2022.07.19 EPII - Final Concepts Report_4_Rev_Redacted_10-15-24edit.pdf

MARK

WOODS

Digitally signed by

MARK WOODS

Date: 2024.10.15 08:55:32 -05'00'

ADMINPK-4 ( 22,896 SF )

ADMINPK-2 ( 7,584 SF )

ADMINPK-3 ( 7,381 SF )

CIDOCKRD-1 ( 16,200 SF )

CIDOCKRD-3 ( 41,237 SF )

PORTRD-1 ( 35,939 SF )

POVPRD-1 ( 25,770 SF )

POVSRD-1 ( 40,137 SF )

PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

Eagle Pass II Land Port of Entry

Eagle Pass, Texas

FINAL

SUBMITTED TO

CUSHING TERRELL

BY

HVJ, INC.

Austin, Texas July 8, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION

2 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

3 TRAFFIC DATA

4 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN

5 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN

6 RECOMMENDED DESIGNS

7 LIMITATIONS

APPENDICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION

HVJ Associates, Inc.® (HVJ) was retained by the Cushing Terrell to provide pavement design services for several Land Ports of Entry managed by the U.S General Services Administration. This report includes designs for reconstruction of 7 sections of the Eagle Pass II LPOE, as shown in Table 1:

Table 1. Eagle Pass II Sections and Pavement Types Section ID Pavement Type CIDOCKRD-1 Portland Cement Concrete CIDOCKRD-2 Asphalt Concrete COEPPK-1 Asphalt Concrete COMPRD-1 Portland Cement Concrete COMPRD-2 Portland Cement Concrete COMSRD-2 Portland Cement Concrete COMSRD-4 Portland Cement Concrete

2 GEOTECHICAL DATA

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

The soil type encountered within the project area is predominantly Lagloria Very Fine Sandy Loam as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Predominant Soil Types Within Project Limits

Soil Symbol Soil Type Sulfates

(ppm) Total Area

Plasticity

Index (PI)

LgA Lagloria Very Fine Sandy Loam 0-1% slopes 0 73.4 4.5

LgB Lagloria Very Fine Sandy Loam 1-3% slopes

0 26.6 4.5

The soil map shows that the soils underlying this project are of generally low plasticity which does not exceed 4.5 for any soil. Sulfates are not found in this area. Due to the low PI and lack of sulfates, Portland cement will be the stabilizing agent for these soils.

3 TRAFFIC DATA

Traffic data was collected and classified by Gram Traffic Counting, Inc. The traffic count was conducted at an exit of the facility such that all trucks entering the U.S were counted. The counts were summarized for each FWHA class of vehicle. The contribution of daily Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) was calculated and summarized for each FHWA class, assuming legally-loaded trucks. The number ESALs induced by each vehicle type were found using American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials methodology (the AASHTO formula). FHWA class 9, 5-axle rigs account for most of the applied ESALs at Eagle Pass II.

Approximately 450 vehicles enter the U.S. through the port per day. Projections of ESALs over 20 years (for both asphalt and rigid pavements) are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of Traffic Data.

Count Location 24 hours Count

VPD (2022)

Projected VPD

(2042)*

Full Traffic Load (20 Year Flex

ESALs)

Full Traffic Load (20 Year Rigid

ESALs)

Port Exit to U.S. 454 957 8,679,831 14,195,159

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

For the sections of Eagle Pass II under consideration, the following section factors and design traffic applies.

Table 4. Traffic Data by Section.

Section Traffic Factor Calculated Section Traffic

Design Section Traffic (ESALs)**

CIDOCKRD-1 0.5 7,097,580 7,097,580

CIDOCKRD-2 1 8,679,831 8,679,831

COEPPK-1 0.5 4,339,916 4,339,916

COMPRD-1 0.75 10,646,369 10,646,369

COMPRD-2 0.75 10,646,369 10,646,369

COMSRD-2 0.3 4,258,548 4,258,548

COMSRD-4 1 14,195,159 14,195,159

**Considers any limits on any roadways and parking lots restricted to light vehicles.

4 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN

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

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

Drainage

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

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

28-day Concrete Modulus of Rupture = 620 psi

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

Reliability Level and Overall Standard Deviation

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

Initial and Terminal Serviceability

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

Load Transfer

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

Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (K-value) effective modulus of subgrade reaction was calculated using DARWin, which resulted in a k-value equal to 300 psi/in.

CRCP Designs

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

Design Regression Curves

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

For CPCD/DARWin designs:

Thickness (in) = 1.7054 x ln(Million ESALs)+6.9006

For CRCP/TxCRCP-ME designs:

Thickness (in) = 1.4205 x ln(Million ESALs)+6.679

Fig. 1 CPCD and CRCP Design Curves (Calculation for COMSRD-4 Shown)

5 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN

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

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

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

1 Pavement Manual, Texas Department of Transportation; Revised June 2021 y = 1.4205ln(x) + 6.679 y = 1.7054ln(x) + 6.9006

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Th ic kn es s (in

Design Life (Million ESALs)

Pavement Thickness vs ESALs

CRCP Design Output

CPCD Design Output

Log. (CRCP Design Output)

Log. (CPCD Design Output)

CPCD CRCP

Material Properties

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

Table 5. Material Design Inputs

Material Design Modulus Ratio

New Dense- Graded HMAC 650,000 psi (for 8" Total HMAC) 0.35

Flex Base 50,000 psi 0.35

Stabilized Subgrade 35,000 psi 0.30

Subgrade 8,000 psi 0.40

Basic Design Criteria

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

Table 6: FPS 21 - Basic Design Criteria

Parameter Value

Design Confidence Level (%) 95

Design life (yrs) 20

Initial Serviceability Index 4.5

Terminal Serviceability Index 2.5

Time to First Overlay (yrs) 10

Time between Overlays (yrs) 8

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

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

6 RECOMMENDED DESIGNS

While CRCP generally provides more life as measured in ESALs before the pavement reaches unacceptable condition, it may not be as practical to construct as CPCD when considering the size and shape of the section. Many sections of Eagle Pass II are suitable for CRCP, minimizing the number of joints.

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

7 LIMITATIONS

This study was performed for the exclusive use of the U.S. General Services Administration for specific application to the Eagle Pass II LPOE pavements. HVJ Associates Inc. has endeavored to comply with generally accepted engineering practice common in the local area. HVJ Associates, Inc.

makes no warranty, express or implied. The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based on data obtained from subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, the project information provided to us, and our experience with similar soils and site conditions. If any of the engineering information changes, the design will not be applicable and will need to be revised to incorporate the new information.

May 18, 2022

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

1701 Directors Boulevard, Suite 910 Austin, TX 78744

Re: GSA Various LPOE PH5 Cores Eagle Pass II Owner: General Services Administration HVJ No. AG 21 10322

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

1. Objectives and Scope of Work

HVJ South Central Texas M&J, Inc. (HVJ SCTx) was retained by HVJ Associates, Inc. to provide pavement and base thicknesses, field testing, and laboratory testing information to aide in the GSA LPOE PH5 project improvements at Eagle Pass II, Texas. A total of three (3) pavement core locations have been investigated.

2. Geotechnical Field Exploration

Coring operations for the field exploration program were performed on Jan 19, 2022. The cores were advanced using a 6-inch electric core drilling machine to core through the pavement and base.

The coring locations were provided by HVJ Associates, Inc. and are shown on the Plan of Cores, Appendix A. The following table provides general core information.

4201 Freidrich Lane, Suite 110

Austin, Texas 78744

512.447.9081 Ph

512.443.3442 Fax

www.hvj.com

Table 2-1: Core Information

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

C1 13441140.7 1487000.1 732 C2 13440958.7 1487239.1 733 C3 13440919.6 1487483.7 733

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

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

3. Pavement Thickness

The pavement structure was observed to consist of 11 inches of asphaltic concrete and 4.75 to 14 inches of concrete. Table 3-1 below provides the pavement and base thicknesses.

Table 3-1: Existing Pavement Details

Core Name

Asphalt Thickness

(in)

Concrete Thickness

(in)

Base Thickness

(in)

Base Classification Subgrade Classification

C1 - 14.0 * Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)

Silty Sand (SM)

C2 11.0 - * Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)

Silty Sand (SM)

C3 - 4.75 * Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)

Sandy Silt (ML)

*Base thickness information is not available.

Base and subgrade samples were collected using a hand auger. Upon completion of coring activities, the core holes were drained out and topped with a single lift of cold mix asphalt patch or concrete mix to match the existing pavement. The base material was visually classified as Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) and the subgrade material was visually classified as Silty Sand (SM) and Sandy Silt (ML).

Photographs were taken of all asphalt/concrete cores and are presented in Appendix B.

4. Laboratory Testing

General

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

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

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

Atterberg Limits

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

Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve

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

Moisture Content

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

Specific Gravity

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

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

5. Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

Texas Firm Registration No. F-18091

DRAFT

Leo Ruiz, PE Project Manager

Bhupendra Chand, PE Project Engineer

Copies submitted: (1) Electronic

Appendices:

Appendix A: Plan of Cores Appendix B: Core Pictures Appendix C: Laboratory Test Results Summary Appendix D: Specific Gravity Test Results

C-1 Subgrade 43 12.3 C-2 Subgrade 40 31.0 C-3 Subgrade 70 29.6

Non Plastic Non Plastic Non Plastic

Moisture Content

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SUMMARY

GSA LPOE PH5 Cores - Eagle Pass II

Project Number: 2021AG_AP2110322

Core Number Depth

(ft)

% Passing No. 200

Sieve

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

Project No 2021AG_AP2110322 Boring Eagle Pass II C1 Project Name GSA LPOE Depth Subgrade

Date: 3/21/2022 Sample No (22/24)

Visual Classification Light Brown, Silty Sand (SM) Percent Soil Passing No. 4 Tare No Big Tare wt. (g) 195.16 Wet wt. + Tare wt. (g) 399.62 Wet wt. Tare wt. (g) 204.46 Dry wt. + Tare wt. (g) 373.28 Dry wt. Tare wt. (g) 178.12 Dry Mass Retained on No.4 20.75 Dry Mass Passing No.4 157.41 Percent Soil Passing No.4(%) 88 Method used (A or B) Method B 45g of sample added to 250ml flask

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

Mass of Pycn. +Soil +Water and Temperature after Boiling/Equilibration Mass Mpws,t (g) 359.58 Tare wt. (g) 173.42 Dry soil + Tare (g) 218.22 Mass of dry soil, Ms (g) 44.8 Temperature, Tt (° C) 23.2

Specific Gravity at 20° C Density of water at Tt 0.99749 Mas of Pycn.+ water Mpw,t (g) 331.525 Specific gravity at Tt 2.675 Temperature Coefficient, Kt 0.99929 Specific gravity at 20° C 2.67

SD Leo Ruiz, PE Performed by Reviewed by

Firm PE Registration No. F 18091

* Calculations for Specific Gravity *

Determining Specific Gravity of Soil Solids: D854 02

4201 Freidrich Lane, Suite 110

Austin, Texas 78744

512.447.9081 Ph

512.443.3442 Fax

www.hvj.com

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

Project No: 2021AG_AP2110322 Boring: Eagle Pass II C2 Project Name: GSA LPOE Depth: Subgrade

Date: 3/16/2022 Sample No: (19/24)

Visual Classification Light Brown, Silty Sand (SM) Percent Soil Passing No. 4 Tare No ked Tare wt. (g) 194.46 Wet wt. + Tare wt. (g) 300.21 Wet wt. Tare wt. (g) 105.75 Dry wt. + Tare wt. (g) 272.55 Dry wt. Tare wt. (g) 78.09 Dry Mass Retained on No.4 6.7 Dry Mass Passing No.4 71.05 Percent Soil Passing No.4(%) 91 Method used (A or B) Method B 45g of sample added to 250ml flask

ID and Volume of Pycnometer Flask "F" 250 ml Avg. Calibrated Mass Mp (g) 82.258 Avg. Calibrated Volume Vp (g/ml3) 249.763

Mass of Pycn. +Soil +Water and Temperature after Boiling/Equilibration Mass Mpws,t (g) 359.28 Tare wt. (g) 194.48 Dry soil + Tare (g) 239.39 Mass of dry soil, Ms (g) 44.91 Temperature, Tt (° C) 23

Specific Gravity at 20° C Density of water at Tt 0.99754 Mas of Pycn.+ water Mpw,t (g) 331.407 Specific gravity at Tt 2.636 Temperature Coefficient, Kt 0.99933 Specific gravity at 20° C 2.63

SD Leo Ruiz, PE Performed by Reviewed by

Firm PE Registration No. F 18091

* Calculations for Specific Gravity *

Determining Specific Gravity of Soil Solids: D854 02

4201 Freidrich Lane, Suite 110

Austin, Texas 78744

512.447.9081 Ph

512.443.3442 Fax

www.hvj.com

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

Project No: 2021AG_AP2110322 Boring: Eagle Pass II C3 Project Name: GSA LPOE Depth: Subgrade

Date: 3/11/2022 Sample No: (8/24)

Visual Classification Light Brown, Sandy Silt (ML) Percent Soil Passing No. 4 Tare No Austin Tare wt. (g) 170.58 Wet wt. + Tare wt. (g) 435.77 Wet wt. Tare wt. (g) 265.19 Dry wt. + Tare wt. (g) 376.38 Dry wt. Tare wt. (g) 205.8 Dry Mass Retained on No.4 18.4 Dry Mass Passing No.4 187.05 Percent Soil Passing No.4(%) 91 Method used (A or B) Method B 45g of sample added to 250ml flask

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

Mass of Pycn. +Soil +Water and Temperature after Boiling/Equilibration Mass Mpws,t (g) 403.82 Tare wt. (g) 164.2 Dry soil + Tare (g) 209.14 Mass of dry soil, Ms (g) 44.94 Temperature, Tt (° C) 21.5

Specific Gravity at 20° C Density of water at Tt 0.99789 Mas of Pycn.+ water Mpw,t (g) 375.953 Specific gravity at Tt 2.632 Temperature Coefficient, Kt 0.99968 Specific gravity at 20° C 2.63

SD Leo Ruiz, PE Performed by Reviewed by

Firm PE Registration No. F 18091

* Calculations for Specific Gravity *

Determining Specific Gravity of Soil Solids: D854 02

4201 Freidrich Lane, Suite 110

Austin, Texas 78744

512.447.9081 Ph

512.443.3442 Fax

www.hvj.com

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

GRAM Traffic Counting, Inc.

512-832-8650

GRAM Traffic Counting, Inc.

512-832-8650