ESBD_493585_1774544868419_Addendum #2 734-03022026-KM Women's Softball Turf Replacement.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

FOR

WOMEN’S SOFTBALL FIELD

TURF REPLACEMENT

RFP #734-03022026-KM

ADDENDUM 2

Submittal Due Dates:

Qualifications & Pricing and Delivery Proposal:

Tuesday, April 7, 2026

2:00 p.m. CST/CDT

HUB Subcontracting Plan:

Wednesday, April 8, 2026

12:00 p.m. CST/CDT

Addendum #2

RFP #734-03022026-KM

WOMEN’S SOFTBALL FIELD TURF REPLACEMENT

QUESTIONS

1. Are the storm lines and inlets shown on sheet C100 part of this project or a separate project? Sheets C200, C400, C500, CD100, CE100 contain a note that states "Offsite

Drainage and Grading Improvements. (Completed by Fitz and Shipman)".

Yes. Storm sewer on C100 within the “LIMITS OF WORK INCLUDED IN

CONTRACT” outline shown on the drawing is part of the project. This includes the proposed storm sewer between the outfield fence and earthen berm.

2. Is the berm extension shown on sheet C201 part of this project or a separate project?

Sheets C200, C400, C500, CD100, CE100 contain a note that states "Offsite Drainage and Grading Improvements. (Completed by Fitz and Shipman)".

Yes. The berm extension on C201 within the “LIMITS OF WORK INCLUDED IN

CONTRACT” outline shown on the drawing is part of the project.

3. Sheet CD100 shows the demolition of the existing storm pipe. However. There is a 19A callout at the yard drains attached to this line for them to remain. Do the yard drains need to be demoed along with the pipe?

Yes. Yard drains should be demolished. Note 19A for yard drains should read 18A.

4. Exhibit A of the RFP contains an "Alternate 1 Price: (if required in drawings)". We did not see any references to an alternate in the drawings. We would just like to confirm that there aren't any alternates being requested on this project.

Not aware of any alternates.

5. Will a Project Construction Sign be required for this project?

Yes.

6. Sheet C070 detail 73D calls for 10' chemical injection per geotechnical report. I do not see a report in the bid documents. It is also mentioned in specification section 310010 1.2

C "Geotechnical Engineering Report by Tolunay-Wong Engineers, Inc. dated July 2, 2025". Will you please provide.

See Geotechnical Engineering Report below

7. Good afternoon, will there be a bid bond required for this project? If so, what percentage shall we order the bond for?

Bond requirements: Performance and Payment Bond. See Attachment E.

8. Shock pad substitution request.

Submitted for review.

9. We did not see any recommended turf manufactures in the specs. Please confirm if we are to use a certain manufacturer.

We typically do not specify a turf manufacturer is our specs. Just the criteria that the turf product will need to meet. (pile weight, density, etc.)

Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Materials Testing • Geophysical Services • Deep Foundations Testing • Environmental Field Services

Geotechnical Engineering Report Softball Field Improvements

Lamar University Beaumont, Texas

Prepared for:

Lamar University

P.O. Box 10112 Beaumont, Texas 77710

Prepared by:

Tolunay-Wong Engineers, Inc.

2455 West Cardinal Drive Beaumont, Texas 77705

TWE Project No. 25.23.082 / Report No. 165939 (Revision 2)

Date:

July 2, 2025

TWE

Project No. 25.23.082

Report No. 165939 (Revision 2)

July 2, 2025

Lamar University P.O. Box 10112 Beaumont, Texas 77710

Attn: Mr. Phillipe Arroyas parroyas@lamar.edu

Ref: Geotechnical Engineering Report Softball Field Improvements Lamar University Beaumont, Texas TWE Project No. 25.23.082 / Report No. 165939 (Revision 2)

Dear Mr. Arroyas, Tolunay-Wong Engineers, Inc. (TWE) is pleased to submit this geotechnical report for the referenced project. This report contains a brief description of the project, the scope of services provided and our geotechnical recommendations associated with the project. Our scope of services was performed in accordance with TWE Proposal No. P25-B221 dated May 9, 2025 and authorized by Assignment No.

09 under our existing Indefinite Quantity Professional Services Agreement between Lamar University and Tolunay-Wong Engineers, Inc. executed on May 20, 2025.

Project Overview

The project includes the installation of a new synthetic turf playing surface at the softball field for Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. Our understanding of the project is based on discussions with the Architect on June 3 and June 17, 2024. We understand the proposed artificial turf section will include a granular drainage layer 2-ft beneath the surficial turf with a perimeter drainage system.

Scope of Services

The purposes of our geotechnical services were to evaluate the subsurface conditions within the project site and to provide geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the new turf field. Our scope of services for the project consisted of:

1. Performing three (3) test borings to depths of 15-ft below existing grade within the proposed sports field to evaluate the subsurface stratigraphy and groundwater conditions;

2. Performing geotechnical laboratory tests on the recovered soil samples to evaluate the physical and engineering properties of the subsurface materials encountered;

3. Providing geotechnical design recommendations for the artificial turf playing surface including determination of subgrade support and potential vertical rise (PVR) as well as suitable stabilization measures; and, Softball Field Improvements Lamar University - Beaumont, Texas

TWE

Project No. 25.23.082

Report No. 165939 (Revision 2)

4. Providing geotechnical construction recommendations including site development, subgrade preparation, excavation considerations, fill and backfill placement, compaction requirements and overall quality control guidelines.

Field Program

Test Borings TWE conducted explorations of subsurface soil and groundwater conditions within the site on May 21, 2025. We performed three (3) test borings to depths of 15-ft below existing grade within the softball field. The boring locations are presented on TWE Drawing No. 24.23.082-1 in Appendix A.

Drilling Methods

The test borings were performed in general accordance with the Standard Practice for Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings (ASTM D1452) using conventional highland buggy-mounted drilling equipment. The boreholes were advanced to completion with dry-auger drilling methods. Soil samples were obtained continuously to a depth of 12-ft, and 13-ft to 15-ft. Upon completion of drilling and sampling, the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite chips.

Soil Sampling

Fine-grained, cohesive soil samples were recovered from the borings by hydraulically pushing a 3-in diameter, thin-walled Shelby tube a distance of about 24-in. The field sampling procedures were conducted in general accordance with the Standard Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils (ASTM D1587). Our Geotechnician visually classified the recovered soils and obtained field strength measurements of the recovered soils using a pocket penetrometer. The tube samples were extruded in the field, wrapped in foil, placed in moisture-sealed plastic bags and protected from disturbance during transportation to the laboratory.

Boring Logs

Our interpretations of general subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at test boring locations are included on the boring logs in Appendix B. Our interpretations of the soil types throughout the boring depths and the locations of strata changes were based on visual classifications during field sampling and laboratory testing in accordance with the Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) [ASTM D2487] and the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure) [ASTM D2488]. The logs include the type and interval depth for each sample along with their corresponding field strength or resistance values. A key to terms and symbols used on boring logs is also presented in Appendix B.

Groundwater Level Measurements

Groundwater level measurements were attempted in the open boreholes during dry-auger drilling.

Measurements were attempted initially when groundwater was first encountered and at 5-min intervals over a 15-min time period. The groundwater measurements observed within the test borings are included on the project boring logs in Appendix B and summarized in Table 3 on the following page.

TWE

Project No. 25.23.082

Report No. 165939 (Revision 2)

Laboratory Services

Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM International standards. The types and brief descriptions of the laboratory tests performed are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Laboratory Testing Program

Test Description Test Method Amount of Material in Soils Finer than No. 200 Sieve ASTM D1140

Water (Moisture) Content of Soil ASTM D2216 Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression on Cohesive Soils ASTM D2850

Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils ASTM D4318 Density (Unit Weight) of Soil Specimens ASTM D7263

Standard laboratory test results are presented on the boring logs included in Appendix B.

Surface and Subsurface Conditions

Our interpretations of subsurface conditions within the project site are based on subsurface information obtained at the specific boring locations referenced herein. The project site is relatively flat with surface conditions consisting of grass cover at the time of our field program. The generalized subsurface profile assumed for our engineering analysis is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 2: Generalized Subsurface Profile Depth Range (ft) Layer Description

0 – 1 Existing Sand and Sandy Clay Fill 1 – 15 Soft to Stiff Clay

Please note the subsurface conditions encountered in the individual project borings can vary from the generalized design soil conditions described in the above table assumed for engineering analysis purposes. Detailed subsurface soil conditions are provided on the individual boring logs in Appendix B.

Table3: Groundwater Level Measurements

Test Boring Free Water Depth (ft)

15-min Static Water Depth (ft)

15-min Collapsed Borehole Depth (ft)

TB-1 14.0 13.0 15.0

TB-2

N/A1)

TB-3

1) Static water level reading was not obtained during dry auger drilling.

TWE

Project No. 25.23.082

Report No. 165939 (Revision 2)

Shrink/Swell Potential The tendency for soil to shrink and swell with change in moisture content is a function of clay content and type which are generally reflected in soil consistency as defined by the Atterberg Limits. A generalized relationship between shrink/swell potential and the soil plasticity index is shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Relationship Between Plasticity Index and Shrink/Swell Potential

Plasticity Index Range Shrink/Swell Potential

0 – 15 Low

15 – 25 Medium

25 – 35 High

> 35 Very High *Based on Table 12-2 of the International Code Council (ICC) Geotechnical Engineers Handbook (2nd Edition).

The amount of expansion which will actually occur with increase in moisture content is inversely related to the overburden pressure. Therefore, the larger the overburden pressure, the smaller the amount of expansion. Near-surface soils are thus susceptible to shrink/swell behavior because they experience low amounts of overburden.

The zone of seasonal moisture variation (active zone) within the project site is believed to be limited to the upper 6-ft depth range of existing grade based on the Consortium for Education and Research in Geoengineering Practice (CERGEP) Contour Map published by Texas A&M University (August 2019). Considering the plasticity characteristics of the existing site subgrade soils encountered from 0-ft to 6-ft below existing grade, the current site conditions appear to possess very high shrink/swell potential with estimated Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) movements ranging from 1.8-in for wet, 2.5-in for average and 3.3-in for dry soil conditions, respectively. These estimates are based on Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Method TEX-124-E for determination of PVR and our experience with similar soils. These estimates consider existing site grade and subsurface conditions at the time of our field program in addition to our noted assumptions.

Shrink/swell movement is generally a design concern for lightly-loaded slabs-on-grade or mat foundations. For spread footings, shrink/swell movement potential is generally less than that of slabs-on-grade because non-expansive, structural fill materials are generally used to backfill around the footing excavation. The use of non-expansive structural fill material, consistent with the recommendations on Page 6, will reduce the estimated PVR.

Approximately 1-in of PVR is generally accepted as a maximum allowable value for foundation design in the geographical area. We understand the Turf Manufacturer has determined 1.5-in to 2-in of PVR is tolerable without damage to the turf system, our recommendations for ground improvements options to reduce PVR to a tolerable magnitude are discussed in the Synthetic Turf Softball Field section on the following page.

TWE

Project No. 25.23.082

Report No. 165939 (Revision 2)

Synthetic Turf Softball Field

We anticipate the improved softball field will be covered by synthetic turf with an underlying granular drainage layer and a separation liner over an improved subgrade. Typically, a design and performance concern with playing surfaces supported by active soils is the shrink/swell potential of the site soils.

We estimate potential shrink/swell movements to be ranging from 1.8-in for wet, 2.5-in for average and 3.3-in for dry soil conditions, respectively. Remediation of PVR at this site will require ground improvement to reduce to PVR to tolerable levels on the order of 1.5-in to 2-in or less. Below we have provided three (3) options for remediation. Each of our remediation options assumes the non-plastic granular drainage layer will be on the order of 2-ft thick. Options 1 and 2 will reduce PVR to within 1.5-in to 2-in, Option 3 could potentially reduce PVR to 1-in or less without over excavation.

Option 1 – Removal and Replacement/Lime Stabilization without Impervious Liner This option consists of lime-stabilizing the high-plasticity site soils or overexcavation and replacement with low-plasticity structural fill a minimum of 4-ft below existing grade without the use of an impermeable liner to maintain moisture control below the granular drainage layer. Lime stabilized site soils and/or structural fill soils should comply with our recommendations herein. Removal and replacement/lime stabilization should be performed a minimum of 4-ft laterally beyond the turf limits.

Option 2 – Drainage Layer with Impervious Liner and Positive Drainage This option consists of installing an impermeable liner to maintain moisture control below the granular drainage layer. The impermeable liner will limit seasonal moisture content variation to mitigate the impact from periods of extreme wet and dry conditions. Sitewide stabilization or removal and replacement of subgrade soils below the liner will not be necessary with this option for the purpose of reducing PVR. Localized subgrade improvements should be performed as needed to address areas of soft or saturated soils as delineated during the proof roll procedure described on the following page. A means of positive drainage of the granular soils should be installed to remove excess moisture from the granular soils during wet weather events and prevent storage of significant amounts of perched water above the liner.

Option 3 – Potassium Injection TWE consulted with specialty ground improvement contractor Keller USA, Inc. (Keller) to discuss potential mitigation techniques which would not require over excavation to stabilize the site soils and reduce PVR to tolerable levels. Keller recommends the use of potassium injection techniques to a depth of 6-ft below final grade to reduce PVR within the site to as low as 1-in or less depending on dosage. If considered for this project, additional sampling and free swell testing (ASTM D4546) should be performed to verify the dosage required to limit swell potential to the desired level across the site.

Keller’s guidelines and specifications for potassium injection, including installation and quality control procedures are presented in Appendix C for reference.

Site Development

We assume the existing grade at the site will be similar to final grade and that the site will be stripped and graded to promote positive drainage. The following report sections provide general stripping, subgrade proofrolling, lime treatment and various fill/backfill recommendations.

TWE

Project No. 25.23.082

Report No. 165939 (Revision 2)

Stripping Areas designated for new construction should be stripped of vegetation, organics, debris, rubble and other deleterious materials to the depth of competent subgrade capable of supporting proofrolling activities. The geotechnical design recommendations provided in this report are based on addressing areas where soft or otherwise unsuitable materials are encountered during proofrolling as recommended herein. The actual depth of stripping required ranges from 2-ft to 4-ft below existing grade dependent upon the method of shrink/swell control utilized.

After stripping, the site should be graded to establish positive drainage so ponding of surface water does not collect and inhibit site access or construction activities. After site grading is completed to establish positive drainage, the exposed subgrade soils should be proofrolled as indicated below.

Subgrade Proofrolling Prior to placing fill we recommend proofrolling new construction areas to check for zones of weak or compressible soils which could be present. The effective depth of proofrolling will depend on the vehicle weight and tire pressures. We recommend proofrolling be performed using a 15-ton minimum weight rubber-tired pneumatic compactor or a loaded dump truck to detect significant weak areas.

We do not recommend using off-road earth moving equipment (e.g. loaders or scrapers) or tracked vehicles for proofrolling. Proofrolling should be performed during dry periods and not immediately after wet weather events. Proofrolling should extend at least 5-ft beyond the construction limits.

Proofrolling should be observed and documented by TWE and areas which do not meet acceptance criteria should be delineated. Remedial options could include scarifying and recompacting, excavation and replacement and/or chemical treatment. If proofrolling demonstrates ruts more than 1-in and less than 2-in deep, we recommend the surficial 6-in of material be scarified and recompacted. For areas where ruts exceed 2-in deep, we recommend surficial 12-in of material be scarified and recompacted. The exposed subgrade soils should be moisture-conditioned to within 2% dry to 3% wet of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 (standard Proctor). If scarification and recompaction does not improve the subgrade conditions, we recommend overexcavation and replacement with structural fill materials or chemical stabilization of the in-situ materials be considered to similar depths or deeper, if required.

Proper site drainage should be maintained during construction so ponding of surface runoff does not occur. If the subgrade is exposed to excess moisture, the natural soils will likely soften and lose capacity. Once the soils soften and lose capacity, it generally becomes necessary to either consider drying efforts, removal and replacement of the wet material with structural fill or stabilization using various reagents.

Lime-Treated Clay Subgrade If the chemical stabilization option is preferred, we recommend the native clay subgrade soils be stabilized with hydrated lime in accordance with TxDOT 2014 Standard Specifications Item 260. We estimate 6% hydrated lime by dry weight of soil will be required for stabilization of the existing clay soils at this site. The quantity of lime required should be determined via laboratory treatability testing such as plasticity index reduction versus percent lime.

TWE

Project No. 25.23.082

Report No. 165939 (Revision 2)

The lime used should be Type A hydrated lime or Type B commercial slurry conforming to TxDOT Item 264. The stabilized soil should be compacted to a minimum 95% of the standard Proctor compaction effort (ASTM D698) at above the optimum moisture content.

Structural Fill For removal and replacement option, structural fill should consist of a material with a liquid limit (LL) less than 40 and plasticity index (PI) between 10 and 20. Structural fill should be placed in thin lifts, moisture-conditioned to within -2% to +3% of optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. Structural fill should be free of any organic matter or other deleterious material and should be placed in layers no thicker than 8-in.

Granular Drainage Fill Granular drainage fill materials and installation practices should be in strict compliance with the turf Manufacturer’s specifications. No recommendations included herein should be interpreted to replace or supersede the Manufacturer's specifications.

Fill/Backfill Testing We recommend any proposed source of fill or backfill soil be tested for compliance with the project specifications prior to use. In addition, it is imperative specific provisions be made to include testing of the actual soils used at the project site during construction to provide quality assurance the project specification requirements are maintained.

Prior to any filling or backfilling operations, samples of the proposed materials should be obtained for laboratory classification and moisture-density relationship testing. These tests will provide a basis for acceptance and evaluation of fill and backfill compaction by in-place density testing. TWE should be retained to perform sufficient in-place density tests during the filling and backfilling operations to verify proper levels of compaction are obtained. Field density tests should be performed at appropriate frequencies identified in the project plans and specifications.

Maximum loose lift thicknesses for fill and backfill placement will depend on the type of compaction equipment used. Recommended fill layer thicknesses are summarized in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Compaction Equipment and Maximum Lift Thickness

Compaction Equipment Maximum Lift Thickness Structural or General Fill using Hand-Operated Equipment 4-in

Structural Fill using Conventional Equipment 8-in

Excavation Considerations Excavation safety systems should be in accordance with current federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA) Standards, 29 CFR part 1926, subpart P, Excavations. Details for open-cut slope and excavation shoring based on soil type and groundwater conditions are provided in the latest amended OSHA federal regulations.

TWE

Project No. 25.23.082

Report No. 165939 (Revision 2)

Excavations should be designed in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal trenching regulations. The OSHA requirements do not generally require sloping or benching of shallow excavations to depths of 4-ft or less. However, if sloughing and caving is experienced, we recommend the slopes be cut back to a stable slope. Excavations deeper than 4-ft are required to be sloped back or braced according to OSHA regulations. Based on our interpretation of the regulations and the subsurface conditions indicated in the project borings, we classify the soils at this site as Type C soils.

Excavations deeper than about 4-ft should be either braced or sloped back no steeper than 1.5(H):1(V) in Type C soils. Flatter slopes or bracing should be used if sloughing or raveling is observed.

Limitations

Scope of Study The scope of this study, as well as the conclusions and recommendations provided herein, were developed based on our understanding of the project. Assumptions were made when specific information was unknown. Revisions to our conclusions and recommendations could be necessary as a result of any significant project changes or if our assumptions are incorrect.

Warranty The professional services which form the basis for this report have been performed using a degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical engineers practicing in the same locality. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice set forth.

Subsurface Variations Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on data obtained at the specific TB locations only and only at the times of our field explorations. Subsurface variations could exist at areas not explored. The validity of our recommendations is based, in part, on assumptions made about subsurface conditions in areas not explored. Such assumptions can only be confirmed during construction. Therefore, construction observations by TWE are recommended to check for variations in subsurface conditions. Significant changes from our assumptions could require modification to our findings and recommendations.

Report Reliance This report was prepared as an instrument of service for the sole and exclusive use by Lamar University and their project team subject to the limitations stated herein and with specific application to the referenced project. This report should not be applied for any other purpose or project except as described herein.

This report shall remain the property of TWE. No third party may use or rely upon the information provided herein without our express written consent. If any party other than Lamar University and their project team chooses to rely on this instrument without our consent, said party expressly waives any rights it may otherwise have to claim its reliance on this instrument of professional service that resulted in injury, loss, or damage of any kind and will defend and indemnify TWE from any such claim.

TWE

Project No. 25.23.082

Report No. 165939 (Revision 2)

Report Distribution This report is intended to be used in its entirety. This report should be considered in whole and should not be distributed or made available in partial form.

Design Review/Construction Monitoring

Review of the design and construction drawings should be performed by TWE before release. The review is aimed at determining if the geotechnical design and construction recommendations contained in this report have been properly interpreted. Design review was not within the authorized scope of work at the time of this report.

Construction surveillance by TWE is recommended and has been assumed in preparing our recommendations. These field services are required to check for changes in conditions which could result in modifications to our recommendations. The quality of the construction practices will affect pavement performance and should be monitored by TWE.

Closing

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services for this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us.

Sincerely, TOLUNAY-WONG ENGINEERS, INC.

TBPELS Firm Registration No. 124

Trey O’Connor, P.E. Jeremy O’Burke, P.E.

Branch Manager Project Manager toconnor@tweinc.com joburke@tweinc.com TO/JO/jo

Appendix A – Boring Location Plan

Appendix B – Test Boring Logs and Key to Terms and Symbols

Jeremy O’Burke P E g

Trrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeyeeeee O’Connor P E

2025.07.02 09:52:46 -05'00'

TWE

Project No. 25.23.082

Report No. 165939 (Revision 2)

APPENDIX A

TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN

COPYRIGHT © 2025 GOOGLE EARTH. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

COPYRIGHT © 2025 GOOGLE MAP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TB-2 TB-3

TB-1

EAST CARDINAL DRIVE

TX HWY-96

TX HWY-287

TWE

Project No. 25.23.082

Report No. 165939 (Revision 2)

APPENDIX B

TEST BORING LOGS AND KEY

TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS

FILL: SAND (6")

Firm gray FAT CLAY (CH) -with aggregate from 0.5' to 2' -with sand pockets and organics from 2' to 4'

-becomes brown from 4' to 15'

-with ferrous and calcareous nodules from 8' to 15' -slickensided from 8' to 10'

-becomes stiff and slickensided at 13'

Bottom @ 15'

(P)1.00

(P)1.25

(P)0.75

(P)0.50

(P)1.00

(P)1.00

(P)1.75

0.68 15

Tolunay-Wong Engineers, Inc.

LOG OF BORING TB-1

PROJECT: Softball Field Improvement

Lamar - Beaumont, Texas CLIENT: Lamar University

Beaumont, Texas

COMPLETION DEPTH: 15 ft NOTES: Free Water Depth = 14.0-ft. 15-min Static Water Depth = 13.0-ft. 15 -min Total Hole Depth = 15.0-ft. Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite chips.

DATE BORING STARTED: 5/21/25

DATE BORING COMPLETED: 5/21/25

LOGGER: Jerry L.

PROJECT NO.: 25.23.082 Page 1 of 1

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T)

D

EP

TH

(F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SY

M

BO

L

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

COORDINATES:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

DRILLING METHOD:

Dry Augered: to Wash Bored: to

(P ) P

O C

KE

T

PE

N

(t sf

(T

) T O

R

VA

N E

(ts f)

ST

D

. P

EN

ET

R

AT

IO

N

TE

ST

B

LO

W

C O

U N

T

N

M O

IS

TU

R E

C O

N

TE

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W

EI

G H

T (p cf

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

PL

AS

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

LA

B

M

IN

I V

AN

E

SH

EA

R

(t sf

C

O M

PR

ES

SI

VE

ST

R

EN

G

TH

(t sf

FA

IL

U R

E

ST

R

AI

N

C O

N

FI

N

IN

G

PR

ES

SU

R E

(p si

PA

SS

IN

G

SI

EV

E

O

TH

ER

T

ES

TS

PE

R

FO

R M

ED--

0' 15'

30° 02' 01.33" 94° 04' 24.29"

N W

FILL: SAND (6")

FILL: Stiff gray LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL), with organics Stiff gray FAT CLAY (CH) -with organics from 2 to 4'

-soft from 4' to 6'

-firm and slickensided from 6' to 8'

-becomes firm at 10' -with ferrous and calcareous nodules from 10' to 15'

Bottom @ 15'

(P)2.00

(P)1.25

(P)0.50

(P)0.75

(P)1.75

(P)1.25

(P)1.25

1.27 10

Tolunay-Wong Engineers, Inc.

LOG OF BORING TB-2

PROJECT: Softball Field Improvement

Lamar - Beaumont, Texas CLIENT: Lamar University

Beaumont, Texas

COMPLETION DEPTH: 15 ft NOTES: Free water was not encountered during dry auger drilling. Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite chips.DATE BORING STARTED: 5/21/25

DATE BORING COMPLETED: 5/21/25

LOGGER: Jerry L.

PROJECT NO.: 25.23.082 Page 1 of 1

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T)

D

EP

TH

(F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SY

M

BO

L

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

COORDINATES:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

DRILLING METHOD:

Dry Augered: to Wash Bored: to

(P ) P

O C

KE

T

PE

N

(t sf

(T

) T O

R

VA

N E

(ts f)

ST

D

. P

EN

ET

R

AT

IO

N

TE

ST

B

LO

W

C O

U N

T

N

M O

IS

TU

R E

C O

N

TE

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W

EI

G H

T (p cf

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

PL

AS

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

LA

B

M

IN

I V

AN

E

SH

EA

R

(t sf

C

O M

PR

ES

SI

VE

ST

R

EN

G

TH

(t sf

FA

IL

U R

E

ST

R

AI

N

C O

N

FI

N

IN

G

PR

ES

SU

R E

(p si

PA

SS

IN

G

SI

EV

E

O

TH

ER

T

ES

TS

PE

R

FO

R M

ED--

0' 15'

30° 01' 59.81" 94° 04' 25.32"

FILL: SAND (6")

FILL: Stiff gray SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), with organics Stiff gray FAT CLAY (CH) -with organics from 2' to 4'

-with sand pockets and shell fragments from 4' to 6' -becomes firm at 4'

-slickensided with ferrous and calcareous nodules from 8' to 15' -soft from 8' to 10'

Bottom @ 15'

(P)2.00

(P)1.75

(P)0.75

(P)0.75

(P)0.50

(P)1.25

(P)1.00

0.77 15

Tolunay-Wong Engineers, Inc.

LOG OF BORING TB-3

PROJECT: Softball Field Improvement

Lamar - Beaumont, Texas CLIENT: Lamar University

Beaumont, Texas

COMPLETION DEPTH: 15 ft NOTES: Free water was not encountered during dry auger drilling. Borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite chips.DATE BORING STARTED: 5/21/25

DATE BORING COMPLETED: 5/21/25

LOGGER: Jerry L.

PROJECT NO.: 25.23.082 Page 1 of 1

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T)

D

EP

TH

(F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SY

M

BO

L

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

COORDINATES:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

DRILLING METHOD:

Dry Augered: to Wash Bored: to

(P ) P

O C

KE

T

PE

N

(t sf

(T

) T O

R

VA

N E

(ts f)

ST

D

. P

EN

ET

R

AT

IO

N

TE

ST

B

LO

W

C O

U N

T

N

M O

IS

TU

R E

C O

N

TE

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W

EI

G H

T (p cf

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

PL

AS

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

LA

B

M

IN

I V

AN

E

SH

EA

R

(t sf

C

O M

PR

ES

SI

VE

ST

R

EN

G

TH

(t sf

FA

IL

U R

E

ST

R

AI

N

C O

N

FI

N

IN

G

PR

ES

SU

R E

(p si

PA

SS

IN

G

SI

EV

E

O

TH

ER

T

ES

TS

PE

R

FO

R M

ED--

0' 15'

30° 01' 59.86" 94° 04' 23.27"

TWE

Project No. 25.23.082

Report No. 165939 (Revision 2)

APPENDIX C

KELLER POTASSIUM INJECTION SPECIFICATIONS

GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS

FOR POTASSIUM INJECTION

SCOPE

This work shall consist of potassium chemical injection performed and tested in accordance with these specifications and as shown on the contract drawings.

QUALIFICATIONS

The contractor performing the work described in the specification shall submit a list containing at least five projects on which the contractor has performed potassium chemical injection. A brief description of each project and a reference shall be included for each project listed. As a minimum, the reference shall include an individual’s name and current phone number.

The contractor must be able to provide documentation from reputable sources substantiating its ability to reduce swell of clays with a long-term change in clay modification (not through pre-swelling only) utilizing Potassium based solutions. Applicator shall provide a potassium injection service as well as on-site supervision by trained professionals. Only firms regularly engaged in and properly equipped to carry out the procedures of these specifications shall be qualified for this work.

The installer and engineer’s testing laboratory shall have at least three years of experience. The engineer shall approve or reject the contractor’s qualifications and staff within 15 working days after receipt of the submission. Work shall not be started nor materials ordered until approval of the qualifications are given.

The engineer may suspend the work if the contractor substitutes unqualified personnel for approved personnel during construction. If work is suspended due to the substitution of unqualified personnel, the contractor shall be liable for additional costs resulting from the suspension of work and no adjustment in contract time resulting from the suspension of work will be allowed.

The chemical which is used for modification on this project will be Potassium-based. Other materials, such as lime, ion-exchangers, and sulfonated oils are not acceptable for use on this project. The Potassium based material must be of a nature as to thoroughly penetrate the clay lattice structure.

Modifying chemicals are: Potassium Chloride and Ammonium Lignosulfonate (Lignosulfonic Acid). The minimum quantity (gallons) of Potassium solution injected at the site will be determined by soil conditions on a case by case basis, but should be no less than 0.3 lbs per cubic foot of soil (dry unit weight). The minimum quantity shall be uniformly injected throughout the injected area and shall be accomplished in a single pass. The target spacing for the holes of the first injection pass shall be 4 feet by 4 feet. Subsequent injection shall be offset from initial locations in a pattern that maximizes distribution of the mixture.

Equipment shall be suitable for the intended work. Injection equipment should be self-propelled and constructed to provide straight pipe injection under pressure. Injection pressures shall not exceed 50 to 100 psi.

Injection pipe shall be forced downward (not jetted or washed) in 12 to 18 inch intervals (minimum 14 intervals) for a total depth as prescribed by contract drawings for each building area. Continue injection of flued at each interval until refusal at all probes (i.e. until soil will not take any more and fluid is running freely on the surface, either out of previous injection holes or has fractured the ground in several places around refusal).

Exposed surfaces of the injected area should be sealed or otherwise protected against moisture loss until the select fill is placed.

SUBMITTALS

The contractor shall prepare and submit to the engineer for review and approval: layout drawings, material components of chemical, a project history of similar size and scope over the last 3 years, personnel resumes and a detailed work plan describing the injection systems intended for use. The submissions shall be made 30 calendar days prior to the commencement of the injection work.

The engineer shall approve or reject the contractor’s submittals within 5 working days after receipt of the submission.

TESTING

Post-treatment evaluation shall be based on one-dimension laboratory swell tests conducted by the owner’s Geotechnical Engineer. Soils samples used for laboratory swell tests shall be undisturbed samples retrieved by using a thin-walled seamless tube sampler to a depth equal to the specified injection depth.

Sampling shall be at a rate of one sample boring per 2,500 square feet of treated area, or a minimum of 2 sample borings, whichever is greater. Sample borings shall be taken at an equal distance from injection points. Continuous samples shall be obtained from the entire treated depth. Samples shall be extruded from the tube, wrapped in plastic, sealed to prevent moisture loss, and protected from disturbance.

A minimum of 4 one-dimension swell tests shall be performed from each sample boring between each of the following ranges: 0 to 5 feet; 5 to 10 feet; 10 to 15 feet; and 15 to 20 feet (where applicable). One-dimension swell tests shall be conducted in a manner similar to that of ASTM D 4546 Method B. Test results shall be reported for a swell of 48 hours duration under a single surcharge simulating overburden pressure after construction of the building. The swell test shall be continued beyond 48 hours if the sample exhbits a 0.25 percent or greater change in sample height during the 36 to 48 hour test interval. Moisture and hand penetrometer determinations will be made on one-foot intervals in all borings. The average swell from each boring sampled shall not exceed 1.0 percent.

Where swell criteria is not met in any of the borings a determination of the building area, or portion thereof, will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer and the area reinjected. Retreatment and acceptance of testing will be performed over the entire injection depth.

Final acceptance, by the owner, shall be based on an evaluation of the test data by the Owner and Owner’s Geotechnical Engineer. The injected area will not be accepted until the requirements for swell testing are met.