6-04 Pepper Creek Drainage Channel WW - LE Report No. W24-096 Old Howard Road Realignment.pdf

PDF 1 MB Posted Apr 24, 2026

Attached to: Pepper Creek Drainage Channel and Wastewater North of the Outer Loop
Solicitation number: Bid #92-01-26
Issued by: Bell County, Texas

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · May 1, 2026

This is a Geotechnical Pavement Report prepared by Langerman Engineering for KPA Engineers regarding the Old Howard Road Realignment project in Temple, Texas. The report documents subsurface exploration and engineering recommendations for a Minor Arterial roadway classified for 12,000 to 24,000 vehicles per day with four lanes, a median, sidewalks, buffer zones, and utility construction. The project spans approximately one mile with an anticipated engineer's estimate of probable cost of $2,020,000 and a completion schedule of 300 consecutive calendar days from Notice to Proceed. Subsurface exploration was conducted on October 24, 2024, utilizing seven borings (T-1 through T-7) drilled to depths ranging from 6 to 10 feet using dry drilling methods. Laboratory testing included Atterberg limits, sieve analysis, moisture content, soil classification, and unconfined compression testing in accordance with ASTM standards. The report identifies the site as located within the Austin Chalk Formation, with major strata consisting of fat clay, lean clay, and severely weathered limestone extending to approximately 10 feet below surface.

The geotechnical recommendations address pavement design, subgrade preparation, and site conditions to manage risks associated with expansive clay soils and transient groundwater common to the Central Texas area. Pavement thickness options are provided for both flexible (asphalt) and rigid (reinforced concrete) designs based on traffic loading calculations ranging from 9,900,000 to 32,600,000 Equivalent 18-kip Single Axle Loads (ESALs) depending on the daily traffic volume scenario (3,000 or 6,000 vehicles per day per lane). Design recommendations incorporate lime stabilization, geogrid reinforcement, and crushed limestone base specifications per TxDOT standards to mitigate shrink/swell movements in expansive clays. The report emphasizes that groundwater was not observed during boring operations but notes transient groundwater may occur during construction, requiring contractor notification and potential implementation of subsurface drain systems. Site preparation requirements include vegetation removal, proof-rolling with equipment weighing at least 25 tons, and subgrade compaction to 95 percent of maximum dry density. The engineer retained the right to review final construction documents and provide construction observation services to confirm the adequacy of recommendations based on actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
10-01 ITB-Pepper Creek Drainage Channel Wastewater North of Outer Loop 92-01-26.pdf	PDF	Apr 24, 2026
9-07 Pepper Creek Drainage Channel WW - Pricing Sheet Workbook.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Apr 24, 2026
7-10 Conflict of Interest Questionnaire, if applicable.pdf	PDF	Apr 24, 2026
3-08 Bid Bond.pdf	PDF	Apr 24, 2026
8-02 Pepper Creek Drainage Channel WW - Bid Set.pdf	PDF	Apr 24, 2026
1-06 Bidder Information Form.pdf	PDF	Apr 24, 2026
4-05 Pepper Creek Drainage Channel WW - Project Signage Specification.pdf	PDF	Apr 24, 2026
5-09 Bond Requirement Affidavit.pdf	PDF	Apr 24, 2026
2-03 Pepper Creek Drainage Channel WW - Flexible Growth Medium Specification.pdf	PDF	Apr 24, 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 www.LFEctx.com Fx: 254-235-1625

November 27, 2024

KPA Engineers 19 North Main Street Temple, Texas 76501

Attention: Mr. David Patrick, P.E.

Regarding: Geotechnical Pavement Report Old Howard Road Realignment Temple, Texas LE Report No. W24-096

Dear Mr. Patrick:

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 chance 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 contact me at (254) 235-1048 or JElmshaeuser@LFEctx.com

Regards, LANGERMAN ENGINEERING

Texas Registered Engineering Firm No. F-13144

Jakob S. Elmshaeuser Graduate Engineer

Distribution List:

• KPA Engineers – Mr. David Patrick, P.E. (DPatrick@KPAEngineers.com)

GEOTECHNICAL PAVEMENT REPORT

Old Howard Road Realignment

LE Project No. W24-096

Report Prepared For:

KPA Engineers

November 27, 2024

Report Prepared By: Report Reviewed By:

Jakob S. Elmshaeuser Graduate Engineer

Scott M. Langerman, P.E.

Principal / Geotechnical Engineer

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

GEOTECHNICAL PAVEMENT REPORT

OLD HOWARD ROAD REALIGNMENT

TEMPLE, TEXAS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Purpose: The purpose of this geotechnical report is to provide recommendations for realignment of Old Howard Road, north of the Outer Loop. 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.

GEO24-164, dated October 16, 2024. Authorization to proceed was provided by Mr. David Patrick, P.E. on October 17, 2024.

2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

Drilling Date: October 24, 2024

Boring Layout: The borings were marked in the field by Langerman Engineering personnel based on information provided by Mr. David Patrick, P.E. Plates 1 and 2 show the approximate borings locations.

If precise location and elevation data are desired, then a registered 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 clay soils, and a split spoon was used in severely weathered limestone. The split spoon sampler was used in conjunction with standard penetration tests, and N-Values were recorded on the boring logs.

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 (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 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.

Based on the available geologic map1 of the area and the contents of the borings, the streets are 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.

TABLE 4.1: MAJOR STRATA TYPES

Strata Depth to Top of

Strata (ft) Depth to Base of

Strata (ft) General Description

I 0 4.5 to 6.5 FAT CLAY, LEAN CLAY, and SANDY LEAN CLAY;

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

II 4.5 to 6.5 10 SEVERELY WEATHERED LIMESTONE; tan, consists of broken limestone interbedded with marly clay (Borings T-3 and T-7)

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

Groundwater: The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 6 to 10 feet using dry drilling methods. Groundwater was not observed during drilling.

Although groundwater was not encountered in the borings during our field exploration, transient groundwater is common in this 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.

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 pavements.

If groundwater is encountered during construction, then we must be contacted to evaluate whether subsurface drain systems or other improvements are needed.

5.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

General: The project consists of realigning Old Howard Road with a project length of approximately one mile. We understand that it will be classified as a Minor Arterial with traffic of 12,000 to 24,000 vehicles per day, and will have four lanes. The net traffic will be 3,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day per lane, and 35% of the traffic will consist of heavy trucks. The overall concept includes 4 lanes plus a median, sidewalks, and a buffer zone. Utilities will also be constructed.

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

However, design methods do not account for random settlement of existing fill soils or shrink/swell movements of expansive clay. The pavement may be adequate from a structural standpoint, yet still experience cracking due to movement of 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 lime stabilization and/or geogrid will help reduce damage from expansive clay soils, but will increase the cost of the initial pavement installation. In the long-term, it has been our experience that using lime stabilization and/or 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. In general, concrete pavements perform better than asphalt pavements, especially in areas where trucks will start/stop and make turns.

Traffic Types: We anticipate that traffic will consist of frequent light vehicles and heavy vehicles, such as semi-trucks and delivery vehicles.

In order to calculate pavement thickness, an estimate of the vehicle types and count is required. These items are used to determine the Equivalent 18-kip Single Axle Loads (ESAL) that are used for pavement design. Designs for a Minor Arterial with a net traffic of 3,000 and 6,000 vpd per lane, and 35% of the traffic being heavy trucks were requested by Mr. David Patrick, P.E. We have calculated approximate ESAL and traffic loading as presented in Tables 5.1A and 5.1B.

These estimates should be reviewed by the design team because the traffic information has an impact on the pavement thickness and future performance.

TABLE 5.1A: MINOR ARTERIAL (3,000 VPD per Lane)

ESALs Vehicle Type Gross Vehicle Weight

(lbs) Vehicles per Day (per lane)

9,900,000 ESALs (Flexible) 16,300,000 ESALs (Rigid)

Cars / Light Trucks 4,000 1,950

Medium Delivery Trucks 20,000 525

Heavy Trucks 60,000 to 80,000 525

TABLE 5.1B: MINOR ARTERIAL (6,000 VPD per Lane)

ESALs Vehicle Type Gross Vehicle Weight

(lbs) Vehicles per Day (per lane)

19,800,000 ESALs (Flexible) 32,600,000 ESALs (Rigid)

Cars / Light Trucks 4,000 3,900

Medium Delivery Trucks 20,000 1,050

Heavy Trucks 60,000 to 80,000 1,050

Subgrade: Based on the subsurface materials observed at the boring locations, the primary subgrade at this site will be clay. 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 5.2. 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 and are subject to the previously described assumptions.

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 5.2: PAVEMENT THICKNESS OPTIONS

Design Condition Option Surface Course Base Course

Minor Arterial 3,000 VPD per Lane

9,900,000 ESALs (Flexible) 16,300,000 ESALs (Rigid)

1- Asphalt 2” DG-C or D over

4” DG-B

16” CLB over 6” LSS(1)

2- Asphalt 2” DG-C or D over

4” DG-B

14” CLB and GRID(1)

3- Asphalt 2” DG-C or D over

4” DG-B

10” CLB over GRID and

6” LSS(1)

4- Asphalt 3” DG-C or D over

5” DG-B

15” CLB(2)

5- Asphalt 3” DG-C or D over

5” DG-B

10” CLB over 6” LSS(1)

6- Asphalt 3” DG-C or D over

5” DG-B

8” CLB and GRID(1)

7- Concrete(3) 11” RCP 6” CLB(1)or 6” LSS(1)

Minor Arterial 6,000 VPD per Lane

19,800,000 ESALs (Flexible) 32,600,000 ESALs (Rigid)

1- Asphalt 3” DG-C or D over

5” DG-B

14” CLB over 6” LSS(1)

2- Asphalt 3” DG-C or D over

5” DG-B

12” CLB and GRID(1)

3- Asphalt 3” DG-C or D over

5” DG-B

8” CLB over GRID and

6” LSS(1)

4- Asphalt 3” DG-C or D over

5” DG-B

18” CLB(2)

5- Asphalt 4” DG-C or D over

5” DG-B

11” CLB over 6” LSS(1)

6- Asphalt 4” DG-C or D over

5” DG-B

9” CLB and GRID(1)

7- Concrete(3) 12” RCP 6” CLB(1)or 6” LSS(1)

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

(1)Low to Moderate risk of cracking due to expansive soils

(2)Moderate to High risk of cracking due to expansive soils

(3)It is possible to place concrete pavement directly on the prepared subgrade without base or lime stabilization 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, weak soils, and all underground structures (to the extent practical) 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. 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.

LSS: Lime Stabilized Subgrade (LSS) is often used in the Central Texas area to reduce the effects of expansive clay soils, and to strengthen the subgrade.

Lime stabilization will help reduce heave and cracking in the pavement, which will promote a longer service life.

Subgrade Improvement: Some 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 utilities 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-B, DG-C, or DG-D, as shown in Table 5.2.

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

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

Item 247, Type A or D, Grade 1-2 (or 2004 TxDOT Grade 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.

4. Lime Stabilized Subgrade (LSS): TxDOT Item 260, with a lime solids application rate of 6% by dry soil unit weight. This will result in an application of approximately 27 pounds of lime per square yard for a 6-inch lift.

The LSS should be compacted in a 6-inch compacted thickness to at least 95% of ASTM D698 (or TEX-113-E) maximum dry density within 0% to +4% of optimum moisture content. Only lime in the liquid form or pellet form should be used to avoid harmful dust generation. Depth checks must be performed to verify that lime does not extend below the specified thickness of 6. The contractor must be aware that lime stabilizing more than 6 inches will result in dilution of the percentage of lime. It is better to slightly undercut than to overcut.

5. 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.

6. 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. This does not apply if lime stabilization is used.

7. 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.

8. 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.

6.0 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.

7.0 REFERENCES

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

8.0 APPENDIX

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

SITE LOCATION MAP

TEMPLE, TEXAS

LE PROJECT NO. W24-096

PLATE

Old Howard Road

BORING LOCATION MAP

TEMPLE, TEXAS

LE PROJECT NO. W24-096

PLATE

T - 1

T - 2

T - 3

T - 4

T - 5

T - 6

T - 7

T-1 0.0 - 2.0 77 24 53 96 19 T-1 2.0 - 4.0 19 89.8 3.2 1.0 T-2 0.0 - 2.0 75 24 51 91 22 T-2 4.0 - 6.0 32 16 16 80 11 T-3 4.0 - 6.0 44 18 26 58 11 T-3 6.5 - 6.7 47 12 T-3 8.5 - 8.8 70 11 T-4 0.0 - 2.0 14 96.9 9.7 4.5 T-4 2.0 - 4.0 67 21 46 94 15 T-5 2.0 - 4.0 41 17 24 95 15 T-5 4.0 - 6.0 37 24 13 89 14 T-6 0.0 - 2.0 10 106.3 11.5 1.6 T-6 4.0 - 6.0 53 19 34 85 31 T-7 0.0 - 2.0 68 23 45 76 14 T-7 4.5 - 5.0 42 10

Liquid Limit

Unconfined Compressive

Strength (tsf)

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

Project: Old Howard Road Realignment

Project Number: W24-096

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

1.03.2

4.5+

4.0

77 24 96 19

53ST

FAT CLAY; dark gray, with calcareous nodules

LEAN CLAY; tan, with sand, calcareous

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.

10/24/24

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. T-1

CLIENT KPA Engineers

PROJECT NUMBER W24-096

PROJECT NAME Old Howard Road Realignment

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

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, O

L D

H O

W A

R D

R E

G N

M E

N T

.G P

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

4.5+

FAT CLAY; dark gray

--- with calcareous nodules below 2 feet

LEAN CLAY; tan, with sand and iron oxide stains

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.

10/24/24

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. T-2

CLIENT KPA Engineers

PROJECT NUMBER W24-096

PROJECT NAME Old Howard Road Realignment

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

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, O

L D

H O

W A

R D

R E

G N

M E

N T

.G P

J Langerman Engineering

4.0

4.5 44 18 58

FAT CLAY; dark gray

SANDY LEAN CLAY; gray and tan, with limestone fragments, calcareous

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

50/2"

50/3"

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

Remarks:

Completion Depth:

Date Started:

Completed:

Logged by:

Boring was advanced to a depth of 10 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

7.5

10.0

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

10 ft.

10/24/24

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. T-3

CLIENT KPA Engineers

PROJECT NUMBER W24-096

PROJECT NAME Old Howard Road Realignment

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

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, O

L D

H O

W A

R D

R E

G N

M E

N T

.G P

J Langerman Engineering

4.59.74.0

4.5+

67 21 94

FAT CLAY; brown

--- with calcareous nodules below 4 feet

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.

10/24/24

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. T-4

CLIENT KPA Engineers

PROJECT NUMBER W24-096

PROJECT NAME Old Howard Road Realignment

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

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, O

L D

H O

W A

R D

R E

G N

M E

N T

.G P

J Langerman Engineering

4.0

4.5+ 41

LEAN CLAY; brown and tan, calcareous

--- with limestone fragments below 4 feet

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.

10/24/24

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. T-5

CLIENT KPA Engineers

PROJECT NUMBER W24-096

PROJECT NAME Old Howard Road Realignment

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

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, O

L D

H O

W A

R D

R E

G N

M E

N T

.G P

J Langerman Engineering

1.611.54.5+

4.0 53 19 85

FAT CLAY; brown, with sand and calcareous nodules

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.

10/24/24

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. T-6

CLIENT KPA Engineers

PROJECT NUMBER W24-096

PROJECT NAME Old Howard Road Realignment

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

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, O

L D

H O

W A

R D

R E

G N

M E

N T

.G P

J Langerman Engineering

4.5

68 23 76

45ST

FAT CLAY; brown, with limestone fragments

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

50/6"

50/1"

50/5"

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

Remarks:

Completion Depth:

Date Started:

Completed:

Logged by:

Boring was advanced to a depth of 10 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

7.5

10.0

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

10 ft.

10/24/24

T. Skains

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

BORING NO. T-7

CLIENT KPA Engineers

PROJECT NUMBER W24-096

PROJECT NAME Old Howard Road Realignment

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

P R

C T

S \W

-0

, O

L D

H O

W A

R D

R E

G N

M E

N T

.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:

•	the site’s size or shape;
•	the elevation, configuration, location, orientation,

function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria;

•	the composition of the design team; or
•	project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to:

•	confer with other design-team members;
•	help develop specifications;
•	review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and

specifications; and

• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.

You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction-phase observations.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions.

Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance.

Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.

Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team.

Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.

Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent

Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org

text

PLATE 1 W24-096

PLATE 2 W24-096

PLATE 3

LOGS

Key Important Information 2019

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated May 1, 2026.