Attachment 6- Appendix F Reference Geotechnical Report.pdf

Prepared for:

REPAIR WILSON WAY (JBSF225566)

Joint Base Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas

Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Task Order # FA301621F0334

March 10, 2023 sdewan Image

Repair Wilson Way (JBSF225566) Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Task Order #: FA301621F0334 March 10, 2023 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Project Description

3.0 Geotechnical Scope of Services

4.0 Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing

4.1 General

4.2 Exploratory Subsurface Drilling

4.3 Laboratory Test Results

5.0 Site Conditions

5.1 Site History

5.2 Existing Surface Conditions

5.3 Geologic Conditions

5.4 Geologic Hazard Analysis

5.5 Subsurface Conditions

5.6 Groundwater

5.7 Expansive and/or Collapsible Soils

6.0 Pavement Design Analyses

6.1 General

6.2 Frost Considerations

6.3 Traffic Data

6.4 PCASE Pavement Sections

6.5 Recommended Asphalt Mix

6.6 Concrete Sidewalk

7.0 Earthwork Construction

7.1 General

7.2 Demolition and Site Preparation

7.3 Suitability of Fill Materials and Imports

7.4 Shrinkage and Swell Factors for Native Materials

7.5 Subgrade Preparation

7.6 Lime Stabilization

7.7 Fill Placement and Compaction

7.8 Excavation and Trenching

7.9 Quality Control and Assurance

8.0 Disclosure

List of Figures Figure 1. Well Registry Interactive Map

Figure 2. Summarized Traffic Count Data

Figure 3. Total Traffic Passes

List of Tables Table 1. Classification Test Results

Table 2. Proctor Test Results file://///oa.ad.oaconsulting.com/fnts-ns1/projects/2021/02501-03000/021-02913-Q/40-Design/Reports/FOPS/Report/Geotechnical%20Report%20-%20Wilson%20Way%20-%20Body%20Rev1.docx%23_Toc119579966 ii

Table 3. CBR Test Results

Table 4. Average Swells from CBR tests

Table 5. Ring Moisture Content and Density Test Results

Table 6. Well Registry Data

Table 7. Frost Depth Data from PCASE

Table 8. Minimum pavement layer thicknesses per UFC 3-201-01

Table 9. Recommended Flexible Pavement Section with Lime Stabilized Subgrade

Table 10. Recommended Construction Compactions

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Site Location Map

Appendix B: Soil Classification Methods, Boring Locations Plan, and Boring Logs

Appendix C: Laboratory Test Results

Appendix D: PCASE Design Reports

Appendix E: Site Photos

1.0 Introduction

Premier-Stanley Joint Venture, LLC (Premier-Stanley) has completed a geotechnical exploration program and prepared this geotechnical evaluation report for the Repair Wilson Way (JBSF225566) project at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas. This roadway is located within the Army Base on the southern section just north of the Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Fort Sam Houston Walters

Street entrance gate and Visitor Center. A Site Location Map is provided in Appendix A which depicts the project location and the vicinity of the project area.

The geotechnical investigation was performed in general accordance with the task order No.

FA301622F0334 dated July 20, 2022. This geotechnical evaluation report presents the results of our investigation and provides geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvement.

2.0 Project Description

This project is located on Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Sam Houston. Wilson Way is an arterial street within in the Commercial Planning District of Fort Sam Houston. The project extends from

Winfield Scott Road to Garden Avenue and is approximately 3000 feet (0.57 miles). Winfield Scott

Road connects to the Walters Gate which provides ingress and egress to the highest traffic volumes at the installation. Commercial vehicles access Wilson Way at the intersection of Chaffee Road within the project limits. Nine other streets or commercial entrances intersect Wilson Way within the project area. The roadway within the project limits is 36 feet wide west of S23 Street and 32 feet wide east of S-23 Street. The roadway section includes curb and gutter and intermittent sidewalks.

Currently, the asphalt concrete pavement on the existing Wilson Way is in very poor condition with alligator cracking, rutting and potholes. It has severe alligator cracking in the wheel paths, depressions in the wheel paths and many dips and bumps that make the rideability on Wilson Way at the posted speed limit very uncomfortable. This project consists of removing and replacing the pavement, and providing new curb and gutter, and sidewalks from Winfield Scott Road to Garden

Road. The project will maintain existing drainage patterns and facilities and includes the removal of Lead Based Paint (LBP) and installation of new pavement markings. The design project will provide design-bid-build construction documents.

Wilson Way is currently a two (2) lane road with a center turning lane from Winfield Scott Road to

S-23 Road where the center turn lane is tapered off heading east along Wilson Street and turns into a 2-lane roadway at S-23 Road. Along the north and south sides immediately past the curb and gutter of Wilson Road, there are sections of sidewalk which appear on the north and south side of Wilson Way at different sections of the roadway.

3.0 Geotechnical Scope of Services

Premier-Stanley’s scope of services for the geotechnical work is defined mostly by the requirements in the Scope of Work for the Architect – Engineer (A-E) Services dated February 25, 2022. The scope of work, as detailed below, consists of geotechnical services to determine the subsurface conditions, and provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvement.

a. Boring map preparation, project coordination and meetings.

b. Boring (dig) permit applications and necessary badging for access to the site.

c. Third party locating of utility mark out or verification.

d. Ten exploratory soil borings along Wilson Way extending to a depth of 15 feet utilizing a conventional truck-mounted drill rig for drilling and sampling.

e. Abandonment of drilled holes with soil cuttings, cement/bentonite to the bottom of the pavement layer, and asphalt patch or similar pavement material matching the thickness of the existing pavement.

f. Geotechnical laboratory testing including gradations, Atterberg limits, Proctor compaction, swell, California bearing Ratio (CBR), moisture content and density tests.

g. Geotechnical analyses for design and construction parameters.

h. Pavement analyses using PCASE to evaluate alternative pavement layer systems.

i. Preparation of a geotechnical report with parameters and recommendations for design and construction.

4.0 Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing

4.1 General

The subsurface explorations for the project included 10 boreholes along Wilson Way. The drilling and laboratory tests were completed by our subconsultant Raba Kistner. The boreholes were completed on August 29, 2022, followed by the laboratory testing. A Premier-Stanley employee was present to monitor the drilling operations, document boring log information, and collect representative samples for laboratory testing.

4.2 Exploratory Subsurface Drilling

An exploration plan for soil borings and detailed descriptions of the materials encountered in our exploratory borings are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B. The boring logs also depict SPT test data, and some laboratory test results. Subsurface materials were classified according to the

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), which is included in Appendix B. Drilling at boring location B-1 was shifted east by approximately 100 feet due to conflicting utilities at the initial proposed location.

Field drilling, Standard Penetration Test (SPT), and sampling were completed utilizing a Mobile B-

47 drill rig system (operated by Raba Kistner) fitted with 7-inch outside-diameter hollow-stem augers. The boreholes were extended to 15 feet below the existing site grades at all locations along

Wilson Way. Bulk soil samples were collected from the drill cuttings. Standard penetration tests

(SPT) in conformance with ASTM D 1586 were completed at different depths at each boring location. The collected samples were placed in containers/bags and transported to the laboratory for testing.

The field boring logs (Appendix B) included sampling depths, penetration resistances, other sampling information, visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling, groundwater levels, and the interpretation of the subsurface conditions at sampling locations. The boring logs represent the geotechnical engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on observations and tests of the samples in the laboratory.

4.3 Laboratory Test Results

Laboratory tests were completed based on the type of subsurface materials encountered, drilling/sampling methods, and the project requirements. The laboratory tests were focused on classifying the soils and evaluating strength and compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils. Classification testing included tests for gradation, liquid limits and plastic limits, and percent passing the Sieve #200. Other laboratory testing for the bulk samples included Modified Proctor compaction, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), and swell potential tests.

The laboratory classification test results for the subsurface materials are contained in Appendix C and are summarized in the table below. The description of the subsurface conditions encountered during drilling can be found in the boring logs included in Appendix B.

Table 1. Classification Test Results.

Boring

Number

Depth

(feet)

Fines

Content

(% Passing

#200 Sieve)

Liquid

Limit

Plasticity

Index

USCS Soil

Classification

(Symbol)

USC Soil

Classification

(Name)

B – 1 1.0 – 2.5 45.4 54 35 GC Clayey GRAVEL

B – 2 2.5 – 4.5 82.4 No Test No Test No Test No Test

B – 3 1.0 – 2.5 86.0 81 60 CH

Fat CLAY with sand

B – 5 2.5 – 4.5 98.5 108 81 CH Fat CLAY

B – 6 1.0 – 2.5 35.6 64 44 GC

Clayey GRAVEL with sand

B – 7 2.5 - 4.5 64.3 120 91 CH

Fat CLAY with gravel

B – 9 1.0 – 2.5 95.2 88 65 CH Fat CLAY

B – 10 2.5 – 4.5 96.0 No Test No Test No Test No Test

The test results indicate that the subsurface soils vary from 35.6 to 98.5 percent in fines fractions

(passing #200 sieve) and that the fines are of high plasticity (PI as high as 91). Soils in the boring locations consist of fat clay (CH) and gravelly fat clay (GC).

Four Modified Proctor compaction (moisture-density relationship) tests were completed on four composite samples collected from different depths at different boring locations. The Proctor test results are provided below.

Table 2. Proctor Test Results.

Number

Depth (feet)

Maximum Dry Density

(PCF)

Optimum Moisture Content (Percent)

B – 2 0 – 5 107.3 15.9

B – 4 0 – 5 103.1 17.8

B – 6 0 – 5 106.9 16.9

B – 8 0 – 5 101.2 19.8

Four (4) California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were performed on the bucket samples collected from zero (0) to five (5) feet depths at borings across the project site.

Table 3. CBR Test Results.

Number

Sample Depth (feet)

CBR

B – 2 0 – 5 4.1

B – 4 0 – 5 4.8

B – 6 0 – 5 4.9

B – 8 0 – 5 5.2

Two swell tests were completed on undisturbed samples from borings B-4 and B-8 from a depth of

3.5 feet and the swell test results indicated swells of 7.0 and 0.6 percent, respectfully. Four (4) other swells were determined during the CBR tests and are presented in the table below.

Table 4. Average Swells from CBR tests.

Sample

Location

Sample Depth

(feet)

Average Swell

B – 2 0 – 5 4.0

B – 4 0 – 5 5.0

B – 6 0 – 5 3.0

B – 8 0 – 5 4.0

Ten (10) in-situ moisture and density tests were performed on collected ring samples. In-situ moistures ranged from 20 to 35 percent and densities varied from 90 pcf to 105 pcf.

Table 5. Ring Moisture Content and Density Test Results.

Boring Number

Sample Depth (feet)

Moisture (Percent)

Density (pcf)

B – 1 2.5 – 4.5 27 95

B – 2 2.5 – 4.5 20 103

B – 3 2.5 – 4.5 21 105

B – 4 2.5 – 4.5 26 100

B – 5 2.5 – 4.5 28 92

B – 6 2.5 – 4.5 29 92

B – 7 2.5 – 4.5 24 96

B – 8 2.5 – 4.5 30 91

B – 9 2.5 – 4.5 32 90

B – 10 2.5 – 4.5 35 85

5.0 Site Conditions

5.1 Site History

Joint Base San Antonio is the home to the oldest U.S. Army posts dating back to 1876. The present-day base was established on undeveloped land donated by the City of San Antonio located just north of downtown San Antonio. Initially known as the Post at San Antonio, construction of the 92 acres of donated land began with the construction of the Quadrangle which is made from locally sourced limestone cut from a nearby quarry. The Quadrangle, constructed by the U.S. Army, served the U.S. as a supply depot initially and expanded upon its initial construction for years after to include the Headquarters, Department of Texas as well as 15 houses known as the Staff Post for the officers who staffed the department. Throughout the 1880’s the Post at San Antonio grew to meet the needs of the western territories and primarily served as a supply depot for these territories. The post grew to be a significant installation to the U.S. Army and expansions within the

Post at San Antonio included an Infantry Post. At the time, the Post at San Antonio grew to be the second largest Army post in the U.S. and was designated as Fort Sam Houston under the Acting

Secretary of War L.A. Grant and signed in the year of 1890.

Following the Spanish-American War, Fort Sam Houston brought in major construction expansion to the Fort including both a Cavalry Post and a Light Artillery Post. This expansion included support buildings, barracks, and housing within the Fort Sam Houston boundaries. Additional land was purchased in the areas surrounding Fort Sam Houston and developed as training areas for the U.S.

Army. The once small supply station had grown to be the largest post in the U.S. Army with this latest purchase of land. During the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution, Fort Sam Houston was able to support enough troops to operate as a staging point to house enough personnel to be a show of force along the border during the outbreak and again in 1916 during the Punitive

Expedition.

Fort Sam Houston quickly became a packed base during World War II. The base had been so crowded that 500 temporary buildings were constructed during the war to house Soldiers who transitioned through the post. Fort Sam Houston became a demobilization point for troops at the end of World War II to be processed back into a civilian world. Approximately 500,000 soldiers were processed back through this base which led to the growth of the surrounding City of San

Antonio in the years to come. The medical training and services provided on the grounds of Fort

Sam Houston would continue to grow through the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s in scattered locations across

Fort Sam Houston. The medical practices would later be combined into a singular medical facility at the state-of-the-art medical center in after the construction of the medical building was completed

1996. Fort Sam Houston would go on to become a part of Joint Base San Antonio in 2005 and consolidated medical training for all branches of the military at this post.

From 1876 to today, the land under Joint Base San Antonio has been dedicated to the operations of military purposes and has seen hundreds of thousands of American Military personnel since its initial construction. Hundreds of temporary structures were built, rebuilt, and improved upon within the grounds of the base. In the area of this project, Wilson Way, privately owned available aerial photos for this stretch of roadway begins in 1955. At this point, Fort Sam Houston has been in operation for nearly 80 years and Wilson Way may have been a part of the construction that began in the early 1900’s when additional land was purchased by Fort Sam Houston for additions to the base. From a study of aerial photos from 1955 until approximately 2004, Wilson Way remained unchanged with the roadway running in the roadway alignment that it had in previous years but with a modification being made starting at S-23 Road where Wilson Way would begin to bend in a northeastern direction. In the areas of the previously known Wilson Way path before the roadway improvements were made, parking lots were constructed for the southern barracks staff and operations. Wilson Way would also seamlessly connect to Garden Avenue improving the traffic flow within this area of Joint Base San Antonio. It is unknown as to when roadway improvements and maintenance have been performed on the existing roadways within the project limits over the lifetime of this roadway that has brought Wilson Way to the deteriorated condition the road is currently exhibiting.

5.2 Existing Surface Conditions

The project site is located at the approximate coordinates of 29.446811 north latitude, -98.458992 west longitude, and ranges in elevation approximately from 700 feet to 760 at the highest point along this section of roadway. The topography of road generally slopes uphill to Shafter Street then slopes downhill towards the east. It is evident from driving over Wilson Way that the roadway grade has been modified by the adverse subgrade conditions resulting in a wavy ride, resulting in more like a roller coaster feeling and this can be caused by either swelling subgrade or sometimes by uneven compaction of the subgrade.

The existing Wilson Way consists of a 2-lane asphalt roadway with a center left-turn lane between

Winfield Scott Road and S-23 Road and then tapers into a 2-lane roadway until the end of the project area. Turning lanes are located at the intersection of Engineer Street and Wilson Way going south, Funston Road going north, and Winfield Scott Road going north East Bound at Procurement

Street going south. Sidewalks, trees, and underground and overhead utilities are present that run along the roadway and/or the south or north side of Wilson Way throughout the project area.

5.3 Geologic Conditions

The project site is located on the border between the Great Plains and Coastal Plains provinces.

The Great Plains province is the second largest physiographic province in the United States. The vast majority of the province is plateau-like with flat plains with some isolated mountains and lowlands in portions of this province. This province covers 450,000 square miles and stretches from Texas and as far north as Montana. The second bordering province near this project site is the Coastal Plains province. Known for being the flattest of all the physiographic provinces, it stretches from Cape Cod to the Mexico Border and south to the Yucatan Peninsula. Generally, this province slopes gently seaward from the inland highlands within the region.

A review of the Geologic Atlas of Texas, San Antonio Sheet, indicates that this site is naturally underlain by Uvalde Gravel which can consist of clays, silts, and gravels including cobbles, chert, boulders, and caliche-cemented gravel. Some boulders may be up to one foot in diameter. Hard cobbles of quartz and igneous rock may be common in areas topographically high and not associates with drainage. The Uvalde Gravels can be highly variable and can therefore result in highly variable conditions over relatively short distances.

5.4 Geologic Hazard Analysis

This project site has not been found to have significant geologic and other natural hazards including earthquake-related hazards, landslide, ground rupture or fissure, etc. Potential hazards for the site are discussed below.

San Antonio does not have any currently active fault lines within the vicinity of the project. However, a major aquifer known as the Edwards Aquifer, or the Balcones Fault Zone, runs through Bexar

County. This fault zone begins in Kinney County and travels east to Bexar and north up through to

Bell County. This aquifer consists of partially dissolved limestone which has caused the Edwards

Aquifer to be highly permeable. Joint Base San Antonio is near the southern edge of this aquifer within the outcrop and recharge area of the aquifer. However, Fort Sam Houston is not located within the recharge zone of the aquifer.

San Antonio is located within Bexar County and has not historically been known to experience seismic activities within the county. The closest seismic activity occurring near the project site was a 4.8 magnitude earthquake which shook the City of Fashing, Texas on October 20, 2011. Fashing is approximately 50 miles southeast of the project site.

Based on our review of the available literature and our site reconnaissance, the probability of damage from surface ground rupture is considered low. Lurching or cracking of the ground surface as a result of nearby seismic events is not likely.

Key geotechnical engineering concerns for development supported on the Uvalde Gravels are the expansive nature of the clays, the consistency and/or relative density of the deposits, the absence or presence as well as thickness of potentially water-bearing gravels, and the absence or presence of cobbles, boulders and/or cemented materials.

5.5 Subsurface Conditions

Based on our 10 borings drilled through the pavements, asphalt concrete thickness varied from 1.5 to 4 inches and aggregate base coarse underlying the asphalt layer had thickness varying between

8 and 12 inches. Underneath the pavement layers, the subgrade soils extending to the depth of boring termination depth of 15 feet generally included fat clay (CH) with very high plasticity and high swelling potential. No lime stabilized subgrade was found. At a few boring locations and depths, the subsurface materials included clay mixed with some sand and gravel (GC). The clay soils were medium stiff to hard, tan to dark brown in color, and moist at the time of recovery.

5.6 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered during the time of investigation and is assumed to be at depths deeper than 15 feet. However, it is possible for groundwater to exist beneath this site at shallow depths on a transient basis, particularly within granular stratums and following periods of precipitation. Fluctuations in groundwater levels occur due to variation in rainfall and surface water run-off. The construction process itself may also cause variations in the groundwater level. From the Texas Water Development Board Water Data Interactive map (Figure 1), groundwater within the area varies between approximately 665 feet to 676 feet below the land surface.

Table 6. Well Registry Data.

State Well Number

Depth to Water

(ft)

Year of Last Well Log

Depth of Well (ft)

Site Use Water Use

6837407 676.47 1971 900 Unused Withdrawal

6837504 - - - Unused -

6837512 669.6 1958 620 Unused Withdrawal

6837511 665.6 1975 904 Unused Withdrawal

6837515 675.2 1961 1380 Stock Withdrawal

The water depth has not been measured within the project area. However, the water level has been measured in nearby wells as recently as 1975 where the water level was 665.5 feet below the ground surface.

5.7 Expansive and/or Collapsible Soils

Common problem soils generally include expansive soils and collapsible soils. These problems occur in some specific type of soils due to the addition of excessive water to the soil masses. The causes of this expansion (swelling) and collapse are generally related to the type and amount of clay minerals in the soil matrix, soil fabric, soil chemistry, history of deposit, and the original relative density of the soil supporting a structural feature. Some clay minerals can absorb a significant

6837407

6837504

6837515

6837511

6837512

Project Site

Figure 1. Well Registry Interactive Map.

amount of water, when available, and expand the volume of the soil mass. This expansive pressure can be high enough to move a structural feature upward, causing cracks in a concrete structure.

Obviously, a lightly loaded structural feature, such as concrete slabs-on-grade, sidewalks and flatwork, will be more affected by the upward pressure than a loaded feature, such as a significantly loaded column or wall footing. Upon drying, the swelling soil will shrink, causing shrinkage cracks in soil and cause loss of support for structures supported on this soil.

The on-site materials encountered during our geotechnical exploration indicated that the subsurface materials within the boring termination depths are mostly high plasticity clay materials with some mixtures of sands and gravels within the project area (CH and GC). The clay subgrade materials at a location are expected to swell significantly upon addition of excess water given that the tested lab sample swelled up to 7 percent during testing. The Department of Defense states that nominally expansive soils can be managed to control the swelling of the soils through construction remediation.

6.0 Pavement Design Analyses

6.1 General

The results of our field exploration and historical background of the site indicate that some special subsurface conditions exist that will require consideration during design and construction. The site has highly expansive clay soils within the boring termination depth of 15 feet along Wilson Way that will need to be remediated.

The pavement analyses were performed utilizing Pavement-Transportation Computer Assisted

Structural Engineering (PCASE) program. PCASE is capable of developing and providing a computer assisted design and evaluation of transportation systems such as airfield, roads, and railroads. This program is supported by the Tri-Services including the Army, Air Force, and Navy.

PCASE is updated frequently to new versions to stay up to date for functional, cyber security and bug fixes for this program. PCASE 7.03 was used to analyze new flexible pavement section for

Wilson Way within the project limits.

6.2 Frost Considerations

San Antonio is located within an area that does not experience long periods of freezing. The data in the following table was used in PCASE pavement design analysis.

6.3 Traffic Data

A traffic study was conducted by Premier-Stanley along Wilson Way for a period of seven consecutive days from Saturday August 20, 2022, through Friday August 26, 2022 and a traffic report was prepared. During this study, counter tubes were placed in three locations per travel direction at locations along the project area. The following table includes traffic data from the study which includes total amount of passes by vehicle types encountered during the 1-week study.

Table 7. Frost Depth Data from PCASE.

Frost Details

Station: San Antonio

State/ Country: USA

Lat/ Long: 29.4508, -98.7028

Mean Annual Temperature: 69.08 °F

Mean Annual Freezing Degree Days: 7.2 days

Mean Length of Freezing Season: 1.5 days

Standard Deviation of Length of Freezing Season: 1.6 days

Standard Deviation of Mean Annual Freezing Degree Days: 11.5 days

Mean Heating Degree Days Per Year: 13576.1

Standard Deviation of Mean Heating Degree Days Per Year: 367 days

Figure 2. Summarized Traffic Count Data.

Figure 3. Total Traffic Passes.

A 60/40 directional distribution was used for the PCASE analyses considering the seasonal variation and 60 percent of the total traffic was conservatively used for the design lane. Appendix

D includes PCASE reports including inputs and outputs in PCASE.

6.4 PCASE Pavement Sections

UFC 3-201-01 requires a minimum pavement layer thicknesses as provided in the table below.

Table 8. Minimum pavement layer thicknesses per UFC 3-201-01.

Layer Layer Minimum

Flexible Pavements

(Total section = Asphalt Concrete + Aggregate Base) 6 inches

Surface Course 2 inches

Base and Subbase 4 inches

Based on the presence of subgrade fat clay soils with high plasticity index and high swell potential and the existing pavement conditions, Olsson considered a pavement layer system consisting of asphalt concrete over aggregate base over lime stabilized subgrade. PCASE analyses were completed with different variations of layer thicknesses considering the construction processes and existing layer thicknesses.

The PCASE calculated pavement layer thicknesses are provided in Appendix D. However, relatively conservative pavement layer thicknesses have been recommended to eliminate pavement distress issues the existing pavement is experiencing due to the presence of high plasticity and swell values of the subgrade materials. The recommended thicknesses of the flexible pavement systems are as follows and include frost considerations as determined by PCASE.

Table 9. Recommended Flexible Pavement Section with Lime Stabilized Subgrade.

Flexible Pavement with Lime Stabilized Subgrade

Layer Type Material Type Thickness (inches)

Flexible Pavement Asphalt Concrete (AC) 3.5

Aggregate Base (AB) Unbound Aggregate 10.0

Lime Stabilized Subgrade Cohesive Cut 8.0

The subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. The preparation and recompaction of the native subgrade materials will likely encounter construction issues (pumping) due to the high plasticity clay, which will be reduced due to the use of lime stabilization.

Alternative to the lime stabilization of the subgrade, the upper two feet of the existing subgrade may be removed and replaced with compacted low plasticity (PI<10) and low swelling (<1.5%) soils. This option will add significant costs for the purchase and disposal and transportation of the removed and acceptable materials. However, there will be savings for reduced pavement layer thicknesses due to the presence of better subgrade condition.

6.5 Recommended Asphalt Mix

The following asphalt concrete (AC) mix, oil content, and PG grade are recommended for Wilson

Way for the option with lime-stabilized subgrade.

AC Surface Course AC Base Course Asphalt Cement (Oil)

PG Grade

1½” thick Type D with Oil Content 5.1±0.4%

2” thick Type B with Oil Content 4.3±0.4%

PG70-22

6.6 Concrete Sidewalk

The project includes new and replacement sidewalks along the roadway sides. The concrete should be supported on a compacted 6-inch layer of aggregate base over 8-inch prepared subgrade. The subgrade should be prepared by moisture conditioning at a moisture content at or 3 percent above the optimum moisture content and recompacting at 90 to 93 percent of Modified Proctor maximum dry density. The sidewalk slab should include crack control joints at an appropriate spacing to reduce the effect of underlying soil movements.

7.0 Earthwork Construction

7.1 General

The recommendations for earthwork may generally include demolition, sawcut, subgrade preparation, suitability of materials, general excavation, and fill placement. Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the project Specification.

7.2 Demolition and Site Preparation

The existing pavements on Wilson Way will be demolished and disposed of off the site at a certified recycling plant.

7.3 Suitability of Fill Materials and Imports

Clean on-site native soils removed from excavation, grading, and trenches should not be used for backfill without modification/remediation. Alternatively, imported non-swelling soils can be utilized for subgrades and as backfills. Materials to be used as fill shall be clean and free of deleterious materials, including large pieces of rock, concrete, asphalt, or organics.

7.4 Shrinkage and Swell Factors for Native Materials

Shrinkage factor is defined as the ratio of fill density to excavation (cut) density. A factor lower than unity (one) indicates that compaction or placement density is higher than that which exists on the borrow site. This might result in importing materials, if the cut volume is equal to or less than the fill volume. On-site soil excavated from the upper 15 feet of the subsurface soil is anticipated to have a shrinkage factor of up to 0.85 (15 percent shrinkage).

The earthwork factors represent an average of the materials observed with varying consistencies.

Potential bidders should consider this fact in the preparation of estimates and should review the available data to make their own conclusions regarding excavation conditions.

7.5 Subgrade Preparation

Subgrade for pavements should be firm and free of organics, debris, oversize materials, and any other deleterious materials. If the subgrade is found to be disturbed, the subgrade soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of eight inches or to the depth of disturbance, whichever is greater, and then moisture treated and recompacted as required.

7.6 Lime Stabilization

Lime stabilization should achieve a swell potential of less than 1.5 percent. The range of lime to use is normally 4 to 6 percent and based on the site soil test results, a 6 percent lime may be utilized for cost estimates. Mix design of lime-soil mixture should be completed during the construction to ensure the target lime fraction in the mix. The plasticity and swell potential of the materials will improve with the lime stabilization resulting in a stable subgrade and more favorable construction condition. Lime stabilization should be completed according to the methods for lime stabilization in UFC 3-250-11 and in accordance with the requirements in Unified Facility Guide

Specifications (UFGS) Section 32 11 13.13.

7.7 Fill Placement and Compaction

Non-swelling fill materials should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts using proper equipment and procedures that will produce the recommended moisture contents and densities.

Prior to placing new fill, the exposed grade should be scarified to a minimum depth of eight inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted. Nesting of large particles should be avoided during fill placement. Recommended compaction and moisture content criteria for non-swelling engineered fill and backfill or recompaction of on-site materials are provided in table 10.

The fill surface should be adequately maintained during construction in order to achieve an acceptable compaction and interlift bonding. The surface should be sloped properly to prevent water ponding and provide drainage of stormwater runoff. If precipitation is anticipated during construction, it is recommended that the fill surface be made smooth by rolling with a smooth drum roller or equivalent equipment with similar functionality.

Table 10. Recommended Construction Compactions.

Material and Location

(On-site or import materials)

Modified Proctor Compaction (ASTM D 1557)

Minimum Relative

Compaction (%)

Moisture Content

Relative to Optimum

Moisture (%)

Native subgrade 95 0 to +3

Lime Stabilized Subgrade 95 -2 to +2

Subgrade with non-swelling import fill 95 -2 to +2

Aggregate base course 100 -2 to +2

Miscellaneous other native backfills 90 0 to +3

7.8 Excavation and Trenching

The site surface conditions and subsurface information indicate that grading and excavations for the roadway site can be achieved by using standard excavation equipment in good working condition. General excavation slopes should be maintained at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2:1).

Relatively shallower excavations (up to 4 feet) may utilize steeper slopes up to 1:1. Excavations should not be kept open for long periods, as this may cause spall off and/or shallow slope failure due to the reduction in moisture content of the slope. The moisture in the slope can be preserved by using gunite, shotcrete, or other polymer-based spray, if necessary.

7.9 Quality Control and Assurance

The construction of the proposed improvements should be performed by qualified contractors utilizing appropriate techniques and construction materials. A qualified geotechnical consultant should provide the needed observation and testing services during construction operations.

It is imperative that the subsurface conditions exposed during construction be evaluated by a qualified individual. Site preparation, subgrade preparation, backfill placement, recompaction, and pavement subgrade are to be observed, tested, and documented by an experienced geotechnical engineer or their representative. The project plans and specifications should be reviewed for conformance with the recommendations of this geotechnical report prior to construction. Premier-

Stanley recommends that the responsibilities of the geotechnical consultant include, but not be limited to:

• Removal of all deleterious objects from the subgrades.

• Observation of excavation bottoms to confirm that the subgrade is compacted and firm.

• Evaluation of imported materials prior to use as fill, its placement and compaction of fill.

• Testing the subgrade and base course materials to confirm specifications for compaction and moisture contents.

• Preparation of a final report documenting all on-site activities, test results, and conclusions.

8.0 Disclosure

This report has been prepared as an aid to the designers for the current project only. The comments, statements, and recommendations set forth reflect the opinions of the author. The opinions are based upon conditions at the location of the specific observations, as well as tests and data developed to satisfy the scope of services. However, due to the inherent natural variations of the soil strata and the nature of geotechnical exploration, it is always possible that the soil conditions between two borings may be different from those encountered at the boring locations.

Also, changes at the site by human activities or changes in code or standards due to legislative action may affect the conclusions and recommendations. If variations in materials are encountered or human changes are made, a geotechnical engineer should be contacted to reevaluate the recommendations provided in this report.

Structural/loaded features built on soil and supporting subgrade are subject to risks that cannot be entirely eliminated. Common detrimental hazards include settlement, localized concentrated drainage, hydro-compaction, and soil expansion or collapse due to unidentified geologic or man-made conditions. A geotechnical evaluation with limited boreholes, depths, and laboratory tests may not delineate all the possible hazards. Therefore, the roles of design professionals and contractors, and maintenance of the site play a critical role.

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No warranties are intended or made. It is intended for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the current project and is valid for the proposed development at the issuance date of this report. It should not be used as a bidding document. The contractors must draw their own conclusions regarding site conditions and specific construction techniques to be used.

Repair Wilson Way (JBSF225566)

APPENDIX A

Site Location Map

BORING LOCATIONS PLAN

Repair Wilson Way (JBSA225566)

6437 W. Chandler Boulevard, Suite 1

Chandler, AZ 85226 Ph. (480) 829-6000

Site Location

W in fi e ld

S co tt R d

APPENDIX B

Soil Classification Methods, Boring Locations Plan and Boring Logs

Exhibit C-1

GENERAL NOTES

DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:

Split Spoon - 1-3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger

Thin-Walled Tube – 2” O.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger (Solid Stem)

Ring Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger

Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B RB: Rock Bit

SS:

ST:

MC:

DB:

GB: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB Wash Boring or Mud Rotary

The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the “Standard Penetration” or “N-value”.

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:

WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling BCR: Before Casing Removal

WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling ACR: After Casing Removal

DCI: Dry Cave in AB: After Boring N/E: Not Encountered

Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations.

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand.

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 plastic or 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.

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Unconfined Compressive

Strength, Qu, psf

Standard Penetration or N-value (SS)

Blows/Ft.

Consistency

Standard Penetration or N-value (SS)

Blows/Ft.

Relative Density

< 500 0 – 1 Very Soft 0 – 3 Very Loose

500 – 1,000 2 – 3 Soft 4 – 9 Loose

1,000 – 2,000 4 – 6 Medium Stiff 10 – 29 Medium Dense

2,000 – 4,000 7 – 12 Stiff 30 – 50 Dense

4,000 – 8,000 13 – 26 Very Stiff > 50 Very Dense

8,000+ > 26 Hard

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents

Percent of Dry Weight

Major Component of Sample

Particle Size

Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm)

With 15 – 29 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)

Modifier ≥ 30 Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75mm)

Sand #4 to #200 sieve (4.75 to 0.075mm)

Silt or Clay Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm)

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents

Percent of Dry Weight

Term Plasticity

Index

Trace < 5 Non-plastic 0

With 5 – 12 Low 1 – 10

Modifier > 12 Medium 11 – 30

High > 30

Rev. 4/10 ltita Rectangle

Exhibit C-2

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A

Soil Classification

Group

Symbol Group Name B

Coarse Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic:

PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line J CL Lean clay K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL

Organic clay K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic:

PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH

Organic clay K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

ltita Rectangle

B-1: Boring Location 1 (Typical)

SS

U

SS

SS

U

SS

ASPHALT

2 inches of asphalt.

AGGREGATE BASE

10 inches of aggregate base.

CLAYEY GRAVEL

High plasticity, moist, loose to medium dense, dark brown, (GC).

SANDY CLAY

High plasticity, moist, very stiff, tan to white, (CH).

BASE OF BORING AT 16.5 FEET

0.2'

1.0'

7.5'

16.5'

27.0

54/35GC

95.0

2-3-4 N=5

17-19-20 N=36

12-13-9 N=25

6-8-10 N=14

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

CLAY

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

M O

IS

T

U R

E

L L

/P I

C L

A S

S

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N (U

S C

S

Split Spoon Shelby Tube

WD

IAD

AD

Sheet 1 of 1

PROJECT NUMBER

MOBILE B-53

LOCATION

8/29/22

Megan DuBose

STARTED:

DRILL CO.:

DRILLER:

METHOD:

8/29/22

CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER

ADDITIONAL

DATA/

REMARKS

Wilson Way, San Antonio, Texas

RABA KISTNER

D E

P T

H (f t)

Q21-02913

U N

C

S T

R

(t sf

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y (p cf

FINISHED:

DRILL RIG:

LOGGED BY:

Repair Wilson Way

PROJECT NAME CLIENT

Joint Base San Antonio

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

BOREHOLE REPORT NO. B-1

B L

O W

S /6

N

-V A

L U

E

OLSSON, INC.

6437 WEST CHANDLER BLVD

CHANDLER, ARIZONA 85226

U

SS

SS

U

SS

ASPHALT

1.5 inches of asphalt.

AGGREGATE BASE

11 inches of aggregate base.

CLAYEY GRAVEL

High plasticity, moist, stiff to very stiff, dark brown, (GC).

FAT CLAY

High plasticity, moist, stiff, tan, (CH).

BASE OF BORING AT 16.8 FEET

0.1'

1.1'

5.0'

16.8'

20.0 103.0

3-4-4 N=7

4-6-23 N=10

24-34-16 N=58

6-8-11 N=14

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

CLAY

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

M O

IS

T

U R

E

L L

/P I

C L

A S

S

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N (U

S C

S

Split Spoon Shelby Tube

WD

IAD

AD

Sheet 1 of 1

PROJECT NUMBER

MOBILE B-53

LOCATION

8/29/22

Megan DuBose

STARTED:

DRILL CO.:

DRILLER:

METHOD:

8/29/22

CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER

ADDITIONAL

DATA/

REMARKS

Wilson Way, San Antonio, Texas

RABA KISTNER

D E

P T

H (f t)

Q21-02913

U N

C

S T

R

(t sf

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y (p cf

FINISHED:

DRILL RIG:

LOGGED BY:

Repair Wilson Way

PROJECT NAME CLIENT

Joint Base San Antonio

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

BOREHOLE REPORT NO. B-2

B L

O W

S /6

N

-V A

L U

E

OLSSON, INC.

U

SS

U

SS

U

ASPHALT

2 inches of asphalt.

AGGREGATE BASE

10 inches of aggregate base.

FAT CLAY

With sand, high plasticity, moist, very stiff to hard, dark brown, (CH).

FAT CLAY

With sand, high plasticity, moist, very stiff to hard, tan, (CH).

BASE OF BORING AT 16.8 FEET

0.2'

1.0'

4.5'

16.8'

21.0

81/60CH

105.0

5-5-5 N=10

5-7-11 N=12

17-37-13 N=54

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

CLAY

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

M O

IS

T

U R

E

L L

/P I

C L

A S

S

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N (U

S C

S

Split Spoon Shelby Tube

WD

IAD

AD

Sheet 1 of 1

PROJECT NUMBER

MOBILE B-53

LOCATION

8/29/22

Megan DuBose

STARTED:

DRILL CO.:

DRILLER:

METHOD:

8/29/22

CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER

ADDITIONAL

DATA/

REMARKS

Wilson Way, San Antonio, Texas

RABA KISTNER

D E

P T

H (f t)

Q21-02913

U N

C

S T

R

(t sf

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y (p cf

FINISHED:

DRILL RIG:

LOGGED BY:

Repair Wilson Way

PROJECT NAME CLIENT

Joint Base San Antonio

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

BOREHOLE REPORT NO. B-3

B L

O W

S /6

N

-V A

L U

E

OLSSON, INC.

U

SS

U

SS

U

ASPHALT

3 inches of asphalt.

AGGREGATE BASE

11 inches of aggregate base.

FAT CLAY

High plasticity, moist, very stiff, dark brown, (CH).

FAT CLAY

High plasticity, moist, very stiff, tan, (CH).

BASE OF BORING AT 16.8 FEET

0.3'

1.2'

4.5'

16.8'

26.0 100.0

8-4-5 N=12

7-8-8 N=15

1-8-9 N=9

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

CLAY

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

M O

IS

T

U R

E

L L

/P I

C L

A S

S

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N (U

S C

S

Split Spoon Shelby Tube

WD

IAD

AD

Sheet 1 of 1

PROJECT NUMBER

MOBILE B-53

LOCATION

8/29/22

Megan DuBose

STARTED:

DRILL CO.:

DRILLER:

METHOD:

8/29/22

CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER

ADDITIONAL

DATA/

REMARKS

Wilson Way, San Antonio, Texas

RABA KISTNER

D E

P T

H (f t)

Q21-02913

U N

C

S T

R

(t sf

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y (p cf

FINISHED:

DRILL RIG:

LOGGED BY:

Repair Wilson Way

PROJECT NAME CLIENT

Joint Base San Antonio

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

BOREHOLE REPORT NO. B-4

B L

O W

S /6

N

-V A

L U

E

OLSSON, INC.

U

SS

U

SS

U

ASPHALT

3 inches of asphalt.

AGGREGATE BASE

12 inches of aggregate base.

FAT CLAY

High plasticity, moist, very stiff, dark brown, (CH).

FAT CLAY

High plasticity, moist, very stiff, tan, (CH).

BASE OF BORING AT 16.8 FEET

0.3'

1.3'

3.0'

16.8'

28.0 108/81CH 92.0

3-5-5 N=8

4-7-8 N=11

5-7-8 N=12

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

CLAY

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

M O

IS

T

U R

E

L L

/P I

C L

A S

S

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N (U

S C

S

Split Spoon Shelby Tube

WD

IAD

AD

Sheet 1 of 1

PROJECT NUMBER

MOBILE B-53

LOCATION

8/29/22

Megan DuBose

STARTED:

DRILL CO.:

DRILLER:

METHOD:

8/29/22

CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER

ADDITIONAL

DATA/

REMARKS

Wilson Way, San Antonio, Texas

RABA KISTNER

D E

P T

H (f t)

Q21-02913

U N

C

S T

R

(t sf

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y (p cf

FINISHED:

DRILL RIG:

LOGGED BY:

Repair Wilson Way

PROJECT NAME CLIENT

Joint Base San Antonio

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

BOREHOLE REPORT NO. B-5

B L

O W

S /6

N

-V A

L U

E

OLSSON, INC.

U

SS

U

SS

U

ASPHALT

4 inches of asphalt.

AGGREGATE BASE

10 inches of aggregate base.

FAT CLAY

High plasticity, moist, very stiff, dark brown, (CH).

FAT CLAY

High plasticity, moist, very stiff, tan, (CH).

BASE OF BORING AT 16.8 FEET

0.3'

1.2'

5.0'

16.8'

29.0

64/44GC

92.0

3-8-11 N=11

5-6-9 N=11

6-7-8 N=13

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

CLAY

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

M O

IS

T

U R

E

L L

/P I

C L

A S

S

IF

IC

A

T

IO

N (U

S C

S

Split Spoon Shelby Tube

WD

IAD

AD

Sheet 1 of 1

PROJECT NUMBER

MOBILE B-53

LOCATION

8/29/22

Megan DuBose

STARTED:

DRILL CO.:

DRILLER:

METHOD:

8/29/22

CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER

ADDITIONAL

DATA/

REMARKS

Wilson Way, San Antonio, Texas

RABA KISTNER

D E

P T

H (f t)

Q21-02913

U N

C

S T

R

(t sf

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y (p cf

FINISHED:

DRILL RIG:

LOGGED BY:

Repair Wilson Way

PROJECT NAME CLIENT

Joint Base San Antonio

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

BOREHOLE REPORT NO. B-6

B L

O W

S /6

N

-V A

L U

E

OLSSON, INC.

U

SS

U

SS

U

ASPHALT

3 inches of asphalt.

AGGREGATE BASE

12 inches of aggregate base.

FAT CLAY

With gravel, high plasticity, moist, very stiff, dark brown, (CH).

FAT CLAY

With gravel, high plasticity, moist, very stiff, tan, (CH).

BASE OF BORING AT 16.8 FEET

0.3'

1.2'

3.5'

16.8'

24.0 120/9196.0

4-3-4 N=7

5-7-9 N=12

6-7-8 N=13

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

N U

M B

E R

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(f t)

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

Not Encountered

CLAY