RFB 2025-186 Appendix 3-Geotechnical Report.pdf

FINAL

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

LA PRADA DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION

FROM MOTLEY DRIVE TO PINEHURST LANE

CORSAIR PROJECT NO. 2100543

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

APRIL 26, 2024

April 26, 2024

Mr. Ryan Delmotte

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

225 E. John W. Carpenter Freeway, Suite 1100

Irving, Texas 75062

Reference: Final Geotechnical Engineering Report

La Prada Drive Reconstruction from Motley Drive to Pinehurst Lane

Dallas County, Texas

Corsair Project No. 2100543

Dear Mr. Delmotte:

Corsair Consulting LLC has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering associated with the planned improvements to the La Prada Drive in Dallas County, Texas. The scope of this study was to:

• Explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site;

• Provide pavement section designs for the proposed roadways;

• Provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed water line and drainage outfall modifications; and

• Provide construction recommendations for the project.

The attached report contains results of our field exploration program, laboratory analyses, and engineering evaluations and recommendations for this project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and look forward to working with you on future projects. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this report or any of our services.

Respectfully submitted, CORSAIR CONSULTING LLC

TBPE Registration No. F-14217

Roshan Chaulagain, EIT Jose L. Arciniega, P.E.

Staff Engineer Project Manager

RoshanChaulagain@corsairus.com TBPE No. 143500

JoseArciniega@CorsairUS.com

V O

LT

A

D R

IV

E

S

U

IT

E

C

E D

A R

P A

R K

T

E X

A S

(5

-8

W W

W .C

O R

S A

IR

U

S .C

O M

Draft Print

04/26/2024 8:49:30 AM

Final Geotechnical Engineering Report

Dallas County, Texas Corsair Project No. 2100543

- i -

Contents Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

3.0 SITE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY ANALYSES

3.1 Subsurface Exploration

3.2 Laboratory Analyses

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Site Geology

4.2 Subsurface Stratigraphy

4.3 Geotechnical Engineering Properties

4.3.1 Soil Index Properties

4.3.2 Soil Short Term and Long-Term Shear Strength Properties

4.3.3 One-Dimensional Swell Potential Test Results

4.3.4 Soil Moisture Density Relationship

4.3.5 California Bearing Ratio

4.3.5 Soluble Sulfate Content Test Results

4.3.6 Soil Organic Content Test Results

4.3.7 Soil Box Resistivity Test Results

4.3.8 Stabilization Ability of Lime

4.4 Groundwater Conditions

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

5.1 Geotechnical Considerations

5.2 Pavement Subgrade

5.2.1 Expansive Soil Considerations

5.2.2 Potential for Sulfate Induced Heave

5.2.3 Elastic Modulus of Subgrade

5.3 Rigid Pavement Design

5.3.1 Design Procedure

5.3.2 Recommended Rigid Pavement Sections

5.4 Drainage Outfall Recommendations

5.5 Construction Considerations

5.5.1 Lime Stabilized Subgrade

5.5.2 Subgrade Preparation

5.5.3 Materials Specification

5.5.4 Construction Considerations for Drainage Structures

5.5.5 Temporary Excavation

5.5.6 Concrete Reactivity

- ii -

6.0 LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX A

BORING LOCATION MAPS

LOGS OF BORING

PAVEMENT CORE PHOTOS

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST REPORTS

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS

SWELL TEST RESULTS

COMPACTION TEST RESULTS

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) TEST RESULTS

SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS

LIME SERIES TEST REPORTS

APPENDIX C

POTENTIAL VERTICAL RISE (PVR) CALCULATIONS

TRAFFIC DATA

WINPAS RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN

1.0 Introduction

Corsair Consulting LLC (Corsair) has completed the authorized subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analyses for the proposed La Prada Drive reconstruction and improvements from Motley Drive to

Pinehurst Lane in Dallas County, Texas.

The City of Mesquite authorized this work through their primary design engineer, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn).

The purpose of this investigation and report was to:

• Explore subsurface materials and groundwater conditions in areas where the roadway improvements are planned;

• Conduct field and laboratory testing to characterize the subsurface soil/rock properties;

• Evaluate pavement subgrade conditions for the project;

• Evaluate the water lines for corrosion potential;

• Evaluate the drainage outfalls and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations;

• Provide pavement section designs for the proposed roadways; and

• Provide geotechnical considerations for the planned construction.

The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of the field and laboratory testing, engineering analyses, experience with similar soil/rock conditions, and our understanding of the proposed project.

2.0 Project Information

This project consists of the reconstruction of the existing 4-lane roadway and sidewalks and improvements of the storm drainage and waterline structures along La Prada Drive from Motley Drive to Pinehurst Lane.

The approximate project alignment is shown in the Site Vicinity Map below.

TxDOT Statewide Planning Map

We were provided with the following items by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc:

• La Prada Drive Paving Plan and Profile, dated March 5, 2024;

• La Prada Drive Drainage Plans and Profiles, dated March 8, 2024;

• La Prada Drive Paving Cross-Sections, dated February 20, 2024;

• La Prada Drive Boring Data Sheets, dated March 19, 2024; and

• Gus Thomasson Channel Wall Cross Section, provided via email correspondence on March 20, 2024.

Site Vicinity Map

N

Approximate

Project Alignment

3.0 Site Exploration and Laboratory Analyses

This study is a culmination of a field exploration program, consisting of drilling, sampling and in-situ testing, and a laboratory testing program to identify and classify soil/rock types and to estimate physical and engineering properties of the subsurface materials.

3.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

A total of 23 borings were drilled during the period of July 17 to August 2, 2023:

20 pavement borings, designated as P-1 through P-20, were drilled to depths of about 20 to 21½ feet below existing site grade. In addition, 3 structure borings, designated as B-1 through B-3, were drilled to evaluate subsurface conditions near existing drainage structures to approximately 30 to 30½ feet. Approximate boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Map in Appendix A. Corsair located the borings in the field using a hand-held GPS unit. Boring coordinates, elevations, stations, and offsets were provided to Corsair after boring locations were surveyed. Boreholes were backfilled with bentonite chips and auger cuttings upon completion of field activities. In addition, rapid setting cement or asphalt cold patch was placed in the top portion of the holes at least as thick as the surrounding pavement thickness when drilled on existing pavement.

Continuous solid stem flight augers were utilized to advance the pavement and drainage structure borings to the termination depths. Standard Penetration Test

(SPT) split spoon samplers and hydraulically advanced 3-inch diameter (OD) steel, thin-walled tube samplers were used for soil/rock sampling. Field sampling and testing were conducted in general accordance with the following standard methods:

• Standard Penetration Test: ASTM D1586;

• Thin-Walled Tube Sampling: ASTM D1587; and

• Texas Cone Penetrometer Test: Tex-132-E

All samples of the subsurface materials were extruded from SPT and tube samplers in the field. Then the soil/rock samples were classified, labeled as to location and depth, and placed in plastic bags to minimize moisture changes.

Field logs were prepared for each boring at the time of drilling by the field engineer. The field logs contain visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as interpolation of the subsurface conditions between samples. During the field operations, the borings were observed for groundwater while advancing the boring. These observations are noted at the top of the boring logs and are discussed in subsequent sections of this report.

The geotechnical engineer reviewed the field logs and samples and made appropriate modifications to the logs when necessary. Soils were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and bedrock materials were described in general accordance with the TxDOT

Geotechnical Manual. Final boring logs, included in Appendix A, represent our interpretation of the field logs and may include modifications based on laboratory observations and test results of the samples. The final logs of boring describe the materials encountered, strata thickness, sampling methods and depths, groundwater information, and in-situ and laboratory test results. Results of the field tests are shown on the Boring Logs under the “Blow Counts (N Value)” and

“Pocket Pen. (tsf)” columns. Pocket penetrometer readings shown as “4.5+”, if any, indicate that the capacity of the device has been exceeded.

3.2 LABORATORY ANALYSES

The samples were transported to the laboratory and examined by the geotechnical engineer, and appropriate laboratory tests were assigned on selected samples. The following laboratory methods of analyses were utilized:

• Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes:

ASTM D2487;

• Manual Procedure for Description and Identification of Soils: Tex-141-E;

• Laboratory Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes: Tex-142-E;

• Determining Moisture Content in Soil Materials: Tex-103-E;

• Atterberg Limits Test: Tex-104-E, 105-E, and 106-E

• Particle Size Analysis of Soils: Tex-110-E;

• Soils Finer than No. 200 Sieve Test: Tex-111-E;

• Unconfined Compression (UC) Test: ASTM D2166;

• Consolidated Undrained (CU) Triaxial Test: Tex-131-E;

• One-Dimensional Swell Test: ASTM D4546;

• Direct Shear Test: ASTM D3080;

• Determining Sulfate Content in Soils: Tex-145-E;

• Determining Organic Content in Soils: Tex-148-E;

• Soil-Lime Test by pH: Tex-121-E;

• Soil-Lime Test by PI: Tex-112-E;

• Measuring the Resistivity of Soil Materials: Tex-129-E;

• Moisture-Density Relationship of Subgrade: Tex-114-E; and

• California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test: ASTM D1883.

Laboratory test results are summarized in the Summary of Laboratory Test

Results table located in Appendix B. Particle size distribution curves, UC strength test reports, CU triaxial test results, direct shear test results, swell test results, compaction test results, CBR test results, soil resistivity test results, and Soil-Lime test results are also presented in Appendix B.

4.0 Subsurface Conditions

4.1 SITE GEOLOGY

Based on the USGS Geologic Atlas of Texas, Dallas Sheet, 1987, the surface geology along the project alignment consists of the Ozan Formation (Ko), also known as “Lower Taylor Marl”. This formation generally consists of clay with varying amounts of silt, sand, and calcareous deposits, marl, and some very thin limestone lenses in the lower part. The reported thickness of this formation is about 500 feet in the project area. The geologic map of the project area is shown below.

USGS Pocket Texas Geology

4.2 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY

Based on the borings drilled as part of this study, our generalized subsurface stratigraphy is presented in Table 4.1. The descriptions are general and depth ranges are approximate because boundaries between different strata are seldom clear and abrupt in the field. In addition, the lines separating major strata types on the boring log sheets do not necessarily represent distinct lines of demarcation for the strata. Detailed logs of boring showing the stratum descriptions, types of sampling used, in-situ and laboratory test data, groundwater and other relevant information are presented in Appendix A.

Geologic Map

Approximate

Project Alignment

Ko

Qal

Kau

Table 4.1 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

Stratum

Number

Depth Range

(Approx., ft)

Soil Classification

Consistency/Relative Density/Hardness

0.0 – 1.5 ASPHALT, CONCRETE, and LIME TREATED SUBGRADE

(Borings P-1 through P-20 and B-3 Only)

I 0.0-30.5

Fat /Lean CLAY (CH/CL)

- Very Soft to Very Hard

- Varying Sand Contents

II 14.0-30.2

MUDSTONE (Borings P-1, P-3 through P-5, B-1, and B-

2 Only)

- Hard to Very Hard

4.3 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PROPERTIES

4.3.1 Soil Index Properties

In general, soil index property testing was performed on samples where soil stratigraphy changes occurred during the sampling process. The primary index properties tested include the moisture content, Atterberg (plasticity) Limits, and particle size distribution, which are shown on the boring logs and in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results table both located in the Appendix section of this report.

USCS classifications of the soils were CH and CL. Moisture contents of subgrade soils ranged from 13 to 36 percent for tested samples. Atterberg Limits tests were performed on portions of the samples passing the #40 sieve. Tested Liquid Limits

(LL) ranged from 32 to 97 percent with Plasticity Indices (PI) ranging from 11 to

76 percent. Tested percent fines passing the #200 sieve, varied from about 66 to

100 percent.

4.3.2 Soil Short Term and Long-Term Shear Strength Properties

Unconfined Compressive (UC) strength tests, Consolidated-Undrained (CU) triaxial tests, and Direct Shear Tests were performed on relatively undisturbed soil samples obtained from Borings B-1 through B-3. The UC strengths ranged from about 0.8 to 18.5 ksf. UC test reports are provided in Appendix B. Detailed results of CU triaxial tests and direct shear tests are presented in Appendix B and summarized in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.

Table 4.2 Summary of Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Test Results

Boring

Number

Depth

Range

(ft)

Material

Type

Undrained

Cohesion

(C, psf)

Undrained

Friction

Angle

(ɸ, deg.)

Drained

Cohesion

(Cd, psf)

Drained

Friction

Angle

(ɸd ,deg.)

B-1 4.0 – 5.0 CH 422 18.6 474 25.2

B-2 2.0 – 4.0 CH 372 18.5 394 24.8

B-3 8.0 – 10.0 CH 174 18.9 192 27.1

Table 4.3 Summary of Direct Shear Test Results

Boring

Number

Depth

Range

(ft)

Material

Type

Drained

Cohesion

(Cd, psf)

Drained

Friction

Angle

(ɸd ,deg.)

B-1 8.0 – 10.0 CH 461 27.2

B-2 8.0 – 10.0 CH 346 29.2

B-3 3.0 – 5.0 CH 374 29.2

4.3.3 One-Dimensional Swell Potential Test Results

One-Dimensional Swell Potential tests were performed in accordance with ASTM

D4546 method. Undisturbed samples collected from the boring locations P-1, P-5, P-8, P-12, P-15, P-17, P-18, and P-20 were used for the testing. Test results indicated that maximum swell strain of 0.5 to 2.4 percent. Detailed results of swell tests are presented in Appendix B and summarized in Table 4.4 below.

Table 4.4 Summary of Swell Test Results

Boring

Number

Depth

Range

(ft)

Material

Type

Swell Strain

P-1 3.0 – 5.0 CH 1.6

P-5 3.0 – 5.0 CH 1.2

P-8 3.0 – 5.0 CH 1.1

P-12 3.0 – 5.0 CH 0.7

P-15 3.0 – 5.0 CH 2.4

P-17 3.0 – 5.0 CH 1.0

P-18 3.0 – 5.0 CH 0.7

P-20 3.0 – 5.0 CH 0.5

4.3.4 Soil Moisture Density Relationship

Moisture-density relationship tests were performed on bulk samples collected near P-2, P-12, and P-20. These samples were treated with 8% lime by dry weight prior to compaction testing. A summary of the test results is presented in the table below. Detailed results of compaction testing are also included in Appendix

B.

Table 4.5 Maximum Dry Density – Optimum Moisture Content Test Results

Boring No. and

Depth Range

Material

Type

Maximum

Dry Density

(MDD, pcf)

Optimum

Moisture Content

(OMC, %)

P-2, 0.0 – 5.0 ft CH 95.3 25.3

P-12, 0.0 – 5.0 ft CH 94.5 26.9

P-20, 0.0 – 5.0 ft CH 94.9 26.2

4.3.5 California Bearing Ratio

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing was performed on three bulk samples collected near P-2, P-12, and P-20. The collected bulk samples were treated with

8% lime by dry weight and adjusted to the optimum moisture contents and molded. A surcharge weight of 10 pounds was loaded during a soaking period of

96 hours. Specimens were then tested for penetration resistance. Results of testing are presented in Appendix B and a summary of the test results is presented in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 CBR Test Results

Boring No. and

Depth Range

Material

Type

Percent

Compaction

Bearing

Ratio

P-2, 0.0 – 5.0 ft CH

91.2 40.2

95.2 56.8

99.9 101.5

P-12, 0.0 – 5.0 ft CH

94.1 41.7

96.8 41.2

99.6 50.3

P-20, 0.0 – 5.0 ft CH

93.3 39.5

96.4 48.6

100.4 89.0

4.3.5 Soluble Sulfate Content Test Results

Samples were tested for soluble sulfate content using the procedures stated in

Tex-145-E. A colorimeter was utilized in determining the water-soluble sulfate contents. Test results indicated sulfate concentrations of less than 100 parts per million (ppm) to 260 ppm. The results are presented in the Summary of

Laboratory Test Results table located in Appendix B.

4.3.6 Soil Organic Content Test Results

Samples were tested for organic content using the procedures outlined in

Tex-148-E. A US-Vis light beam was passed through a sample in a cuvette, and the amount of light absorbance was used to determine the soil organic content.

Test results indicated soil organic contents ranging from 0.2 to 1.1 percent. The results are presented in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results table located in

Appendix B.

4.3.7 Soil Box Resistivity Test Results

Soil box resistivity tests were performed on various bulk samples collected along the project alignment in accordance with the Tex 129-E method. Test results indicated minimum resistivity values ranging from 170 to 1,800 ohm-cm.

Detailed results of soil box resistivity testing are presented in Appendix B and summarized in Table 4.7 below.

Table 4.7 Summary of Soil Box Resistivity Test Results

Boring

Number

Depth

Range

(ft)

Material

Type

Minimum

Resistivity

(ohm-cm)

P-1 0.0 – 5.0 CH 1,200

P-5 0.0 – 5.0 CH 1,700

P-8 0.0 – 5.0 CH 1,600

P-12 0.0 – 5.0 CH 170

P-15 0.0 – 5.0 CH 1,800

P-17 0.0 – 5.0 CH 1,700

P-18 0.0 – 5.0 CH 1,000

P-20 0.0 – 5.0 CH 1,700

4.3.8 Stabilization Ability of Lime

A series of lime tests were performed to determine the stabilization ability of lime by using Tex-112-E and Tex-121-E, Part III methods. Based on the test results, between 6% and 8% of lime by weight is required to produce an approximate pH value of 12.4. In addition, the optimum lime content required to achieve the minimum PI value ranges from 6% to 10%. Note that the City of Mesquite’s minimum required lime by weight percent is 8%. Results of testing are presented in Appendix B.

4.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Groundwater was encountered at the time of drilling in Borings P-11 and P-20 at an approximate depth of 8 feet and 12 ft, respectively, below the existing grade.

These groundwater conditions are believed to be perched. The borings were backfilled immediately following the completion of field operations. Therefore, subsequent groundwater measurements were not obtained.

It is imperative to note that the short-term field observations performed as part of this study, generally, do not permit for an accurate evaluation of groundwater levels at this site and should not be interpreted as a comprehensive groundwater study. The observations made during this investigation may not also represent conditions at the time of construction and it should be understood that the presence of groundwater might have an effect on certain construction activities and long-term performance of foundations and pavements. Groundwater levels are highly dependent on climatic and hydrologic conditions before and after construction, hydrogeology, and site development including irrigation demands and drainage. If a detailed groundwater study is desired, a groundwater hydrogeologist should be retained to perform these services.

5.0 Recommendations for Design and Construction

The following evaluations and recommendations are based upon the data obtained from our field and laboratory programs, project information provided to us, and our experience with similar subsurface and site conditions.

5.1 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Subsurface stratigraphy along the project alignment generally consists of high plasticity clay soils. The high plasticity clayey soils have a potential to swell and shrink under varying moisture conditions and will exhibit poor subgrade performance for pavements when their moisture contents are close to saturated moisture conditions. The near saturated moisture conditions in conjunction with dynamic vehicles loads will create hydrodynamic forces that will cause pumping and soil loss. Thus, the pavement subgrade soils immediately beneath the concrete pavement need to be treated to improve their pavement support conditions. The City of Mesquite Engineering Design Manual recommends that the pavement subgrade should be treated with lime. Geotechnical considerations and recommendations for pavement subgrade treatment are discussed in the following sections of the report.

5.2 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE

5.2.1 Expansive Soil Considerations

The City of Mesquite Engineering Design Manual requires consideration of

Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) results in pavement design. Corsair has performed

PVR calculations based on the Tex-124-E method. The resulting PVR values indicate a moderate to high risk for volume changes with estimated PVRs of 2 to

4¾ inches under the current moisture conditions. The maximum allowable PVR is 1½ inches for main lanes and 2 inches for other paved facilities per the TxDOT

Pavement Design Manual. The City’s design manual requires the PVR to be determined to a depth of 20 feet below existing grade and requires moisture conditioning of the pavement subgrade if the PVR is greater than 4½ inches.

Following the City’s design manual, subgrade mitigation to reduce PVR is generally not necessary for this project.

Table 5.1 Summary of Estimated PVR and Subgrade Mitigation Depths

Boring

Number

Estimated

PVR

(in.)

Minimum Mitigation Depth below Existing Grade

(ft)

PVR 1½ in. PVR 2 in. PVR 4½ in.

P-1 4.2 6.0 4.5 Not Required

P-2 4.7 6.0 5.0 1.0

P-3 2.6 3.5 2.5 Not Required

P-4 2.4 3.0 2.0 Not Required

P-5 2.7 4.0 2.5 Not Required

P-6 4.3 6.5 5.5 Not Required

P-7 3.4 4.5 3.5 Not Required

P-8 3.5 7.0 5.0 Not Required

P-9 2.4 3.0 1.5 Not Required

P-10 3.4 6.0 4.0 Not Required

P-11 3.6 10.5 4.5 Not Required

P-12 4.1 10.0 8.0 Not Required

P-13 3.3 6.5 4.5 Not Required

P-14 2.0 2.5 Not Required Not Required

P-15 3.9 8.0 5.5 Not Required

P-16 4.7 9.0 7.0 1.0

P-17 4.7 9.0 8.0 1.0

P-18 4.8 7.0 5.5 1.0

P-19 4.1 8.5 6.5 Not Required

P-20 2.5 3.0 2.0 Not Required

Note that estimated PVR values shown in Table 5.1 are based on a subsurface profile depth of 20 feet including the proposed pavement sections. Our PVR analyses indicate that the soil in several borings have the potential to experience deep-seated vertical movement with moisture gain.

The results of the swell tests indicate that the pavement subgrade soils have swell potentials of 0.5 to 2.4 percent at their current moisture contents. The average swell potential is estimated to be less than 2 percent and therefore, moisture conditioning is not deemed necessary for this project. A 3-foot wide horizontal moisture barrier should be placed behind the back of the curbs. If construction is to occur after a prolonged period of rain, it may be advisable to recheck the swell potential of the pavement subgrade after the removal of the existing pavement and to spray the exposed subgrade with water to prevent it from drying. If trees are to be planted near the curb within the confines of the moisture barrier, the trees should be planted in box containers or planter boxes.

Select fill materials, if used and imported to the project for over-excavation and mitigation of high plasticity clays, are to meet TxDOT Specification Item 132, Type

A requirements. Select Fill should conform to the following general requirements shown in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Select Fill Gradation and Property Requirements

Select Fill Requirements Percent Retained Sieve

1-3/4” 0-10

7/8” -

3/8” -

#4 45-75

#40 60-85

Liquid Limit (LL) ≤ 45

Plasticity Index (PI) ≤ 15

Bar Linear Shrinkage ≥ 2

5.2.2 Potential for Sulfate Induced Heave

The results of the soluble sulfate content testing indicate sulfate concentrations ranging from less than 100 ppm to 260 ppm, which would allow for conventional lime treatment. The risk for sulfate included heave is determined to be relatively low. An experienced contractor should inspect the subgrade for on-site mix design. We note that soils with significant soluble sulfates are common in Texas.

We recommend, therefore, that any imported soils should be evaluated for soluble sulfates prior to delivery to the project site.

5.2.3 Elastic Modulus of Subgrade

CBR and moisture-density relationship tests were performed on three (3) composite bulk samples collected near boring locations P-2, P-12, and P-20. The results of these tests were presented in Table 4.5 and 4.6. The obtained CBR values ranged from 40 to 102 at compaction efforts ranging from 91 to 100 percent of the maximum dry unit weight.

The CBR value was correlated to an Elastic Modulus value using the equation found in the 2021 TxDOT Pavement Manual on page 4-22, where E = Elastic

Modulus:

• E (psi) = 2,550 x CBR0.64

• K (pci) = (1500 x (CBR/26))0.7788 (FAA AC150-6e Section 205)

The calculated CBR value was 66 at 98% compaction effort. The estimated elastic modulus (E) is 37,000 psi and the Subgrade Reaction Modulus (K) is 610 pci.

Therefore, it is feasible to obtain a modulus of subgrade reaction of 300 pci for the pavement subgrade soil when treated with 8% hydrated lime.

5.3 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN

5.3.1 Design Procedure

The City of Mesquite Engineering Design Manual specifies that rigid pavement should be used for all roads following the 1993 AASHTO Pavement design methodology. The rigid pavement design using the ACPA program WinPAS 12, which follows the AASHTO 1993 pavement design guide. Traffic projections based on the TxDOT Statewide Planning Map were used in the analysis, which indicate an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 11,357 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2019 and 15,900 vpd in 2042 and a truck percentage of 3.2%. Based on an estimated

ADT of 12,345 vpd in 2024 and a growth rate of 2%, we estimated an equivalent

18k Single Axle Load Application (ESAL) of about 5.17 million over a 50-year performance period. This resulted in a required concrete thickness of 9 inches.

This was compared with the minimum design values provided in the City’s design manual for minor and major arterials. Traffic data and WinPAS program outputs are presented in Appendix C. Table 5.3 summarizes the design parameters used for rigid pavement design.

Table 5.3 Summary of Rigid Pavement Design Parameters

Parameter

TxDOT

Statewide

Planning Map

Data

City of

Mesquite

Design Manual, Minor Arterial

City of

Mesquite

Design Manual, Major Arterial

Initial Serviceability 4.5 4.5 4.5

Terminal Serviceability 2.5 2.25 2.5

Concrete Modulus of

Rupture, psi 580 580 580

Concrete Modulus of

Elasticity, psi 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000

Modulus of Subgrade

Reaction, psi/in.

300 300 300

Initial Traffic Volume, VPD

12,345 20,000 36,000

Growth Rate, % 2 - -

Design Life, years 50 50 50

Truck Factor, % 3.2 4 4

ESALs over Pavement

Design Life, reps 5,170,228 7,300,000 9,198,000

Required Concrete

Pavement Slab

Thickness, in.

9 10 11

5.3.2 Recommended Rigid Pavement Sections

La Prada Drive is classified as a minor arterial road from Motley Drive to Barnes

Bridge Road and as a major arterial from Barnes Bridge Road to Pinehurst Lane.

Based on our calculations using the ASSHTO 1993 methodology and the WinPAS pavement software in conjunction with the City of Mesquite Engineering Design manual for pavements, our recommended pavement design options are summarized in Tables 5.4 and 5.5. The City of Mesquite requires 8 inches of either lime treated subgrade or flexible base to be placed below the concrete pavement as a form of subgrade improvement. Options I and II include a 4-inch HMAC layer between the concrete and the lime treated subgrade/flexible base layer. While not required by the City of Mesquite’s design manual, TxDOT’s pavement design manual requires a non-erodible base layer to be placed underneath the concrete.

We, therefore, recommend that 4 inches of HMAC be used as a base layer below the concrete.

Table 5.4 Recommended Rigid Pavement Sections: From Motley Drive to

Barnes Bridge Road

Material Type

Minimum Thickness (inches)

Option I Option II Option III Option IV

Concrete

- Item 360

10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

D-GR HMA TY B PG 64-22

- Item SS 3076

4.0 4.0 - -

Flexible Base TY A Gr 1-2

- Item 247

8.0 - 8.0 -

Lime Treated Subgrade1)

- Item 260

- 8.0 - 8.0

1) Subgrade soil should be stabilized with a minimum of 8% hydrated lime by weight and should be prepared per section 5.5.1 of this report.

Table 5.5 Recommended Rigid Pavement Sections: From Barnes Bridge Road to Pinehurst Lane

Material Type

Minimum Thickness (inches)

Option I Option II Option III Option IV

Concrete

- Item 360

11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

D-GR HMA TY B PG 64-22

- Item SS 3076

4.0 4.0 - -

Flexible Base TY A Gr 1-2

- Item 247

8.0 - 8.0 -

Lime Treated Subgrade1)

- Item 260

- 8.0 - 8.0

1) Subgrade soil should be stabilized with a minimum of 8% hydrated lime by weight and should be prepared per section 5.5.1 of this report.

5.4 DRAINAGE OUTFALL RECOMMENDATIONS

It is our understanding that the existing storm drain pipelines and storm drain inlets will be removed and reconstructed as part of the La Prada Drive reconstruction. We also understand that design parameters are required to design a new headwall at the Gus Thomasson Channel. We anticipate that a temporary shoring will need to be constructed to support the excavation required for the installation of this headwall. Table 5.6 summarizes the recommended design parameters for these structures. Temporary shoring should be designed to support the active lateral earth pressure from the native soils within the excavation depth.

Table 5.6 Summary of Recommended Drainage Outfall Headwall, Box Culvert, and Temporary Shoring Design Parameters

Design Parameters

Option 1:

Native Soil

Backfill

Option 2:

Granular

Backfill

Temporary

Shoring Design

Parameters

Allowable Bearing

Capacity 3,000 psf 3,000 psf 3,000 psf

Coefficient of

Friction

0.35 0.35 0.35

Backfill Soil

Unit Weight, γ 125 pcf 125 pcf 125 pcf

Backfill Soil

Friction Angle, φ 24 degrees 30 degrees 24 degrees

Lateral Earth

Pressure

Coefficients

Ka=0.42, Kp=2.4 Ka=0.33, Kp=3.0 Ka=0.42, Kp=2.4

Active Earth

Pressure 53 psf/ft 42 psf/ft 53 psf/ft

5.5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.5.1 Lime Stabilized Subgrade

For roadway sections utilizing lime stabilized subgrade, we recommend that a minimum of 8% lime content by dry weight be used to treat the subgrade soils to obtain an unconfined compressive strength of about 100 psi based on Tex-121-E

Specifications for lime stabilization of subgrades. Lime series and sulfate tests should be performed at center-to-center intervals of 500 feet on the subgrade soils of the project alignment after the subgrade has been cut to design grade to determine the optimum amount of lime content that would produce a reasonable strength for roadway support. Type B Grade 1 hydrated lime slurry shall be used and placed in accordance with the specifications outlined in the North Central

Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Public Works Construction Standards, 2023 Edition, Section 301.2, Lime Treatment. Lime stabilized subgrade should be compacted to a minimum 98 percent of Tex-121-E maximum density. The sulfate tests along with visual inspections of the final subgrade are to determine whether sulfates are present in the subgrade that is to be lime treated.

5.5.2 Subgrade Preparation

Native and fill subgrade soils should be prepared in accordance with the Texas

Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Construction and

Maintenance of Highways, Streets and Bridges, 2014 Edition, Item 132, Embankment. All subgrade soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches and recompacted in accordance with Section 132.3.4.2..

Where native subgrade is excavated and replaced with imported select backfill or lime treated, the bottom of excavation should have a minimum grade of 2 percent so that moisture does not collect within this layer. Grading should allow moisture to exit or daylight out of the fill material. Imported backfill should be placed and compacted following the requirements of Item 132, Embankment.

5.5.3 Materials Specification

Concrete pavement should be constructed in accordance with TxDOT

Specification Item 360. HMAC base course should conform to TxDOT Special

Specification Item 3076 D-GR HMA Type B PG 64-22. Flexible base should conform to TxDOT Specification Item 247, Type A, Grade 1-2. Lime should conform to TxDOT Specification Item 260 if used. Select fill should conform to

TxDOT Specification Item 132, Type A. The Texas Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets and Bridges, 2014 Edition should be referenced for additional information.

5.5.4 Construction Considerations for Drainage Structures

The use of on-site soils as backfill against the drainage structures is considered acceptable, but the use of granular backfill is recommended. Local soils are predominantly cohesive, including high plasticity clays. On-site soil backfill should be prepared in accordance with TxDOT Item 132, Embankment. Granular backfill should conform to TxDOT specification Item 132, Type A. Backfill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density and within 2 percentage points of optimum moisture content as determined by Tex-114-E.

We anticipate that excavation of the on-site soils can typically be performed with conventional earthmoving equipment. No structures shall be constructed or laid in the presence of standing water. Whenever water is encountered during excavations, water shall be removed by bailing, pumping, well-point installation, deep wells, or underdrains.

5.5.5 Temporary Excavation

All excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavations and Trench Safety Standards.

Soils in the excavation areas include CH and CL, which would be considered Type

C soil under OSHA regulations. OSHA recommends a maximum temporary slope inclination of 1½(h):1(v) for excavations up to 20 feet for this type of soil.

Temporary shoring should be used when the location or depth of the cut makes sloping back to the maximum allowable slope impractical. Temporary shoring should be designed to support the lateral pressures from the native soils and the shoring type should be determined based on the excavation needs.

Heavy construction equipment, building materials, and excavated soils should not be allowed within five (5) feet or ⅓ of the slope height, whichever is greater, from the top of any excavation. During wet weather conditions, care should be taken to prevent runoff water from entering all excavations with the use of earthen berms or other suitable methods. All runoff water should be collected and discharged outside the construction limits.

5.5.6 Concrete Reactivity

The soluble sulfate contents of the subgrade soils indicate negligible to moderate potential for sulfate attack. In accordance with the guidelines provided in the

International Building Code and by the American Concrete Institute, and based upon experience with similar soil conditions, Sulfate Resistant Cement (SRC) conforming to TxDOT Special Provision Item 412, Hydraulic Cement Concrete, should be used for all onsite concrete exposed to soil.

6.0 Limitations

Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and subsurface explorations, laboratory analyses, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that soil/rock conditions may vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil/rock conditions encountered during construction differ from those described herein, we should be notified immediately so that a review may be made. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the proposed grading and alignments, changes from that described in this report, our design data and recommendations should also be reviewed for their applicability.

Corsair has prepared this report in substantial compliance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice, as it exists in the area at the time of our study. No warranty is express or implied.

This report may be used only by the client that is intended for and only for the purposes stated, within three years from its issuance since land use, site conditions (both on site and off site) or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party other than the client or the client’s design team members of this particular project, who wishes to use this report, shall notify Corsair of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Corsair may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Corsair from any liability resulting from the use of this report.

Other standards or documents referenced in any given standard cited in this report, or otherwise relied upon by the authors of this report, are only mentioned in the given standard; they are not incorporated into it or "included by reference," as that latter term is used relative to contracts or other matters of law.

APPENDIX A

BORING LOCATION MAPS

LOGS OF BORING

No Known True Scale

Drainage

Pavement

Dallas County, Texas

Corsair Project No. 2100543

BORING LOCATION MAP 1/4

Google Earth

P-1 to P-6

B-1 and B-2

P-7 to P-13

General Location

Dallas

Garland

P-14 to P-20

B-3

Google Earth

P-1

P-2

P-3

P-4 B-1

B-2

P-5

P-6

General Location

Corsair Project No. 2100543

BORING LOCATION MAP 2/4

P-7

P-8

P-9

P-10

P-11

P-12

P-13

BORING LOCATION MAP 3/4

P-14

B-3 P-15

P-16

P-17

P-18

P-19

P-20

BORING LOCATION MAP 4/4

DRILLING LOG

WinCore

Version 3.3

County Dallas

Highway La Prada Drive

CSJ

Hole P-1

Structure Pavement

Station 2+95.13

Offset 14.89' LT

District Dallas

Date 07/21/23

Grnd. Elev. 544.96 ft

GW Elev. N/A

Elev.

(ft)

L O G

Texas Cone

Penetrometer Strata Description

Triaxial Test Properties

Lateral Deviator Press. Stress (psi) (psi)

MC LL PI

Wet Den.

(pcf)

Additional Remarks

Driller: Innovative Environmental Tech. Logger: Roshan Chaulagain / Ashraf Khan Organization: Corsair Consulting LLC

Z:\Shared\Projects\2021\2100543 La Prada Drive Reconstruction KH\Logs\Final\WinCore\P-1.clg

4 (6) 5 (6)

8 (6) 16 (6)

50 (1.75) 50 (1.5)

50 (1) 50 (0.75)

PTS@1'

28 78 52 PP=1.0, -#40=96.7%,

-#200=90.8% @ 1.3' Sulfate Content<100 ppm

33 90 60 PTS@3', PP=2.5, -#40=96.4%,

-#200=91.0%

25 76 51 SSS@6.5', N=10, -#40=93.0%,

-#200=85.7%

22 56 37 PTS@8', PP=2.5, -#40=94.6%,

-#200=87.1%

21 48 25 SSS@11.5', N=19, -#40=95.3%,

-#200=83.8%

19 46 25 PTS@13', PP=4.5+

15 SSS@15.5', N=50/4.5

Boring Terminated at 20.3'

ASPHALT (4''), BASE (5'')

544.2 CLAY, Fat, soft, moist, dark brown to 5', brown thereafter, trace ferrous staining below 6.5', trace calcareous deposits below 8';

lime treated subgrade to 1.3'

(CH)

535.

CLAY, Lean with Sand, stiff, moist, brown, traces Gravel and ferrous staining (CL)

530.

MUDSTONE, hard, brown, weathered

(MARL)

525.

Remarks: Drill Rig: CME-75 with 170-pound TxDOT Automatic Hammer; SSS: Split Spoon Sample; PTS: Push Tube Sample; PP: Pocket

Penetrometer Reading (tsf); Drilling Method: CFA; Northing: 6990021.23, Easting: 2534636.61; No groundwater encountered.

The ground water elevation was not determined during the course of this boring.

WinCore

Version 3.3

County Dallas

Highway La Prada Drive

CSJ

Hole P-2

Structure Pavement

Station 6+22.26

Offset 16.52' RT

District Dallas

Date 07/21/23

Grnd. Elev. 541.68 ft

GW Elev. N/A

Elev.

(ft)

L O G

Texas Cone

Penetrometer Strata Description

Triaxial Test Properties

Lateral Deviator Press. Stress (psi) (psi)

MC LL PI

Wet Den.

(pcf)

Additional Remarks

Driller: Innovative Environmental Tech. Logger: Roshan Chaulagain / Ashraf Khan Organization: Corsair Consulting LLC

Z:\Shared\Projects\2021\2100543 La Prada Drive Reconstruction KH\Logs\Final\WinCore\P-2.clg

7 (6) 7 (6)

8 (6) 11 (6)

23 (6) 28 (6)

46 (6) 50 (4.25)

28 85 59 PTS@1', PP=4.5, -#40=96.7%,

-#200=91.2% Sulfate Content<100 ppm

27 87 58 PTS@3', PP=3.5, -#40=93.9%,

-#200=87.7%

19 48 31 SSS@6.5', N=16, -#40=95.4%,

-#200=87.1%

21 50 31 PTS@8', PP=4.5+, -#40=99.7%,

-#200=91.6%

24 65 37 SSS@11.5', N=22, -#40=99.9%,

-#200=94.0%

25 73 41 PTS@13', PP=4.5+

26 72 40 SSS@16.4', N=35

22 *Grab Sample from 17.9'-20'*

Boring Terminated at 21.2'

ASPHALT (4''), BASE (5'')

540.9 CLAY, Fat, moist, dark gray, trace Gravel below 3'; lime treated subgrade to 1' (CH)

536.7 CLAY, Lean, soft, moist, brown, traces ferrous staining and calcareous deposits (CL)

533.7 CLAY, Fat, soft, moist, brown, trace ferrous staining (CH)

528.7 CLAY, Fat, very stiff to hard, moist, brown, trace ferrous staining

(CH)

521.7

Remarks: Drill Rig: CME-75 with 170-pound TxDOT Automatic Hammer; SSS: Split Spoon Sample; PTS: Push Tube Sample; PP: Pocket

Penetrometer Reading (tsf); Drilling Method: CFA; Northing: 6990092.91, Easting: 2534955.05; No groundwater encountered.

The ground water elevation was not determined during the course of this boring.

WinCore

Version 3.3

County Dallas

Highway La Prada Drive

CSJ

Hole P-3

Structure Pavement

Station 12+59.20

Offset 27.82' LT

District Dallas

Date 08/02/23

Grnd. Elev. 536.94 ft

GW Elev. N/A

Elev.

(ft)

L O G

Texas Cone

Penetrometer Strata Description

Triaxial Test Properties

Lateral Deviator Press. Stress (psi) (psi)

MC LL PI

Wet Den.

(pcf)

Additional Remarks

Driller: Innovative Environmental Tech. Logger: Roshan Chaulagain / Ashraf Khan Organization: Corsair Consulting LLC

Z:\Shared\Projects\2021\2100543 La Prada Drive Reconstruction KH\Logs\Final\WinCore\P-3.clg

9 (6) 9 (6)

50 (1.75) 50 (0.5)

50 (1.75) 50 (1.25)

50 (1.5) 50 (0.5)

17 65 39 PTS@1', PP=4.5+, -#40=96.7%,

-#200=90.0% Sulfate Content<100 ppm

16 57 33 PTS@3', PP=4.5+, -#40=93.4%,

-#200=87.5%

20 62 34 SSS@6.5', N=34, -#40=99.6%,

-#200=93.6%

16 51 27 PTS@8', PP=4.5+, -#40=99.1%,

-#200=92.0%

15 46 24 SSS@10.3', N=22, 50/6,

-#40=99.3%, -#200=93.7%

13 *Grab Sample from 15.6'-20'*

Boring Terminated at 20.3'

ASPHALT (2.25''), BASE (5.5'')

536.3 CLAY, Fat, moist, dark gray; lime

treated subgrade to 1' (CH)

533.9 CLAY, Fat, soft, moist, light brown, trace ferrous staining and calcareous deposits below

6.5' (CH)

526.9 CLAY, Lean, very hard, moist, brown (CL)

521.3 MUDSTONE, hard to very hard, gray, weathered (MARL)

516.9

Remarks: Drill Rig: CME-75 with 170-pound TxDOT Automatic Hammer; SSS: Split Spoon Sample; PTS: Push Tube Sample; PP: Pocket

Penetrometer Reading (tsf); Drilling Method: CFA; Northing: 6990561.25, Easting: 2535389.99; No groundwater encountered.

The ground water elevation was not determined during the course of this boring.

WinCore

Version 3.3

County Dallas

Highway La Prada Drive

CSJ

Hole P-4

Structure Pavement

Station 14+23.79

Offset 30.55' LT

District Dallas

Date 08/02/23

Grnd. Elev. 536.00 ft

GW Elev. N/A

Elev.

(ft)

L O G

Texas Cone

Penetrometer Strata Description

Triaxial Test Properties

Lateral Deviator Press. Stress (psi) (psi)

MC LL PI

Wet Den.

(pcf)

Additional Remarks

Driller: Innovative Environmental Tech. Logger: Roshan Chaulagain / Ashraf Khan Organization: Corsair Consulting LLC

Z:\Shared\Projects\2021\2100543 La Prada Drive Reconstruction KH\Logs\Final\WinCore\P-4.clg

9 (6) 10 (6)

50 (2.25) 50 (1.25)

50 (1) 50 (0.5)

50 (1) 50 (0.5)

15 54 31 PTS@1', PP=4.5+, -#40=92.9%,

-#200=87.2% Sulfate Content<100 ppm

16 58 36 PTS@3', PP=4.5+, -#40=93.2%,

-#200=87.8%

19 55 33 SSS@6.5', N=19, -#40=97.9%,

-#200=91.7%

15 46 22 PTS@8', PP=4.5+, -#40=99.0%,

-#200=88.4%

15 45 23 SSS@10.4', N=20, 35, 45/5.25,

-#40=99.2%, -#200=86.4%

14 *Grab Sample from 15.3'-20'*

Boring Terminated at 20.2'

ASPHALT (2''), BASE (5'')

535.4 CLAY, Fat, moist, brown and gray, trace calcareous deposits, trace organics to 3'; lime treated subgrade to 1' (CH)

531.

CLAY, Fat, soft, moist, light brown, trace ferrous staining

(CH)

528.

CLAY, Lean, very hard, moist, brown (CL)

522.

MUDSTONE, very hard, gray, weathered

(MARL)

516.

Remarks: Drill Rig: CME-75 with 170-pound TxDOT Automatic Hammer; SSS: Split Spoon Sample; PTS: Push Tube Sample; PP: Pocket

Penetrometer Reading (tsf); Drilling Method: CFA; Northing: 6990680.70, Easting: 2535503.25; No groundwater encountered.

The ground water elevation was not determined during the course of this boring.

WinCore

Version 3.3

County Dallas

Highway La Prada Drive

CSJ

Hole P-5

Structure Pavement

Station 19+55.13

Offset 31.28' LT

District Dallas

Date 07/21/23

Grnd. Elev. 536.07 ft

GW Elev. N/A

Elev.

(ft)

L O G

Texas Cone

Penetrometer Strata Description

Triaxial Test Properties

Lateral Deviator Press. Stress (psi) (psi)

MC LL PI

Wet Den.

(pcf)

Additional Remarks

Driller: Innovative Environmental Tech. Logger: Roshan Chaulagain / Ashraf Khan Organization: Corsair Consulting LLC

Z:\Shared\Projects\2021\2100543 La Prada Drive Reconstruction KH\Logs\Final\WinCore\P-5.clg

7 (6) 8 (6)

50 (5.25) 50 (4)

50 (2) 50 (1.75)

50 (1.75) 50 (1.25)

23 58 34 PTS@1.3', PP=4.0, -#40=97.1%,

-#200=90.1%

23 65 41 PTS@3', PP=3.5, -#40=88.2%,

-#200=81.5%

24 58 33 SSS@6.5', N=12, -#40=97.6%,

-#200=90.9%

20 55 29 PTS@8', PP=4.5+, -#40=96.8%,

-#200=77.8%

20 51 30 SSS@11.1', N=43, 50/4.25,

-#40=95.2%, -#200=85.7%

19 *Grab Sample from 12'-15'*

20 SSS@15.4', N=23, 50/6

16 *Grab Sample from 16.4'-20'*

Boring Terminated at 20.4'

ASPHALT (7''), BASE (3.5'')

535.2 CLAY, Fat to Fat with Sand, moist, dark gray to 3.6', brown thereafter, trace Gravel from 3' to 5', traces ferrous staining and calcareous deposits below 3.6'; lime treated subgrade to 1.3' (CH)

531.1 CLAY, Fat to Fat with Sand, soft, moist, light brown, trace ferrous staining (CH)

526.1 CLAY, Fat, hard, moist, light brown, traces Gravel and ferrous staining (CH)

522.1 CLAY, Fat, very hard, moist, brown and gray (CH)

519.7 MUDSTONE, hard, gray, weathered

(MARL)

516.1

Remarks: Drill Rig: CME-75 with 170-pound TxDOT Automatic Hammer; SSS: Split Spoon Sample; PTS: Push Tube Sample; PP: Pocket

Penetrometer Reading (tsf); Drilling Method: CFA; Northing: 6991060.73, Easting: 2535874.55; No groundwater encountered.

The ground water elevation was not determined during the course of this boring.

WinCore

Version 3.3

County Dallas

Highway La Prada Drive

CSJ

Hole P-6

Structure Pavement

Station 26+04.54

Offset 14.29' RT

District Dallas

Date 07/20/23

Grnd. Elev. 543.30 ft

GW Elev. N/A

Elev.

(ft)

L O G

Texas Cone

Penetrometer Strata Description

Triaxial Test Properties

Lateral Deviator Press. Stress (psi) (psi)

MC LL PI

Wet Den.

(pcf)

Additional Remarks

Driller: Innovative Environmental Tech. Logger: Roshan Chaulagain / Ashraf Khan Organization: Corsair Consulting LLC

Z:\Shared\Projects\2021\2100543 La Prada Drive Reconstruction KH\Logs\Final\WinCore\P-6.clg

11 (6) 12 (6)

22 (6) 27 (6)

50 (2.25) 50 (2)

50 (2) 50 (1.25)

21 71 43 SSS@1.5', N=6

Sulfate Content<100 ppm

23 76 51 PTS@3', PP=4.5+, -#40=95.6%,

-#200=91.3%

22 67 43 SSS@6.5', N=23, -#40=98.4%,

-#200=92.3%

20 59 32 PTS@8', PP=4.5+, -#40=99.8%,

-#200=89.1%

18 61 33 SSS@11.5', N=55, -#40=98.9%,

-#200=89.3%

19 59 29 PTS@13', PP=4.5+, -#40=99.8%,

-#200=94.2%

Push Refusal at 13.8'

19 66 40 SSS@15.5', N=57, -#40=99.6%,

-#200=88.0%

20 *Grab Sample from 17'-20'*

Boring Terminated at 20.4'

ASPHALT (6''), BASE (4.5'')

542.4 CLAY, Fat, moist, dark brown, traces Gravel and organics; lime treated subgrade to 1.1' (CH)

540.3 CLAY, Fat, stiff, moist, dark brown to 5', brown thereafter, trace ferrous staining, trace calcareous deposits (CH)

535.3 CLAY, Fat, very hard, moist, brown, trace ferrous staining to 10'

(CH)

528.3 CLAY, Fat, very hard, moist, dark brown (CH)

523.3

Remarks: Drill Rig: CME-75 with 170-pound TxDOT Automatic Hammer; SSS: Split Spoon Sample; PTS: Push Tube Sample; PP: Pocket

Penetrometer Reading (tsf); Drilling Method: CFA; Northing: 6991520.02, Easting: 2536333.95; No groundwater encountered.

The ground water elevation was not determined during the course of this boring.

WinCore

Version 3.3

County Dallas

Highway La Prada Drive

CSJ

Hole P-7

Structure Pavement

Station 30+25.74

Offset 13.19' RT

District Dallas

Date 07/20/23

Grnd. Elev. 548.18 ft

GW Elev. N/A

Elev.

(ft)

L O G

Texas Cone

Penetrometer Strata Description

Triaxial Test Properties

Lateral Deviator Press. Stress (psi) (psi)

MC LL PI

Wet Den.

(pcf)

Additional Remarks

Driller: Innovative Environmental Tech. Logger: Roshan Chaulagain / Ashraf Khan Organization: Corsair Consulting LLC

Z:\Shared\Projects\2021\2100543 La Prada Drive Reconstruction KH\Logs\Final\WinCore\P-7.clg

6 (6) 7 (6)

9 (6) 20 (6)

35 (6) 50 (3.75)

50 (2.75) 50 (1)

18 69 42 PTS@1.3', PP=4.5+, -#40=97.2%,

-#200=89.6%

20 74 44 PTS@3', PP=4.5+, -#40=96.2%,

-#200=89.8% Sulfate Content<100 ppm

27 65 41 SSS@6.5', N=13, -#40=93.4%,

-#200=88.1%

22 54 35 PTS@8', PP=4.5+, -#40=99.3%,

-#200=94.6%

18 60 32 SSS@11.5', N=36, -#40=97.4%,

-#200=82.3%

15 49 25 PTS@13', PP=4.5+, -#40=97.1%,

-#200=84.2% Push Refusal at 13.9'

19 54 28 *Grab Sample from 13.9'-15'*, -#40=98.5%, -#200=92.0%

15 SSS@16.1', N=35, 50/5.25

17 *Grab Sample from 17'-20'*

Boring Terminated at 20.4'

ASPHALT (6''), BASE (5'')

547.3 CLAY, Fat, soft, moist, dark brown to 5', dark brown and brown thereafter, trace ferrous staining below 5';

lime treated subgrade to 1.3'

(CH)

540.2 CLAY, Fat to Fat with Sand, stiff, moist, brown, trace ferrous staining

(CH)

535.2 CLAY, Fat, hard to very hard, moist, brown; CL layer to 13.9'

(CH)

528.2

Remarks: Drill Rig: CME-75 with 170-pound TxDOT Automatic Hammer; SSS: Split Spoon Sample; PTS: Push Tube Sample; PP: Pocket

Penetrometer Reading (tsf); Drilling Method: CFA; Northing: 6991867.15, Easting: 2536572.50; No groundwater encountered.

The ground water elevation was not determined during the course of this boring.

WinCore

Version 3.3

County Dallas

Highway

CSJ

Hole P-8

Structure Pavement

Station 34+58.77

Offset 13.31' RT

District Dallas

Date 07/20/23

Grnd. Elev. 554.31 ft

GW Elev. N/A

Elev.

(ft)

L O G

Texas Cone

Penetrometer Strata Description

Triaxial Test Properties

Lateral Deviator Press. Stress (psi) (psi)

MC LL PI

Wet Den.

(pcf)

Additional Remarks

Driller: Innovative Environmental Tech. Logger: Roshan Chaulagain / Ashraf Khan Organization: Corsair Consulting LLC

Z:\Shared\Projects\2021\2100543 La Prada Drive Reconstruction KH\Logs\Final\WinCore\P-8.clg

4 (6) 6 (6)

10 (6) 16 (6)

16 (6) 18 (6)

50 (5.5) 50 (4.5)

29 69 43 PTS@1.3', PP=2.5, -#40=96.4%,

-#200=91.5% Sulfate Content<100 ppm

33 72 41 PTS@3', PP=2.5, -#40=93.6%,

-#200=89.2%

29 76 46 SSS@6.5', N=25, -#40=99.4%,

-#200=98.8%

30 72 41 PTS@8', PP=4.5+, -#40=100.0%,

-#200=99.6%

27 73 46 SSS@11.5', N=22, -#40=99.9%,

-#200=99.2%

28 74 45 PTS@13', PP=4.5+,…