TX FLAP 200(1) Final Pavement Report.pdf

Pavement Design Report

TX FLAP 200(1)

Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area Lewisville, Texas

August 19, 2021

Submitted To:

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400 Denver, CO 80202

By:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

1321 Bannock Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80204

100939-002

1321 BANNOCK STREET, SUITE 200

DENVER, COLORADO 80204-4037

303-825-3800 www.shannonwilson.com 100939-002

August 19, 2021

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400 Denver, Colorado 80202

Attn: Mr. Phil Hahn, PE

RE: PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT, TX FLAP 200(1), LEWISVILLE LAKE

ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING AREA, LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

We are pleased to submit our pavement design report for the above-referenced project. The enclosed report summarizes conditions encountered in a subsurface exploration program, presents laboratory tests results, and provides our pavement design recommendations for the proposed Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area Project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at 303-825-3800.

Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Gregory R. Fischer, PhD, PE Senior Vice President

JCG:GRF/jcg

Encl: Pavement Design Report

100939-002-L1/wp/ksm

100939-002-R1/wp/ksm 100939-002 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Field Investigation

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

4.0 PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT

5.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Regional Geology

5.2 Ground Conditions

5.3 Groundwater

6.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Design Methodology

6.2 Swelling Soil

6.3 Traffic Loading

6.4 Subgrade Soils

6.5 Recommended Pavement Sections

7.0 CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS

7.1 Site Preparation

7.2 Earthwork

7.2.1 Subgrade Preparation

7.2.2 Fill Placement

7.2.3 Proof-Rolling

7.3 Lime Treated Subgrade (LTS)

7.4 Paving Materials

7.5 Corrosion

8.0 CLOSURE

9.0 REFERENCE

TABLES

1 Recommended Pavement Sections 2 Recommended Materials for Pavements

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

ii

FIGURES

1 Vicinity Map 2 Site and Exploration Plan

APPENDICES

A Subsurface Explorations B Laboratory Test Results C Pavement Conditions and Site Photographs D Pavement Design Calculations E Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report

PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

TX FLAP 200(1)

LEWISVILLE LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING AREA

LEWISVILLE, TEXAS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration program and presents pavement design recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area (LLELA) Project (the Project) in Lewisville Lake, Texas. Our services were completed in general accordance with our Task Order Agreement No.

004/1000100028752 with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) dated June 15, 2018. Our conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on:

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

Our understanding of the Project and information provided by HDR;

Subsurface conditions observed in the borings at the time our explorations were completed; and The results of testing performed on samples collected from the explorations.

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

2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

The Project is located in Lewisville Lake, Texas (Figure 1). The LLELA is accessed from East Jones Street and North Kealy Avenue at the termination of each roadway. To the south and west of the roadways the land use is generally industrial, and to the north and east of the roadways the land use is open space. The existing East Jones Street is paved with hot asphalt concrete pavement (HACP) and consists of two travel lanes (a single lane in each direction). North Kealy Avenue is paved with HACP on the northern half, and Portland Concrete Cement Pavement (PCCP) on the southern half of the alignment. North Kealy Avenue also consists of two different lane alignments associated with each pavement type. The northern HACP section consists of two travel lanes, and the southern PCCP section consists of two travel lanes and a center turn lane. Based on preliminary discussions with HDR, we understand the Project will include replacement of the existing pavement with new PCCP. We understand that the proposed improvements to the alignment include reconstruction of the existing roadway in addition to widening for new bike lanes and new curb and gutter. The proposed improvement to East Jones Street extends east from the intersection with North Cowan Avenue for approximately 0.5 miles to the LLELA entrance where East Jones Street terminates. The proposed improvements to North Kealy Avenue extend north from the at grade crossing with the Kansas City Southern railroad tracks for approximately 0.35 miles to the LLELA entrance where North Kealy Avenue Terminates. Refer to Figure 2 for a project map. The alignment is relatively flat throughout the Project alignment.

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Field Investigation

Shannon & Wilson conducted a field exploration program on July 6, 2018, to explore subsurface conditions along the proposed roadway alignments. The subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling and sampling six borings (designated SW-01 through SW-06) along the East Jones Street and North Kealy Avenue, as shown in Figure 2. The borings were advanced to 10.5 feet below the ground surface.

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

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Geotechnical laboratory tests were completed on selected samples retrieved from the borings to estimate index and engineering properties. Index tests included natural water content, grain size analysis, and Atterberg limits. Engineering properties tests included corrosion, moisture density relationship (Proctor test) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR). Laboratory test results and a discussion of the testing procedures are included in Appendix B. The natural water content, fines content, and Atterberg limits are also shown on the individual boring logs included in Appendix A.

4.0 PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT

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

Asphalt

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

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

Routine maintenance recommended.

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

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

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

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

Concrete Excellent: New pavement. No maintenance required.

Good: First signs of transverse cracking, patch or repair, more extensive pop-outs, or scaling. Sealing or routine maintenance recommended.

Fair: Pavement has joint or crack spalling, and/or faulting, along with cracking at corners with broken pieces. Any patches are in fair conditions and faulting is at a minimum. Preventative maintenance recommended.

Poor: Joints and cracks are open 1 inch, spalled or patched. Faulting is more severe.

Rehabilitation recommended.

Failed: Most slabs have failed structurally, and faulting is severe. Reconstruction recommended.

Using the FWS visual rating system, we conducted our assessment survey on June 28, 2018.

Site photographs 1 through 29 contain photographs of the existing pavement and typical distress patterns observed along the roadway. The age of the existing pavement is unknown.

The HACP was generally in good condition. Within the HACP along East Jones Street and North Kealy Avenue we observed occasional low severity longitudinal cracks along with low severity edge cracking. The PCCP was generally in fair condition with localized areas in poor condition. The PCCP section along North Kealy Avenue exhibited areas with localized edge cracking throughout the alignment, along with some exposed tie bar reinforcement near the PCCP and HACP interface. Multiple sections of the PCCP appear to have been repaired and or widened to the east. Near the intersection with Benjamin’s Way, sections of PCCP have been patched with HACP.

5.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Regional Geology

The job site is located within the Fort Worth Basin. Based on our review of the Geologic atlas of Texas, Sherman sheet the geology of the site consists of Quaternary alluvium (McGowen and others, revised 1991). The Project area is mapped as Pleistocene fluviatile terrace deposits.

5.2 Ground Conditions

HACP or PCCP pavement was measured at each of the boring locations. The HACP ranged in thickness from 4 to 17 inches as measured in four borings. The PCCP was measured to be 6 inches and 12 inches thick in two borings. A summary table of the existing pavement thicknesses at each boring location is provided in Appendix C. The borings generally encountered medium stiff to very stiff clays with varying percentages of sand and isolated areas of loose to medium dense, silty and clayey sand (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO] soil classification A-2-4, A-2-6, A-6, and A-7-6).

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

5.3 Groundwater

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

6.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Performance of a pavement system depends on the pavement material and thicknesses, subgrade strength, traffic loads and repetitions, design life, and subgrade drainage characteristics. The following sections discuss each of these aspects as they relate to the East Jones Street and North Kealy Avenue pavement reconstruction.

6.1 Design Methodology

Our pavement design and results are based on the design procedures presented in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures and the 1998 Supplement to the AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures, Part II – Rigid Pavement Design & Rigid Pavement Joint Design, with guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), dated March 2008, and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Pavement Manual, dated April 2017. Pavement design inputs and calculations are presented in Appendix D.

6.2 Swelling Soil

Many of the soil formations in Texas are susceptible to volume change by swelling/shrinking.

This geologic phenomenon has the potential to cause substantial damage to lightly loaded structures, such as pavements, when exposed to water. To provide an indication of the swell potential of near surface soils at the site, we performed Atterberg limits, grain size distributions, and moisture contents on soil samples encountered in our explorations. Based on testing of subgrade samples from the project site, the Plasticity (PI) ranged from 11 to 38, and the Liquid Limit (LL) ranged from 34 to 53. Section 11.3.2.1.3 of the PDDM (2008) specifies:

2 feet of subexcavation (overexcavation and removal of excavated material from the site) is required for roadways with a Plastic Index (PI) ranging from 15 to 25, 2 to 4 feet of subexcavation for subgrades with a PI ranging from 25 to 35 or LL ranging from 50 to 60, and

4 to 6 feet of subexcavation for subgrades with a PI greater than 35 or a LL greater than 60.

To reduce project costs, we recommend (a) 16 inches of overexcavation, (b) 8 inches in place moisture treatment at the base of the excavation, and (c) moisture treating and compacting the 16 inches of overexcavated existing material to achieve a total of 24 inches of subgrade moisture treatment in lieu of remove and replace subgrade as specified in the PDDM. If a treated subgrade section is selected, the treated section can count towards the total moisture treated section.

6.3 Traffic Loading

Traffic data for East Jones Street and North Kealy Avenue was provided to us by HDR. The traffic study indicates that the 2018 average daily traffic (ADT) is 1,912 and 1,709 vehicles per day on East Jones Street and North Kealy Avenue, respectively. Based on discussions with HDR, one pavement section will be utilized for the entirety of the alignment. Therefore, we used the higher ADT value for our analysis. We assumed 10 percent Class 9 single trailer trucks based on discussion with HDR.

We estimated 18-kip equivalent single axle loading (ESAL) values for both flexible and rigid pavement using a 4R project design life and assuming a 2 percent compounded growth rate. The PDDM specifies 25-year and 35-year design lives for flexible pavement and rigid pavement, respectively. Using the mean value of the flexible pavement equivalency factors provided in the PDDM for each vehicle class and a 25-year design life as indicated for a 4R flexible pavement project, we estimated an 18-kip equivalent single axle loading (ESAL) of approximately 2,958,000 for flexible pavement in each traffic lane. For rigid pavement, using the flexible equivalency factors provided in the PDDM increased by a factor of 1.5 to account for rigid pavement, and a 35-year design life as indicated for a 4R rigid pavement project, we estimated an 18-kip ESAL of 6,925,000. Our estimated ESAL calculations are provided in Appendix D.

6.4 Subgrade Soils

As discussed in Section 5.0, the subsurface explorations completed along the two roadways primarily consisted of clays with varying percentages of sands (A-6 and A-7-6). To estimate the strength of the subgrade materials, a CBR test was completed on a bulk sample from boring SW-02 resulting in a CBR of 1.7. Laboratory index testing indicated the bulk sample consisted of AASHTO classification A-6. For the design subgrade strength, we used a TxDOT correlation between CBR and resilient modulus, which calculates a resilient modulus value of 3,581 pounds per square inch.

6.5 Recommended Pavement Sections

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

TABLE 1

RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS

Location Design

Life Design

ESAL Value PCC Modulus of

Rupture (psi) Recommended Pavement Section

Jones Street and Kealy Avenue

25 years 2,958,000 -

11.5 inches HACP over 24 inches moisture treatment

9.0 inches HACP over 8 inches LTS over 16 inches moisture treatment

35 years 6,925,000 650 psi (1) 8.5 inches JPCP over 8 inches LTS over

16 inches moisture treatment (3, 4, 5)

570 psi (2) 10.0 inches JPCP over 8 inches LTS over 16 inches moisture treatment (3, 4, 5)

Notes:

1 Recommended average modulus of rupture based on guidance from AASHTO Supplement (1998).

2 Minimum average modulus of rupture as specified by TxDOT Item 360.

3 Dowel bars should be installed in the transverse direction and tie bars in the longitudinal direction.

4 For JPCP sections that are 10.5” or less dowel bars should be 18 inches long, 1-1/4 inch diameter, and spaced 12 inches on-center.

5 Maximum joint spacing of 15 feet with PCCP panel length to width ratio not exceeding 1.25.

ESAL = Equivalent Single Axle Loading HACP = Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement JPCP = Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement LTS = Lime Treated Subgrade psi = Pounds per Square Inch

The PDDM does not specify a minimum modulus of rupture for PCCP. As indicated in Table 1, two designs were provided for two separate concrete specifications. Additional pavement sections were considered for the project including full depth reclamation (FDR) and untreated base course (UTBC) materials beneath the pavement. Based on discussions with the team, FDR was not considered. Due to swell potential of the subgrade, we do not recommend incorporating a UTBC layer within the pavement section.

7.0 CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS

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

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

7.1 Site Preparation

In widening areas, we recommend that brush and other vegetation be cleared and roots and stumps be removed from all areas to be graded in accordance with FP-14 Sections 201 and 203.

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

7.2 Earthwork

7.2.1 Subgrade Preparation

Proper subgrade preparation is required for adequate pavement performance. The exposed subgrade should be treated to a depth of 2 feet below the pavement section (see Section 6.2) and prepared in accordance with FP-14 Section 204.

7.2.2 Fill Placement

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

The on-site soils can be reused as part of the moisture treated subgrade or for nominal fills associated with the widening. However, due to the potential expansive nature of the clay, it will be important to place overexcavated materials at a moisture content above the optimum moisture content to reduce the potential for swell. In this regard, we recommend a deviation to Section 204.11 for cohesive soils (AASHTO A-6 and A-7). Specifically, we recommend soils be moisture treated to 1 to 3 percent above optimum moisture content of AASHTO T99 (the specification calls for within 2 percent of optimum moisture content). Where granular soils (AASHTO A-1 and A-2) are encountered, the subgrade should be moisture treated within 2 points of the optimum moisture content.

Below pavements, clean granular soils are not recommended (as there will be no natural drainage and this can form a bathtub effect that can exacerbate swell). If imported fill is required, we recommend that the material have a minimum fines content of 30 percent.

The subgrade and fill should not be allowed to dry out during overexcavation and placement or the potential for swell and the possible magnitude of swell will increase. This may require wetting and remixing exposed lifts at the beginning of each day.

7.2.3 Proof-Rolling

As discussed above, the subgrade should be prepared in accordance with FP-14 Section 204.11, which includes the use of compression-type rollers. While it is important to place clayey material above the optimum moisture content to control swell, material placed wet of optimum is prone to pumping and yielding from construction activities. This material can be difficult to pass a proof-roll. The Contractor will need to carefully control the movement of equipment around the site and minimize the passage of equipment over the overexcavated area. Even with these precautions, compaction of the material will be difficult and extra working time should be anticipated. Placement and compaction testing should be monitored on a full-time basis to assist in this process.

7.3 Lime Treated Subgrade (LTS)

Based on subgrade conditions indicated by the borings, lime treatment is a suitable option for treating subgrades at the project site. Lime is typically placed during construction, after the site is graded. The subgrade is then disked, lime added, mixed, and compacted prior to the lime setting up. A chemical reaction occurs between the lime, clay, and water resulting in a low plasticity, stiff layer.

Soils containing high sulfate concentrations can result in a deleterious reaction between the sulfate ions, soil, and water, resulting in long-term heaving in the subgrade soil. For sulfate content greater than 0.3 percent, TxDOT (2005) Guidelines for Treatment of Sulfate-Rich Soils and Bases in Pavement Structures requires modified or alternative treatments. Two samples from the pavement subgrade soils were tested for water soluble sulfates and indicated 0.07 and

0.06 percent or less sulfate content. Based on these results, treatment for sulfate-rich soils does not appear necessary.

7.4 Paving Materials

The following table summarizes our recommendations for pavement material selection. All specification sections reference the FP-14 U.S. Customary Units, (USDOT and FHWA, 2014).

TABLE 2

RECOMMENDED MATERIALS FOR PAVEMENTS

Material Specification Additional Requirements/Comments

UTBC Section 301 Use Gradation C, D, or E

LTS Section 213

Average 28 day Unconfined Compressive Strength must meet a minimum of 100 pounds per square inch

Material 725.03

HACP Section 403 Aggregate must meet requirements for ESAL values between 300,000 and 3,000,000 3/4-inch Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size

PCCP Section 501

JPCP with tied shoulders Maximum joint spacing of 15 feet 1-1/4 inch or 1-1/2 inch dowels based on PCCP thickness TxDOT Item 360 can be considered for use

Notes:

ESAL = Equivalent Single Axle Loading HACP = Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement JPCP = Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement LTS = Lime Treated Subgrade PCCP = Portland Cement Concrete Pavement TxDOT = Texas Department of Transportation UTBC = Untreated Base Course

Regarding the asphalt binder for HACP, the PDDM requires SuperPave performance grade (PG) binders. The PG binders are chosen based on local weather and anticipated traffic level conditions. Using the PDDM guidelines, a minimum of 95 percent reliability is required in terms of binder performance. Using a binder within an appropriate temperature and traffic loading range allows for a higher strength and better durability, and improved cohesion will translate into improved long-term performance. To determine the recommended SuperPave Binder we used the LTPP Bind Version 3.1Beta and guidance from the TxDOT Pavement Manual (2017). We recommend using a PG 70-22 binder for the HACP.

PCCP should conform to Section 501 in the FP-14. As an alternative, TxDOT Class P concrete may be more readily available in the project area. TxDOT Class P concrete, Item 360 specifies a minimum average modulus of rupture of 570 pounds per square inch at 28 days. The minimum flexural strength requirement will need to be specified based on the pavement section selected in Table 1. The PCC should also have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi in accordance with FP-14 Item 501, or TxDOT Item 360.

7.5 Corrosion

To assist in estimating the corrosion potential at the site, samples were tested for pH, resistivity, water soluble sulfates, and chlorides. The results are presented in Table B-1 in Appendix B.

The resistivity measured in both samples was 1,300 ohm-centimeters. Based on correlations developed by Roberge (2012), these values suggest a highly corrosive subsurface.

The concentration of water soluble sulfates measured in the samples was measured to be 0.06 and 0.07 percent by weight. Based on classifications as defined by the American Concrete Institute ACI-318-14 (ACI, 2014), these test results suggest a negligible degree of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to site soils (exposure class S0).

8.0 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of HDR and Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division for the purpose of providing pavement recommendations for the Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area project. This pavement design report should not be used without our approval if any of the following occurs:

Assumptions stated in this report have changed.

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

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

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

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

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

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-3824

Joseph Goode Senior Geotechnical Staff

Gregory R. Fischer, PhD, PE Senior Vice President

JCG:GRF/jcg

9.0 REFERENCE

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

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

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1998, 1998 Supplement to the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, Part II.

Washington, D.C., AASHTO, 2 v.

McGowen, J.H., Hentz, T.F., Owen, D.E., Pieper, M.K., Shelby, C.A., Barnes, V.E., Humble Oil and Refining Co., Pure Oil Co., Branson, C.C., Mankin, C.J., Morgan, H.J., Cordell, R.J., Nolte, W.J., Hendricks, Leo, and Heuer, Edward, 1967, Geologic atlas of Texas, Sherman sheet (revised 1991): University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Geologic Atlas of Texas 31, scale 1:250,000.

Roberge, P.R., 2012, Handbook of corrosion engineering (2nd ed.): N. Y., McGraw-Hill, 1078 p.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), 2005, Guidelines for Treatment of Sulfate-Rich Soils and Bases in Pavement Structures.

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

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), 2014, Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets and Bridges. Item , p. 138-143.

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

Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration. Available from:

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

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

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

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_19387.htm https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_19387.htm http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/manuals/pddm/ http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

100939-002-R1-AA/wp/ksm 100939-002 A-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... A-1

A.2 EXPLORATIONS .......................................................................................................... A-1 A.2.1 Soil Classification System ................................................................................ A-1

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ...................................................................... A-2

A.2.3 Bulk Samples .................................................................................................... A-2

A-1 Soil Classification and Log Key (3 sheets) A-2 Log of Boring SW-01 A-3 Log of Boring SW-02 A-4 Log of Boring SW-03 A-5 Log of Boring SW-04 A-6 Log of Boring SW-05 A-7 Log of Boring SW-06

A-1

A.1 INTRODUCTION

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.’s (Shannon & Wilson’s) field exploration program was conducted on July 6, 2018, and consisted of drilling six borings designated SW-01 through SW-06 at the locations shown on Figure 2. Photographs of boring locations are provided in Appendix C. The methods used to conduct the field exploration program are described below.

A.2 EXPLORATIONS

The borings were coordinated (including subcontractor coordination and utility locates) and observed by Shannon & Wilson. Individual boring logs are presented in Figures A-2 through A-

7. These exploration logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and select results of laboratory testing. The borings were drilled by West Drilling of Waxahachie, Texas (under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson) using a truck-mounted CME 75 drill rig. Prior to drilling, pavement cores were obtained at each boring location. Measurements of the pavement thickness are presented on the boring logs and in Table C-1 in Appendix C. The aggregate base course thickness was measured based on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sample. The borings were advanced to an approximate depth of 10.5 feet. All borings were advanced using 4-inch diameter solid-stem-auger drilling techniques. On completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with cuttings and bentonite was used if cuttings did not provide sufficient volume.

The repairs to the existing pavement were made with cold-patch asphalt or quick-set concrete to match the existing pavement.

A.2.1 Soil Classification System

During exploration, our representative collected samples and prepared field logs of the explorations. Soil classification for this project was based on ASTM International (ASTM) Designation: D2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), and ASTM Designation: D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The Unified Soil Classification System is summarized in Figure A-1. In addition, samples were classified based on American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Designation M-145, Standard Specification for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes.

A-2

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

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

This sum is recorded as the penetration resistance number, or N-value. The N-values provide a means for evaluating the relative density or compactness of cohesionless (granular) soils and consistency or stiffness of cohesive (fine-grained) soils (see Figure A-1). The N-values are shown in the individual boring logs. Representative portions of the split-spoon sample obtained in conjunction with the SPT were placed in a screw-top plastic jar and transported to our laboratory.

A.2.3 Bulk Samples

Bulk soil samples were obtained by collecting the drill cuttings from the upper 5 feet of select borings. Approximately 20 to 30 pounds of cuttings were placed in a plastic bag and transported to our laboratory for further analysis and testing.

Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area

Lewisville, Texas

100939-002August 2021

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, from below water table

FIG. A-1

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

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

SPECIFICATIONS

Hammer:

Sampler:

N-Value:

Dry

Moist

Wet

MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS

Modifying (Secondary)

Precedes major constituent

Major

Minor Follows major constituent

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

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

3Determined based on behavior.

4Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage.

5Whichever is the lesser constituent.

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

(less than 50% fines)1

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

PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS

RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY

Sand or Gravel 4

30% or more coarse-grained:

Sandy or Gravelly 4

More than 12% fine-grained:

Silty or Clayey 3

15% to 30% coarse-grained:

with Sand or with Gravel 4

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

with Sand or with Gravel 5

Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard

Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense

RELATIVE

DENSITY

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more fines)1

COHESIVE SOILS

< 2 2 - 4 4 - 8

8 - 15 15 - 30

> 30

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

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

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

140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall.

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

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

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

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

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

RELATIVE

CONSISTENCY

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

5% to 12% fine-grained:

with Silt or with Clay 3

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

with Sand or with Gravel 5

< 5%

5 to 10%

15 to 25%

30 to 45%

50 to 100%

Surface Cement Seal

Asphalt or Cap

Slough

Inclinometer or Non-perforated Casing

Vibrating Wire Piezometer

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

< 4 4 - 10

10 - 30 30 - 50

> 50

DESCRIPTION

< #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)

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

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

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

SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE

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

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

3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)

> 12 in. (305 mm)

Fine Coarse

Fine Medium Coarse

BOULDERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

FINES

SAND

Sheet 1 of 3

S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS

CONSTITUENT2

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Silt, Lean Clay, Elastic Silt, or

Fat Clay 3

PERCENTAGES TERMS 1, 2

Trace

Few

Little

Some

Mostly

WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS

Bentonite Cement Grout

Bentonite Grout

Bentonite Chips

Silica Sand

Perforated or Screened Casing

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

T X

F L

A P

L E

W

IS

V

IL

LE

L

A K

E .G

P J

S W

N E

W .G

D T

/2

4/

Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area

Lewisville, Texas

August 2021

GC

SC

Inorganic

Organic

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

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC

SYMBOL

CH

OH

ML

CL

TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

Gravel

Sand

Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel

Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel

Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Sand

Sheet 2 of 3

Gravels

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

SW

(more than 12% fines)

Silts and Clays

Silts and Clays

(more than 50% retained on No.

200 sieve)

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

(liquid limit less than 50)

(liquid limit 50 or more)

Organic

Inorganic

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

SM

Sands

Silty or Clayey Gravel

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

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

HIGHLY-

ORGANIC

SOILS

COARSE-

GRAINED

SOILS

GW

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

(less than 5% fines)

PT

(more than 12% fines)

MH

SP

GP

GM

Silty or Clayey Sand

Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand

(50% or more passes the No.

200 sieve)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

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

Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel;

Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay

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

Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Sand; Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Gravel; Well-Graded Gravel with Sand

Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

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

NOTES

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

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

Peat or other highly organic soils (see

ASTM D4427)

FIG. A-1

OL

(less than 5% fines)

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

T X

F L

A P

L E

W

IS

V

IL

LE

L

A K

E .G

P J

S W

N E

W .G

D T

/2

4/

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

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

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

Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area

Lewisville, Texas

August 2021

Angular

Subangular

Subrounded

Rounded

Flat

Elongated

Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces.

Similar to angular, but with rounded edges.

Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.

Smoothly curved sides with no edges.

Width/thickness ratio > 3.

Length/width ratio > 3.

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

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

Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure Will not crumble or break with finger pressure

Weak

Moderate

Strong

VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA

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

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

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

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

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 3

Interbedded

Laminated

Fissured

Slickensided

Blocky

Lensed

Homogeneous

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

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

lamination.

Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance.

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy;

sometimes striated.

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

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

Same color and appearance throughout.

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

ATD

Diam.

Elev.

ft.

FeO gal.

Horiz.

HSA

I.D.

in.

lbs.

MgO mm

MnO

NA

NP

O.D.

OW

pcf

PID

PMT

ppm psi

PVC

rpm

SPT

USCS

qu

VWP

Vert.

WOH

WOR

Wt.

STRUCTURE TERMS1

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

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

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

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Poorly Graded

Well-Graded

Irregular patches of different colors.

Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or animals.

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

Material brought to surface by drilling.

Material that caved from sides of borehole.

Disturbed texture, mix of strengths.

Mottled

Bioturbated

Diamict

Cuttings

Slough

Sheared

DESCRIPTION

Nonplastic

Low

Medium

High

ADDITIONAL TERMS

PLASTICITY2

CEMENTATION TERMS1

GRADATION TERMS

APPROX.

PLASITICTY

INDEX

RANGE

< 4

4 to 10

10 to 20

> 20

PARTICLE ANGULARITY AND SHAPE TERMS1

FIG. A-1

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

T X

F L

A P

L E

W

IS

V

IL

LE

L

A K

E .G

P J

S W

N E

W .G

D T

/2

4/

4 inches of asphalt.

Stiff to very stiff, red to brown, Sandy Lean Clay (CL); moist. [A-7-6]

Stiff, brown, Lean Clay with Sand (CL);

moist. [A-7-6]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 7/6/2018

S -1

S -2

S -3

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

3.5

0.4

8.0

10.5

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

10.5 ft.

REV 3

FIG. A-2

S am pl es

4 in.

AW

Automatic

S ym bo l

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

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

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

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

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

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

TX FLAP 200(1)

Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area

Lewisville, Texas

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

100939-002

Solid-Stem Auger West Drilling CME 75 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

LOG OF BORING SW-01

August 2021

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

P oc ke t

P en ts f

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

T X

F

LA

P L

E W

IS

V

IL

LE

L A

K E

.G P

J

/2

/1

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

(blows/foot)

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

14 inches of asphalt.

Medium stiff to stiff, red to brown, Sandy Lean Clay (CL); moist. [A-6]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 7/6/2018

S -1

B -1

S -2

S -3

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

1.2

10.5

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

10.5 ft.

REV 3

FIG. A-3

S am pl es

4 in.

AW

Automatic

S ym bo l

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

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

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

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

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

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

TX FLAP 200(1)

Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area

Lewisville, Texas

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

100939-002

Solid-Stem Auger West Drilling CME 75 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

LOG OF BORING SW-02

August 2021

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

Grab Sample

P oc ke t

P en ts f

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

T X

F

LA

P L

E W

IS

V

IL

LE

L A

K E

.G P

J

/2

/1

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

(blows/foot)

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines

4 inches of asphalt over 10 inches of degraded asphalt.

Medium dense, light brown to tan, Silty Sand (SM); moist; few gravel. [A-2-4]

Medium stiff to very stiff, brown to brown with mottled gray, Lean Clay with Sand (CL); moist. [A-6]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 7/6/2018

S -1

S -2

S -3

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

1.5

1.2

4.2

10.5

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

10.5 ft.

REV 3

FIG. A-4

S am pl es

4 in.

AW

Automatic

S ym bo l

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

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

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

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

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

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

TX FLAP 200(1)

Lewisville Lake Environmental Learning Area

Lewisville, Texas

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

100939-002

Solid-Stem Auger West Drilling CME 75 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

LOG OF BORING SW-03

August 2021

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

P oc ke t

P en ts f

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

T X

F

LA

P L

E W

IS

V

IL

LE

L A

K E

.G P

J

/2

/1

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

(blows/foot)

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines

NP

17 inches of asphalt.

Stiff to very stiff, brown to red, Sandy Lean Clay (CL); moist; FeO stains. [A-6]

Stiff, gray with brown, Lean Clay with Sand (CL); moist. [A-7-6]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 7/6/2018

S -1

S -2

S -3

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