REPORT - 2023.0829 Cotton Correctional Facility - Pavement Investigation.pdf

REPORT OF

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION

FOR

G. ROBERT COTTON CORRETIONAL FACILITY

BLACKMAN CHARTER TOWNSHIP

JACKSON COUNTY

MICHIGAN

DECEMBER 18, 2023

MCSA Group, Inc.

529 Greenwood Avenue SE

East Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506

Project No. 2023.0829

December 18, 2023

MCSA Group, Inc.

529 Greenwood Avenue East Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan 49506

Attention: Ms. Tiffany Smith, RLA

Regarding: G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility Pavement Investigation

Blackman Charter Township, Jackson County, Michigan Project No. 2023.0829

Dear Ms. Smith:

Soils & Structures, Inc. is pleased to present this pavement investigation report for the G.

Robert Cotton Correctional Facility project located in Blackman Charter Township, Jackson County, Michigan.

The investigation included twenty-one (21) test borings extended to a depth of approximately four (4.0) feet. The test borings were conducted in accordance with industry standards for pavement sampling. In-situ Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D 6951.

The report, test boring location plan, and test boring logs are enclosed. The report provides recommendations for cross section designs, thicknesses, material properties and the anticipated service life of the proposed systems. Construction notes and drainage considerations have also been included.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide engineering services to MCSA Group, Inc. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office.

Sincerely, Soils & Structures, Inc. Reviewed by:

Trevor J. Brandt, EIT Ryan M. Beering, P.E.

Contents Location of Pavement Investigation Purpose of Investigation Design Information Tests Performed Description of Existing Pavement Profile and Subgrade Description of Groundwater Conditions Analysis & Recommendations General Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Recommendations General Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Recommendations Drainage Considerations for Pavement Areas Quality Control Testing General Conditions & Reliance

Appendix

Test Boring Location Diagram USACE DCP Logs (B-1 through B-21)

Laboratory Tests General Soil Information

Page 3 –G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility – Pavment Investigation

Project 2023.0829 – December 18, 2023

Location of Pavement Investigation

The investigation was throughout the pavement network of the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility located in Blackman Charter Township, Jackson County, Michigan.

Purpose of Investigation

The purpose of this investigation is to provide rehabilitation recommendations for the asphalt and concrete pavements at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility.

Design Information

The reconstruction of the existing concrete and asphalt parking lots, access drives, and sidewalks has been proposed for the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility. The proposed asphalt parking lot and access drive improvements at the facility have a footprint of approximately 20,500 square yards and

0.3 miles respectively. The proposed concrete improvements have a footprint of approximately 12,300 square yards. Based on conversations the MCSA it is understood that the maintenance/shipping and receiving area and campus courtyard access pavements will be reconstructed with Portland cement concrete (PCC). Asphalt pavements will be limited to the eastern exterior parking lots and access drives.

The pavements in the employee/visitor parking lots (southwest portion of site near the O’Leary Road intersection) and associated access drives are expected to be subjected to primarily passenger vehicle traffic with occasional truck traffic (primarily snow removal equipment). An estimate of 250,000 lifetime Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) was assumed for the recommended standard-duty hot mix asphalt (HMA) sections.

The pavements in the maintenance and shipping/receiving areas (northwest portion of site) are expected to be subjected to mixed passenger and commercial truck traffic. The commercial truck traffic is anticipated to consist of box trucks and semi-trucks with trailers. An estimate of 750,000 lifetime ESALs was assumed for the recommended heavy-duty HMA sections. An estimate of 1,000,000 lifetime ESALs was assumed for the recommended heavy-duty Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement section. A higher ESAL count was assumed for the PCC pavement section to account for a longer design service life.

The pavements in the southern portion of the secure area are expected to be subjected to passenger vehicle traffic, landscaping vehicles, and occasional snow removal equipment. The recommended PCC pavement section was designed to withstand the expected environmental stresses and occasional vehicle traffic.

If traffic volume counts are known or collected and are significantly greater than anticipated, the Soils & Structures should be contacted so that the pavements recommendations included in this report may be reviewed and revised if necessary.

Tests Performed

The pavement investigation included twenty-one (21) test borings extended to a depth of approximately four (4.0) feet. The test borings were conducted in accordance with industry standards for pavement

Page 4 –G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility – Pavment Investigation sampling. The locations were determined by Soils & Structures. A Geoprobe® and hand augers were used to obtain samples.

Prior to performing the test borings, the soil strength was evaluated in-situ using an United States Army Corps of Engineers Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (USACE DCP) to a depth of three (3.0) feet. The DCP is a steel rod 5/8-inch in diameter with a pointed cone end that is driven into the subgrade using a sliding hammer. The weight of the hammer can be adjusted from 17.6 pounds to 10.1 pounds if weaker soils are encountered. This rate of penetration is used to estimate a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value for the soil which is used to interpret support conditions for the existing pavement section layers and subgrade. Discussion of results will follow in further sections. DCP test data is included in the Appendix along with soil boring information. DCP testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D 6951.

Soil samples were classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. This method is a standardized system for classifying soil according to its engineering properties. Please refer to the appendix of this report for the Unified Classification System Chart. The classification is shown in the test boring logs.

Laboratory testing consisted of sieve and (particle size) analysis and Atterberg tests. The tests were performed on representative soil samples and in accordance with applicable ASTM standards. The particle size analysis determines the particle distribution which is used to classify the soil and estimate its properties. The Atterberg tests determine the liquid and plastic limits of cohesive soils.

Description of Existing Pavement Profile and Subgrade

The analysis of the pavements was split up into three areas. The general pavement profile consists of HMA or PCC. In general, the PCC bears on a sand subgrade and the HMA bears on an aggregate base.

Maintenance and Shipping/Receiving Areas (B-1 through B-5 and B-11)

The pavement profile consists of 2.5 to 4.0 inches of HMA with an average thickness of 3.3 inches in the area of B-4 and B-5. The pavement profile consists of 8.5 to 9.0 inches of PCC with an average thickness of 8.7 inches at B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-11.

An aggregate base is present beneath the HMA in the area of B-4 and B-5 and consists of 12.0 to

16.0 inches of fine-to-coarse sand with natural gravel and varying amounts of clay. The average thickness of the aggregate base is 14.0 inches in the area of the HMA pavement. An aggregate base is also present beneath the PCC in the area of B-11. The aggregate base consists of approximately 9.5 inches of fine-to-coarse clayey sand with natural gravel. Results of a sieve analysis performed on a representative aggregate base sample form B-11 shows that it meets the MDOT 23A dense-graded aggregate gradation criteria. An aggregate base is absent in the area of B-1 through B-3. DCP results in the area of B-4 and B-5 showed CBR values from 26.6 to 73.9 percent with an average value of

50.2 percent, indicating very poor to moderate support conditions for an aggregate base. DCP results in the area of B-11 showed CBR values of approximately 10.2 percent, indicating very poor support conditions for an aggregate base.

A sand subbase/sand base with varying silt and clay content and trace gravel is present beneath the aggregate base and PCC. The subbase consists of 4.5 to 23.5 inches of sand with an average

Page 5 –G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility – Pavment Investigation thickness of 14.2 inches. The majority of the sand subbase has a high fines content which is indicative of poor drainage characteristics. Results of a sieve analysis performed on a representative sample of the sand subbase taken from boring B-1 shows that it has a fines content of 30.9 percent and does not meet any MDOT granular material gradation criteria. DCP results showed CBR values from 7.4 to

58.8 percent with an average value of 22.8 percent, indicating moderate to good support conditions for a sand subbase.

The subgrade consists of sand with a varying fines content and clay. Results of a sieve analysis performed on representative samples of the sand subgrade taken from borings B-1, B-3, and B-11 show that it has a fines content of 20.6 to 35.4 percent and does not meet any MDOT granular material gradation criteria. Results of a sieve analysis performed on a representative sample of the sand subgrade taken from boring B-4 show that it meets MDOT Class III gradation criteria. DCP results showed CBR values ranging from 16.0 to 26.8 percent with an average value of 21.3 percent, indicating good support conditions for subgrade soils.

Southern Secured Area (B-6 through B-10)

The general pavement profile consists of 3.75 to 4.75 inches of PCC with an average thickness of 4.2 inches. Approximately 4.5 inches of HMA is present at B-10. There is no aggregate base in this area and the pavements bear directly on a sand base. The sand base consists of sand with varying fines content and extends to a depth between 23.0 and 50.0 inches. Results of a sieve analysis performed on a representative sample of the sand base taken from boring B-8 show that it has a fines content of

28.7 percent and does not meet any MDOT granular material gradation criteria. The high fines content is indicative of poor drainage characteristics. DCP results showed CBR values ranging from

9.4 to 21.2 percent with an average value of 15.3 percent, indicating moderate to good support conditions for a sand base.

A clay subgrade was encountered below the sand base at B-7 and B-8. DCP results showed CBR values ranging from 5.6 to 21.7 percent with an average value of 13.7 percent, indicating moderate to good support conditions for subgrade soils.

Employee and Visitor Parking Lots/Access Drives (B-12 through B-21)

The pavement profile consists of 1.75 to 4.25 inches of HMA with an average thickness of 3.7 inches over 4.0 to 12.75 inches of aggregate base. The aggregate base has an average thickness of 6.3 inches. The aggregate base consists primarily of fine-to-coarse sand with natural gravel and clay. DCP results showed CBR values from 11.2 to 71.4 percent with an average value of 38.5 percent, indicating very poor to moderate support conditions for an aggregate base.

A sand subbase is present below the aggregate base and consists of sand with varying gravel, clay, and silt content. In some areas the sand subbase could not be easily distinguished from the assumed subgrade layers, but is estimated to have a thickness ranging from 2.5 to 14.25 inches with an average thickness of 7.8 inches. Based on visual classification of the samples the sand subbase materials appear to be poorly-drained across this area. DCP results for the sand subbase showed CBR values from 11.9 to 61.5 percent with an average value of 31.6 percent, indicating good support conditions for a sand subbase.

Beneath the sand subbase, the subgrade consists primarily of sand with varying fines content. Lean clay was encountered at test boring B-15 at a depth of 42.0 inches. DCP results showed CBR values

Page 6 –G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility – Pavment Investigation ranging from 7.7 to 55.7 percent with an average value of 28.1 percent, indicating moderate to good support conditions for subgrade soils.

An Atterberg test performed on a representative sample of the clay subgrade determined that the liquid limit is 31 and the plastic limit is 16. The relatively low liquid limit indicates that the clay has low plasticity and will experience small volume changes with changing water contents or stresses.

Description of Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 28.0 inches while performing B-19. Long term groundwater monitoring within the pavement areas was not performed as part of this investigation.

Analysis & Recommendations

Based on visual observations, in-situ testing, and laboratory testing the facility pavements are nearing the end of their design life. The pavements exhibit severe distresses that have resulted from a combination of age, deterioration due to climatic influences, moisture infiltration, and variable section thickness.

A partial-depth or full-depth mill and overlay is not recommended for any of the asphalt pavements included in the project area as the existing pavement section will not be able to support the necessary construction equipment. A partial-depth mill and overlay will result in substantial constructability challenges and severe reflective cracking. In accommodating a more robust HMA section, the full-depth mill and overlay process would render the existing aggregate base too thin in some areas and require undercuts. Additionally, the existing aggregate base material is providing inadequate support and has a relatively high fines content.

The following construction options are recommended:

1. FULL RECONSTRUCTION UTILIZING PCC PAVEMENTS (30-year design life)

This option would require complete removal of the existing PCC, HMA, aggregate base, and sand subbase. These areas would then be regraded to accommodate the new sand subbase, aggregate base, and PCC pavement section. Areas of soft or yielding soil would be either removed and replaced (undercutting) or mechanically stabilized using geo-grids. The PCC option will be more expensive than a HMA pavement option, however it will result in a longer lifespan.

2. FULL RECONSTRUCTION UTILIZING HMA PAVEMENTS (20-year design life)

This option would require complete removal of the existing HMA, aggregate base, and sand subbase.

The site would then be regraded and proof-rolled prior to the installation of the new sand subbase, aggregate base, and HMA overlay. Areas of soft or yielding soil would be either removed and replaced (undercutting) or mechanically stabilized using geo-grids. This is the most reliable HMA pavement option with respect to long term serviceability and the most flexible with regards to establishing new grades, however it will be the most expensive.

Page 7 –G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility – Pavment Investigation

3. FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (15 to 20-year design life)

Full depth reclamation (FDR) is often used as a method to recycle and improve the quality of existing pavement materials prior to resurfacing. The process has been proven to decrease construction costs on unstable sites or sites with inadequate existing pavement cross sections. The process can also decrease construction time and reduce contingencies associated with conventional methods. FDR consists of milling off an engineered depth of the existing asphalt to maintain grades. The remaining pavement, aggregate base, and an engineered portion of the subgrade soils is then pulverized into a homogenous mixture.

The salvaged base would be chemically stabilized using Portland cement. After fine grading the stabilized base to provide positive drainage it would be directly resurfaced with new HMA pavements.

FDR could also be held as a contingency in lieu of base repairs if undercuts become excessive for other construction options.

Due to the high structural support contribution of the SBC, the required HMA overlay thickness could likely be slightly reduced relative to the full reconstruction option, further adding to cost savings. If this option is selected, the generation of a site-specific laboratory mix design is recommended to fully assess the materials for appropriate additive types and application rates. For estimating and bidding purposes, an application rate of fifty-five (55) pounds per square yard using Type I Portland cement may be assumed.

4. CRUSH-AND-SHAPE (15-year design life)

This process would involve pulverizing the existing HMA pavements and aggregate base to generate a homogenous mixture of materials. The pulverizing process should extend to a depth of approximately

6.0 to 8.0 inches. The inclusion of pulverized asphalt in the aggregate base will help offset potential support issues caused by the high sand and fines content of the existing base. Excess pulverized material could be used to increase the section thickness of the aggregate base. Regrading and/or undercuts will be necessary in areas where the existing aggregate base is deficient.

The site would be regraded to accommodate the proposed new HMA pavement. The salvaged base would be compacted and thoroughly proof-rolled prior to resurfacing with new HMA pavement. Areas failing the proof roll should be undercut and backfilled using the excess pulverized material. Remaining excess material should be hauled off site. Efforts should be made during construction to minimize repetitive loading and overloading of the exposed pulverized section with construction traffic.

The crush-and-shape option assumes that there is some flexibility to raise grades. Re-grading around or adjusting concrete hardscape features will be necessary to maintain an adequate aggregate base thickness.

Page 8 –G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility – Pavment Investigation

Four recommended pavement cross-sections are presented in this section of the report:

1. A full reconstruction option utilizing PCC pavements;

2. A full reconstruction option utilizing HMA pavements;

3. A full-depth reclamation option utilizing HMA pavements; and

4. A crush-and-shape option utilizing HMA pavements.

These recommendations were developed based on the discussions and assumptions included in this REPORT and the design procedures outlined in the “AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures - 1993.” For concrete pavements, design procedures in ACI 330R were also referenced. The subgrade should be prepared as described in this section of the report. The recommended pavement section materials listed in Table One through Four refer to and should comply with the standard material designations included in applicable MDOT specifications and guidelines, including the 2020 MDOT “Standard Specifications for Construction.”

For the HMA construction options, the recommended cross sections are based off of a minimum subgrade CBR value of 5.0 percent. Although in most areas the CBR is higher than 5.0 percent, it is widely understood that correlations between subgrade reaction moduli and CBR are not reliable at higher CBR ranges. Therefore, a CBR of 5.0 percent, which correlates to a subgrade resilient modulus of 6,000 psi was assumed for the existing subgrade. A calculated service life loading of 250,000 ESALS was assumed for the standard-duty HMA pavement section. Based on these values, a minimum-required structural number (SN) of 2.71 will be necessary to support the design standard-duty traffic loading. A calculated service life loading of 750,000 ESALS was assumed for the heavy-duty HMA pavement section. Based on these values, a minimum-required structural number (SN) of 3.20 will be necessary to support the design heavy-duty traffic loading.

For the PCC construction options, the recommended cross sections are based off of a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 psi/in. A calculated service life loading of 1,00,000 ESALS was assumed for the heavy-duty PCC pavement section. Based on these values a minimum concrete thickness of 8.0 inches is required to withstand truck traffic loads. The light-duty section was designed for sidewalks and minor access drives. A minimum concrete thickness of 6.0 inches to withstand anticipated environmental stresses and passenger vehicle traffic.

The recommended HMA cross-sections meet the minimum-required design structural number.

The recommended PCC cross-sections meet the minimum-required design thickness. The cross-sections have been designed to withstand the assumed traffic loads mentioned above, as well as environmental stresses experienced due to Michigan’s wet freeze/thaw cycles. An 80% reliability was assumed for the crush and shape option. A 90% reliability for all other HMA pavement sections. Initial and terminal serviceability values are 4.5 and 2.25, respectively.

For the full reconstruction and crush and shape options, contingencies should be held for undercutting of soft or yielding soils. Positive drainage should be maintained in exposed soils to avoid accumulation of precipitation. The subgrade should be thoroughly proof-rolled prior to the placement of subsequent pavement layers. Areas of soft or yielding soil should either be removed and replaced or mechanically stabilized using geo-grid. The recommended geogrid product is a triaxial product such as Tensar TX-140. Use of geogrid in lieu of undercutting would require new angular (crushed) aggregate as aggregate interlock is required to take full advantage of the grids. Triaxial geogrid will limit the required depth of excavations. The minimum thickness of aggregate over the geogrid should be 18.0 inches for HMA and PCC pavement.

Page 9 –G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility – Pavment Investigation

I. Full Construction (30 Years) with Portland Cement Concrete

Cross-section recommendations for are listed in Table One. The design life also assumes that incremental maintenance repairs such as surface sealing, joint and crack sealing, full and partial depth repair, and/or undersealing is performed as required throughout the life of the pavement.

Table 1: Recommended Pavement Sections – Full Reconstruction with PCC

Pavement Cross Section Materials

Shipping and Receiving and Maintenance

Sidewalks / Campus Access Lanes

Material Thickness

(in) Material

Thickness (in)

PCC Concrete1 MDOT GRADE

8.0 (Non-reinforced)

MDOT

GRADE 3500

6.0 (Non-reinforced)

Aggregate Base2 21AA 6.0 21AA 6.0

Sand Subbase Class II 8.0 Class II 8.0

Note 1: A micro- and macro-fiber blend additive should be utilized to control plastic shrinkage cracking and for impact protection.

Note 2: The recommended aggregate base material for PCC pavements is MDOT 21AA crushed limestone.

II. Full Reconstruction (20 Years) with Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement Sections

Cross-section recommendations are listed in Table Two. The design life assumes that incremental maintenance repairs such as joint sealing, localized patching, and/or sealcoating is performed as required throughout the life of the pavement.

Table 2: Recommended Pavement Sections – Full Reconstruction with HMA

Section Materials

Employee and Visitor Parking Lots and Access Drives

Shipping and Receiving Access Drives

Material Thickness (in) Material Thickness

(in) HMA Wearing Course 4EML 2.0 4EML 2.5 HMA Leveling Course 4EML 2.0 4EML 2.5

Aggregate Base1 21AA 8.0 21AA 10.0 Sand Subbase Class II 12.0 Class II 12.0

Note 1: The recommended aggregate base material for HMA pavements is MDOT 21AA crushed limestone. Natural gravel meeting MDOT 22A specifications or a 21AA Modified crushed concrete product may also be used, but the aggregate base thickness should be increased by 20.0 percent to accommodate lower-quality material properties.

Page 10 –G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility – Pavment Investigation

III. Full-Depth Reclamation (15 to 20 Years) with Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement Sections

Cross-section recommendations are listed in Table Three. The design life also assumes that incremental maintenance repairs such as joint sealing, localized patching, and/or sealcoating is performed as required throughout the life of the pavement.

Table 3: Recommended Pavement Sections – Full Depth Reclamation

Section Materials

Employee and Visitor Parking Lots and Access Drives

Shipping and Receiving Access Drives

Material Thickness (in) Material Thickness (in) HMA Wearing

Course

4EML 1.5 4EML 2.0

HMA Leveling Course

4EML 2.0 4EML 2.5

Aggregate Base Stabilized Base

Course (Per Mix Design)

12.0 Stabilized Base

Course (Per Mix Design)

12.0

IV. Crush-and-Shape (15) with Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement Sections

Cross-section recommendations are listed in Table Four. The design life assumes that incremental maintenance repairs such as joint sealing, localized patching, and/or sealcoating is performed as required throughout the life of the pavement.

Table 4: Recommended Pavement Sections – Crush-and-Shape

Section Materials

Employee and Visitor Parking Lots and Access Drives

Shipping and Receiving Access Drives

Material Thickness (in) Material Thickness (in)

HMA Wearing Course 4EML 2.0 4EML 2.5 HMA Leveling Course 4EML 2.0 4EML 2.5

Aggregate Base Salvaged 8.0 - MIN Salvaged 8.0 – MIN

General Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Recommendations

The paving contractor should submit the proposed mix design and any associated backup data to the owner and engineer-of-record for approval prior to placement.

MDOT Tier I Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) specifications should be utilized for both the wearing and leveling courses with performance grade PG 64-28 asphalt binder. MDOT Tier II RAP specifications may be applied to the leveling course but should utilize asphalt binder performance grade PG-58-28.

Page 11 –G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility – Pavment Investigation

Target void content should be 3.5 percent for both the wearing and leveling courses. The asphalt pavement should be compacted to 94 to 97 percent of the theoretical maximum density (determined via the Superpave “Rice” Method). Additionally, a tack coat of SS-1h emulsion should be applied between each laid asphalt layer at a rate of 0.1 gallon/square yard.

The pavement section should be constructed in accordance with the Michigan Department of Transportation “2020 Standard Specifications for Construction” as well as applicable state and local requirements. Support conditions and compaction should be assessed during construction in accordance with the “Quality Control and Testing” section of this report. This assessment should occur prior to installation of individual pavement layers (i.e. prior to placement of aggregate base and prior to placement of pavements).

The 4EML mix will be a suitable wearing course for the truck access drives in the northwest portion of the facility, however some wheel marks and scuffing may occur when making sharp or static turns within the first year of service. Any pavement area that will be subjected to long-term static point loads such as those from trailer jacks should utilize a PCC pavement section or a concrete dolly pad. To help prevent issues with production or performance of the recommended mixes, the Job Mix Formula (JMF) be forwarded to Soils & Structures for review prior to placement.

General Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Recommendations

The concrete contractor should submit the proposed mix design and any associated backup data to the owner and engineer-of-record for approval prior to placement.

A fiber mesh additive is recommended for use in the concrete mix design for temperature and shrinkage crack control/prevention as well as some impact protection. While welded wire mesh is often utilized for this purpose, fiber mesh additives provide similar shrinkage crack control while also providing more uniform protection. The fiber mesh product should be a blend of macro- and micro-fibers blend such as SikaFiber Novomesh-950 or similar. A water-reducer or plasticizer may be required to maintain sufficient workability of the concrete during construction with the fiber additive. An application rate of 5.0 pounds of fiber additive per cubic yard of concrete is recommended for bidding purposes.

Concrete should meet MDOT Grade 3500 specifications with a minimum 28-day break strength of 3500 psi. The air content should be 5.5 to 8.5 percent. The slump should not exceed 3.0 inches unless appropriate water reducing agents or plasticizers are included as part of the approved mix design. The temperature of the concrete at the time of placement should not be less than 45°F or more than 90°F.

Drainage Considerations for Pavement Areas

The pavement areas should be properly drained to minimize the effects of frost heaving and the loss of subgrade support due to water infiltration. The parking lots should be sloped at a minimum of

1.5 percent toward regional low points with catch basins, or toward drainage swales or curb inlets.

Page 12 –G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility – Pavment Investigation

For all the recommended strategies, underdrain will be a critical component to extending the life of the pavement, especially due to the higher fines content of subgrade soils at this site.

Underdrain should be installed as cutoff drains adjacent to green scape sloping towards the pavement to prevent seepage under the pavement. Ring wraps should be installed adjacent to stormwater structures where they form low points in the pavement and finger drains should be extended at pedestrian crossings other hardscape features as necessary to mitigate infiltration and frost heave. Soils & Structures can review proposed drain tile layouts and details on request.

Underdrains should consist of a 6-inch diameter perforated pipe. The underdrain trench should extend at least 18.0 inches below the aggregate base or stabilized base course. The trench should be lined in a non-woven geotextile fabric with proper overlap. The wrapped portion of the drain tile should be backfilled with MDOT 34R peastone with the top portion of the trench backfilled with MDOT 21AA aggregate. This detail is an expanded drain tile recommendation and is probably more expensive than typical pavement drainage specifications, however, these specifications will provide a longer service life.

Quality Control Testing

Pavement subgrade, subbase, and aggregate base should be proof rolled using a fully-loaded tri-axle dump truck prior to pavement placement.

Compaction tests (ASTM D 6938) are recommended to confirm that backfill and subgrade/aggregate base in pavement or drainage installation areas are compacted to the specified density. When utility excavation backfill, material is being placed, compaction tests should be performed at the rate of one test per 400 cubic yards of fill and throughout the depth of the fill with a minimum of five tests at each 1.0-foot elevation interval. The recommended testing frequency in the pavement subgrade and aggregate base is one test per 2,500 square feet. Tests should also be performed in the backfill over utilities. The maximum density should be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557 or ASTM D 4253 procedures.

A dynamic cone should not be substituted for compaction tests for evaluating backfill.

Compaction testing should be performed by technicians supervised by a registered geotechnical engineer. Proof rolling and stabilization should be performed by a senior technician or field engineer under the supervision of a registered geotechnical engineer.

Page 13 –G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility – Pavment Investigation

Asphalt quality control testing should adhere to the 2020 MDOT Standards for Construction. Asphalt temperatures during placement should be at least 275 degrees Fahrenheit; material that arrives at temperatures below 250 degrees Fahrenheit shall be rejected. Asphalt density testing should be performed with a nuclear density gauge at a minimum rate of one test per 500 square feet of pavement. At least five total verification cores in each course should be taken to assess relative compaction, calibrate the nuclear density gauge, and evaluate thickness. A minimum of two loose mix samples per mix per day should be taken at the plant and delivered to the quality-assurance firm’s laboratory for vacuum extraction-gradations. The asphalt contractor should provide a minimum of two

(2) theoretical maximum density verifications per day. Additionally, areas that display poor workmanship, which may include (but are not limited to) segregation, “cold screed scrapes,” wearing courses not flush with curbs or rims, roller marks, shoving, smearing or tearing of the mat, flushing, or excessive cold joints should be repaired or replaced by the contractor immediately.

Per the 2020 MDOT Standards for Construction asphalt should not be placed when moisture (i.e., rain or surface water) will prevent curing. Asphalt should never be placed on surfaces less than 35 degrees Fahrenheit or over frost. Whenever surface temperatures fall below 50 degrees Fahrenheit the 2020 MDOT Weather Limitations should be referenced for application rate requirements.

Concrete quality control testing should adhere to the 2020 MDOT Standards for Construction.

Concrete testing should be performed by a certified concrete technician (MCA Michigan Level I or II).

One set of concrete tests should be performed for every fifty (50) cubic yards of concrete placed.

Concrete should be sampled in accordance with ASTM C172. A set of concrete tests should consist of a concrete slump, air content, and concrete temperature. Slump testing should be performed in accordance with ASTM C143. Air content testing should be performed in accordance with ASTM C231. Concrete temperature testing should be performed in accordance with ASTM C1064. Air temperature should also be recorded at the time of testing. At the time of testing, a set of test cylinders should be molded as well. A minimum of two (2) test cylinders should be molded per cylinder set for 28-day compressive strength testing. Test cylinders should be prepared in accordance with ASTM C31 and tested in accordance with ASTM C39.

Once a rehabilitation option has been selected, please contact Soils & Structures and we will prepare a set of project specific Construction notes to be included in the bid documents if desired.

General Conditions & Reliance

The report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted practices of the geotechnical engineering profession. The scope of work consisted of performing twenty-one test borings providing soil related recommendations for the site pavements. The scope of work did not include an environmental study or wetland determination.

The report and the associated test borings were prepared specifically for the previously described project and site. Soils & Structures should be consulted if a significant change in the scope of the project is made, or if a specific design criterion (such as traffic counts) is known or changed.

Page 14 –G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility – Pavment Investigation

The test borings represent point information and may not encountered all soil types and material present on this site. This report does not constitute a guarantee of the soil of the groundwater conditions or that the test boring is an exact representation of the soil or groundwater conditions at all points on this site.

The descriptions and recommendations contained in this report are based on an interpretation of the test borings and laboratory tests. The test borings should not be used independently of the report. If soil conditions are encountered which are significantly different from the test borings. Soils & Structures should be consulted for additional recommendations.

The report and test borings may be relied upon by MCSA Group for the design, construction, permitting, and financing associated with the construction of new pavement at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility located at 3500 North Elm Avenue in Blackman Charter Township, Jackson County, Michigan. The use of the report and test borings by third parties not associated with this project or for other sites has not been agreed upon by Soils & Structures. Soils & Structures does not recommend or consent to third party use of reliance of the report of test borings unless allowed to review the proposed use of these materials. Unless obtained in writing, consent to third party use should not be assumed. Third parties using the report or test boring logs do so at their own risk and are offered no guarantee or promise of indemnity.

Page 15 –G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility – Pavment Investigation

Appendix

Test Boring Location Diagram USACE DCP Logs (B-1 through B-21)

Laboratory Tests General Soil Information

TEST BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM

Project Name: G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility- Pavement Investigation

Location: Jackson, Jackson County, Michigan Project Number: 2023.0829 Date: 06.29.2023 Not to Scale

Note: The background image is an aerial photograph of the site.

Locations are approximate.

Project Name

Project Number 2023.0829

Date 6/28/2023

Client MCSA Group, Inc.

Boring ID Boring Type Geoprobe®

9 Location See BLD

# of Blows

Cumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Hammer

Type Soil Type CBR %

Cumulative

Penetration

(inch)

0 410 1 SC 9.0

2 465 1 SC 7.1 11.2

2 505 1 SC 10.2 12.7

2 550 1 SC 8.9 14.5

2 600 1 SC 7.9 16.5

2 655 1 SC 7.1 18.6

2 700 1 SC 8.9 20.4

2 730 1 SC 14.1 21.6

3 775 1 SM 14.1 23.4

4 830 1 SM 15.5 25.5

3 870 1 SM 16.0 27.1

3 905 1 SM 18.6 28.5

3 945 1 SM 16.0 30.1

4 1000 1 SM 15.5 32.2

From To Thickness Classification

0 9 9

9 22 13 SC

22 40 18 SM

40 50 10 CL

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

DCP Starting Depth (in)

Description

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ‐ Intact

Fine‐to‐Medium Clayey SAND with Natural Gravel, brown

B‐1

Fine‐to‐Medium Silty SAND with trace Gravel, light brown

Comments: Groundwater not encountered.

Lean CLAY with Sand, dark brown/gray

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th in

CBR (%)

CBR VS DEPTH

Date 6/28/2023

Client MCSA Group, Inc.

Boring ID Boring Type Geoprobe®

8.5 Location See BLD

# of Blows

Cumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Hammer

Type Soil Type CBR %

Cumulative

Penetration

(inch)

0 405 1 SC 8.5

2 475 1 SC 5.4 11.3

1 510 1 SC 5.4 12.6

1 550 1 SC 4.7 14.2

2 605 1 SC 7.1 16.4

2 635 1 SC 14.1 17.6

3 690 1 SC 11.2 19.7

3 725 1 SC 18.6 21.1

4 770 1 SC 19.4 22.9

5 815 1 SC 24.9 24.6

4 860 1 SC 19.4 26.4

5 910 1 SC 22.2 28.4

4 945 1 SC 25.7 29.8

4 980 1 SC 25.7 31.1

4 1020 1 SC 22.2 32.7

From To Thickness Classification

0 8.5 8.5

8.5 18 9.5 SC

18 42 24 SC

42 50 8 SM

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

B‐2

Fine‐to‐Coarse Clayey SAND, brown

DCP Starting Depth (in)

Description

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ‐ Intact

Fine‐to‐Medium Clayey SAND with Natural Gravel, brown

Comments: Groundwater not encountered.

Fine‐to‐Medium Silty SAND with trace Gravel, light brown

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th in

Date 6/28/2023

Client MCSA Group, Inc.

Boring ID Boring Type Geoprobe®

8.5 Location See BLD

# of Blows

Cumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Hammer

Type Soil Type CBR %

Cumulative

Penetration

(inch)

0 375 1 SC 8.5

2 415 1 SC 10.2 10.1

3 450 1 SC 18.6 11.5

4 490 1 SC 22.2 13.0

3 530 1 SC 16.0 14.6

3 580 1 SC 12.5 16.6

3 630 1 SC 12.5 18.5

4 670 1 SC 22.2 20.1

5 715 1 SC 24.9 21.9

5 770 1 SC 19.9 24.1

5 820 1 SC 22.2 26.0

3 870 1 SC 12.5 28.0

5 900 1 SC 39.3 29.2

8 940 1 SC 48.1 30.7

8 980 1 SC 48.1 32.3

8 1020 1 SM 48.1 33.9

From To Thickness Classification

0 8.5 8.5

8.5 13 4.5 SC

13 33 20 SC

33 40 7 SM

40 48 8 CL

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

B‐3

Fine‐to‐Medium Clayey SAND with trace Gravel, brown

DCP Starting Depth (in)

Description

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ‐ Intact

Fine‐to‐Medium Clayey SAND with Natural Gravel, brown

Comments: Groundwater not encountered. 1‐inch lens of Clay at 26 inches.

Fine Silty SAND, light brown

Sandy CLAY, brown

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th in

Date 6/28/2023

Client MCSA Group, Inc.

Boring ID Boring Type Geoprobe®

2.5 Location See BLD

# of Blows

Cumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Hammer

Type Soil Type CBR %

Cumulative

Penetration

(inch)

0 210 1 SP 2.5

5 250 1 SP 28.4 4.1

7 270 1 SP 90.1 4.9

10 310 1 SP 61.8 6.4

15 355 1 SP 85.3 8.2

15 395 1 SP 97.3 9.8

15 435 1 SP 97.3 11.4

9 465 1 SP 75.8 12.5

9 505 1 SP 54.9 14.1

4 535 1 SC 30.6 15.3

4 570 1 SC 25.7 16.7

10 605 1 SC 71.8 18.1

10 635 1 SC 85.3 19.2

10 670 1 SC 71.8 20.6

15 715 1 SC 85.3 22.4

15 750 1 SC 100.0 23.8

15 815 1 SC 56.5 26.3

10 860 1 SC 54.2 28.1

10 920 1 SC 39.3 30.5

8 960 1 SC 48.1 32.0

8 1010 1 SC 37.5 34.0

From To Thickness Classification

0 1.5 1.5

1.5 2.5 1

2.5 14.5 12 SP

14.5 38 23.5 SC

38 50 12 SP‐SM

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

B‐4

AGGREGATE BASE ‐ Fine‐to‐Coarse SAND with Natural Gravel and trace Clay, brown

DCP Starting Depth (in)

Description

ASPHALT WEARING COURSE ‐ Delaminated

ASHPALT LEVELING COURSE ‐ Cracked

Comments: Groundwater not encountered.

Fine‐to‐Medium Clayey SAND with trace Gravel, brown

Fine‐to‐Medium SAND with Silt and trace Gravel, light brown

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th in

Date 6/28/2023

Client MCSA Group, Inc.

Boring ID Boring Type Geoprobe®

4 Location See BLD

# of Blows

Cumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Hammer

Type Soil Type CBR %

Cumulative

Penetration

(inch)

0 275 1 SP‐SC 4.0

3 315 1 SP‐SC 16.0 5.6

5 350 1 SP‐SC 33.0 7.0

5 390 1 SP‐SC 28.4 8.5

5 430 1 SP‐SC 28.4 10.1

6 470 1 SP‐SC 34.9 11.7

5 510 1 SP‐SC 28.4 13.3

4 550 1 SP‐SC 22.2 14.8

5 585 1 SP‐SC 33.0 16.2

4 630 1 SP‐SC 19.4 18.0

4 670 1 SP‐SC 22.2 19.6

4 710 1 SP‐SM 22.2 21.1

4 750 1 SP‐SM 22.2 22.7

5 790 1 SP‐SM 28.4 24.3

6 825 1 SP‐SM 40.5 25.7

6 860 1 SP‐SM 40.5 27.0

6 910 1 SP‐SM 27.2 29.0

6 945 1 SP‐SM 40.5 30.4

8 980 1 SP‐SM 55.9 31.8

10 1000 1 CL 100.0 32.5

From To Thickness Classification

0 1.75 1.75

1.75 4 2.25

4 20 16 SP‐SC

20 32 12 SP‐SM

32 50 18 CL

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

B‐5

DCP Starting Depth (in)

Description

ASPHALT WEARING COURSE ‐ Delaminated

ASPHALT LEVELING COURSE ‐ Cracked

AGGREGATE BASE ‐ Fine‐to‐Coarse SAND with Natural Gravel and Clay, brown

Comments: Groundwater not encountered.

Fine‐to‐Coarse SAND with Silt and trace Gravel, brown

Lean CLAY with Sand and Gravel, gray

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th in

Date 6/28/2023

Client MCSA Group, Inc.

Boring ID Boring Type Geoprobe®

4.25 Location See BLD

# of Blows

Cumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Hammer

Type Soil Type CBR %

Cumulative

Penetration

(inch)

0 290 1 SM 4.3

1 330 1 SM 4.7 5.8

2 370 1 SM 10.2 7.4

3 420 1 SM 12.5 9.4

3 480 1 SM 10.2 11.7

3 530 1 SM 12.5 13.7

3 575 1 SM 14.1 15.5

3 620 1 SM 14.1 17.2

3 670 1 SM 12.5 19.2

3 710 1 SM 16.0 20.8

3 750 1 SM 16.0 22.4

4 790 1 SM 22.2 23.9

5 830 1 SM 28.4 25.5

7 890 1 SM 26.3 27.9

11 950 1 SM 43.7 30.2

11 990 1 SM 68.8 31.8

From To Thickness Classification

0 4.25 4.25

4.25 50 45.75 SM

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

B‐6

DCP Starting Depth (in)

Description

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ‐ Intact

Fine‐to‐Medium Silty SAND with trace Natural Gravel, brown

Comments: Groundwater not encountered.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th in

Date 6/28/2023

Client MCSA Group, Inc.

Boring ID Boring Type Geoprobe®

4 Location See BLD

# of Blows

Cumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Hammer

Type Soil Type CBR %

Cumulative

Penetration

(inch)

0 280 1 SM 4.0

1 310 1 SM 6.5 5.2

2 335 1 SM 17.3 6.2

3 380 1 SM 14.1 7.9

3 415 1 SM 18.6 9.3

3 465 1 SM 12.5 11.3

3 510 1 SM 14.1 13.1

3 560 1 SM 12.5 15.0

3 610 1 SM 12.5 17.0

3 650 1 SM 16.0 18.6

3 700 1 SM 12.5 20.5

3 740 1 SM 16.0 22.1

2 785 1 CL 6.8 23.9

2 850 1 CL 3.3 26.4

2 890 1 CL 8.6 28.0

2 945 1 CL 4.6 30.2

2 1000 1 CL 4.6 32.3

From To Thickness Classification

0 4 4

4 23 19 SM

23 50 27 CL

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

B‐7

Sandy CLAY, brown

DCP Starting Depth (in)

Description

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ‐ Intact

Fine‐to‐Medium Silty SAND with trace Natural Gravel, brown

Comments: Groundwater not encountered.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th in

Date 6/28/2023

Client MCSA Group, Inc.

Boring ID Boring Type Geoprobe®

4.75 Location See BLD

# of Blows

Cumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Hammer

Type Soil Type CBR %

Cumulative

Penetration

(inch)

0 330 1 SC 4.8

1 405 1 SC 2.3 7.7

1 450 1 SC 4.1 9.5

2 500 1 SC 7.9 11.4

2 555 1 SC 7.1 13.6

1 590 1 SC 5.4 15.0

3 650 1 SP‐SC 10.2 17.3

3 690 1 SP‐SC 16.0 18.9

3 725 1 SP‐SC 18.6 20.3

5 780 1 SP‐SC 19.9 22.5

5 830 1 SP‐SC 22.2 24.4

5 870 1 CL 28.4 26.0

5 910 1 CL 28.4 27.6

5 965 1 CL 19.9 29.8

5 1015 1 CL 22.2 31.7

From To Thickness Classification

0 4.75 4.75

4.75 15 10.25 SC

15 25 10 SP‐SC

25 50 25 CL

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

B‐8

Fine‐to‐Medium SAND with Clay, light brown

DCP Starting Depth (in)

Description

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ‐ Intact

Fine‐to‐Medium Clayey SAND, brown

Comments: Groundwater not encountered.

Sandy CLAY, brown

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th in

Date 6/28/2023

Client MCSA Group, Inc.

Boring ID Boring Type Geoprobe®

3.75 Location See BLD

# of Blows

Cumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Hammer

Type Soil Type CBR %

Cumulative

Penetration

(inch)

0 320 1 SM 3.8

1 390 1 SM 2.5 6.5

1 420 1 SM 6.5 7.7

2 460 1 SM 10.2 9.3

2 515 1 SC 7.1 11.4

2 570 1 SC 7.1 13.6

2 620 1 SC 7.9 15.6

2 660 1 SC 10.2 17.1

2 700 1 SC 10.2 18.7

3 755 1 SC 11.2 20.9

3 825 1 SC 8.6 23.6

3 875 1 SC 12.5 25.6

3 930 1 SC 11.2 27.8

3 980 1 SC 12.5 29.7

3 1025 1 SC 14.1 31.5

From To Thickness Classification

0 3.75 3.75

3.75 11 7.25 SM

11 50 39 SC

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

B‐9

Fine‐to‐Medium Clayey SAND, brown

DCP Starting Depth (in)

Description

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ‐ Intact

Fine‐to‐Medium Silty SAND with trace Natural Gravel, brown

Comments: Groundwater not encountered.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th in

Date 6/28/2023

Client MCSA Group, Inc.

Boring ID Boring Type Geoprobe®

4.5 Location See BLD

# of Blows

Cumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Hammer

Type Soil Type CBR %

Cumulative

Penetration

(inch)

0 280 1 SC 4.5

2 355 1 SC 5.0 7.5

2 405 1 SC 7.9 9.4

2 470 1 SC 5.9 12.0

2 515 1 SC 8.9 13.8

2 550 1 SP 11.8 15.1

3 595 1 SP 14.1 16.9

3 630 1 SP 18.6 18.3

4 675 1 SP 19.4 20.1

5 720 1 SP 24.9 21.8

6 765 1 SP 30.6 23.6

6 815 1 SP 27.2 25.6

6 870 1 SC 24.4 27.7

6 915 1 SC 30.6 29.5

6 955 1 SC 34.9 31.1

12 1010 1 SC 53.1 33.2

From To Thickness Classification

0 2 2

2 4.5 2.5

4.5 14 9.5 SC

14 26 12 SP

26 50 24 SC

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

B‐10

Fine‐to‐Medium Clayey SAND, brown

DCP Starting Depth (in)

Description

ASPHALT WEARING COURSE ‐ Intact

ASPHALT LEVELING COURSE ‐ Intact

Comments: Groundwater not encountered.

Fine SAND, brown

Fine Clayey SAND, brown

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th in

Date 6/28/2023

Client MCSA Group, Inc.

Boring ID Boring Type Geoprobe®

8.75 Location See BLD

# of Blows

Cumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Hammer

Type Soil Type CBR %

Cumulative

Penetration

(inch)

0 385 1 SC 8.8

3 445 1 SC 10.2 11.1

2 485 1 SC 10.2 12.7

2 520 1 SP 11.8 14.1

2 555 1 SP 11.8 15.4

3 615 1 SP 10.2 17.8

3 670 1 SP 11.2 20.0

3 710 1 SP 16.0 21.5

4 770 1 SP 14.1 23.9

4 820 1 SP 17.3 25.9

4 895 1 SP 11.0 28.8

3 950 1 SP 11.2 31.0

3 1010 1 SP 10.2 33.4

From To Thickness Classification

0 8.75 8.75

8.75 13.5 4.75 SC

13.5 36 22.5 SP

36 42 6 SC

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

B‐11

Fine SAND with trace Gravel and Clay, brown

DCP Starting Depth (in)

Description

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ‐ Intact

AGGREGATE BASE ‐ Fine‐to‐Coarse Clayey SAND with Natural Gravel, brown

Comments: Groundwater not encountered. Refusal at 42".

Fine Clayey SAND, dark brown

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th in

Date 6/28/2023

Client MCSA Group, Inc.

Boring ID Boring Type Geoprobe®

4 Location See BLD

# of Blows

Cumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Hammer

Type Soil Type CBR %

Cumulative

Penetration

(inch)

0 280 1 SC 4.0

10 335 1 SC 43.3 6.2

7 370 1 SC 48.1 7.5

8 405 1 SC 55.9 8.9

8 480 1 SP 23.8 11.9

7 525 1 SP 36.3 13.6

7 575 1 SP 32.3 15.6

8 620 1 SP 42.2 17.4

9 665 1 SC 48.1 19.2

10 710 1 SC 54.2 20.9

8 765 1 SC 33.7 23.1

4 800 1 SC 25.7 24.5

5 850 1 SC 22.2 26.4

4 885 1 SC 25.7 27.8

5 915 1 SC 39.3 29.0

4 950 1 SC 25.7 30.4

9 990 1 SC 54.9 32.0

7 1025 1 SC 48.1 33.3

From To Thickness Classification

0 1.75 1.75

1.75 4 2.25

4 9 5 SC

9 19 10 SP

19 35 16 SC

35 50 15 SP

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

B‐12

Fine‐to‐Coarse Clayey SAND, brown

DCP Starting Depth (in)

Description

ASPHALT WEARING COURSE ‐ Cracked

ASPHALT LEVELING COURSE ‐ Deteriorated

Comments: Groundwater not encountered.

Fine SAND with trace Gravel, light brown

Fine‐to‐Coarse Clayey SAND, brown

Fine‐to‐Medium SAND with trace Clay, brown

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th in

Date 6/28/2023

Client MCSA Group, Inc.

Boring ID Boring Type Geoprobe®

3.5 Location See BLD

# of Blows

Cumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Hammer

Type Soil Type CBR %

Cumulative

Penetration

(inch)

0 240 1 SP‐SC 3.5

10 285 1 SP‐SC 54.2 5.3

15 325 1 SP‐SC 97.3 6.8

10 355 1 SP‐SC 85.3 8.0

10 390 1 SP‐SC 71.8 9.4

8 430 1 SP‐SC 48.1 11.0

8 470 1 SP 48.1 12.6

10 525 1 SP 43.3 14.7

8 575 1 SP 37.5 16.7

6 625 1 SP 27.2 18.7

6 680 1 SP 24.4 20.8

5 735 1 SP 19.9 23.0

5 790 1 SP 19.9 25.2

7 840 1 SP 32.3 27.1

4 890 1 SP 17.3 29.1

3 940 1 SP 12.5 31.1

3 985 1 SP 14.1 32.8

3 1030 1 SP 14.1 34.6

From To Thickness Classification

0 1.5 1.5

1.5 3.5 2

3.5 11.5 8 SP‐SC

11.5 19 7.5 SP

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

B‐13

AGGREGATE BASE ‐ Fine‐to‐Coarse SAND with Natural Gravel and Clay, brown

DCP Starting Depth (in)

Description

ASPHALT WEARING COURSE ‐ Intact

ASPHALT LEVELING COURSE ‐ Intact

Comments: Groundwater not encountered. Poor sample recovery.

Fine SAND, brown

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th in

Date 6/28/2023

Client MCSA Group, Inc.

Boring ID Boring Type Geoprobe®

3.5 Location See BLD

# of Blows

Cumulative

Penetration

(mm)

Hammer

Type Soil Type CBR %

Cumulative

Penetration

(inch)

0 260 1 SP‐SC 3.5

8 360 1 SP‐SC 17.3 7.4

4 400 1 SP‐SM 22.2 9.0

4 450 1 SP‐SM 17.3 11.0

4 485 1 SP‐SM 25.7 12.4

5 530 1 SP‐SM 24.9 14.1

5 575 1 SP‐SM 24.9 15.9

4 610 1 SP‐SM 25.7 17.3

4 650 1 SP‐SM 22.2 18.9

5 685 1 SP‐SM 33.0 20.2

15 750 1 SP‐SM 56.5 22.8

6 810 1 SP‐SM 22.2 25.2

3 850 1 SP‐SM 16.0 26.7

3 885 1 SP‐SM 18.6 28.1

2 915 1 SP‐SM 14.1 29.3

3 950 1 SP‐SM 18.6 30.7

4 1010 1 SP‐SM 14.1 33.0

From To Thickness Classification

0 3.5 3.5

3.5 8.75 5.25 SP‐SC

8.75 21 12.25 SP‐SM

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

B‐14

Fine‐to‐Medium SAND with Silt, brown

DCP Starting Depth (in)

Description

ASPHALT‐ Intact, lifts indistinguisable

AGGREGATE BASE ‐ Fine‐to‐Coarse SAND with Natural Gravel and Clay, brown

Com…