Report of Geotechnical Exploration For

Radar Road Improvements

MAE Project No. 0006-0041 August 30, 2023

Prepared for:

England, Thims & Miller, Inc.

14775 Old St. Augustine Rd

Jacksonville, FL 32258

Prepared by:

3728 Philips Highway, Suite 208 Jacksonville, Florida 32207

Phone (904) 519-6990 Fax (904) 519-6992

3728 Philips Highway, Suite 208, Jacksonville, Florida 32207

p. 904.519.6990 www.MeskelEngineering.com

August 30, 2023

England-Thims & Miller 14775 Old St. Augustine Road Jacksonville, Florida 32258

Attention: Brian Landeweer, P.E.

Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration

Radar Road Fleming Island, Florida MAE Project No. 0006-0041

Dear Mr. Landeweer:

Meskel & Associates Engineering, PLLC (MAE) has completed a geotechnical exploration for the subject project. Our work was performed in general accordance with our proposal dated February 24, 2023. The geotechnical exploration was performed to evaluate the general subsurface conditions within the roadway and pond areas, and to provide recommendations for support and design, pond expansion, and site preparation.

As further discussed in this report, the borings encountered a 2-to-4-inch topsoil layer or a pavement layer consisting of 1 ¾ to 2 ¼ inches of asphalt followed by 8 to 10 inches of limerock. The topsoil and pavement layers were underlain by fine sand and fine sand with silt (A-3), silty fine sand (A-2-4), and clayey fine sand (A-2-6) to the boring termination depth of 2, 4, 6, and 20 feet below existing grade. Occasional samples containing trace to little organic fines were encountered. The groundwater level where encountered was recorded at the time of drilling at depths varying from 7 inches to 3 feet 9 inches below the existing ground surface.

This report presents our understanding of the proposed construction of the planned roadway. This report describes the field exploration and laboratory testing, and presents the data obtained from the field. Our field exploration was performed in general accordance with Clay County and FDOT procedures to evaluate the general subsurface conditions within the proposed roadway construction.

We appreciate this opportunity to be of service as your geotechnical consultant on this phase of the project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of any further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, MESKEL & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING, PLLC

MAE FL Registry No. 28142

G. Clayton Purvis E.I. P. Rodney Mank, P.E.

Staff Engineer Principal Engineer

Licensed, Florida No. 41986

Distribution: Brian Landeweer, P.E.– England-Thims & Miller Inc. 1 pdf http://www.meskelengineering.com/ rodney Text Box P. Rodney Mank, State of Florida, Professional Engineer, License No. 41986. This item has been electronically signed and sealed by P. Rodney Mank, P.E. on 08/30/2023 using a Digital Signature. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

Radar Road Improvements MAE Project No. 0006-0041

Page | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Subject Page No.

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 General

1.2 Project Description

1.3 Purpose and Scope of Study

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

2.1 SPT Borings

2.2 Auger Borings

2.3 Pavement Core with Auger Borings

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Soil Classification

3.2 Index Testing

4.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 General

4.2 General Soil Profile

4.3 Groundwater Level

4.4 Review of the USDA Web Soil Survey Map

4.5 Seasonal High Groundwater Level

4.6 Pavement Core Samples

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS

5.1 Soil Suitability for Roadway

5.2 Roadway Construction Considerations

5.3 Groundwater and Pavement Base Material Separation

5.4 Pond Considerations

6.0 QUALITY CONTROL TESTING

7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

Page | ii

FIGURES

Figure 1. Site Vicinity / Topographic Map

Figure 2. Soil Survey Map Figure 3. Boring and Pavement Core Location Plan

Figure 4. Roadway Soil Survey

Figures 5-7. Generalized Soil Profiles

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Field Exploration Procedures Key to Generalized Soil Profiles

Key to Soil Classification Pavement Core Photographs

Appendix B. Summary of Laboratory Index Test Results Laboratory Test Procedures Grain Size Distribution Curves

Page | 1

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 General

Project information was provided to us by Mr. Chase Wilkinson, P.E., and Mr. Brian Landeweer, P.E., with England Thims & Miller, Inc (ETM). We were provided with a KMZ file showing the locations of the requested borings as well as a PDF aerial showing the boring locations and depths.

1.2 Project Description

The site for the subject project is located along Radar Road between Town Center Boulevard and State Road 15 in Fleming Island, Clay County, Florida. The general site location is shown on Figure 1.

Based on the provided information and our discussions with Mr. Landeweer and Mr. Wilkinson, it is our understanding the project includes the construction of a 4-lane roadway from Town Center Drive to State Road 15. We also understand the existing stormwater pond near the Fleming Island Public Library will be expanded. Two additional ponds are proposed within Thunderbolt park. This project will also include the installation of mast arm structures, which will be designed at a later date.

If project design details vary from those described above, then the recommendations in this report may need to be re-evaluated. Any changes in these details should be provided so the need for re-evaluation of our recommendations can be assessed prior to final design.

1.3 Purpose and Scope of Study

The purpose of this exploration was to provide field data to guide design and construction of the new roadway alignment. We accomplished this purpose by:

1. Reviewing aerial photographs and published data such as USGS Quadrangle Maps and USDA Soil Survey Maps.

2. Performing auger borings and pavement cores to obtain soil and pavement structure samples and measure groundwater levels encountered along the planned roadway construction.

3. Performing Standard Penetration Test borings and determining the suitability of soils excavated for the planned pond construction.

4. Classifying the recovered soil samples and performing tests in the laboratory on selected samples to aid in classification.

5. Analyzing and interpreting the field and laboratory test data.

6. Evaluating the subsurface conditions to develop recommendations for site preparation and pavement support.

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

A field exploration was performed during the period of August 7 through August 10, 2023. The boring locations were selected by ETM and provided in a KMZ file as well as a CADD file. The boring depths were determined by MAE. The borings coordinates were downloaded from Google Earth and were marked by MAE personnel. Prior to starting our field exploration, a utility locate request was submitted to the Sunshine 811 Call Center. Once the site utilities were marked and cleared, our field crew mobilized to the site. GPS coordinates for the final boring locations were obtained in the field at the time of drilling using a Garmin GPSMAP78 hand-held receiver. The boring locations as shown on the Boring and Pavement Core

Page | 2

Location Plan sheet, Figure 3, should be considered approximate based on the method of layout.

2.1 SPT Borings

To explore the subsurface conditions within the area of the proposed ponds, we located and performed 6 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings, advanced to a depth of approximately 20 feet below the existing ground surface. The borings were performed in general accordance with the methodology outlined in ASTM D 1586, except that continuous samples were obtained the entire depth of each pond boring. Split-spoon soil samples recovered during performance of the borings were visually described in the field and representative portions of the samples were transported to our laboratory for further testing and classification. A summary of the field procedures is included in Appendix A.

2.2 Auger Borings

To determine the subsurface conditions within the proposed roadway, we located and performed 9 auger borings, advanced to depths of approximately 4 and 6 feet below the existing ground surface in general accordance with the methodology outlined in ASTM D 1452. Representative soil samples were recovered from the auger borings and returned to our laboratory for testing and classification. A summary of the field procedures is included in Appendix A.

2.3 Pavement Core with Auger Borings

The existing pavement layers (asphalt surface and underlying base course) were cored at 3 locations using a 4-inch diameter diamond coated core barrel connected to free standing mechanical drill equipment.

Water was used during core sampling to cool the core barrel and to limit dust and debris generated from the coring process. The asphalt surface and base course thicknesses were measured at each location, and the asphalt core samples were returned to our laboratory. A table showing the pavement core results is included in section 4.6. Example photos of pavement cores collected can be shown in Appendix A.

Once each pavement core was complete, the test holes were advanced using a hand-held bucket auger to explore the subsurface conditions below the pavement section. Each boring was advanced to a depth of approximately 2 feet below the existing ground (pavement) surface in general accordance with the methodology outlined in ASTM D 1452.

Representative soil samples were recovered and returned to our laboratory for testing and classification.

A summary of the field procedures is included in Appendix A.

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Soil Classification

Representative soil samples obtained during our field exploration were visually classified by a geotechnical engineer using the AASHTO Soil Classification System in general accordance with ASTM D 3282. A key to the soil classification system is included in Appendix A.

3.2 Index Testing

Quantitative laboratory testing was performed on selected soil samples encountered during the field exploration to better define their composition and to provide data for correlation to their anticipated strength and compressibility characteristics. The laboratory testing determined the grain size distribution, organic fines content, and natural moisture content of selected soil samples. The results of the laboratory testing are shown in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results included in Appendix B. The laboratory test

Page | 3 results are also summarized on the Roadway Soil Survey sheet, Figure 4. The Grain Size Distribution Curves from the sieve analysis tests are included in Appendix B. The laboratory test procedures used in the laboratory testing program are included in Appendix B.

4.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 General

Soil stratification is based on observation of the recovered soil samples in the field, laboratory classification and testing, and interpretation of the field boring logs by a geotechnical engineer. The stratification lines shown on the Generalized Soil Profiles sheets (Figure 5 through 7) represent approximate boundaries between soil types; however, the actual transition between layers may be gradual. The soil descriptions for each encountered soil stratum are summarized on the Roadway Soil Survey sheet (Figure 4).

4.2 General Soil Profile

The borings and cores generally encountered loose fine sands to fine sand with silt (A-3, Stratum 1) and silty fine sand (A-2-4, Strata 2 and 3) to the boring termination depths of 2, 4, 6, and 20 feet below existing grade. However, clayey sand (A-2-6, Stratum 5) was encountered at boring locations PB-4 between depths of 10 to 12 feet below existing grade and at RB-2 through RB-4 between depths of approximately 1 to 2 feet below existing grade and 4 to 6 feet below existing grade. PB-4 encountered silty fine sand with little organic fines content (A-2-4 Stratum 4) from the existing ground surface to a depth of 2 feet below existing grade. The soil types encountered during this study are generalized on the Roadway Soil Survey sheet (Figure 4), and are presented in the following table:

Stratum No. Description AASHTO

Classification

1 Fine sand to fine sand with silt, with occasionally trace to little organic fines and trace root fragments. A-3

2 Silty fine sand (non-plastic silty fines < 15 percent), with occasionally trace organic fines. A-2-4

3 Silty fine sand (non-plastic silty fines > 15 percent), with occasionally trace organic fines. A-2-4

4 Silty fine sand (non-plastic silty fines < 15 percent), with little organic fines. A-2-4

5 Clayey fine sand. A-2-6

6 Topsoil ---

7 Limerock ---

4.3 Groundwater Level

The groundwater level was encountered at most of the boring locations and recorded at the time of drilling at depths varying from 7 inches to 3 feet 9 inches below the existing ground surface. Groundwater was not encountered at boring locations PC-1 through PC-3. That does not mean that groundwater does not exist at these locations, or that groundwater would not be encountered within the vertical reaches of these cores/borings at another date. It should be anticipated that the groundwater levels will fluctuate

Page | 4 seasonally and with changes in climate. As such, we recommend that the water table be remeasured prior to construction. Measured groundwater levels are shown on the Generalized Soil Profiles sheets, Figures 5 and 7.

4.4 Review of the USDA Web Soil Survey Map

A review of the USDA Soil Survey Conservation Service (SSCS) Web Soil Survey of Clay County shows that there is one predominant soil map unit at the project site as tabulated below. The soil drainage class, hydrological group, and estimated seasonal high groundwater levels reported in the Soil Survey are as follows:

Map Unit

Symbol Map Unit Name Drainage Class Hydrologic

Group

Depth to the Water Table1

(inches)

8 Sapelo fine sand Poorly Drained B/D 6 to 18

1. The “Water table” above refers to a saturated zone in the soil which occurs during specified months, typically the summer wet season. Estimates of the upper limit shown in the Web Soil Survey are based mainly on observations of the water table at selected sites and on evidence of a saturated zone, namely grayish colors (redoximorphic features) in the soil. A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month is not considered a water table.

4.5 Seasonal High Groundwater Level

In estimating seasonal high groundwater level, a number of factors are taken into consideration including antecedent rainfall, soil redoximorphic features (i.e., soil mottling), stratigraphy (including presence of hydraulically restrictive layers), vegetative indicators, effects of development, and relief points such as drainage ditches, low-lying areas, etc.

Based on our interpretation of the current site conditions, including the boring logs and review of published data, we estimate the seasonal high groundwater levels at the site to be as shown on the Generalized Soil Profiles sheets, Figures 5 and 7.

It is possible that higher groundwater levels may exceed the estimated seasonal high groundwater level as a result of significant or prolonged rains. Therefore, we recommend that design drawings and specifications account for the possibility of groundwater level variations, and construction planning should be based on the assumption that such variations will occur.

4.6 Pavement Core Samples

The pavement layers (asphalt surface and base course) were cored at the soil boring locations to sample the pavement materials and measure the layer thickness. The encountered base course was described in the field by the field crew, and samples were obtained and returned to the laboratory. The asphalt samples were returned to our laboratory to verify the thickness of the asphalt layer as measured in the field. The measured asphalt thickness, the observed base course material and measured thickness, the observed subgrade soil classification, and the measured groundwater level where encountered at each of the pavement core locations are shown in the following table:

Page | 5

Pavement Core No.

Asphalt Thickness

(in.)

Base Subgrade

Soil Classification 1

Groundwater Level Material

Type Thickness

(in.) Depth (feet)

PC-1 2 ¼ Limerock 7 ¾ A-3 N/E 2

PC-2 1 ¾ Limerock 10 ½ A-3 2

PC-3 1 ¾ Limerock 8 A-2-4 N/E 2

1. Subgrade soil from bottom of base course to 12 inches below base course.

2. Groundwater was not encountered

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS

5.1 Soil Suitability for Roadway

Our geotechnical engineering evaluation of the encountered subsurface conditions and our recommendations as presented below are based on site observations, the field and laboratory test data obtained, and our understanding of the project information provided including the provided plans. If the areas of construction are changed or differ from what is presented in this report, please contact us so that we can review our recommendations. The discovery of any site or subsurface conditions encountered during construction which deviates from the data obtained during this geotechnical exploration should be reported to us for our evaluation.

It is our opinion that the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, as described on the Roadway Soil Survey, Figure 4, and presented on the Generalized Soil Profiles sheets, Figures 5 through 7, are adaptable for support of the planned roadway alignment. However, it should be anticipated that plastic soils (P) will be encountered along the roadway that will require removal and replacement with compacted Select (S) fill soils as discussed below.

5.2 Roadway Construction Considerations

Roadway construction should be performed in accordance with the appropriate sections of the current edition of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. The removal of any organic and plastic soils should be accomplished in accordance with the current edition of the FDOT Design Standards, Index 120-002; however, recommendations for clayey soil removal can be provided based on our review of final grades. It should be expected that at least 2 to 4 inches of topsoil may be present along the roadway alignment construction areas. These materials should be grubbed in general accordance with Section 110 of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, current edition.

Strata Nos. 1 and 2 are considered Select (S) soils in accordance with Standard Plans Index 120-001.

However, the A-2-4 soil (Stratum No. 2) is likely to retain excess moisture and may be difficult to dry and compact. This soil can be blended with Stratum No. 1 (A-3) soils to render them more workable.

Stratum No. 3 may also be considered as Select (S) soil. However, these soils cannot be used below the groundwater table at the time of construction. In addition, they can be difficult to place and compact and will need to be dried prior to placement. The drying process may take several days to a few weeks depending on the weather at the time of construction. This process can be accelerated by blending these soils with Strata 1 and 2 soils.

Stratum No. 4 was encountered at PB-4 from 0 to 2 feet below existing ground surface. This silty sand soil

Page | 6 contained little organic fines, which have a tendency to retain moisture. We do not recommend using this soil as fill within the roadway. However, this soil may be used for landscaping.

Stratum No. 5 soils are clayey sands containing plastic material (P soils). These soils were encountered at borings RB-2 between depths of one and 2 feet below existing grade, and at borings RB-3 and RB-4 beginning at a depth of about 4 to 5 feet below existing grade and continuing through the end of those borings. This soil should be excavated to a depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the proposed base course elevation, as shown in the FDOT Standard Plans Index 120-002, and replaced with suitable backfill. Backfill should conform to the FDOT Standard Plans Index 120-001 and should be compacted in accordance with Section 120-9 of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, current edition.

All backfill and fill should conform to the FDOT Design Standards, Index 120-001, and should be compacted in accordance with Section 120-9 of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, current edition. Fill placement and side slopes for embankment construction should also conform to FDOT Design Standards, Index 120-001, current edition.

5.3 Groundwater and Pavement Base Material Separation

Base clearance above the seasonal high groundwater level is critical for satisfactory pavement life and performance and is necessary to achieve the required compaction during construction activities. Based on our findings, we estimate that a minimum 2-foot separation between the estimated seasonal high groundwater level and the roadway base material can be achieved with adequate amounts of fill above existing grade. Once the final pavement grade elevations and fill amounts have been determined within the proposed roadway, we should be allowed to review the contact plans to determine if an underdrain system will be necessary.

If a more moisture tolerant base course is desired, then we recommend using a Graded Aggregate Base (GAB) or Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA). Both base course materials should conform to the requirements of the latest edition of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.

Both base course materials should be compacted to at least 98 percent of their modified Proctor maximum dry density (AASHTO T-180).

5.4 Pond Considerations

Based on the boring results and classification of the soil samples, the fine sands and fine sands with silt (A-3, Stratum No. 1) and the silty fine sands (A-2-4, Strata Nos. 2 and 3) as encountered at the pond boring locations, are considered suitable for use as fill soil (Select). However, it should be noted that the A-2-4 soils (i.e., soils with more than 10 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) will be more difficult to compact due to their natural tendency to retain soil moisture and will require drying. It should be anticipated that if the A-2-4 soils are not properly dewatered prior to excavation, drying of these soils to obtain the proper moisture content for compaction may take approximately 2 to 3 weeks, if weather permits. Depending on the anticipated time for completing the site work portion of the project and the drying time required to preclude pumping and yielding of these soils during placement and compaction operations, these soils may be considered unsuitable for use as fill material. The soils containing surficial organic material (topsoil Stratum No. 6) and soils containing 4 percent or greater organic material (Stratum No. 4) will require removal and are considered unsuitable for use as structural fill. The organic soils could be used in landscape berms.

It should be anticipated the soils in the proposed pond area that are below the groundwater level will have moisture contents in excess of the modified Proctor optimum moisture content and will require stockpiling or spreading to bring the moisture content within 2 percent of the soil's optimum moisture content corresponding to the required degree of compaction.

Page | 7

6.0 QUALITY CONTROL TESTING

A representative number of field in-place density tests should be made in the upper 2 feet of compacted natural soils, in each lift of compacted backfill and fill, and in the upper 12 inches below the bearing levels.

The density tests are considered necessary to verify that satisfactory compaction operations have been performed. We recommend density testing be performed as listed below:

A minimum of 1 test location every 200 linear feet of roadway.

7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of England Thims & Miller, Inc. and Clay County for specific application to the design and construction of the Radar Road project. An electronically signed and sealed version, and a version of our report that is signed and sealed in blue ink, may be considered an original of the report. Copies of an original should not be relied on unless specifically allowed by MAE in writing. Our work for this project was performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty, express or implied, is made.

The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based on the data obtained from this project. This testing indicates subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and times, and only to the depths explored. These results do not reflect subsurface variations that may exist away from the boring locations and/or at depths below the boring termination depths. Subsurface conditions and water levels at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at the tested locations. In addition, it should be understood that the passage of time may result in a change in the conditions at the tested locations.

If variations in subsurface conditions from those described in this report are observed during construction, the recommendations in this report must be re-evaluated.

The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or testing for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or surface water within or beyond the subject site. Any statements made in this report, and/or notations made on the generalized soil profiles, regarding odors or other potential environmental concerns are based on observations made during execution of our scope of services and as such are strictly for the information of our client. No opinion of any environmental concern of such observations is made or implied. Unless complete environmental information regarding the site is already available, an environmental assessment is recommended.

If changes in the design or location of the roadway occur, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report may need to be modified. We recommend that these changes be provided to us for our consideration. MAE is not responsible for conclusions, interpretations, opinions or recommendations made by others based on the data contained in this report.

Figures

Site Vicinity / Topographic Map

PREPARED BY PROJECT NAME

Meskel & Associates Engineering, PLLC FL. Registry No. 28142

3728 Philips Highway, Suite 208, Jacksonville, FL 32207

Radar Road Improvements Clay County, Florida

REFERERENCE SCALE

USGS 7.5” Fleming Island, FL Quadrangle NTS

PREPARED FOR MAE PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO.

England-Thims & Miller 0006-0041 1

N

Approximate Site Location

Soil Survey Map

PREPARED BY PROJECT NAME

Meskel & Associates Engineering, PLLC FL. Registry No. 28142

3728 Philips Highway, Suite 208, Jacksonville, FL 32207

Radar Road Improvements Clay County, Florida

REFERERENCE SCALE

NRCSS NTS

PREPARED FOR MAE PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO.

England-Thims & Miller 0006-0041 2

Approximate Site Location

FIG NO.BORING AND PAVEMENT CORE LOCATION PLAN

3728 PHILIPS HIGHWAY, SUITE 208, JACKSONVILLE, FL 32207

PH. (904) 519-6990 • FAX (904) 519-6992 • www.MeskelEngineering.com

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

PRM

ATS

MCV

WJM

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

0006-0041

0006-0041.BLP

8/28/2023

AS SHOWN

RADAR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS

CLAY COUNTY, FLORIDA

LEGEND

SPT BORING

0’ 150’ 300’

GRAPHIC SCALE

PC-1

PC-2

PC-3

PB-5

PB-6

PB-3

PB-1

PB-2

RB-2

RB-1

RB-3 RB-4 RB-6RB-5

RB-9

RB-8RB-7

PB-4

HAND AUGER

PAVEMENT CORE W/ HAND AUGER

0:

C, "'"' w�

.... w uiO � w � C, DATE OF SURVEY: 8/7/2023 - 8/10/2023 ENGLAND, TH/MS & MILLER, INC.

SURVEY MADE BY: MESKEL & ASSOCIATES

ENGINEERING, PLLC

14775 OLD ST. AUGUSTINE ROAD JACKSONVILLE, FL 32258

PROJECT NAME: RADAR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS

SUBMITTED BY: P. RODNEY MANK, P.E.

CROSS SECTION SOIL SURVEY FOR THE DESIGN OF ROAD

SURVEY BEGINS STA : _N�IA�- -- SURVEY ENDS STA. : _N�IA�- - -

REFERENCE : NIA

REPORT OF TESTS

ORGANIC /1/0ISTURE SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS

CONTENT CONTENT % PASS ATTERBERG LI/I/ITS (%) L.B.R. TEST

STRATUM NO. OF PERCENT NO. OF MOISTURE NO. OF 4 10 40 60 100 200 NO. OF LIQUID

NO. TESTS ORGANICS TESTS CONTENT TESTS MESH MESH MESH MESH MESH MESH TESTS LIMIT

1 1 3.6 3 20-27 3 100 100 98-100 94-99 64-85 9 0

2 0 0 3 17-25 3 99-100 98-100 95-100 88-98 39-68 12-14 0

3 0 0 7 17-26 7 99-100 99-100 99-100 97-100 75-94 17-27 0

4 1 5.6 1 25 1 100 100 99 98 72 10 0 s 0 0 3 21-28 3 100 100 100 98-99 73-80 15-33 0

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NOTES:

1. Stratum boundaries are approximate and represent soil strata at each boring location only. Any stratum connecting fines shown are for estimating earthwork only and do not indicate actual stratum limits.

2. The symbol "-" represents an unmeasured soil parameter.

3. Removal of Plastic material occurring within the proposed roadway shall be accomplished in accordance with FOOT Standard Specifications, Latest Edition, unless otherwise shown on the plans. The material used in embankment construction shall be in accordance with FOOT Standard Specifications, Latest Edition.

4. The materials from Strata Nos. 1, 2, 3 may be considered suitable for use as fill and backfill materials in accordance with FOOT Standard Specifications. Latest Edition. However, certain types of A-2-4 material are likely to retain excess moisture and may be difficult to dry and compact. They should be used in the embankment above the water table existing at time of construction. We recommend that A-2-4 material placed in the subgrade portion of the roadbed and below the existing water level should be nonplastic and contain less than 15% passing the No. 200 U.S. Standard sieve.

5. The material from Strata No. 4 shall be treated as unsuitable material due to organic content and shall be removed in accordance with the latest version of the FOOT Standard Index No. 120-002 of the FOOT Standard Plans.

6. The materials from Strata Nos. 5 shall be treated as unsuitable material due to plasticity in accordance with FOOT Standard Specifications, Latest Edition.

7. The material from Stratum Number 6 is Topsoil and shall be removed in accordance with Section 102 of the City Standard Specifications, Latest Edition.

8. The material from Stratum Number 7 is Asphalt.

9. The material from Stratum Number 8 is Limerock.

PLASTIC

INDEX

NO. OF

TESTS ---

AASHTO L.8.R. DESCRIPTION

RANGE GROUP

- A-3 VERY DARK BROWN, DARK GRAYISH BROWN, DARK BROWN,

DARK GRAY, LIGHT BROWNISH GRAY, LIGHT GRAY, LIGHT BROWN,

PALE BROWN, BROWN, GRAY, FINE SAND TO FINE SAND WITH

SILT, WITH OCCASIONALLY TRACE TO LITTLE ORGANIC FINES,

TRACE ROOT FRAGMENTS, AND TRACE GRAVEL (ROCK FRAGMENTS).

- A-2-4 GRAYISH BROWN, GREENISH GRAY, DARK GRAY, GRAY,

YELLOW, SILTY FINE SAND, WITH OCCASIONALLY

TRACE ORGANIC FINES.

- A-2-4 DARK GRAYISH BROWN, DARK GRAY, DARK BROWN,

GREENISH GRAY, GRAYISH BROWN, BROWN, GRAY,

SILTY FINE SAND, WITH OCCASIONALLY TRACE ORGANIC FINES.

- A-2-4 VERY DARK GRAY, SILTY FINE SAND, WITH OCCASIONALLY

LITTLE ORGANIC FINES.

- A-2-6 DARK GRAY, BROWNISH YELLOW, GRAY, YELLOW,

CLAYEY FINE SAND.

- - TOPSOIL

- - LIMEROCK

- - ASPHALT

EMBANKMENT AND SUBGRADE MATERIAL

STRATA BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE.

FINAL CHECK AFTER GRADING.

'5j_ - WATER TABLE ENCOUNTERED AT TIME OF DRILLING

:J: - ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL

(A-3) A.A.S.H.T.0. SOIL CLASSIFICATION GROUP SYMBOL AS DETERMINED

BY LABORATORY TESTING AND/OR VISUAL EXAMINATION

A-#, MB-# AUGER BORING LOCATION

8-# SPT BORING LOCATION

BT BORING TERMINATION DEPTH

GNE GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED

NOTE: LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE WERE OBTAINED USING GARMIN

GPSMAP 78 HAND-HELD GPS RECEIVER AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.

STATION AND OFFSET WERE OBTAINED FROM 459BASE DESIGN FILE

DATED AUGUST 2023 AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE.

NO. OF

TESTS pH

DISTRICT: �T�W�O�---

ROAD NO.: -

COUNTY: CLAY COUNTY

CORROSION DAT A

RES I STIV /TY

ohm-cm

CHLORIDES SULFATES

ppm ppm

SUBSTRUCTURE

ENVIRON/I/ENT AL

CLASSIF !CATION

STEEL CONCRETE

91------------------------------------------------,----------------------r---------------------------r--------------------------------r-------t S 1--���-------����-----R_E_V_IS�I _O_N_S_�------�==��--------+-----P _R_O _F _ E _S_S_l_O _N _A _L_T _Y _P _E ____ --l STATE OF FLORIDA

" DATE DESCRIPTION DATE DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .,,�

,-=��+-------�====�-------+-=��+-------��=�=�---------1 P. RODNEY MANK, P.E.

LICENSE NU/I/BER: P.E. N O.: 41986

/1/ESKEL & ASS OCIATES ENGINE ERING

;,, 3728 PHILI PS HIGHWAY, SUITE 208

0 JACKS ONVILLE, FL ORIDA 32207

ROAD NO. COUNTY FINANCIAL PROJECT ID

SHEET

NO.

ROADYWAY SOffL SURVEY

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

A-55

AUTOMATIC

T.BISCARDI

8/9/2023

TBD

81°42'40.67"W

30° 5'28.49"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

PB-1

at Depth -20ft

Boring Terminated

N

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

A-55

AUTOMATIC

T.BISCARDI

8/9/2023

TBD

81°42'40.69"W

30° 5'30.83"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

PB-2

at Depth -20ft

Boring Terminated

N

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

A-55

AUTOMATIC

T.BISCARDI

8/9/2023

TBD

81°42'33.32"W

30° 5'31.23"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

PB-3

at Depth -20ft

Boring Terminated

N

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

A-55

AUTOMATIC

T.BISCARDI

8/9/2023

TBD

81°42'33.17"W

30° 5'28.67"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

PB-4

at Depth -20ft

Boring Terminated

N

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

A-55

AUTOMATIC

L.SCHOTT

8/8/2023

TBD

81°42'38.29"W

30° 5'35.56"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

PB-5

at Depth -20ft

Boring Terminated

N

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

A-55

AUTOMATIC

L.SCHOTT

8/8/2023

TBD

81°42'36.59"W

30° 5'34.54"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

PB-6

at Depth -20ft

Boring Terminated

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

NO.

SHEET

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

(1 of 3)

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILES

CLAY COUNTY, FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32207

3728 PHILIPS HIGHWAY, SUITE 208

MESKEL & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING

P.E. LICENSE NO.: 41986

P. RODNEY MANK, P.E.

ENGINEER OF RECORD

DATE DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTIONDATE

DRAWN BY

ATS

PROJECT NAME

Radar Road Improvements

/2

/2

C

W o r k s e ts

\F D

O T

\0 \g e o te c h n ic a l\

R P

T B

R D

.d g n

:3

:2

A

M a s e lf r id g e

STORMWATER POND EXPANSION

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

N/A

N/A

T.BISCARDI

8/8/2023

TBD

81°42'41.27"W

30° 5'31.43"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

RB-1

at Depth -4ft

Boring Terminated

N

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

N/A

N/A

T.BISCARDI

8/8/2023

TBD

81°42'41.31"W

30° 5'32.24"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

RB-2

at Depth -6ft

Boring Terminated

N

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

N/A

N/A

T.BISCARDI

8/7/2023

TBD

81°42'39.21"W

30° 5'31.90"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

RB-3

at Depth -6ft

Boring Terminated

N

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

N/A

N/A

T.BISCARDI

8/7/2023

TBD

81°42'36.91"W

30° 5'32.01"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

RB-4

at Depth -6ft

Boring Terminated

N

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

N/A

N/A

T.BISCARDI

8/7/2023

TBD

81°42'34.63"W

30° 5'31.89"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

RB-5

at Depth -6ft

Boring Terminated

N

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

N/A

N/A

T.BISCARDI

8/7/2023

TBD

81°42'32.30"W

30° 5'31.91"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

RB-6

at Depth -6ft

Boring Terminated

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

N

BOR #

STA.

OFFSET.

REF.

LAT.

LONG.

ELEV.

DATE

DRILLER

HAMMER

RIG

RB-7

TBD

TBD

TBD

30° 5'31.93"N

81°42'30.01"W

TBD

8/7/2023

T.BISCARDI

N/A

N/A

Boring Terminated at Depth -6ft

N

BOR #

STA.

OFFSET.

REF.

LAT.

LONG.

ELEV.

DATE

DRILLER

HAMMER

RIG

RB-8

TBD

TBD

TBD

30° 5'31.94"N

81°42'27.73"W

TBD

8/7/2023

T.BISCARDI

N/A

N/A

Boring Terminated at Depth -6ft

N

BOR #

STA.

OFFSET.

REF.

LAT.

LONG.

ELEV.

DATE

DRILLER

HAMMER

RIG

RB-9

TBD

TBD

TBD

30° 5'31.59"N

81°42'24.75"W

TBD

8/7/2023

T.BISCARDI

N/A

N/A

Boring Terminated at Depth -6ft

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

NO.

SHEET

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

(2 of 3)

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILES

CLAY COUNTY, FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32207

3728 PHILIPS HIGHWAY, SUITE 208

MESKEL & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING

P.E. LICENSE NO.: 41986

P. RODNEY MANK, P.E.

ENGINEER OF RECORD

DATE DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTIONDATE

DRAWN BY

ATS

PROJECT NAME

Radar Road Improvements

/2

/2

C

W o r k s e ts

\F D

O T

\0 \g e o te c h n ic a l\

R P

T B

R D

.d g n

:4

:1

P

M a s e lf r id g e

RADAR ROAD

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

N

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

N/A

N/A

T.BISCARDI

8/10/2023

TBD

81°42'42.36"W

30° 5'29.86"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

PC-1

GNE

at Depth -2ft

Boring Terminated

N

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

N/A

N/A

T.BISCARDI

8/10/2023

TBD

81°42'42.43"W

30° 5'32.27"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

PC-2

at Depth -2ft

Boring Terminated

N

RIG

HAMMER

DRILLER

DATE

ELEV.

LONG.

LAT.

REF.

OFFSET.

STA.

BOR #

N/A

N/A

T.BISCARDI

8/10/2023

TBD

81°42'23.87"W

30° 5'31.52"N

TBD

TBD

TBD

PC-3

GNE

at Depth -2ft

Boring Terminated

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

NO.

SHEET

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

(3 of 3)

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILES

CLAY COUNTY, FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32207

3728 PHILIPS HIGHWAY, SUITE 208

MESKEL & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING

P.E. LICENSE NO.: 41986

P. RODNEY MANK, P.E.

ENGINEER OF RECORD

DATE DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DESCRIPTIONDATE

DRAWN BY

ATS

PROJECT NAME

Radar Road Improvements

/2

/2

C

W o r k s e ts

\F D

O T

\0 \g e o te c h n ic a l\

R P

T B

R D

.d g n

:4

:3

P

M a s e lf r id g e

PAVEMENT CORES TOWNCENTER BOULEVARD AND RADAR ROAD

Appendix A

FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Borings

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) boring(s) were performed in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 1586, “Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils.” The borings were advanced by rotary drilling techniques. A split-barrel sampler was inserted to the borehole bottom and driven 18 to 24 inches into the soil using a 140-pound hammer falling an average of 30 inches per hammer blow. The number of hammer blows for the final 12 inches of penetration (18” sample) or for the sum of the middle 12 inches of penetration (24” sample) is termed the “penetration resistance, blow count, or N-value.” This value is an index to several in-situ geotechnical properties of the material tested, such as relative density and Young’s Modulus.

After driving the sampler, it was retrieved from the borehole and representative samples of the material within the split-barrel were containerized and sealed. After completing the drilling operations, the samples for each boring were transported to the laboratory where they were examined by a geotechnical engineer to verify the field descriptions and classify the soil, and to select samples for laboratory testing.

Hand Auger Boring

The auger boring(s) were performed manually by the use of a hand-held bucket auger in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 1452, “Standard Practice for Soil Exploration and Sampling by Auger Borings.” Representative samples of the soils brought to the ground surface by the auger were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory where they were examined by a geotechnical engineer to verify the field descriptions and classify the soil, and to select samples for laboratory testing.

KBL-AASHTO-Auto

K E Y T O G E N E R A L I Z E D S O I L P R O F I L E S – A A S H T O

S o i l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n

Soil classification of samples obtained at the boring locations is based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Classification System. Coarse grained soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve. Their principal descriptors are: sand, cobbles and boulders. Fine grained soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve. They are principally described as clays if they are plastic and silts if they are slightly to non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

BORING LOG LEGEND

Symbol Description

N Standard Penetration Resistance, the number of blows required to advance a standard spoon sampler 12" when driven by a 140-lb hammer dropping 30".

WOR Split Spoon sampler advanced under the weight of the drill rods WOH Split Spoon sampler advanced under the weight of the SPT hammer 50/2” Indicates 50 hammer blows drove the split spoon 2 inches; 50 Hammer blows for less than 6-inches of split spoon driving is considered “Refusal”.

(SP) Unified Soil Classification System -200 Fines content, % Passing No. 200 U.S. Standard Sieve w Natural Moisture Content (%) OC Organic Content (%) LL Liquid Limit PI Plasticity Index

NP

PP

Non-Plastic Pocket Penetrometer in tons per square foot (tsf)

MODIFIERS RELATIVE DENSITY (Coarse-Grained Soils) Relative Density N-Value *

SECONDARY CONSTITUENTS Very Loose Less than 3 (Sand, Silt or Clay) Loose 3 to 8

Trace Less than 5% Medium Dense 8 to 24 With 5% to 10% Dense 24 to 40

Sandy, Silty or Clayey 10% to 35% Very Dense Greater than 40 Very Sandy, Very Silty or Very Clayey 35% to 50%

CONSISTENCY (Fine-Grained Soils) ORGANIC CONTENT Consistency N-Value *

Trace 2% or less Very Soft Less than 1 Few 3% to 5% Soft 1 to 3 Little 5% to 10% Firm 3 to 6 With Greater than 10% Stiff 6 to 12

Very Stiff 12 to 24 Hard Greater than 24

MINOR COMPONENTS

(Shell, Rock, Debris, Roots, etc.) RELATIVE HARDNESS (Limestone)

Trace Less than 5% Relative Hardness N-Value * Few 5% to 10% Soft Less than 50 Little 15% to 25% Hard Greater than 50

Some 30% to 45% * Using Automatic Hammer

* Plasticity index of A-7-5 subgroup is equal to or less than the LL - 30. Plasticity index of A-7-6 subgroup is greater than LL – 30 ** Northeast Florida

AASHTO Soil Classification System (from AASHTO M 145 or ASTM D 3282)

General Classification Granular Materials (35% or less passing the 0.075 mm sieve)

Silt-Clay Materials (>35% passing the 0.075 mm sieve)

Group Classification A-1

A-3 A-2

A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7

A-1-a A-1-b A-2-4 A-2-5 A-2-6 A-2-7 A-7-5* A-7-6*

Sieve Analysis, % passing:

2.00 mm (No. 10) 50 max … … … … … … … … … …

0.425 (No. 40) 30 max 50 max 51 min … … … … … … … …

0.075 (No. 200) 15 max 25 max 10 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 36 min 36 min 36 min 36 min

Characteristics of fraction passing 0.425 mm (No. 40):

Liquid Limit … … 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min

Plasticity Index 6 max N.P. 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min

Usual types of significant constituent materials stone fragments, gravel and sand fine sand silty or clayey gravel and sand silty soils clayey soils

General local** rating as a subgrade excellent to good fair to poor

Pavement Core Photographs Radar Road

Fleming Island, Florida MAE Project No: 0006-0041

PC-1 Top View PC-1 Side View

PC-2 Top View PC-2 Side View

Pavement Core Photographs Radar Road

Fleming Island, Florida MAE Project No: 0006-0041

PC-3 Top View PC-3 Side View

Appendix B

Boring

No.

Sample

No.

Approximate

Test Depth(1)

(ft)

No. 4 No. 10 No. 20 No. 40 No. 60 No. 100 No. 200

Natural

Moisture

Content

Organic

Content

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Plasticity

Index

AASHTO (2)

Classification

PB-1 3 4 to 6 100 100 100 100 99 85 21 19 --- --- --- --- A-2-4

PB-1 8 14 to 16 99 99 99 99 97 79 17 26 --- --- --- --- A-2-4

PB-2 5 8 to 10 100 100 100 100 100 94 27 20 --- --- --- --- A-2-4

PB-3 8 14 to 16 100 100 100 100 99 78 17 24 --- --- --- --- A-2-4

PB-4 1 0 to 2 100 100 99 99 98 72 10 25 5.6 --- --- --- A-2-4

PB-4 6 10 to 12 100 100 100 100 99 80 33 23 --- --- --- --- A-2-6

PB-5 5 8 to 10 100 100 100 100 99 85 9 27 --- --- --- --- A-3

PB-6 2 2 to 4 100 100 100 100 98 64 14 24 --- --- --- --- A-2-4

PB-6 7 12 to 14 100 100 100 100 99 82 24 23 --- --- --- --- A-2-4

RB-1 2 2 to 3 100 100 99 99 97 68 12 25 --- --- --- --- A-2-4

RB-2 2 1 to 2 100 100 100 100 98 73 15 21 --- --- --- --- A-2-6

RB-3 5 4 to 5 100 100 100 100 99 80 30 28 --- --- --- --- A-2-6

RB-5 4 3 to 4 100 100 100 100 99 71 10 26 3.6 --- --- --- A-3

RB-6 2 1 to 2 99 98 97 95 88 39 13 17 --- --- --- --- A-2-4

RB-7 5 4 to 5 100 100 100 100 99 75 20 23 --- --- --- --- A-2-4

RB-8 2 1 to 2 100 100 99 98 94 64 9 20 --- --- --- --- A-3

RB-9 4 3 to 4 100 100 100 99 99 79 18 17 --- --- --- --- A-2-4

Fleming Island, Florida

(2) American Association of State Highway Transportation Officals Soil Classification System.

(1) Feet below existing ground surface.

Summary of Laboratory Index Test Results

Radar Road

MAE Project No.: 0006-0041

Gradation Test, % Passing

LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES

Natural Moisture Content

The water content of the tested sample was determined in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 2216. The water content is defined as the ratio of “pore” or “free” water in a given mass of material to the mass of solid material particles.

Organic Loss on Ignition (Percent Organics)

The organic loss on ignition or percent organic material in the sample tested was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2974. The percent organics is the material, expressed as a percentage, which is burned off in a muffle furnace at 455±10 degrees Celsius.

Gradation

The particle size analysis or gradation of the sample tested was determined in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 422. This test procedure determines the grain size distribution of the tested sample by passing the sample through a standard set of nested sieves, including the No. 200 mesh sieve (percent fines) determining the percent of soil particles in the silt and clay size range.

Tested By: W. Cothran Checked By: C. Purvis E.I.

Meskel & Associates Engineering

Jacksonville, Florida

8/23/23

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

Grayish brown silty fine sand.

1.5 0.75

0.375 #3.5 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #200

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

99.2 84.5 21.5

0.1675 0.1513 0.1091

0.0984 0.0812

A-2-4

WC=19.0%

England Thims & Miller

Radar Road

0006-0041

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: PB-1 Depth: 4 to 6 ft Sample Number: 3 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" % Gravel Coarse

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 78.5 21.5 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

Particle Size Distribution Report

Meskel & Associates Engineering

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 8/23/2023

Client: England Thims & Miller Project: Radar Road Project Number: 0006-0041 Location: PB-1 Depth: 4 to 6 ft Sample Number: 3 Material Description: Grayish brown silty fine sand.

Date: 8/23/23 AASHTO Classification: A-2-4 Testing Remarks: WC=19.0% Tested by: W. Cothran Checked by: C. Purvis E.I.

Sieve Test Data

Dry Sample and Tare (grams)

Tare (grams)

Cumulative Pan

Tare Weight (grams)

Sieve Opening

Size

Cumulative Weight

Retained (grams)

Percent Finer

284.04 124.42 0.00 3 0.00 100.0

2 0.00 100.0

1.5 0.00 100.0

0.75 0.00 100.0

0.375 0.00 100.0

#3.5 0.00 100.0

#4 0.00 100.0

#10 0.01 100.0

#20 0.01 100.0

#40 0.05 100.0

#60 1.23 99.2

#100 24.71 84.5

#200 125.36 21.5

Fractional Components

Cobbles

0.0

Gravel

0.0

Sand

Coarse

0.0

Fine

78.5

Total

78.5

Fines

Silt Clay Total

21.5

D5 D10 D15 D20 D30

0.0812

D40

0.0892

D50

0.0984

D60

0.1091

D80

0.1395

D85

0.1513

D90

0.1675

D95

0.1938

Fineness Modulus

0.16

Engineering

Jacksonville, Florida

8/23/23

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

Greenish gray fine silty fine sand, trace gravel.

1.5 0.75

0.375 #3.5 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #200

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

99.6 99.4 99.4 99.4 99.4 98.9 97.5 78.8 16.8

0.1874 0.1674 0.1168

0.1046 0.0853

A-2-4

WC=25.9%

England Thims & Miller

Radar Road

0006-0041

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: PB-1 Depth: 14 to 16 Sample Number: 8 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" % Gravel Coarse

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.6 0.5 82.1 16.8 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

Client: England Thims & Miller Project: Radar Road Project Number: 0006-0041 Location: PB-1 Depth: 14 to 16 Sample Number: 8 Material Description: Greenish gray fine silty fine sand, trace gravel.

Date: 8/23/23 AASHTO Classification: A-2-4 Testing Remarks: WC=25.9% Tested by: W. Cothran Checked by: C. Purvis E.I.

Sieve Test Data

Post #200 Wash Test Weights (grams): Dry Sample and Tare = 279.27 Tare Wt. = 121.72 Minus #200 from wash = 0.0%

Dry Sample and Tare (grams)

Tare (grams)

Cumulative Pan

Tare Weight (grams)

Sieve Opening

Size

Cumulative Weight

Retained (grams)

Percent Finer

279.27 121.72 0.00 3 0.00 100.0

2 0.00 100.0

1.5 0.00 100.0

0.75 0.00 100.0

0.375 0.68 99.6

#3.5 0.89 99.4

#4 0.89 99.4

#10 0.91 99.4

#20 0.97 99.4

#40 1.72 98.9

#60 3.98 97.5

#100 33.36 78.8

#200 131.01 16.8

Fractional Components

Cobbles

0.0

Gravel

0.6

Sand

Coarse

0.5

Fine

82.1

Total

82.6

Fines

Silt Clay Total

16.8

D5 D10 D15 D20

0.0773

D30

0.0853

D40

0.0942

D50

0.1046

D60

0.1168

D80

0.1529

D85

0.1674

D90

0.1874

D95

0.2198

Fineness

0.26

Engineering

Jacksonville, Florida

8/23/23

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

Dark gray silty fine sand, trace clay.

1.5 0.75

0.375 #3.5 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #200

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

99.7 93.7 26.6

0.1400 0.1300 0.0996

0.0911 0.0771

A-2-4

WC=20.4%

England Thims & Miller

Radar Road

0006-0041

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: PB-2 Depth: 8 to 10 ft Sample Number: 5 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" % Gravel Coarse

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 73.4 26.6 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

Client: England Thims & Miller Project: Radar Road Project Number: 0006-0041 Location: PB-2 Depth: 8 to 10 ft Sample Number: 5 Material Description: Dark gray silty fine sand, trace clay.

Date: 8/23/23 AASHTO Classification: A-2-4 Testing Remarks: WC=20.4% Tested by: W. Cothran Checked by: C. Purvis E.I.

Sieve Test Data

Post #200 Wash Test Weights (grams): Dry Sample and Tare = 285.92 Tare Wt. = 124.73

Dry Sample and Tare (grams)

Tare (grams)

Cumulative Pan

Tare Weight (grams)

Sieve Opening

Size

Cumulative Weight

Retained (grams)

Percent Finer

285.92 124.74 0.00 3 0.00 100.0

2 0.00 100.0

1.5 0.00 100.0

0.75 0.00 100.0

0.375 0.00 100.0

#3.5 0.00 100.0

#4 0.00 100.0

#10 0.00 100.0

#20 0.00 100.0

#40 0.07 100.0

#60 0.49 99.7

#100 10.11 93.7

#200 118.26 26.6

Fractional Components

Cobbles

0.0

Gravel

0.0

Sand

Coarse

0.0

Fine

73.4

Total

73.4

Fines

Silt Clay Total

26.6

D5 D10 D15 D20 D30

0.0771

D40

0.0837

D50

0.0911

D60

0.0996

D80

0.1221

D85

0.1300

D90

0.1400

D95

0.1622

Fineness

0.06

Engineering

Jacksonville, Florida

8/23/23

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

Gray silty fine sand, trace clay.

1.5 0.75

0.375 #3.5 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60

#100 #200

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0…