Pavement Report.pdf

SUBMITTED TO:

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400 Denver, Colorado 80202

BY:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

1321 Bannock St., Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80204

(303) 825-3800 www.shannonwilson.com

PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

TX FTFW INDA 10(1), 11(1)

Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery

BURNETT COUNTY, TEXAS

July 2020

Shannon & Wilson No: 103988-001

Pavement Design Report

103988-001 July 2020 ii

CO

NT

EN

TS

CONTENTS

1 Introduction

2 Project and Site Description

3 Subsurface Explorations and Laboratory Testing

3.1 Field Investigation

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

4 Pavement Assessment

5 Regional Geology and Subsurface Conditions

5.1 Regional Geology

5.2 Subsurface Conditions

5.3 Groundwater

6 Pavement Recommendations

6.1 Design Methodology

6.2 Swelling Soil

6.3 Traffic Loading

6.4 Subgrade Soils

6.5 Recommended Pavement Sections

7 Construction and Materials Specifications

7.1 Site Preparation

7.2 Earthwork

7.2.1 Subgrade Preparation

7.2.2 Fill Placement

7.2.3 Proof-Rolling

7.3 Paving Materials

7.4 Sulfates

8 Closure

9 References

Exhibits Exhibit 4-1: Existing Pavement Assessment Exhibit 7-1: Recommended Materials for Pavements iii

CO

NT

EN

Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Site and Exploration Plan

Appendices Appendix A: Subsurface Explorations Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results Appendix C: Pavement Condition and Exploration Photographs Appendix D: Pavement Design Calculations Important Information iv

AC

RO

NY

MS

ACRONYMS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ASTM ASTM International CBR California Bearing Ratio ESAL Equivalent Single Axle Loading FHWA Federal Highway Administration FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services HACP Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement HDR HDR Engineering, Inc.

IDNFH Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery LL Liquid Limit LTS Lime Treated Subgrade NMAS Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size PDDM Project Development and Design Manual;

PG Performance Grade PI Plastic Index SPT Standard Penetration Test TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

Pavement Design Report

103988-001 July 2020

1 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program and presents pavement design recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery (IDNFH) Project (the Project) in Burnet County, Texas. Our services were completed in general accordance with our Task Order Agreement No. 015/10001000444353857 with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) dated August 6, 2019. Our conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on:

The limitations of our approved scope, schedule, and budget described in our contract;

Our understanding of the Project and information provided by HDR;

Subsurface conditions observed in the borings at the time our explorations were completed; and

The results of testing performed on samples collected from the explorations.

The objective of our geotechnical studies was to provide recommendations and construction considerations, as presented herein, for the proposed roadway reconstruction. The authorized scope of services was based on this objective and this report should not be used for other purposes without Shannon & Wilson, Inc.’s (Shannon & Wilson’s) review. If a service is not specifically indicated in this report, do not assume that it was performed.

2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

The Project is located in Burnet County, Texas (Figure 1). The IDNFH is accessed via State Park Road 4. There are two access roads from State Park Road 4, the Entrance Road (RTE

011) and Commercial Entrance Road which converge at the IDNFH access gate. The Entrance Road then continues into the facility at an uphill grade, providing access to the LRCA Camp Road 1 (RTE 302), Amphitheater Access Road (RTE 301), Visitor Center Drive (RTE 010), Visitor Parking Area (RTE 900), and other facility areas. The Commercial Entrance Road, LRCA Camp Road 1, Amphitheater Access Road, and Education Center Parking Area are currently gravel roads, while all other roadways are paved with hot asphalt concrete pavement (HACP). We understand that the proposed improvements include the reconstruction of the existing paved roads, as well as new HACP pavement for the existing aggregate surfaced roads. Refer to Figure 2 for a project map.

Pavement Design Report

103988-001 July 2020

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY

TESTING

3.1 Field Investigation

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. conducted a field exploration program on October 1, 2019, to explore subsurface conditions along the proposed roadway alignment. The subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling and sampling five borings (designated SW-01 through SW-05) along the Entrance Road, Commercial Entrance Road, LRCA Camp Road and the Education Center Parking Area, as shown in Figure 2. The borings were advanced to a depth between 9.2 and 10.5 feet below the ground surface.

Appendix A presents a discussion of the drilling and sampling procedures used to complete the borings. Appendix A also presents the individual exploration logs and an explanation of the symbols and terminology used. Photographs of the drilling locations and pavement cores are included in Appendix C.

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Geotechnical laboratory tests were completed on selected samples retrieved from the borings to estimate index and engineering properties. Index tests included natural water content, grain size analysis, and Atterberg limits. Engineering properties tests included corrosion, moisture density relationship (Proctor test) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR).

Laboratory test results and a discussion of the testing procedures are included in Appendix B. The natural water content, fines content, and Atterberg limits are also shown on the individual boring logs included in Appendix A.

4 PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT

To evaluate the condition of the existing roadway pavement for potential rehabilitation options, we performed a visual pavement survey to assess the overall pavement condition and to identify areas of distress and typical crack patterns. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) has developed a rating system to quantify levels of distress and to describe roadway conditions of asphalt pavements. Their five levels of pavement condition for asphalt are summarized below:

Excellent: Recently constructed or overlaid road where construction or overlay was performed correctly. No maintenance required.

Pavement Design Report

103988-001 July 2020

Good: Low extent longitudinal and transverse cracks. All cracks are ¼ inch or less with little or no crack erosion. Patches are in good condition and applied correctly. Routine maintenance recommended.

Fair: Roads are in good structural condition with little or no fatigue cracking.

Longitudinal, transverse, and edge cracking is at medium extent and severity. Block cracking is extensive. Any patches are in good condition. Preventative maintenance recommended.

Poor: Road beginning to show signs of structural distress. Fatigue cracking is medium to high extent and medium severity. Cracking will be severe. Surface may have severe block cracking and show. Patches are in fair to poor condition. There is moderate distortion or rutting and occasional potholes. Rehabilitation recommended.

Failed: Road is severely deteriorated. Signs of structural failure appear along with severe and extensive fatigue cracking, distortion, potholes, or extensive patches in poor condition. Reconstruction recommended.

Using the FWS visual rating system, we conducted our assessment survey on September 18, 2019. Site photographs 1 through 17 (Appendix C) contain photographs of the existing pavement and typical distress patterns observed along the roadway. The age of the existing pavement is unknown. Refer to Exhibit 4-1 for the condition of the existing roadways.

Exhibit 4-1: Existing Pavement Assessment

Route Designation Condition Additional Comments Entrance Road RTE 011 Poor to Fair Degraded surface, edge cracking, and occasional unpatched potholes.

Commercial Entrance Road - Gravel Road Occasional washboard rutting.

Visitor Center Parking Area RTE 900 Fair Poorly compacted HACP with occasional fatigue cracking.

Visitor Center Drive RTE 010 Fair Occasional fatigue cracking, overgrown edges.

Fishing Pier Parking Area RTE 901 Fair to Good

LRCA Camp Road 1 RTE 302 Gravel Road Uneven in spots with erosion ruts.

Amphitheater Access Road RTE 301 Gravel Road Uneven in spots with erosion ruts.

Education Center Parking Area - Grass/Gravel

Pavement Design Report

103988-001 July 2020

5 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE

CONDITIONS

5.1 Regional Geology

A regional geologic map of the area (Barnes, 1976) indicates that the near surface geology consists of recent alluvial gravel, sand and silt near the site entrance while the remainder of the site is mapped as Town Mountain Granite. Alluvial and overburden soils were encountered in our borings as discussed in detail below.

5.2 Subsurface Conditions

HACP pavement was measured in boring SW-02 and SW-03 to be 1.5 inches thick. An aggregate road surfacing was encountered at boring SW-04 and was 6 inches thick. Below the pavement in boring SW-02 we observed approximately 12 inches of medium dense silty gravel with sand base course. The subsurface soils generally consisted of silty sands and sandy clays with varying percentages of gravel (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO] soil classification A-1-b, A-2-4, A-6 and A-7-6).

Bedrock was likely encountered at a depth of 9.0 feet in boring SW-05.

Our observations are specific to the locations, depths, and dates noted on the exploration logs in Appendix A and may not be applicable to all areas of the site. There is no amount of explorations or laboratory testing that can precisely predict the characteristics, quality, or distribution of subsurface conditions at every location throughout the site. Variations in the subsurface conditions may occur between and below the borings. Also, the passage of time or intervening causes (natural and manmade) may result in changes to the conditions of the site and subsurface conditions.

5.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in any of our borings, however, fluctuations of groundwater levels at the site are likely and will depend on many factors, including seasonal variations, local precipitation, and flood events. Groundwater is not anticipated to affect the design or construction of the Project.

6 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Performance of a pavement system depends on the pavement material and thicknesses, subgrade strength, traffic loads and repetitions, design life, and subgrade drainage

Pavement Design Report

103988-001 July 2020 characteristics. The following sections discuss each of these aspects as they relate to the project. We understand that Eastern Federal Lands (EFL) may select to rehabilitate some roadways with a chip seal. Chip seals provide a new wearing surface for the roadway;

however, they do not provide any added structural capacity or design life. In areas where a chip seal is used, a fog seal application could be considered to minimize raveling.

6.1 Design Methodology

Our pavement design and results are based on the design procedures presented in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures with guidance from the U.S.

Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), dated March 2008, and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Pavement Manual, dated April 2017.

Pavement design inputs and calculations are presented in Appendix D.

6.2 Swelling Soil

Many of the soil formations in Texas are susceptible to volume change by swelling/shrinking. This geologic phenomenon has the potential to cause substantial damage to lightly loaded structures, such as pavements, when exposed to water. To provide an indication of the swell potential of near surface soils at the site, we performed Atterberg limits, grain size distributions, and moisture contents on soil samples encountered in our explorations. Based on testing of subgrade samples from the project site, the Plasticity Index (PI) generally ranged from 4 to 21, and the Liquid Limit (LL) ranged from 22 to 35 with a fines content ranging from 4 to 53 percent. One sample tested from boring SW-05 completed at the Education Center Parking area indicated a LL of 53 and a PI of 37 with a fines content of 56 percent. Section 11.3.2.1.3 of the PDDM specifies that 2 feet of moisture treatment is required for roadways with a PI between 15 and 25 and LL less than

50. The PDDM recommends between 2 and 4 feet of moisture treatment for roadways with on material with a PI between 25 and 35 and LL less than 50 to 60. The PDDM does note that the subexcavation requirements should account for the traffic volume and project significance when selecting a subexcavation depth.

Based on the low traffic volume, project significance and considering the higher sands content of the soils tested throughout the project site we make the following comments. If the above-specified over-excavation is cost prohibitive, consideration could be given to scarifying to a depth of 8 inches and moisture treating prior to placing the new pavement section, provided Eastern Federal Lands is willing to accept a low risk of swell-related movement. In our opinion, the risk would be low because the soils generally have 50 percent or less fines.

Pavement Design Report

103988-001 July 2020

Due to the relatively low fines content, lime treated subgrade (LTS) alternatives were not considered for the alignment.

6.3 Traffic Loading

Based on discussions with HDR, traffic counts are not available for the roadway and the roadways are classified as low volume. For design of the roadway, we assumed an equivalent single axle loading (ESAL) of 50,000 based on the minimum recommend ESAL in the PDDM.

6.4 Subgrade Soils

As discussed in Section 5.0, the subsurface explorations completed along the roadway primarily consisted of silty sands and sandy clays (A-1-b, A-2-4, A-6, and A-7-6). To estimate the strength of the subgrade materials, a CBR test was completed on a bulk sample from boring SW-04 resulting in a CBR of 34.6 percent. Laboratory index testing indicated the bulk sample consisted of AASHTO classification A-2-4. Due to the potential variability of the subsurface materials throughout the site and because the CBR was tested on A-2-4 material we used a CBR of 5.0 percent to match correlations for A-6 and A-7-6 material. For the design subgrade strength, we used a TxDOT correlation between CBR and resilient modulus, which calculates a resilient modulus value of 7,143 pounds per square inch

(TXDOT, 2014).

6.5 Recommended Pavement Sections

Using the PDDM procedures and the parameters outlined in Appendix D, we recommend the following pavement sections for the Project:

3.0 inches of HACP overlying 6 inches of untreated base course

4.0 inches of HACP overlying 4 inches of untreated base course

For pavement sections to be rehabilitated with a chip seal, we recommend a double course chip seal in accordance with FP-14 Section 407.

7 CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS

The applicability of the design parameters in Section 6.0 is contingent on good construction practice. Poor construction techniques may alter conditions from those upon which our recommendations are based, and therefore result in poor performance. Our analyses assumed that this project is constructed according to FP-14 U.S. Customary Units (U.S.

Pavement Design Report

103988-001 July 2020

Department of Transportation [USDOT] and FHWA, 2014) construction standards. The following sections provide additional construction considerations for this project.

7.1 Site Preparation

In widening areas, we recommend that brush and other vegetation be cleared and roots and stumps be removed from all areas to be graded in accordance with FP-14 Sections 201 and

203. All surface and subsurface structures associated with current development of the site, including pavements, utility poles, fence poles, underground utilities and other deleterious material, should also be removed. Any existing surficial topsoil and soil containing visible organics should be stripped and removed from all areas.

7.2 Earthwork

7.2.1 Subgrade Preparation

Proper subgrade preparation is required for adequate pavement performance. The exposed subgrade should be treated to an appropriate depth as discussed in Section 6.2.

7.2.2 Fill Placement

The on-site soils can be reused as part of the moisture treated subgrade. However, due to the potential expansive nature of the clay, it will be important to place overexcavated materials at a moisture content above the optimum moisture content to reduce the potential for swell. In this regard, cohesive soils (AASHTO A-6 and A-7) should be moisture treated to 1 to 3 percent above optimum moisture content.

All subgrade material and fill should be compacted to a dense/firm and unyielding condition in accordance with FP-14 Section 204.11. On-site subgrade and fill materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent maximum density, as determined by AASHTO T180 or T99, as presented in FP-14 Section 204. Fill should be placed in uniform, horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness for heavy, self-propelled compactors, or 4 inches for hand-operated mechanical compactors. The appropriate lift thickness will depend on the Contractor’s equipment and the moisture content and quality of the fill material.

7.2.3 Proof-Rolling

As discussed above, the subgrade should be prepared in accordance with FP-14 Section 204.11, which includes the use of compression-type rollers. While it is important to place clayey material above the optimum moisture content to control swell, material placed wet of

Pavement Design Report

103988-001 July 2020 optimum is prone to pumping and yielding from construction activities. This material can be difficult to pass a proof-roll. The Contractor will need to carefully control the movement of equipment around the site and minimize the passage of equipment over the overexcavated area. Even with these precautions, compaction of the material will be difficult and extra working time should be anticipated. Placement and compaction testing should be monitored on a full-time basis to assist in this process.

7.3 Paving Materials

The following exhibit summarizes our recommendations for pavement material selection.

All specification sections reference the FP-14 U.S. Customary Units, (USDOT and FHWA, 2014).

Exhibit 7-1: Recommended Materials for Pavements

Material Specification Additional Requirements/Comments UTBC Section 301 Use Gradation C or D

HACP Section 403 (TXDOT Item 341)

Aggregate Gradation: F Fine Mixture (3/8 inch NMAS) Aggregate Gradation: D Fine Surface (1/2 inch NMAS) PG Binder: PG 70-22 Gyratory Number (N): 50 or 75

Chip Seal Section 407 Type 2B

NOTES:

HACP = Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement; NMAS = Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size; TXDOT = Texas Department of Transportation;

UTBC = Untreated Base Course

To determine the recommended SuperPave Binder, we used the LTPP Bind Version 3.1Beta and guidance from the TxDOT Pavement Manual (2017). We recommend using a PG 70-22 binder for the HACP, based on availability in the project area. Per the 70% review comments, EFL recommends a 3/8 inch NMAS mix for the project, however the 1/2 inch NMAS mix will be reevaluated as a potential option by EFL. Recommended HACP lift thicknesses are between 1.25 and 2.5 inches for the 3/8 inch nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) and between 1.5 and 3.0 inches for the 1/2 inch NMAS (TxDOT, 2014). Using criteria provided by TxDOT, the proposed 3-inch thick pavement section can be paved with two lifts of the 3/8 inch NMAS or the 1/2 inch NMAS. A tack coat should be placed between subsequent lifts.

7.4 Sulfates

To assist in estimating the corrosion potential at the site, two samples were tested for water soluble sulfates. The results are presented in Table B-1 in Appendix B. The concentration of water-soluble sulfates measured in the sample was measured to be 0.004 percent by weight

Pavement Design Report

103988-001 July 2020 or less. Based on classifications as defined by the American Concrete Institute ACI-318-14 (ACI, 2014), these test results suggest a negligible degree of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to site soils (exposure class S0).

8 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of HDR and Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division for the purpose of providing pavement recommendations for the Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery project. This pavement design report should not be used without our approval if any of the following occurs:

Assumptions stated in this report have changed.

Project details change or new information becomes available such that our analyses and recommendations may be affected.

A substantial period of time has passed since the date of this report.

If any of these occur, we should be retained to review the applicability of our analyses and recommendations.

Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, the analyses, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical and geological principles and practice in this area at the time this report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied.

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. has prepared “Important Information about Your Geotechnical Report,” to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our reports.

Pavement Design Report

103988-001 July 2020

9 REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary, Farmington Hills, Mich., ACI 318-14.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993, AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures: Washington, D.C., AASHTO, 2 v.

Barnes, V.E., 1976, Geologic Atlas of Texas, Geology of the Kingsland Quadrangle, Llano and Burnet Counties: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-0041, scale 1:24,000

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), 2017, Pavement Manual, revised April 2017.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), 2014, Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges. November 1, 2014.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2008, Federal Lands Highway project development and design manual (PDDM):

U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.

Available from: http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/manuals/pddm/.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration, 2014, Federal standard specifications for construction of roads and bridges on Federal Highway projects, FP-14 English Units: U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, available from http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Road Inventory Program Rating System.

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_19384.htm http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/manuals/pddm/ http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/

VICINITY MAP

FIG. 1

TX FTFW INDA 10(1)

Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery

Burnet County, Texas

Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by

Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth ™ Mapping Service.

NOTE

July 2020 103988-001

F i l e n a m e

I E

F D

E N s

E

F L

T

X

I n k s

D a m

D r a f t i n g

F i g u r e d w g

D a t e

L o g i n m l w

0 4000 8000

Scale in Feet

Amarillo

Dallas

Houston San Antonio

El Paso

Texas

Inks Lake

MT

Austin

Project

Location

H o o v e r s

V l l y

R a d

Park Road 4 South

P a k d

W s t

PROJECT

LOCATION

Kingsland to Burnet

103988-001

SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN

July 2020

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

F i l e

I E

F D

E N s

E

F L

T

X

I n k s

D a m

D r a f t i n g

F i g u r e d w g

D t e

A u t h o r j c g

Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by

Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth ™ Mapping Service.

NOTE

TX FTFW INDA 10(1)

Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery

Burnet County, Texas

FIG. 2

MT

SW-01

125 250

Scale in Feet

P a k

W s t

LEGEND

Boring Designation and

Approximate Location

SW-01

SW-02

SW-03

Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery

SW-04

SW-05

Entrance Road

C o l o r a i v e r

Education Center Parking Area

Visitor Center Parking Area

Commercial Entrance Road

Visitor Center Drive

LRCA Camp Road

Amphitheater Access Road

7/8/2020-103988-001_AA.docx A-i

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

IO

NS

Appendix A: Subsurface Ex plorations

Appendix A

Subsurface Explorations

CONTENTS

A.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... A-1

A.2 Explorations ........................................................................................................................... A-1

A.2.1 Soil and Rock Classification System ...................................................................... A-1

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ............................................................................ A-1

A.2.3 Bulk Sampling .......................................................................................................... A-2

Figures Figure A-1: Soil Description and Log Key Figure A-2 through A-6: Log of Borings SW-01 through SW-05

A-1

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

A.1 INTRODUCTION

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.’s (Shannon & Wilson’s) field exploration program was conducted on October 1, 2019, and consisted of drilling five borings designated SW-01 through SW-05 at the locations shown on Figure 2. Photographs of boring locations are provided in Appendix C. The methods used to conduct the field exploration program are described below.

A.2 EXPLORATIONS

The borings were coordinated (including subcontractor coordination and utility locates) and observed by Shannon & Wilson. Individual boring logs are presented in Figure A-2 through A-6. These exploration logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and select results of laboratory testing. The borings were drilled by Austin Geologic of Austin, Texas (under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson) using a CME 45B truck mounted drill rig.

The borings were advanced with air rotary or 4-inch diameter solid-stem auger to depths of approximately 10.5 feet. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling in any of the borings. On completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with bentonite chips and patched with cold patch asphalt where required.

A.2.1 Soil Classification System

During exploration, our representative collected samples and prepared field logs of the explorations. Soil classification for this project was based on ASTM International (ASTM) Designation: D2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), and ASTM Designation: D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The Unified Soil Classification System is summarized in Figure A-1.

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Disturbed samples were obtained in the borings in general accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM Designation: D1586). The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter, 1.375-inch inside diameter split-spoon sampler a distance of 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. An automatic hammer system was used to advance the samplers. During sampling, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the number of blows for each 6-inch increment of penetration and summed the blow counts for the last two 6-inch increments. This sum is recorded as the

A-2

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

penetration resistance number, or N-value. If high penetration resistance prevented driving the total length of the sampler, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the partial penetration depth and blow count. The N-values provide a means for evaluating the relative density or compactness of cohesionless (granular) soils and consistency or stiffness of cohesive (fine-grained) soils (see Figure A-1). The raw N-values are shown on the individual boring logs. Representative portions of the split-spoon sample obtained in conjunction with the SPT were placed in a screw-top plastic jar and transported to our laboratory.

A.2.3 Bulk Sampling

A bulk soil sample was obtained by collecting the drill cuttings from the upper 4 feet of boring SW-04. Approximately 20 pounds of cuttings were placed in a sealed plastic bag and transported to our laboratory for further analysis and testing.

July 2020 103988-001

Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery

Burnet County, Texas

1Gravel, sand, and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents, such as organics, cobbles, and boulders, estimated by volume.

2Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall.

Rope on 6- to 10-inch-diam. cathead 2-1/4 rope turns, > 100 rpm

NOTE: If automatic hammers are used, blow counts shown on boring logs should be adjusted to account for efficiency of hammer.

10 to 30 inches long Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches Barrel O.D. = 2 inches

Sum blow counts for second and third 6-inch increments.

Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or less; 10 blows for 0 inches.

RELATIVE

CONSISTENCY

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

5% to 12% fine-grained:

with Silt or with Clay 3

15% or more of a second coarse-grained constituent:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

< 5%

5 to 10%

15 to 25%

30 to 45%

50 to 100%

Surface Cement Seal

Asphalt or Cap

Slough

Inclinometer or Non-perforated Casing

Vibrating Wire Piezometer

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

< 4 4 - 10

10 - 30 30 - 50

> 50

DESCRIPTION

< #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)

#200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.)

#40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.)

#10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.)

SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE

#4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.)

3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm)

3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)

> 12 in. (305 mm)

Fine Coarse

Fine Medium Coarse

BOULDERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

FINES

SAND

Sheet 1 of 3

CONSTITUENT2

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, from below water table

FIG. A-1

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&W), uses a soil identification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on this and the following pages. Soil descriptions are based on visual-manual procedures (ASTM D2488) and laboratory testing procedures (ASTM D2487), if performed.

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

SPECIFICATIONS

Hammer:

Sampler:

N-Value:

Dry

Moist

Wet

MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS

Modifying (Secondary)

Precedes major constituent

Major

Minor Follows major constituent

1All percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3-inch sieve.

2The order of terms is: Modifying Major with Minor.

3Determined based on behavior.

4Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage.

5Whichever is the lesser constituent.

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

(less than 50% fines)1

NOTE: Penetration resistances (N-values) shown on boring logs are as recorded in the field and have not been corrected for hammer efficiency, overburden, or other factors.

PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS

RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY

Sand or Gravel 4

30% or more coarse-grained:

Sandy or Gravelly 4

More than 12% fine-grained:

Silty or Clayey 3

15% to 30% coarse-grained:

with Sand or with Gravel 4

30% or more total coarse-grained and lesser coarse-grained constituent is 15% or more:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard

Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense

RELATIVE

DENSITY

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more fines)1

COHESIVE SOILS

< 2 2 - 4 4 - 8

8 - 15 15 - 30

> 30

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Silt, Lean Clay, Elastic Silt, or

Fat Clay 3

PERCENTAGES TERMS 1, 2

Trace

Few

Little

Some

Mostly

WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS

Bentonite Cement Grout

Bentonite Grout

Bentonite Chips

Silica Sand

Perforated or Screened Casing

S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS

S O

IL

_C

LA

S

S _K

E Y

_P G

8-

E

F L

T X

IN

K

S D

A M

.G P

J S

H A

N _W

IL

.G

D T

/4 /1

Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery

Burnet County, Texas

GC

SC

Inorganic

Organic

(more than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve)

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC

SYMBOL

CH

OH

ML

CL

TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

Gravel

Sand

Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel

Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel

Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Sand

Sheet 2 of 3

Gravels

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

SW

(more than 12% fines)

Silts and Clays

Silts and Clays

(more than 50% retained on No.

200 sieve)

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

(liquid limit less than 50)

(liquid limit 50 or more)

Organic

Inorganic

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

SM

Sands

Silty or Clayey Gravel

Silt; Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Silt

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay

HIGHLY-

ORGANIC

SOILS

COARSE-

GRAINED

SOILS

OL

(less than 5% fines)

GW

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

(less than 5% fines)

PT

FIG. A-1

(more than 12% fines)

MH

SP

GP

GM

Silty or Clayey Sand

Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand

(50% or more passes the No.

200 sieve)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

Elastic Silt; Elastic Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt

Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel;

Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay

Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Sand; Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Gravel; Well-Graded Gravel with Sand

Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay

Peat or other highly organic soils (see

ASTM D4427)

NOTES

1. Dual symbols (symbols separated by a hyphen, i.e., SP-SM, Sand with Silt) are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart. Graphics shown on the logs for these soil types are a combination of the two graphic symbols (e.g., SP and SM).

2. Borderline symbols (symbols separated by a slash, i.e., CL/ML, Lean Clay to Silt; SP-SM/SM, Sand with Silt to Silty Sand) indicate that the soil properties are close to the defining boundary between two groups.

S O

IL

_C

LA

S

S _K

E Y

_P G

8-

E

F L

T X

IN

K

S D

A M

.G P

J S

H A

N _W

IL

.G

D T

/4 /1

NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

(Modified From USACE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488)

Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery

Burnet County, Texas

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

FIG. A-1

Sheet 3 of 3

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

1Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

2Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

Interbedded

Laminated

Fissured

Slickensided

Blocky

Lensed

Homogeneous

ATD

Diam.

Elev.

ft.

FeO gal.

Horiz.

HSA

I.D.

in.

lbs.

MgO mm

MnO

NA

NP

O.D.

OW

pcf

PID

PMT

ppm psi

PVC

rpm

SPT

USCS

qu

VWP

Vert.

WOH

WOR

Wt.

Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure.

Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure.

Will not crumble or break with finger pressure.

PLASTICITY2

CEMENTATION TERMS1

GRADATION TERMS

STRUCTURE TERMS1

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-inch thick;

singular: bed.

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 1/4-inch thick;

singular: lamination.

Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance.

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy; sometimes striated.

Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps that resist further breakdown.

Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay.

Same color and appearance throughout.

Narrow range of grain sizes present or, within the range of grain sizes present, one or more sizes are missing (Gap Graded). Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.

Full range and even distribution of grain sizes present. Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.

Poorly Graded

Well-Graded

Weak

Moderate

Strong

Irregular patches of different colors.

Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or animals.

Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel in silt and/or clay matrix.

Material brought to surface by drilling.

Material that caved from sides of borehole.

Disturbed texture, mix of strengths.

VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA

A 1/8-in. thread cannot be rolled at any water content.

A thread can barely be rolled and a lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit.

A thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. A lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.

It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. A thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. A lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.

Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces.

Similar to angular, but with rounded edges.

Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.

Smoothly curved sides with no edges.

Width/thickness ratio > 3.

Length/width ratio > 3.

PARTICLE ANGULARITY AND SHAPE TERMS1

ADDITIONAL TERMS

Angular

Subangular

Subrounded

Rounded

Flat

Elongated

DESCRIPTION

Nonplastic

Low

Medium

High

At Time of Drilling Diameter Elevation Feet Iron Oxide Gallons Horizontal Hollow Stem Auger Inside Diameter Inches Pounds Magnesium Oxide Millimeter Manganese Oxide Not Applicable or Not Available Nonplastic Outside Diameter Observation Well Pounds per Cubic Foot Photo-Ionization Detector Pressuremeter Test Parts per Million Pounds per Square Inch Polyvinyl Chloride Rotations per Minute Standard Penetration Test Unified Soil Classification System Unconfined Compressive Strength Vibrating Wire Piezometer Vertical Weight of Hammer Weight of Rods Weight

Mottled

Bioturbated

Diamict

Cuttings

Slough

Sheared

APPROX.

PLASITICITY

INDEX

RANGE

< 4

4 to 10

10 to 20

> 20

S O

IL

_C

LA

S

S _K

E Y

_P G

8-

E

F L

T X

IN

K

S D

A M

.G P

J S

H A

N _W

IL

.G

D T

/4 /1

S -1

S -2

S -3

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

Medium dense, brown, Silty Sand (SM); dry;

few gravel, occasional cobbles. [A-1-b]

Medium dense to dense, red-yellow to brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); dry. [A-1-b]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 10/01/2019

3.0

10.5

NOTES

FIG. A-2

S am pl es

4 in.

AWJ

Automatic

20 40 60

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

103988-001

10.5 ft.

20 40

Solid-Stem Auger Austin Geologic CME 45B Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

LOG OF BORING SW-01

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Northing:

Easting:

Station:

Offset:

TX FTFW INDA 10(1), 11(1)

Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery

Burnet County, Texas

D ep th , f t.

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual.

3. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

4. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

5. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

July 2020

QCL 3

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N

-0

E F

L T

X

IN

K S

D A

M .G

P J

2/

2/

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

(blows/foot)

(<0.075mm) % Fines % Water Content

S -2

S -3

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

1.5 inches of Asphalt

Medium dense, light red, Silty Gravel with Sand (GM); dry. Base Course. [A-2-4]

Medium stiff to very stiff, brown, Sandy Lean Clay (CL); dry; trace gravel. [A-6]

Medium dense, red-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); dry.

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 10/01/2019

0.2

1.2

7.0

10.5

NOTES

FIG. A-3

S am pl es

4 in.

AWJ

Automatic

20 40 60

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

103988-001

10.5 ft.

20 40

Solid-Stem Auger Austin Geologic CME 45B Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

LOG OF BORING SW-02

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Northing:

Easting:

Station:

Offset:

TX FTFW INDA 10(1), 11(1)

Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery

Burnet County, Texas

D ep th , f t.

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual.

3. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

4. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

5. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

July 2020

QCL 3

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N

-0

E F

L T

X

IN

K S

D A

M .G

P J

2/

2/

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

(blows/foot)

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines

Plastic Limit

S -2

S -3

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

1.5 inches of Asphalt

Stiff to very stiff, red, Sandy Lean Clay (CL);

moist; trace gravel. [A-6]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 10/01/2019

0.2

10.5

NOTES

FIG. A-4

S am pl es

2 in.

AWJ

Automatic

20 40 60

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

103988-001

10.5 ft.

20 40

Air Rotary Austin Geologic CME 45B Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

LOG OF BORING SW-03

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Northing:

Easting:

Station:

Offset:

TX FTFW INDA 10(1), 11(1)

Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery

Burnet County, Texas

D ep th , f t.

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual.

3. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

4. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

5. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

July 2020

QCL 3

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N

-0

E F

L T

X

IN

K S

D A

M .G

P J

2/

2/

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

(blows/foot)

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines

B -1

S -2

S -3

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

6 inches of aggregate road surfacing.

Medium dense, light gray to gray, Poorly Graded Gravel (GP); dry; few sand.

Medium dense, red-brown, Silty Sand (SM);

dry; trace gravel. [A-2-4]

Medium dense, red-brown, Silty, Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC-SM); dry. [A-1-b]

Dense, red-yellow, Silty Sand (SM); dry; trace gravel.

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 10/01/2019

0.5

3.5

7.5

10.5

NOTES

FIG. A-5

S am pl es

2 in.

AWJ

Automatic

20 40 60

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

103988-001

10.5 ft.

20 40

Air Rotary Austin Geologic CME 45B Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

LOG OF BORING SW-04

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

Grab Sample

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Northing:

Easting:

Station:

Offset:

TX FTFW INDA 10(1), 11(1)

Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery

Burnet County, Texas

D ep th , f t.

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual.

3. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

4. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

5. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

July 2020

QCL 3

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N

-0

E F

L T

X

IN

K S

D A

M .G

P J

2/

2/

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

(blows/foot)

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

NP

S -2

S -3

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

Very stiff, red to red-brown, Sandy Fat Clay (CH); dry; roots. [A-7-6]

Very dense, red-yellow to red, Silty Sand (SM);

dry; trace gravel, scattered clay lenses. [A-1-b]

- Bedrock likely encountered at a depth of 9 feet, no sample recovery.

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 10/01/2019

3.0

9.2

NOTES

FIG. A-6

S am pl es

2 in.

AWJ

Automatic

20 40 60

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

103988-001

9.2 ft.

20 40

Air Rotary Austin Geologic CME 45B Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

LOG OF BORING SW-05

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Northing:

Easting:

Station:

Offset:

TX FTFW INDA 10(1), 11(1)

Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery

Burnet County, Texas

D ep th , f t.

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual.

3. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

4. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

5. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

July 2020

QCL 3

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N

-0

E F

L T

X

IN

K S

D A

M .G

P J

2/

2/

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

(blows/foot)

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

Plastic Limit

79/10"

50/2"

TX FTFW SAMA 10(1), 11(1)

7/8/2020-103988-001_AB.docx B-i

ND

IX

B : L

AB

OR

AT

OR

Y

TE

ST

R

ES

UL

Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results

Appendix B

Laboratory Test Results

CONTENTS

B.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ B-1

B.2 Geotechincal Index Tests ....................................................................................................... B-1

B.2.1 Water Content ............................................................................................................ B-1

B.2.2 Grain Size Analysis ................................................................................................... B-1

B.2.3 Atterberg Limits ........................................................................................................ B-1

B.3 Geotechnical Engineering Property Tests ........................................................................... B-2

B.3.1 Sulfate Content .......................................................................................................... B-2

B.3.2 Moisture Density Relationship (Compaction) Test .............................................. B-2

B.3.3 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) ............................................................................... B-2

Tables Table B-1: Summary of Laboratory Test Results by Boring

Figures Figure B-1: Grain Size Distribution Figure B-2: Plasticity Chart Figure B-3: Moisture-Density Test Figure B-4: California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

B-1

AP

PE

ND

IX

B : L

AB

OR

AT

OR

Y

TE

ST

R

ES

B.1 INTRODUCTION

Laboratory tests were completed on soil samples retrieved from the borings in general accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) test methods and ASTM International (ASTM).