Geotech_Report_-_Beulah_Road_I-10_to_Isaacs_Lane_10.10.25.pdf

This document has been electronically signed and sealed by Keith V. Jacobs (license # 66577) on October 10, 2025. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed, and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

H hhn htttttttttttt

Beulah Road Resurfacing I-10 to Isaacs Lane Escambia County, Florida LMJ File 24-372 October 10, 2025

Prepared for

Mr. Brad Collins, PE

Michael.Collins@hdrinc.com

Prepared by

Larry M. Jacobs & Associates, Inc.

328 East Gadsden Street, Pensacola, Florida 32501 FL Certificate of Authorization #2184

Keith V. Jacobs, PE Principal Engineer FL Reg. #66577 mailto:Michael.Collins@hdrinc.com

Beulah Road Resurfacing 1-10 to Isaacs Lane LMJ Project 24-372 E October 10, 2025

Roadway Conditions Summary ▼ The existing pavement within the project limits is generally in poor condition with rutting, alligator cracking, pop outs, and regular longitudinal and block cracking. A summary of the pavement conditions is here.

▼ A roughly 600-foot segment of the project at the intersection with Deer’s Run Boulevard appears to have been recently widened and resurfaced, and this section was in relatively good condition with a few cracks and minor edge raveling.

▼ The core thickness varied between 3¼ - 4¼ inches except B-34 with 7¾ inches of asphalt and B-38 (recently overlain area) with 1⅞ inches of asphalt.

▼ The asphalt consistency varied with some cores having multiple layers including sand asphalt. Layer thickness and core conditions are shown in the photos.

▼ The base material also varied and included sand-clay type base (Stratum 1), Graded Aggregate Base (Stratum 2), or no discernable base (Strata 3 and 4). The base thickness varied between 2-21 inches.

▼ Beneath the asphalt and base, most borings encountered silty sand with some trace clay (Strata 3 and 4) to the bottom of the borings at 6 feet.

▼ Borings B-41 through B-43 had slightly clayey and clayey silty sand (Stratum 5) from 2-3 feet to the bottom of these borings at 6 feet. B-44 had sandy clay (Stratum 6) from 3 feet to the bottom of this boring at 6 feet.

▼ The soil density under the roadway was dense and medium dense with a loose zone at the bottom of B-37.

▼ Groundwater did not appear to be encountered in the 6-foot borings at the time of drilling, but determining accurate groundwater levels in firm silty/clayey soils is not practical without piezometers.

▼ The borings encountered conditions that could trap or perch groundwater on the firm Strata 3, 5, and 6 soils where overlain by the better draining Stratum 4 soils.

▼ Groundwater and perched water levels will vary with local rainfall and changes in site drainage characteristics and may be different at other times.

General Comments and Recommendations The existing roadway is in poor condition (except for the widened and resurfaced segment), and the alligator cracking and rutting indicates structural issues with the base and/or subgrade.

The existing asphalt, except for the resurfaced area, was generally 3¼ - 4½ inches thick and of varied composition. Of the thirteen cores collected, four split horizontally (B-35, B-36, B-39, and B-40), and cores collected on cracks were cracked full depth. Milling and overlaying the roadway would not address the underlaying base/subgrade issues, and rutting and reflective cracking in the overlay is expected to occur. The cores that split indicate a poor bond between layers, and we recommend milling past split layers as much as practical because overlaying layers with poor bond can cause reduced performance and slippage cracking in the overlay.

Note: The above summary is an overview of the report and should not be used by itself for planning, design, and/or construction. See the relevant sections for further details.

Summary

Project Information The site is Beulah Road in Escambia County, Florida from south of the I-10 overpass approach to Isaacs Lane. We understand that the project includes milling and resurfacing the existing pavement for approximately 3,700 linear feet. No work is planned outside the existing roadway.

Pavement Evaluation Our engineering staff performed a visual evaluation of the existing pavement conditions. The asphalt roadway was cored at 13 locations, and the cores were collected and measured in our laboratory for thickness and were photographed. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were drilled at each of the core locations to a depth of 6 feet. The existing asphalt was sawcut at random locations to collect samples of the base and subgrade for laboratory testing. Photos of the cores can be found here, and the boring logs can be found here

Existing Pavement Conditions

The existing pavement within the project limits is generally in poor condition. At the project’s north end, a gap and depression/cracking was observed at the concrete approach slab in the southbound lane with block cracking near the centerline. South of the approach, transverse cracking and some rutting with longitudinal and block cracking in the ruts was observed.

Roughly 180 feet south of the approach, severe alligator cracking, rutting, and popout was observed in the northbound lane with transverse and longitudinal cracking in the southbound lane. Roughly 580 feet south of the approach, severe alligator cracking, rutting, and popout was observed in both lanes with significant patching in the northbound lane. These conditions continued to the south end of the project except for a roughly 600-foot segment that appears to have been recently widened and resurfaced at the intersection with Deer’s Run Blvd, which was in relatively good condition with a few cracks and minor edge raveling. A pavement change was observed at the south end of the project roughly 40 feet north of the recent Beulah Rd resurfacing, and this section had transverse and longitudinal cracking.

The core thickness varied between 3¼ - 4¼ inches except B-34 with 7¾ inches of asphalt and B-38 (rebuilt area) with 1⅞ inches of asphalt. The asphalt consistency varied with some cores having multiple layers including sand asphalt. Layer thickness and core conditions are shown in the photos. The table below summarizes the total asphalt thickness for each core.

Asphalt Materials Thickness Summary Table

Boring Total Asphalt

Thickness (in)

Boring Total Asphalt

Thickness (in)

B-33 3⅜ B-40 4¼

B-34 7¾ B-41 3½

B-35 3⅝ B-42 4⅛

B-36 3¼ B-43 3½

B-37 3¼ B-44 3⅞

B-38 1⅞ B-45 3⅜

B-39 4⅛

Project north end at concrete approach. Gap in pavement and depression SBL. Block cracking near centerline.

North end transverse cracking and block cracking in wheel path.

Approx. 180 feet south of approach, alligator cracking and popout in NBL.

Approx. 580 feet south of abutment.

Severe patching NBL.

Resurfaced segment at Deer’s Run Blvd.

Typical conditions south of resurfaced segment. Alligator cracking and rutting in wheel paths.

Conditions at B-42.

Alligator cracking, rutting in wheel paths, and popout. Sand-clay type base at this location.

Conditions at B-44.

Alligator cracking in wheel paths, rutting, and edge failures.

No discernible base at this location.

pavement Recommendations Pavement Recommendations

Milling and Resurfacing Comments and Recommendations The existing roadway is in poor condition (except for the widened and resurfaced segment), and the alligator cracking and rutting indicates structural issues with the base and/or subgrade.

The existing asphalt, except for the resurfaced area, was generally 3¼ - 4½ inches thick and of varied composition. Of the thirteen cores collected, four were split horizontally (B-35, B-36, B-39, and B-40), and cores collected on cracks were cracked full depth. Milling and overlaying the roadway would not address the underlaying base/subgrade issues, and reflective cracking in the overlay is expected to occur. The cores that split indicate a poor bond between layers, and we recommend milling past split layers as much as practical because overlaying layers with poor bond can cause reduced performance and slippage cracking in the overlay. The following measures have been shown to reduce but not eliminate reflective cracking:

▼ Any significant cracks in the milled surface should be carefully and completely cleaned before sealing because sealant failures most often occur due to poor adhesion.

▼ Cracks should be cleaned with high-pressure compressed air blasting to remove loose pavement, debris, and dirt to a depth of at least twice the crack width.

▼ Inspect cracks before sealing to ensure that they are clean, dry, and free of dirt, debris, or other contamination.

▼ Seal existing cracks before overlaying using hot applied sealant and place immediately after crack cleaning and drying.

▼ Crack sealing should take place when temperatures are warmer and large swings in temperature are not anticipated.

▼ Seal reflective cracks when they appear in the new overlay using routine maintenance.

Routine maintenance should also include control of vegetation along pavement edges.

▼ We recommend placing a tack coat on the milled surface prior to overlaying, and the milled surface should be carefully cleaned and swept/brushed prior to tack application.

▼ For the overlay, using a polymer modified binder (SBS) has been shown to improve binder properties and may reduce reflective cracking.

Asphalt Recommendations We recommend paving with FDOT structural and friction course Superpave Asphaltic Concrete (SP-12.5 is preferred) meeting the requirements of Section 334. We also recommend limiting Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) to no more than 25% of the mixture since mixes over 25% RAP have a higher potential for quality/performance issues. The asphalt should be compacted to a target of 92% of the laboratory maximum specific gravity (Gmm or Rice Specific Gravity) as determined by FM 1-T 209.

Quality Control Testing Asphalt temperature at the time of placement is critical to compaction, and we recommend documenting and verifying asphalt temperatures at the time of placement. After compaction, the asphalt should be cored to determine thickness and compaction. Cores should be taken every 300 feet. The bulk specific gravity (Gmb) of the cores should be determined in accordance with FM 1-T 166. The overlay should be sawcut from older layers to test compaction of overlay.

Pavement Recommendations

Boring Locations

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING

ALL BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

Boring Logs

N

B-33

GNE

08-12-25

(8 12")

(3 38")ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

N

B-34

24*

GNE

08-12-25

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (7 34")

N

B-35

GNE

08-13-25 ASPHALT (3 58")

1 78" 1 34"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (SEPERATED)

N

B-36

GNE

08-13-25

ASPHALT (3 14")

(CORE CRACKED FULL DEPTH)

8"

1 12"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

(SEPARATED)

N

B-37

GNE

8*

08-13-25

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (3 14")

N

B-38

GNE

08-13-25

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (1 78")

2 + 0 N

B-39

GNE

08-13-25

ASPHALT (4 18")

2" 1"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (SEPARATED)

N

B-40

GNE

37*

08-13-25

+ 1

8" SAND ASPHALT

1 18"

SAND ASPHALT (CRACKED

AND SEPARATED)

w=11.5 -200=27.7 w=8.3 -200=16.2 w=8.3 -200=19.7 w=6.5 -200=14.2 w=12.3 -200=16.8 w=9.9 -200=16.6 w=6.1 -200=10.5 w=10.2 -200=19.5 w=16.4 -200=15.0 w=5.6 -200=16.8

0-2 FT SAMPLE: -/3/8/16

*HAMMER BLOWS:

4-6 FT SAMPLE: 9/5/3/3

*HAMMER BLOWS:

1 (7 12")

(10")

2-4 FT SAMPLE: 27/29/8/20

*HAMMER BLOWS:

2 12" 5 14"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

SAND ASPHALT

ASPHALT (4 14")

2" 4"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

1 12" SAND ASPHALT

P 6 #y

ORANGE/RED SILTY SAND, SOME

TRACE CLAY (BASE)(A-2-4)

LIGHT GRAY CRUSHED LIMESTONE; GRADED

AGGREGATE BASE (BASE)(A-1-a, A-1-b)

TAN/BROWN, TAN/ORANGE SLIGHTLY SILTY

SAND AND SILTY SAND (-200<15%)(A-3)(A-2-4)

2 4

ORANGE, TAN, BROWN SILTY SAND,

TRACE CLAY (A-2-4)

TAN/ORANGE SLIGHTLY CLAYEY SILTY SAND

AND CLAYEY SILTY SAND (A-2-4)(A-2-6)(A-4)5

LIGHT GRAY/PURPLE/YELLOW MOTTLED SANDY CLAY

(A-7-6)6

Boring Logs

N

B-41

GNE

08-13-25 ASPHALT (3 12")

(7")

1 34"

1 34"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

(CRACKED ON EDGE)

N

B-42

GNE

08-13-25 ASPHALT (4 18")

(6") 0 N

B-43

GNE

08-13-25

(7") 0 N

B-44

GNE

08-13-25

N

B-45

30*

GNE

08-13-25

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (3 38")

(2")

5 5 5

DARK GRAY

w=7.6 -200=23.9 w=11.1 -200=40.1 w=18.7 -200=38.9 w=14.7 -200=29.1 w=16.7

LL=62

PL=24

PI=38

LI=-0.19

-200=75.4 c ~ 0000

TRACE ROOTS AND BLACK INCLUSIONS

(2-4 FT)

3" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

1 18" SAND ASPHALT

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (3 78")

1 58" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

1 14" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

1" SAND ASPHALT

ASPHALT (3 12")

1 12" 2"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

0-2 FT SAMPLE: -/-/4/26

*HAMMER BLOWS:

ORANGE/RED SILTY SAND, SOME

TRACE CLAY (BASE)(A-2-4)

LIGHT GRAY CRUSHED LIMESTONE; GRADED

AGGREGATE BASE (BASE)(A-1-a, A-1-b)

TAN/BROWN, TAN/ORANGE SLIGHTLY SILTY

SAND AND SILTY SAND (-200<15%)(A-3)(A-2-4)

2 4

ORANGE, TAN, BROWN SILTY SAND,

TRACE CLAY (A-2-4)

TAN/ORANGE SLIGHTLY CLAYEY SILTY SAND

AND CLAYEY SILTY SAND (A-2-4)(A-2-6)(A-4)5

LIGHT GRAY/PURPLE/YELLOW MOTTLED SANDY CLAY

(A-7-6)6

Lab Test Results Summary Laboratory testing for this project included wash #200 sieve, natural moisture content, and Atterberg Limits tests run on selected samples to assist in soil classification and to evaluate and document basic properties. The results of these tests are shown on the boring logs adjacent to the samples tested and are summarized in the following tables.

Lab Testing Summary

Atterberg Limits Test Results Summary

Stratum Natural

Moisture Content (%)

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

AASHTO

Classification

6 16.7 62 24 38 A-7-6

Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) Testing Laboratory testing also included six limerock bearing ratio (LBR) tests on samples of the base and subgrade collected from the roadway. Grainsize analysis tests were also run on the LBR samples. The results of the LBR tests are summarized in the following table, and the LBR and grainsize test results are graphed below.

LBR and Proctor Test Results Summary

Stratum Boring Sample Type

Maximum Dry Unit

Weight (pcf)

Optimum Moisture

Content (%)

LBR

Value

2 B-33 Base 147.5 4.5 143 3 B-33 Subgrade 125.5 7.6 79 2 B-39 Base 147.8 4.9 135 4 B-39 Subgrade 119.3 7.2 53 1 B-44 Base 130.0 8.5 120 3 B-44 Subgrade 122.4 12.1 41

Stratum Moisture Content (%) Percent Passing #200 Sieve

Range Average Number of Tests Range Average Number of

Tests

1 9.9 N/A 1 13.4-22.6 17.5 3

2 N/A N/A N/A 10.0 & 11.8 10.8 2

3 5.6-16.4 10.0 9 15.0-27.7 19.5 9

4 6.1 & 6.5 6.3 2 10.5-14.2 13.0 3

5 11.1-18.7 14.8 3 29.1-40.1 36.0 3

6 16.7 N/A 1 75.4 N/A 1

Lab

1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%

LB

R

V al ue

1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc f)

Moisture Content (%)

LBR Results B-33 Base Sample

Boring Type Sample Description

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

LBR

Value % fines

B-33 Base Gray Limestone 147.5 4.5 143 11.6

4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12%

LB

R

V al ue

4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12%

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc

LBR Results B-33 Subgrade Sample

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

LBR

Value % fines

B-33 Subgrade Orange/Tan Silty Sand w/ Some Gravel 125.5 7.6 79 13.4

2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%

LB

R

V al ue

2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc

LBR Results B-39 Base Sample

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

LBR

B-39 Base Gray Limestone 147.8 4.8 135 10.0

4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12%

LB

R

V al ue

4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12%

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc

LBR Results B-39 Subgrade Sample

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

LBR

B-39 Subgrade Tan/Orange Silty Sand 119.3 7.2 53 14.2

4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12%

LB

R

V al ue

4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12%

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc

LBR Results B-44 Base Sample

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

LBR

Value % fines

B-44 Base Red/Brown Silty Fine Sand, Trace Clay 130.0 8.5 120 22.6

8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16%

LB

R

V al ue

8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16%

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc

LBR Results B-44 Subgrade Sample

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

LBR

Value

B-44 Subgrade Orange/Tan Silty Fine Sand, Trace Clay 122.4 12.1 41

3" 2" 1.

5" 1" 3/ 4"

1/ 2"

3/ 8"

1/ 4" #4 #1

#2

#4

#6

#8

#1

#2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.1110100

Pe rc en t F in er

B y

W ei gh t

Grainsize in Millimeters

GRAVEL SILT OR CLAYSAND

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

Grainsize Test Results

Boring Type Sample Description Stratum

B-33 Base Gray Limestone 2

B-33 Subgrade Orange/Tan Silty Sand w/ Some Gravel 3

B-39 Base Gray Limestone 2

B-39 Subgrade Tan/Orange Silty Sand 4

B-44 Base Red/Brown Silty Fine Sand, Trace Clay 1

Photos

B-33 3⅜ inches AC

B-34 7¾ inches asphalt

2½ inches AC 5¼ inches sand asphalt

B-35 3⅝ inches asphalt

1⅞ inches AC 1¾ inches AC (separated)

B-36 3¼ inches asphalt (cracked full depth)

⅞ inch AC 1½ inches AC (separated)

⅞ inch sand asphalt

B-37 3¼ inches AC

B-38 1⅞ inches AC

B-39 4⅛ inches asphalt

2 inches AC 1 inch AC

(separated) 1⅛ inches sand asphalt (cracked and separated)

B-40 4¼ inches asphalt

2 inches AC (separated) ¾ inches AC

1½ inches sand asphalt

B-41 3½ inches asphalt

1¾ inches AC 1¾ inches AC

(cracked on edge)

B-42 4⅛ inches asphalt

3 inches AC 1⅛ inches sand asphalt

B-43 3½ inches asphalt

1½ inches AC 2 inches AC

B-44 3⅞ inches asphalt

1⅝ inches AC 1¼ inches AC

1 inch sand asphalt

B-45 3⅜ inches AC

Basis of Recommendations Recommendations rendered herein are based on assumed and/or design information available at the time of this report, the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings, generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices, and our experience with similar soil and groundwater conditions. Should final project information or existing conditions differ from the information used in this report or should any soil conditions not discussed in this report be encountered during construction, our office should be notified and retained so that this report can be modified as needed. LMJ should be provided with the final plans and specifications for review to determine if any changes to our report are needed based on the final design and that our recommendations have been properly interpreted.

This report and any correspondence are intended for the exclusive use of our client for the specific application to the project discussed. LMJ is not responsible for the interpretations, conclusions, or recommendations made by others based on the information in this report.

Regardless of the care exercised in performing a Geotechnical Exploration, the possibility always exists that soil and/or groundwater conditions will differ from those encountered at the specific boring locations. In addition, construction operations may alter the soil conditions. Therefore, it is recommended that a representative from LMJ be involved during the construction phases discussed in this report.

Test Methods Standard Penetration Test

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) consists of driving a 2-inch diameter split spoon sampler into the ground using a 140-pound hammer dropped 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler one foot (after seating it 6 inches) is referred to as the blow count or “N” value and represents the relative density of subsurface soils. “N” values can be found on the boring logs. The SPT borings were drilled in general accordance with ASTM D1586 using a truck or track mounted drill rig and were sampled by driving back-to-back 2-foot split spoons in the upper ten feet and 1.5-foot split spoons at five-foot intervals thereafter. The SPT borings were advanced using solid-stem flight auger above the water table and a mud jetting drilling method below the water table. Each sample was removed from the sampler, classified in the field by the driller, and packaged for visual classification by our engineering staff and laboratory testing.

Other Test Methods Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318), Wash #200 Sieve (ASTM D1140), Moisture Content (ASTM D2216), Sieve Analysis (ASTM C136), and LBR (FM5-515).

Appendix

Appendix