Geotech_Report_-_Beulah_Road_Widening_and_Resurfacing_5.10.25.pdf

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

Beulah Road Widening and Resurfacing Escambia County, Florida LMJ File 24-372 May 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 Widening and Resurfacing LMJ Project 24-372 E May 10, 2025

Roadway Conditions Summary ▼ Beaulah Road appeared to be in generally poor condition with rutting, widespread alligator cracking, and regular longitudinal and block cracking. Pop outs, edge failures, and patching were also observed in some areas. A summary of the pavement conditions is here.

▼ Kingsfield Road appeared to be generally in good condition, and we understand that Kingsfield Road was recently overlain. Edge cracking and minor rutting was observed near B-27, and the existing asphalt was worn near the intersection with Beulah Road.

▼ Standing water was present near the intersection of Beulah Road and Kingsfield Road and on the sides of the road south of B-14 at the time of our site visits.

▼ The asphalt cores were 3-12 inches thick with most cores between 3-4 inches thick.

Borings B-9, B-13, B-17, B-19, and B-21 had 6¾-12 inches of asphalt.

Subsurface Conditions Summary ▼ The base material under the existing asphalt 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 also varied between 3-19 inches.

▼ Directly below the pavement materials or topsoil, most of the borings encountered slightly silty and silty sand (Strata 3 and 4) and clayey silty sand (Stratum 5) to the bottom of the borings at 6 feet.

▼ Layers of clayey sand and sandy clay (Stratum 7) were encountered in B-10 through B-20, B-22, and B-29 beginning at 1.5-2 feet below the pavement or existing grade in most of these borings except B-10, B-16, and B-20 where these layers were in the top foot.

▼ Traces of iron rock, mica, and gravel were encountered in the borings, and B-23 had a 3-inch layer of iron rock on the bottom.

▼ The soil density under the roadway was typically medium dense to dense in the upper 2-4 feet over loose and medium dense and some dense soils to the bottom of the borings at 6 feet. Boring B-29 had a very loose layer from 4 feet to the bottom of this boring at 6 feet.

▼ The soil density in the widening areas was generally loose in the upper 2 feet over medium dense and loose conditions or medium stiff to very hard conditions.

Groundwater Conditions Summary ▼ Groundwater did not appear to be encountered in the 6-foot borings drilled on Beulah Road at the time of drilling, although determining an accurate groundwater level in firm clayey and clay soils is not practical without piezometers.

▼ Groundwater was encountered in B-29 and B-30, drilled on Kingsfield Road, at a depth of 2 feet below existing grade, and the other Kingsfield borings did not encounter water.

▼ The borings encountered conditions that could trap or perch groundwater on the firm Strata 5 and 7 soils where overlain by the better draining Stratum 4 soils.

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

Conditions Summary

Pavement Recommendations for Beulah Road ▼ The existing asphalt is in poor condition and the alligator cracking and rutting indicates that the base and subgrade are structurally inadequate for the loading on Beulah Road.

▼ Several options were considered including milling and overlaying, which has proven to be ineffective, full rebuild, Full Depth Reclamation (FDR), and full depth asphalt rebuild.

▼ Given the heavy traffic loading, poor subgrade soils in a portion of the project, and the benefit of speed (temporary lane can be avoided), full depth asphalt rebuild appears to be the best option for this project.

Pavement Recommendations for Kingsfield Road ▼ Kingsfield Road had been recently overlain and was in good condition at the time of our evaluation with 3½-3¾ inches of Asphaltic Concrete within the project limits.

▼ It appears that Kingsfield Road can be milled and overlain.

Widening Recommendations ▼ Strata 3 and 5 soils drain slowly, retain excess moisture, and are difficult to dry and compact if they are too wet, and this is a concern for earthwork.

▼ If construction occurs during a rainy period, widespread removal, and replacement of wet, uncompactable Strata 3 and 5 soils may be needed.

▼ We recommend constructing widening areas in sections that can be managed and paved in a timely manner when rainfall is anticipated.

▼ Strata 3 and 5 soils (>15% fines) are suitable for subgrade if they are not overly wet. Since time and space needed for drying these soil types is not expected to be available, soils that are too wet to be compacted will need to be removed and replaced with Type B soils.

▼ Stratum 7 (clayey) soils are normally not desirable as pavement subgrade because when exposed to water, they can lose strength and have the potential to swell.

▼ We recommend removing Stratum 7 soils where present in the top 18 inches of subgrade in widening areas and replacing them with Type B stabilized subgrade.

▼ Stratum 4 soils (<15% fines) should be relatively easy to work and are suitable for subgrade.

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.

Recommendations Summary

Project Information The site is Beulah Road in Escambia County, Florida from roughly 600 feet north of the north landfill entrance and south to roughly 900 feet south of the intersection with Kingsfield Road.

The project also includes Kingsfield Road from the intersection at Beulah Road south and east for roughly 1,610 feet. Based on the provided information, the project includes widening the existing 10-foot lanes to 12-foot lanes with a paved shoulder. The paved shoulder on Beulah Road is planned to be 5 feet, except for the south end of the project (Station 137+18 to 142), which has an existing curb and gutter. The paved shoulder on Kingsfield Road is planned to be 2 feet wide. Most of the project is planned to match existing grade, but some cuts and fills generally 1-2 feet are planned mostly to cut new swales or fill in existing ones. A portion of the roadway at the 90-curve is planned to be overbuilt up to 7½ feet to provide superelevation.

Pavement Evaluation Our engineering staff performed a visual evaluation of the existing pavement conditions. The asphalt was cored at 19 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 in the roadway and on alternating sides in the widening areas to a depth of 6 feet. We also saw cut the existing roadway at random locations to collect samples of the base and subgrade for laboratory LBR testing. Photos of the cores can be found here, and the boring logs can be found here.

Existing Pavement Conditions

Beaulah Road appeared to be in generally poor condition with rutting, widespread alligator cracking, and regular longitudinal and block cracking. Pop outs, edge failures, and patching were also observed in some areas. The asphalt thickness was erratic and varied between 3- 12 inches thick with most cores between 3-4 inches. The asphalt consisted of multiple overlays with layers of sand asphalt in some of the cores. Borings B-9, B-13, B-17, B-19, and B-21 had 6¾-12 inches of asphalt (including sand asphalt). The pavement was generally in worse condition for the northbound lane south of the landfill and for the southbound lane north of the landfill which is to be expected. The pavement was in worst condition between borings B-9 and B-22, and this area had more intense cracking, and the cracks appeared to be full depth, wider, and worn more at the surface indicating water being trapped in these cracks. Most of the pop outs and patching was observed in this area.

We noted a section of the northbound lane that had been rebuilt near B-19, and LMJ performed work in this area in 2015 after the pavement had been recently overlain. In 2015, in the area near B-19 and toward B-20, LMJ observed signs of shoving, likely due to poor tack coat on the original milled surface. The contractor elected to rebuild this area using 12 inches of total asphalt that consisted of 5½ inches of asphaltic concrete and 6½ inches of sand asphalt, and this section was the only section of Beulah Road where significant cracking was not observed.

Kingsfield Road appeared to be generally in good condition, and we understand that Kingsfield Road was recently overlain. Edge cracking and minor rutting was observed near B-27, and the existing asphalt was worn near the intersection with Beulah Road.

The above project information is the basis of our recommendations. If this information changes or is incorrect, our office should be notified, and changes to our report may be needed.

Asphaltic Materials* Thickness Summary Table

Boring Total Asphalt

Thickness (in)

Boring Total Asphalt

Thickness (in)

B-1 3½ B-21 7½

B-3 3½ B-23 3⅜

B-5 3¾ B-24 3½

B-7 3¼ B-25 3¾

B-9 7¼ B-27 3¾

B-11 5 B-29 3¼

B-13 6¾ B-30 4

B-15 3 B-31 2¾

B-17 8 B-32 3⅛

B-19 12

*See photos for layer thickness and composition and core condition

Kingsfield Road

Kingsfield Road

Kingsfield Road near Beulah Road Intersection.

Standing Water.

Beulah Road near B-22.

Alligator cracking, patching, and rutting.

Worse in NBL (bottom).

Beulah Rd near B-19 looking south. Repaired section. Transverse cracks stop at CL.

North end of pavement repair.

Pothole and patching near B-14.

SBL between B-10 and B-11. Sawcut trench deflection and cracking.

Earthwork Concerns and Comments ▼ Strata 3 and 5 soils drain slowly, retain excess moisture, and are difficult to dry and compact if they are too wet, and this is a concern for earthwork.

▼ If construction occurs during a rainy period, widespread removal, and replacement of wet, uncompactable Strata 3 and 5 soils may be needed.

▼ We recommend constructing widening areas in sections that can be managed and paved in a timely manner when rainfall is anticipated.

▼ Strata 3 and 5 soils (>15% fines) are suitable for subgrade if they are not overly wet. Since time and space needed for drying these soil types is not expected to be available, soils that are too wet to be compacted will need to be removed and replaced with Type B soils.

▼ Stratum 7 (clayey) soils are normally not desirable as pavement subgrade because when exposed to water, they can lose strength and have the potential to swell.

▼ We recommend removing Stratum 7 soils where present in the top 18 inches of subgrade in widening areas and replacing them with Type B stabilized subgrade.

▼ Stratum 4 soils (<15% fines) should be relatively easy to work and are suitable for subgrade.

Site Preparation ▼ The proposed widening areas should be cleared, grubbed, and stripped of all trees, vegetation, major roots, topsoil, and any other deleterious materials.

▼ Stripped vegetation, topsoil, and organic materials should be hauled offsite, or suitable topsoil could be stockpiled for use in sodded areas after final grading.

▼ Grades in widening areas should be sloped to run stormwater away from the widening area and existing roadway.

▼ Widening areas should be graded to top of subgrade elevations and the subgrade soils should be evaluated by LMJ to determine if the soils are suitable for subgrade (Strata 3, 4, or 5) and not overly wet.

▼ Widening areas should be proof rolled with a fully loaded on-road dump truck under the observation of LMJ staff. Proof rolling should occur when subgrades are not overly wet.

▼ Any areas that pump, yield, or rut during proof rolling should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer or his representative.

▼ If the subgrade soils are determined to be unsuitable (Stratum 7) or overly wet Strata 3 and 5 soils, they should be undercut 18 inches (or less if suitable material is encountered) and backfilled in compacted lifts using Type B material.

▼ After proof rolling, the top of subgrade and fill in widening areas should be compacted to the requirements in the table below for a minimum depth of 12 inches.

Earthwork Recommendations

Fill Material ▼ All fill material should meet the current requirements of FDOT Index 120-001.

▼ Native soils that meet the requirements of FDOT Index 120-001 can be used as fill.

▼ Fill for the top 18 inches under the shoulder and pavement should be Type B material with a minimum LBR value of 40.

▼ All fill should be free of significant organic materials, debris, or other deleterious materials.

▼ Samples of any imported fill material, if needed, should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for testing and evaluation prior to shipment to the site.

Compaction ▼ Soils should be moisture conditioned to within 2% of their optimum moisture content prior to compaction.

▼ We recommend using 6-inch lifts (loose thickness) for filling. Thicker lifts could be allowed if the requirements in FDOT Section 120-8.2.1.2 are met.

▼ Fill or backfill (for removal of unsuitable or uncompactable soils) should be compacted to the requirements in the following table. Compaction under pavement should extend 5 feet beyond edges where practical.

▼ Traffic sized rubber-tired rollers are the preferred compaction equipment for the native silty/clayey sand soils (Strata 3 and 5). Large vibratory rollers could be used for Strata 4.

▼ Large vibratory rollers have the potential to draw up shallow groundwater and disturb or damage nearby structures and are not recommended within 50 feet of existing structures or where shallow groundwater is present.

▼ We recommend that LMJ remain involved during construction to evaluate the suitability of subgrade soils, document the removal of unsuitable or uncompactable soils, provide compaction testing, and help resolve other issues.

▼ LMJ can also provide additional recommendations if the contractor is having difficulty achieving compaction.

Compaction Recommendations

Site Element Minimum

Compaction

(ASTM D1557)

Minimum Compaction Testing Frequency Per 12-inch lift

Fill/Backfill 98%* 1 per 300 LF

Top 12 inches of Pavement Subgrade 98% 1 per 300 LF

*Escambia County Requirement

Earthwork Recommendations pavement Recommendations Pavement Recommendations

Beulah Road General Comments The existing asphalt is in poor condition and the alligator cracking and rutting indicates that the base and subgrade are structurally inadequate for the loading on Beulah Road. A portion of the project between B-9 and B-22 had clay soils (Stratum 7) that are considered poor subgrade. The borings did not appear to encounter any perched water, but several of the borings encountered conditions that could trap or perch infiltrating stormwater. The clay soils were generally firm and dry in the borings indicating they had not been recently wetted.

Because the clay was drier and based on the laboratory results, it has swell potential, which is a concern for the roadway because the clay could be wetted in the future from cracks in the pavement.

Option 1: Milling and Overlaying

Milling and overlaying the roadway would not address the underlying base/subgrade issues and would therefore only provide a relatively short-term improvement. In addition, reflective cracking and premature failure of the overlay is very likely since the road was overlain just over a decade ago and is in poor condition (reflective cracking showed up within the first few years).

Milling and overlaying was therefore not considered an option.

Option 2: Full Rebuild

A full rebuild with GAB was considered by the design team, but the existing roadway elevation needed to be maintained, and this would require removing the poor Stratum 7 soils to a significant depth below the existing pavement. Considering the depth of excavation required for a full rebuild and the time needed to remove and replace Stratum 7 soils, compact the subgrade, and place and compact the base, this option would require a temporary lane to manage traffic and was not further considered.

Option 3: FDR

Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) was considered by the design team, but there were several concerns with this method including the erratic asphalt and base types and thicknesses which would produce an inconsistent FDR base, and areas with thicker asphalt would present challenges. There were also significant concerns with shrinkage cracking with a cement added base product, which could allow wetting of the clay subgrade soils. This option was considered to involve too much risk and was not further considered.

Option 4: Full Depth Asphalt

Given the heavy traffic loading, poor subgrade soils in a portion of the project, and the benefit of speed (night closure and no temporary lane), full depth asphalt pavement appears to be the best option for this project. Multiple attempts have been made over the years to repair sections of Beulah Road including rebuilds using GAB, sand asphalt, mill and overlay, etc., but these have empirically proved to be inadequate given the base and subgrade conditions and traffic loading. A full depth asphalt rebuild was done for a portion of the road (to repair construction deficiencies) and has empirically proven to withstand the traffic loading over the clayey (Stratum 7) soils. In areas where milling for the new full depth section does not remove all the existing asphalt, we recommend that the remaining asphalt surface be cleaned and swept/brushed and a tack coat applied prior to placing asphalt.

Pavement Recommendations

Kingsfield Road General Comments Kingsfield Road had been recently overlain and was in good condition at the time of our evaluation with 3½-3¾ inches of Asphaltic Concrete within the project limits and suitable base and subgrade soils. It appears that Kingsfield Road can be milled and overlain. We recommend the following:

▼ Any significant cracks in the milled surface should be carefully and completely cleaned before sealing because most sealant failures 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.

Asphalt Recommendations We recommend paving with FDOT structural and friction course Superpave Asphaltic Concrete.

FC-12.5 is preferred for surface course, and SP-19 is preferred for structural courses, because it can be placed in thicker lifts. Asphalt should meet the requirements of FDOT Section 334.

We recommend limiting the amount of Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) to no more than 25% of the mixture since mixtures over 25% RAP have a higher potential for quality and 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. We recommend that LMJ review the contractor’s proposed asphalt mix designs.

Quality Control Testing All compaction should be verified using in-place density testing in accordance with current FDOT Standard Specifications. Asphalt temperature at the time of placement is critical to achieving good compaction of the asphalt, and we recommend documenting and verifying asphalt temperatures at the time of placement. After compaction, the asphalt should be cored to determine the thickness and compaction. Cores should be taken at the FDOT recommended frequency. The bulk specific gravity (Gmb) of the cores should be determined in accordance with FM 1-T 166 (if the road is overlain, the overlay should be saw cut from older layers to evaluate compaction of overlay).

Boring Locations

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING

ALL BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

Boring Locations

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING

ALL BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

Boring Logs

N

B-1

GNE

02-04-25

N

B-2

GNE

02-04-25

N

B-3

GNE

5*

02-04-25

2 0 N

B-4

GNE

02-04-25

N

B-5

GNE

02-04-25

N

B-6

GNE

02-04-25

6 0 N

B-7

GNE

02-04-25

N

B-8

GNE

02-03-25

4 TRACE IRON ROCK

ASPHALT (3 12")

3 5

3 4

ASPHALT (3 14")

WITH PLASTIC WATER

BOTTLE LABEL

w=6.7 -200=14.5 w=10.0 -200=15.0 w=7.8 -200=17.0 w=6.1 -200=10.2 w=9.8 -200=19.2 w=5.4 -200=18.6 w=13.1 -200=34.2 w=5.6 -200=12.2 w=8.0 -200=15.6 w=8.2 -200=12.9 w=7.4 -200=14.2

(5")

(3")

(7")

2-4 FT SAMPLE: 7/3/2/2

*HAMMER BLOWS:

(3")

TRACE IRON ROCK

(4") (3") (2")

ASPHALT (3 12")

1 38" 1 18" 1"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

SAND ASPHALT

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALT (3 34")

3 34" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

3 14" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

1 34" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

1 34" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

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

DARK BROWN/BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND

AND SILTY SAND WITH ROOTS (TOPSOIL)(A-2-4)6

LIGHT GRAY/TAN/ORANGE MOTTLED AND DARK GRAY CLAYEY

SAND AND SANDY CLAY WITH IRON ROCK (A-6)(A-7-6)7

B-9

GNE

02-04-25

N

B-10

8*

GNE

02-03-25

N

B-11

GNE

02-03-25

N

B-12

GNE

02-03-25

ASPHALT (7 14")

ASPHALT (5")

TRACE IRON ROCK

TRACE MICA

w=14.1 -200=25.3 w=17.4 -200=42.1 w=12.6 -200=5.2 w=20.8 -200=46.9 c ~ 3500 w=2.4 -200=18.7 w=12.6 -200=28.8

0-2 FT SAMPLE: 2/2/6/16

*HAMMER BLOWS:

(3")

(7") c ~ 3500

(2") w=18.9

LL=38

PL=18

PI=20

LI=-0.04

-200=64.4c ~ 3500

1" 1" 1" 1"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

SAND ASPHALT2"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE1 14"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

1 34" 1 12" 1 34"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

N

B-13

GNE

7*

01-31-25

N

B-14

GNE

01-30-25

N

B-15

GNE

01-30-25

N

B-16

GNE

01-30-25

ASPHALT (6 34")

TRACE IRON ROCK (5 14")

TRACE IRON ROCK, DARK GRAY

VERY FINE AT 2 FEET, TRACE

ORGANICS/WOOD

TRACE IRON ROCK

WITH GRAVEL

WITH THIN CLAY LAYER

WITH IRON ROCK

WITH IRON ROCK

ASPHALT (3")

WITH ROOTS

TRACE IRON ROCK

TRACE MICA

w=17.1 -200=41.6 O.C.=3.7 w=17.8 -200=45.1 w=14.8 -200=48.3 c ~ 1500-4500+

0.5-2 FT SAMPLE: 11/29/35

*HAMMER BLOWS:

2-4 FT SAMPLE: 8/4/3/5

c ~ 3750

NOTE: ENCOUNTERED OBSTRUCTION

(SUSPECTED IRON ROCK LAYER) AT 2 FT.

OFFSET BORING FOR 4-6 FT

c ~ 3000

(3") c ~ 4000

(2")

(4")

(6") w=16.9

LL=47

PL=21

PI=27

LI=-0.14

-200=60.2 c ~ 3400 w=18.6

LL=41

PL=18

PI=23

LI=0.02

-200=79.0 c ~ 3750 w=21.7

LL=41

PL=21

PI=20

LI=0.04

-200=55.1 c ~ 1000 w=20.0

LL=53

PL=24

PI=29

LI=-0.14

-200=67.4 c ~ 3500

3" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

1 34"

SAND ASPHALT1 34"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

1 12" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

1 34"

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

DARK BROWN/BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND

AND SILTY SAND WITH ROOTS (TOPSOIL)(A-2-4)6

B-17

GNE

18*

01-30-25

1 0 N

B-18

GNE

01-30-25

N

B-19

23*

GNE

01-30-25

N

B-20

GNE

01-30-25

N

B-21

GNE

01-30-25

1 0 N

B-22

GNE

01-30-25

N

B-23

GNE

01-30-25

N

B-24

GNE

01-29-25

VERY SILTY WITH ROOTS

TRACE IRON ROCK

ASPHALT (12")

SAND ASPHALT (SEPARATED

FROM CORE)

TRACE MICA 2-4 FT

SANDY CLAY (6")(CL)

7 TRACE MICA

ASPHALT (7 12")

SAND ASPHALT (SEPARATED

FROM CORE, PIECES)

5 WITH IRON ROCK (4-6 FT)

WITH IRON ROCK

ASPHALT (3 38")

TRACE IRON ROCK

1-2 FEET

IRON ROCK (3")

ASPHALT (3 12")

TRACE IRON ROCK

SOME MOTTLING 4-6 FT

w=9.6 -200=19.9 w=10.9 -200=21.1 w=16.1 -200=29.8 w=18.0 -200=37.8 w=8.8 -200=18.2 w=17.8 -200=29.1 w=31.9 -200=56.9 w=17.6 -200=15.0 w=16.5 -200=29.3 w=12.6 -200=24.2 w=8.3 -200=18.5 w=9.9 -200=7.7 w=6.0 -200=15.6

TRACE IRON ROCK

2-4 FT SAMPLE: 18/12/6/4

*HAMMER BLOWS:

c ~ 4500+

(6")

(6")

(6")

0.5-2 FT SAMPLE: 32/14/9

*HAMMER BLOWS:

c ~ 4250

(2")

(7 12")

(3") w=20.2

LL=49

PL=18

PI=32

LI=0.08

-200=46.9 c ~ 0000 w=16.7

LL=60

PL=21

PI=39

LI=-0.21

-200=87.4 c ~ 4500 w=17.2

LL=38

PL=19

PI=18

LI=-0.12

-200=53.9 c ~ 3500 w=23.0

LL=42

PL=22

PI=19

LI=0.05

-200=55.9 c ~ 2000 w=19.2

LL=57

PL=27

PI=31

LI=-0.24

-200=74.0 c ~ 4500+ w=19.3

LL=19

PL=16

PI=3

LI=0.99

-200=49.0 c ~ 3500

(6")

ASPHALT (8")

1 38" 2 18" 3"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

SAND ASPHALT

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

1 12" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 5 12" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

1 58" 1 34"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

SAND ASPHALT

1 12"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

4 12"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

1 12"

2 12" 1"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

6 12"

1 34"

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

DARK BROWN/BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND

AND SILTY SAND WITH ROOTS (TOPSOIL)(A-2-4)6

B-26

GNE

01-29-25

N

B-27

GNE

01-29-25

N

B-28

GNE

01-29-25

N

B-29

01-29-25

N

B-30

GNE

01-29-25

3 2-6 FT TAN WITH ORANGE

MOTTLING

WITH ROOT/WOOD (VERTICAL

GRAIN)(0.5-2 FT SAMPLE)3

TRACE MICA (2-4 FT)

TRACE MICA

ASPHALT (3 34")

WITH PEA GRAVEL, PIECE

OF FABRIC AND GEO GRID 1

ASPHALT (4")

DARK GRAY, TRACE ORGANICS 5.5-6 FT

w=13.7 -200=15.2 w=9.6 -200=19.0 w=19.3 -200=20.8 O.C.=2.6 w=30.8 -200=47.1 w=31.6 -200=10.0 O.C.=1.7 w=7.9 -200=15.6 w=7.8 -200=15.9 w=5.2 -200=8.6

(6")

(14")

4 5+

(4")

(2")

(2")

WITH ROOTS (DARK GRAY)

w=16.4

LL=28

PL=15

PI=12

LI=0.08

-200=30.4

-200=7.2

1 12" 1 14" 1 14"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALT (3 14")

1 12" 1 34"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

3 34" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

N

B-25

GNE

04-01-25

ASPHALT (3 34")

2 58" 1 18"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

N

B-31

GNE

04-01-25

ASPHALT (2 34")

N

B-32

GNE

6*

04-01-25 ASPHALT (3 18")

(CORE CRACKED FULL DEPTH)

(3")(3 14") w=4.8 -200=14.1 w=12.4 -200=15.3 w=15.0 -200=24.0 w=9.9 -200=21.8

1 12" 1 14"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

1 34" 1 38"

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

2-4 FT SAMPLE: 6/4/2/1

*HAMMER BLOWS:

(18")

(18")

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

DARK BROWN/BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND

AND SILTY SAND WITH ROOTS (TOPSOIL)(A-2-4)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 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit

Range Average Number of Tests Range Average Number of

Tests

5 19-28 24 2 15-16 16 2

7 38-60 47 8 18-27 21 8

Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) Testing Laboratory testing also included seven limerock bearing ratio (LBR) tests on samples of the base and subgrade collected from the borings. 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

3 B-13 Subgrade 119.9 8.2 61 3 B-13 Base 124.2 8.2 120 7 B-20 Subgrade 120.4 12.5 27 4 B-24 Base 113.4 11.7 64 4 B-24 Subgrade 110.0 12.4 36 4 B-27 Base 116.5 9.0 88 3 B-27 Subgrade 117.9 8.0 58

Stratum Moisture Content (%) Percent Passing #200 Sieve

Range Average Number of Tests Range Average Number of

Tests

1 12.5-17.6 15 3 15.0-24.2 18.1 3

2 2.4 2.4 1 7.2-18.7 13.0 2

3 5.4-19.3 10.0 18 15.0-28.8 18.9 18

4 4.8-31.6 9.8 10 4.2-14.5 11.0 10

5 13.1-19.3 16.5 9 25.3-49.0 34.9 9

7 14.8-30.8 19.6 15 37.8-97.4 57.8 15

Lab

3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11%

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc f)

Moisture Content (%)

3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11%

LB

R

V al ue

LBR Results B-13 Subgrade Sample

Boring Type Sample Description

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

LBR

Value % fines

B-13 Subgrade Orange/Tan Silty Sand w/ Gravel (Stratum 3) 119.9 8.2 61 12.2

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

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc f)

Moisture Content (%)

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

LB

R

V

LBR Results B-13 Base Sample

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

LBR

Value % fines

B-13 Base Dark Orange Silty Sand w/ Gravel (Stratum 3) 124.2 8.2 120 14.3

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

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc f)

Moisture Content (%)

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

LB

R

V

LBR Results B-20 Subgrade Sample

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

LBR

Value % fines

B-20 Subgrade Light Gray/Tan/Orange Sandy Clay (Stratum 7) 120.4 12.5 27 70.4

7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15%

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc f)

Moisture Content (%)

7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15%

LB

R

V

LBR Results B-24 Base Sample

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

LBR

Value % fines

B-24 Base Orange/Brown Slightly Silty Sand w/ Gravel (Stratum 4) 113.4 11.7 64 9.4

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

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc f)

Moisture Content (%)

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

LB

R

V

LBR Results B-24 Subgrade Sample

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

LBR

Value % fines

B-24 Subgrade Tan/Orange Slightly Silty Sand (Stratum 4) 110.0 12.4 36 10.6

7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14%

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc f)

Moisture Content (%)

7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14%

LB

R

V

LBR Results B-27 Base Sample

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

LBR

Value % fines

B-27 Base Tan/Orange Slightly Silty Sand w/ Gravel (Stratum 4) 116.5 9.0 88 11.9

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

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc f)

Moisture Content (%)

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

LB

R

V

LBR Results B-27 Subgrade Sample

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

LBR

Value % fines

B-27 Subgrade Light Tan Silty Sand (Stratum 3) 117.9 8.0 58 17.1

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-13 Subgrade Orange/Tan Silty Sand w/ Gravel 3

B-13 Base Dark Orange Silty Sand w/ Gravel 3

B-20 Subgrade Light Gray/Tan/Orange Sandy Clay 7

B-24 Base Orange/Brown Slightly Silty Sand w/ Gravel 4

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-24 Subgrade Tan/Orange Slightly Silty Sand 4

B-27 Base Tan/Orange Slightly Silty Sand w/ Gravel 4

B-27 Subgrade Light Tan Silty Sand 3

Photos

B-1 3½ inches Asphalt

1⅜-inch AC 1⅛-inch AC

1-inch Sand Asphalt Cracked and Separated

B-3 3½ inches Asphalt

1¾-inch AC 1¾-inch AC

Upper layer cracked Separated

B-5 3¾ inches AC

Cracked on Bottom

B-7 3¼ inches AC

B-9 7¼ inches Asphalt

Four 1-inch Layers AC 2 inches Sand Asphalt

1¼-inch AC

B-11 5 inches AC 1¾-inch AC 1½-inch AC 1¾-inch AC

B-13 6¾ inches Asphalt Two 1¾-inch AC

(Separated between layers) 1¾-inch Sand Asphalt

B-15 3 inches AC

B-17 8 inches Asphalt

1⅜-inch AC (Cracked) (Separated between layers)

2⅛ AC (Cracked) 3-inch Sand Asphalt

B-19 12 inches Asphalt

5½ inches AC Separated from 6½ inches of Sand Asphalt (Not Pictured)

B-21 7½ inches Asphalt Two 1½ Layers AC

(Separated) 4½ inches of Sand Asphalt

B-23 3⅜ inches AC 1⅝ inches AC 1¾ inches AC (Separated)

B-24 3½ inches AC 2½ inches AC 1 inches AC

B-25 3¾ inches AC 2⅝ inches AC 1⅛ inches AC

B-27 3¾ inches AC Visible Voids

B-29 3¼ inches AC 1½ inch AC 1¾ inch AC

B-30 4 inches AC 1½ inch AC 1¼ inch AC 1¼ inch AC

All Layers Separated and Cracked

B-31 2¾ inches AC 1½ inch AC 1¼ inch AC

B-32 3⅛ inches AC 1¾ inch AC 1⅜ inch AC

Cracked Full Depth

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 mounted drill rig and were sampled by driving back-to-back 2-foot split spoons to 6 feet.

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), LBR (FM5-515), and Organic Content (ASTM D2974).

Appendix

LEGEND

SAFETY HAMMER AUTOMATIC HAMMER

GRANULAR SOILS

SPT

BLOWS/FOOT (N) RELATIVE DENSITY

0-2 VERY LOOSE

3-8 LOOSE

9-24 MEDIUM DENSE

25-40 DENSE

> 40 VERY DENSE

COHESIVE SOILS

BLOWS/FOOT (N) RELATIVE DENSITY

<1 VERY SOFT

1-3 SOFT

4-6 MEDIUM STIFF

7-12 STIFF

13-24 VERY STIFF

> 24 HARD

GRANULAR SOILS

SPT

BLOWS/FOOT (N) RELATIVE DENSITY

0-3 VERY LOOSE

4-10 LOOSE

11-30 MEDIUM DENSE

31-50 DENSE

> 50 VERY DENSE

COHESIVE SOILS

BLOWS/FOOT (N) RELATIVE DENSITY

0-1 VERY SOFT

2-4 SOFT

5-8 MEDIUM STIFF

9-15 STIFF

16-30 VERY STIFF

> 30 HARD

SAND

SILTY SAND

CLAY

PEAT

SLIGHTLY

SILTY SAND

SILT

CLAYEY

SAND

GRAVEL

GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED

AT TIME OF DRILLING

STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE

IN BLOWS PER FOOT

STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE

USING AUTOHAMMER

ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER LEVEL

ENCOUNTERED PERCHED WATER

LEVEL

NUMBER OF BLOWS REQUIRED (50) TO

ADVANCE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER A

SPECIFIC DISTANCE (2) INCHES

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE ADVANCED

UNDER WEIGHT OF ROD AND HAMMER

SAMPLER ADVANCED UNDER WEIGHT

OF ROD

HAND AUGER

SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

FINES PASSING #200 SIEVE (%)

ORGANIC CONTENT (%)

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUIDITY INDEX

APPROXIMATE COHESION VALUE (PSF)

BASED ON POCKET PENETROMETER

OR TORVANE READINGS

SATURATED VERTICAL HYDRAULIC

CONDUCTIVITY (FT/DAY)

DRY UNIT WEIGHT (PCF)

ESTIMATED MOIST UNIT WEIGHT (PCF)

ESTIMATED BUOYANT UNIT WEIGHT

(PCF)

ESTIMATED ANGLE OF INTERNAL

FRICTION (DEGREES)

w

Kv γ d

NOTES

1) SPT BORINGS PERFORMED

IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE

WITH ASTM D1586

2) SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

ARE AT BORING LOCATIONS

AND ACTUAL CONDITIONS

BETWEEN BORINGS MAY

VARY

3) ALL CLASSIFICATIONS ARE

BASED ON VISUAL

EXAMINATION UNLESS

ACCOMPANIED BY

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

4) BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL

LAYERS SHOULD BE

CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE

AS THE ACTUAL TRANSITION

MAY BE GRADUAL

5) DEPTH OF BORING IS BELOW

EXISTING GRADE AT TIME OF

DRILLING

6) ELEVATIONS, IF SHOWN,

WERE ESTIMATED FROM

PROVIDED TOPOGRAPHIC

SURVEY

7) COLORS USED FOR BORING

HATCHING MAY NOT

REPRESENT THE ACTUAL

SOIL COLORS

RW

HW

HA

Appendix