may be reviewed for continued applicability.

The scope of the investigation was intended to evaluate soil conditions within the influence of foundations and does not include an evaluation of potential deep soil problems such as sinkholes.

The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained

SSP-127D

- 14 -

SCI

GCME Project No.: 2000-01-21005 from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated. If any subsoil variations become evident during the course of this project, a re-evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report will be necessary after we have had an opportunity to observe the characteristics of the conditions encountered. The applicability of the report should also be reviewed in the event significant changes occur in the design, nature, or location of the proposed structures.

The scope of our services does not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or surface water within or beyond the site studied. Any statements in the report regarding odors, staining of soils, or other unusual conditions observed are strictly for the information of our client.

SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIAL PROVISIONS

SSP-128D

G C

M E

P ro je ct

N o.

: 2

0-

-2

C

R -8

LL

PL

PI

3/ 4"

3/ 8"

#4 #1

#2

#4

#6

#1

#2

R -1

2.

4.

A-

1-b

.6

.1

.7

.5

.4

.7

.8

.9

.4

.0

R -1

8.

.0

A-

7.

.2

R -1

0.

2.

A-

0.

.9

R -1

2.

4.

5A A-

.3

.7

.2

.0

.2

.9

.2

.0

.3

.9

R -1

6.

8.

A-

4.

.4

R -1

6.

8.

A-

2-

.4

.3

.4

.2

.6

.1

.2

.7

.4

.0

R -1

8.

.0

A-

8.

.8

R -1

6.

8.

5A A-

.5

0.

.2

.2

.1

.5

.3

.4

.7

.5

R -1

4.

6.

A-

1-b

.4

.5

.5

.6

.0

.4

.2

.7

.1

.2

R -1

2.

4.

A-

9.

.8

R -1

8.

.0

5C A-

1-b

.1

0.

.4

.1

.9

.9

.9

.0

.1

.9

R -1

8.

.0

A-

6.

.1

R -1

2.

4.

A-

2-

.1

.5

.8

.6

.5

.6

.0

.4

.1

.0

R -1

6.

8.

A-

6.

.2

R -1

8.

.0

5A A-

.6

0.

.4

.8

.2

.6

.3

.9

.0

.2

R -1

2.

4.

5A A-

.0

.4

R -1

4.

6.

A-

1-b

.0

.6

R -1

8.

.0

A-

3.

.1

R -1

2.

4.

A-

1-b

.9

.6

R -1

6.

8.

A-

5.

.6

R -1

2.

4.

A-

.1

.5

R -1

7.

8.

A-

.7 6.

R -1

8.

.0

5A A-

.8

.0

R -1

6.

8.

A-

8.

.3

R -2

4.

6.

5A A-

.5

.1

R -2

8.

.0

A-

3.

.1

R -2

2.

4.

A-

2-

.5

.6

.6

.9

.8

.2

.7

.9

.6

.4

N at ur al

M oi st ur e

C on te nt

B or in g

N o.

St ra tu m

AA

SH

TO

S y m bo l

Sa m pl e

D ep th

(ft

Si ev e An al ys is O rg an ic on

TA

B

LE

-1

SU

M

M

AR

Y O

F

LA

B O

R

AT

O R

Y

TE

ST

IN

G R

ES

U

LT

S

[P B

C P ro je ct N o.

Pr oj ec t:

C R

-8

: S am

S en te r R oa d ov er

S

FW

M D

O ce an C an al

At te rb er g Li m its

SSP-129D

LL

PL

PI

3/ 4"

3/ 8"

#4 #1

#2

#4

#6

#1

#2

N at st ur e

C on

B or in g

N o.

St ra tu m

AA

bo l

Sa m pl e

D

Si ev e An al ys is O rg

TA

B

LE

-1

SU

M

M

AR

Y O

F

LA

B O

R

AT

O R

Y

TE

ST

IN

G R

ES

U

LT

S

[P B

C P ro je ct N o.

Pr oj ec t:

C R

-8

: S am

S en te r R oa d ov er

S

FW

M D

O ce an C an al

At te rb er g Li m its

R -2

4.

6.

A-

.6

.9

R -2

2.

4.

A-

2-

.7

.8

R -2

6.

8.

A-

9.

.1

R -3

6.

8.

5A A-

.0

0.

.9

.0

.2

.5

.3

.6

.3

.1

R -3

2.

4.

A-

4.

.0

R -3

8.

.0

A-

2-

.5

0.

.5

.3

.0

.8

.0

.0

.3

.2

R -3

.0

.0

A-

2-

.8

0.

.0

.9

.6

.0

.5

.5

.1

.5

R -3

8.

.0

A-

1-b

.9

0.

.8

.7

.4

.7

.5

.7

.5

.3

R -3

7.

8.

A-

2.

.6

R -3

.0

.0

5A A-

.1

0.

0.

.5

.2

.9

.4

.9

.4

.3

R -3

4.

6.

5A A-

.8

.1

.9

.1

.2

.3

.4

.9

.6

.2

R -3

.0

.5

A-

1-b

.0

0.

.4

.7

.4

.7

.6

.6

.3

.4

R -3

6.

8.

5A A-

.0

0.

.1

.7

.5

.0

.5

.0

.6

.2

R -3

8.

.0

A-

2-

.4

0.

.9

.1

.6

.5

.1

.1

.3

.8

PC

-1

8.

.0

A-

7.

.8

PC

-1

.5

.0 5A

A-

.4

0.

.7

.0

.4

.6

.8

.5

.3

.9

PC

-2

4.

6.

A-

6.

.3

PC

-3

4.

6.

A- 2-

.8

.5

.6

.3

.5

.4

.9

.6

.2

.2

PC

-4

.0

.0

A-

6.

.6

PC

-4

.0

.5 5A

A-

.0

.5

.5

.2

.6

.7

.6

.7

.7

.2

PC

-5

5.

6.

A-

6.

.9

PC

-5

.0

.5

A- 1-b

.9

0.

.5

.1

.9

.7

.4

.8

.8

.3

PC

-6

6.

8.

A-

6.

.2

SSP-129D

PL

PI

3/ 4"

3/ 8"

#4 #1

#2

#4

#6

#1

#2

R -1

2.

4.

A-

1-b

.6

.1

.7

.5

.4

.7

.8

.9

.4

.0

R -1

4.

6.

A-

1-b

.4

.5

.5

.6

.0

.4

.2

.7

.1

.2

R -1

4.

6.

A-

1-b

.0

.6

R -1

2.

4.

A-

1-b

.9

.6

R -2

2.

4.

A-

2-

.5

.6

.6

.9

.8

.2

.7

.9

.6

.4

R -2

2.

4.

A-

2-

.7

.8

PC

-3

4.

6.

A- 2-

.8

.5

.6

.3

.5

.4

.9

.6

.2

.2

TA

B

LE

-1

SU

M

M

AR

Y O

F

LA

B O

R

AT

O R

Y

TE

ST

IN

G R

ES

U

LT

S

[P B

C P ro je ct N o.

ST

AR

TU

M

Pr oj ec t:

C R

-8

: S am

S en te r R oa d ov er

S

FW

M D

O ce an C an al

B or in g

N o.

Sa m pl e

D

St ra tu m

AA

bo l

N at st ur e

C on

O rg

At te rb er g Li m its

Si ev e An al ys is

SSP-130D

PL

PI

3/ 4"

3/ 8"

#4 #1

#2

#4

#6

#1

#2

R -1

8.

.0

A-

7.

.2

R -1

0.

2.

A-

0.

.9

R -1

6.

8.

A-

4.

.4

R -1

8.

.0

A-

8.

.8

R -1

2.

4.

A-

9.

.8

R -1

8.

.0

A-

6.

.1

R -1

6.

8.

A-

6.

.2

R -1

8.

.0

A-

3.

.1

R -1

6.

8.

A-

5.

.6

R -1

2.

4.

A-

.1

.5

R -1

7.

8.

A-

.7 6.

R -1

6.

8.

A-

8.

.3

R -2

8.

.0

A-

3.

.1

R -2

4.

6.

A-

.6

.9

R -2

6.

8.

A-

9.

.1

R -3

2.

4.

A-

4.

.0

R -3

7.

8.

A-

2.

.6

PC

-1

8.

.0

A-

7.

.8

PC

-2

4.

6.

A-

6.

.3

PC

-4

.0

.0

A-

6.

.6

PC

-5

5.

6.

A-

6.

.9

PC

-6

6.

8.

A-

6.

.2

TA

B

LE

-1

SU

M

M

AR

Y O

F

LA

B O

R

AT

O R

Y

TE

ST

IN

G R

ES

U

LT

S

[P B

C P ro je ct N o.

ST

AR

TU

M

Pr oj ec t:

C R

-8

: S am

S en te r R oa d ov er

S

FW

M D

O ce an C an al

B or in g

N o.

Sa m pl e

D

St ra tu m

AA

bo l

N at st ur e

C on

O rg

At te rb er g Li m its

Si ev e An al ys

SSP-131D

PL

PI

3/ 4"

3/ 8"

#4 #1

#2

#4

#6

#1

#2

R -1

6.

8.

A-

2-

.4

.3

.4

.2

.6

.1

.2

.7

.4

.0

R -1

2.

4.

A-

2-

.1

.5

.8

.6

.5

.6

.0

.4

.1

.0

R -3

8.

.0

A-

2-

.5

0.

.5

.3

.0

.8

.0

.0

.3

.2

R -3

.0

.0

A-

2-

.8

0.

.0

.9

.6

.0

.5

.5

.1

.5

R -3

8.

.0

A-

1-b

.9

0.

.8

.7

.4

.7

.5

.7

.5

.3

R -3

.0

.5

A-

1-b

.0

0.

.4

.7

.4

.7

.6

.6

.3

.4

R -3

8.

.0

A-

2-

.4

0.

.9

.1

.6

.5

.1

.1

.3

.8

PC

-5

.0

.5

A- 1-b

.9

0.

.5

.1

.9

.7

.4

.8

.8

.3

TA

B

LE

-1

SU

M

M

AR

Y O

F

LA

B O

R

AT

O R

Y

TE

ST

IN

G R

ES

U

LT

S

[P B

C P ro je ct N o.

ST

AR

TU

M

Pr oj ec t:

C R

-8

: S am

S en te r R oa d ov er

S

FW

M D

O ce an C an al

B or in g

N o.

Sa m pl e

D

St ra tu m

AA

bo l

N at st ur e

C on

O rg

At te rb er g Li m its

Si ev e An al ys

SSP-132D

PL

PI

3/ 4"

3/ 8"

#4 #1

#2

#4

#6

#1

#2

R -1

2.

4.

5A A-

.3

.7

.2

.0

.2

.9

.2

.0

.3

.9

R -1

6.

8.

5A A-

.5

0.

.2

.2

.1

.5

.3

.4

.7

.5

R -1

8.

.0

5A A-

.6

0.

.4

.8

.2

.6

.3

.9

.0

.2

R -1

2.

4.

5A A-

.0

.4

R -1

8.

.0

5A A-

.8

.0

R -2

4.

6.

5A A-

.5

.1

R -3

6.

8.

5A A-

.0

0.

.9

.0

.2

.5

.3

.6

.3

.1

R -3

.0

.0

5A A-

.1

0.

0.

.5

.2

.9

.4

.9

.4

.3

R -3

4.

6.

5A A-

.8

.1

.9

.1

.2

.3

.4

.9

.6

.2

R -3

6.

8.

5A A-

.0

0.

.1

.7

.5

.0

.5

.0

.6

.2

PC

-1

.5

.0 5A

A-

.4

0.

.7

.0

.4

.6

.8

.5

.3

.9

PC

-4

.0

.5 5A

A-

.0

.5

.5

.2

.6

.7

.6

.7

.7

.2

TA

B

LE

-1

SU

M

M

AR

Y O

F

LA

B O

R

AT

O R

Y

TE

ST

IN

G R

ES

U

LT

S

[P B

C P ro je ct N o.

ST

AR

TU

M

A]

Pr oj ec t:

C R

-8

: S am

S en te r R oa d ov er

S

FW

M D

O ce an C an al

B or in g

N o.

Sa m pl e

D

St ra tu m

AA

bo l

N at st ur e

C on

O rg

At te rb er g Li m its

Si ev e An al ys

SSP-133D

PL

PI

3/ 4"

3/ 8"

#4 #1

#2

#4

#6

#1

#2

R -1

8.

.0

5C A-

1-b

.1

0.

.4

.1

.9

.9

.9

.0

.1

.9

TA

B

LE

-1

SU

M

M

AR

Y O

F

LA

B O

R

AT

O R

Y

TE

ST

IN

G R

ES

U

LT

S

[P B

C P ro je ct N o.

ST

AR

TU

M

C

Pr oj ec t:

C

R -8

: S am S en te r R oa d ov er S

FW

M

D O ce an

C an al

B or in g

N o.

Sa m pl e

D

St ra tu m

AA

bo l

N at st ur e

C on

O rg

At te rb er g Li m its

Si ev e An al ys

SSP-133D

.S

S

IE

V

M

M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.1

D a te

/8

.7

.5

O C

.4

.0

.0

.7

.8

.9

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.4

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.0

N o

A -1

-b

.6

R -1

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

/2

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-134D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.7

D a te

/8

.2

.0

O C

.2

.0

.0

.9

.2

.0

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.3

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.9

N o

/2

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -1

A -4

.3

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-135D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.3

D a te

/8

.4

.2

O C

.6

.0

.0

.1

.2

.7

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.4

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.0

N o

/2

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -1

A -2

-4

.4

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-136D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.0

D a te

/8

.2

.2

O C

.1

.0

.0

.5

.3

.4

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.7

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.5

N o

/3

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -1

A -4

.5

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-137D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.5

D a te

/8

.5

.6

O C

.0

.0

.0

.4

.2

.7

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.1

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.2

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -1

A -1

-b

.4

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-138D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.0

D a te

/8

.4

.1

O C

.9

.0

.0

.9

.9

.0

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.1

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.9

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -1

A -1

-b

.1

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-139D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.5

D a te

/8

.8

.6

O C

.5

.0

.0

.6

.0

.4

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.1

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.0

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -1

A -2

-4

.1

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-140D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.0

D a te

/8

.4

.8

O C

.2

.0

.0

.6

.3

.9

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.0

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.2

N o

/ 3

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -1

A -4

.6

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-141D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.6

D a te

/8

.6

.9

O C

.8

.0

.0

.2

.7

.9

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.6

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.4

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -2

A -2

-4

.5

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-142D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.0

D a te

/8

.9

.0

O C

.2

.0

.0

.5

.3

.6

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.3

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.1

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -3

A -4

.0

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-143D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.0

D a te

/8

.5

.3

O C

.0

.0

.0

.8

.0

.0

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.3

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.2

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -3

A -2

-4

.5

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-144D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.0

D a te

/8

.0

.9

O C

.6

.0

.0

.0

.5

.5

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.1

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.5

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -3

A -2

-4

.8

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-145D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.0

D a te

/8

.8

.7

O C

.4

.0

.0

.7

.5

.7

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.5

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.3

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -3

A -1

-b

.9

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-146D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.0

D a te

/8

.0

.5

O C

.2

.0

.0

.9

.4

.9

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.4

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.3

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -3

A -4

.1

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-147D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.1

D a te

/8

.9

.1

O C

.2

.0

.0

.3

.4

.9

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.6

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.2

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -3

A -4

.8

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-148D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.0

D a te

/8

.4

.7

O C

.4

.0

.5

.7

.6

.6

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.3

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.4

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -3

A -1

-b

.0

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-149D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.0

D a te

/8

.1

.7

O C

.5

.0

.0

.0

.5

.0

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.6

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.2

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -3

A -4

.0

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-150D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.0

D a te

/8

.9

.1

O C

.6

.0

.0

.5

.1

.1

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.3

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.8

N o

/6

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

R -3

A -2

-4

.4

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-151D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.0

D a te

/8

.7

.0

O C

.4

.5

.0

.6

.8

.5

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.3

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.9

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

P C

-1 A

-4

.4

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-152D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.5

D a te

/8

.6

.3

O C

.5

.0

.0

.4

.9

.6

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.2

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.2

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

P C

-3 A

-2 -4

.8

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-153D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.5

D a te

/8

.5

.2

O C

.6

.0

.5

.7

.6

.7

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.7

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.2

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

P C

-4 A

-4

.0

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-154D

S

IE

V E

C U

M M

-8

S a m S e n te r

R o a d o v e r S

F W

M D

O c e a n C a n a l [P

B C

P ro je c t N o

N

O

P A

S S

IN

G

/4

.0

D a te

/8

.5

.1

O C

.9

.0

.5

.7

.4

.8

M C

M o is tu re

C o n te n t

.8

O C

O rg a n ic

C o n te n t

.3

N o

/2

B O

R

IN

G N

O

D E

P T

H I N

T E

R V

A L

F

T

S O

IL

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

M C

P C

-5 A

-1 -b

.9

P ro je c t N a m e

P ro je c t N o

-0

-2

G C M E

G e o te c h n ic a l

C o n s u lt in g

E n g in e e ri n g

T e s ti n g

.0

.1

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

G R

A I N

S I Z

E i n m il li m e t e r s

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E N

U M

B E

R S

U .S

S

T A

N D

A R

D S

IE

V

E O

P E

N

IN

G I N

I N

C H

E S

SSP-155D

A-

1-b, A -2

-4

.5

6.

.0

4.

1A A-

A-

.7

. 3 6.

9.

(L im es to ne

(L im es to ne

A-

1-b, A -2

-4

.8

3.

.8

5.

5A A-

.5

2.

.2

0.

5B A-

5C A-

1-b

.1

.9

TA

B

LE

-1

A

SU

M

M

AR

Y O

F

IN

D

EX

P R

O

PE

R

TY

T

ES

T R

ES

U

LT

S

Pr oj ec t:

C R

-8

: S am

S en te r R oa d ov er

S

FW

M D

O ce an C an al

[P B

C P ro je ct N o.

St ra tu m

N o.

AA

SH

TO

S ym bo l M oi st ur e

C on te nt

R an ge

O rg an ic C on te nt R an ge

Fi ne

C on te nt

R an ge

SSP-156D

0.

3.

0.

1.

0.

3.

0.

0.

1.

0.

2.

0.

2.

0.

0.

0.

0.

2.

0.

3.

0.

3.

0.

0.

0.

0.

4.

0.

7.

4.

0.

6.

B -3

+2

(C

L S

S R

.4 ' R

T 6.

.0

.2

.0

3.

0.

7.

R -3

1+

(C L

C R

-8

0.

4' L

T 8.

0.

.2

.5

R -1

+9

(C L

C R

-8

.6 ' R

T 2.

.0

.4

.2

O ffs et C om pr es si on In de x

C r

In iti al V oi d

R at io e

C oe ffi ci en t o f C on so lid at io n

C v

(ft .2 /d ay

O rg

Fi ne

Lo ad

A pp lie d Pr es su re

(p sf

TA

B

LE

SU

M

M A

R Y

O F

PE

A

T C

O N

SO

LI

D A

TI

O

N T

ES

T

R

ES

U

LT

S Pr oj ec t:

C

R -8

: S am S en te r R oa d ov er S

FW

M

D O ce an

C an al [P

B C

P ro je ct

N o.

B or in g

N o.

Pe at

S am pl e

D ep th In te rv

(fe et

C om pr es si on

In de x C c

Pr ec on so li da tio n

Pr es su re

P c

(p sf

Se co nd ar y C on so lid at io n

C α

St at io n

SSP-157D

3.

.5

0.

.3

M ax im um

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

O pt im um W at er

C on te nt

LB

R

-1 , A pp ro x.

S ta . 8

4+

, R T

LB

R

-2 , A pp ro x.

S ta . 1

+2

0, R

T

TA

B

LE

Li m er oc k

B ea rin g

R at io (L

B R

) T es t S um m ar y Pr oj ec t:

C

R -8

: S am S en te r R oa d ov er S

FW

M

D O ce an

C an al [P

B C

P ro je ct

N o.

N o.

Lo ca tio n

M ax im um

L

BR

V al ue

SSP-158D

103.9 15.5

SAMPLE NO.: 1

DRAWN: SAMPLE DATE: 8/29/22 PROJECT NO.: 2000-01-21005

CHECKED: ZP REPORT DATE: 10/7/22 SHEET NO.: LBR-1

Dark brown medium to fine sand, few limestone fragments & shell, trace clay

Summary of Test Results Maximum LBR Value (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Water Content (%)

LIMEROCK BEARING RATIO

CR-880: Sam Senter Road over…