a leo a daly company€¦ · (base, leveling or surface course) 1 thru 22 item p ... item l-108...

IS!n Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. A LEO A DALY COMPANY

ADDENDUM 1

TAXIWAY G EXTENSION & GENERAL AVIATION APRON PHASE 9 RECONSTRUCTION

CITY OF LAREDO, TEXAS LAREDO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

AIP NO. 3-48-0136-080-2016

JULY 5, 2016

This Addendum is hereby made part of the Contract Documents, Specifications and Plans of the above referenced project and shall supersede any information in those documents with which it might conflict. Acknowledgement of receipt of this addendum shall be provided in the Contract Documents.

Contract Documents:

1. Specifications, Table of Content, Page TOC-3 - Remove the existing Page TOC-3 that has the footer "Issue for Bid" and replace with the attached Page TOC-3 that has the footer "Addendum 1 ".

2. Specifications, Appendices - Add the attached Appendix C, Geotechnical Engineering Study (36 pages) after 4 of Appendix B.

Attachments:

1. Specification Table of Contents, Page TOC-3. 2. Specifications, Appendix C.

8350 N. Central Expressway

SUITE 1400 DALLAS, TX 75206

TEL 214.522.8778 FAX 214.526.4433 www.lan-inc.com

1

__ ........ ,,,'\ ---""~ OF r, \\

- ,t ""' ••••••••• I! l• ,, ,,.. ,r.·····""1 ,, ,,.. "'"····· ·-;,.~ ~ -, . . . , .. / '\. I'• • • • I , ••• • :i. ....... .................. • ••• ·,

I ERIC S. NIELSf.:N I ~ ................................ ~ '• -o\ 1 21 3 5 0 /~- 1

•."o...:-•• <1cp,s\:."-;)_ .• :·t~ .:' .. ,.~ .. ,~ .. ,_.. ., ,, ,·~s······ ... ,r.~, -\\ ION,\\. 1.,. --

''''-''"--

B-036-11

Laredo International Airport Table of Contents

Taxiway G Extension & July 5, 2016

General Aviation Phase 9 Reconstruction TOC-3 Addendum 1

Division F - Technical Provisions Page(s)

Item SS-G-200 Safety and Security 1 thru 6

Item SS-G-300 Construction Field Office 1 thru 4

Item P-100 Demolition 1 thru 4

Item P-152 Excavation, Subgrade and Embankment 1 thru 8

Item P-156 Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion,

and Siltation Control 1 thru 4

Item P-160 TPDES Requirements 1 thru 4

Item P-401 Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Pavement 1 thru 26

Item P-403 Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Pavements

(Base, Leveling Or Surface Course) 1 thru 22

Item P-501 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement 1 thru 38

Item P-603 Bituminous Tack Coat 1 thru 4

Item P-605 Joint Sealants for Concrete Pavement 1 thru 6

Item P-620 Runway and Taxiway Marking 1 thru 6

Item D701 Pipe for Storm Drains and Culverts 1 thru 8

Item D752 Concrete Culverts, Headwalls, and Miscellaneous

Drainage Structures 1 thru 4

Item T-901 Hydro-Mulch Seeding 1 thru 6

Item T-904 Sodding 1 thru 4

Item L-108 Underground Power Cable for Airports 1 thru 12

Item L-110 Airport Underground Electrical Duct Banks

and Conduits 1 thru 10

Item L-115 Electrical Manholes and Junction Structures 1 thru 8

Item L-125 Installation of Airport Lighting System 1 thru 4

Division G - Appendices Page(s)

Appendix A: FAA AC 150/5370-2F 1 thru 58

Appendix B: Construction Safety Phasing Plan 1 thru 14

Appendix C: Geotechnical Investigation Report 1 thru 34

END OF TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix C

Intentionally Left Blank

July1 , 2016

Mr. Chad E. Pannel, P.E. Senior Project Manager Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, Inc. 8350 N. Central Expressway, Suite No. 1400 Dallas, Texas 75206

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Laredo International Airport Taxiway "G" Extension Laredo, Texas CET Project No.: 16G050

Dear Mr. Pannel:

ENGINEERING & TESTING, LLC

Castle Engineering & Testing, LLC. (CET) is pleased to submit the enclosed Geotechnical Engineering Report for the proposed above referenced project.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist in this phase of the project, and we look forward to providing construction materials testing and observation services as the project progresses.

Should you have any questions concerning our findings or if you desire additional information, please do not hesitate to call our office.

Respectfully,

Castle Engineering & Testing, LLC

JPR/JMP-16G050

Copies Submitted: (3) Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, Inc.; Mr. Chad Pannel, P.E. (1) City of Laredo - Engineering Department; Alejandro Labrada

Geotechnical • Construction Materials Testing • Environmental Consulting • Forensic 3302 Cuatro Vientos Drive, Suite No. 12 • Laredo, Texas 78046 • Phone 956. 727.3530 • Fax 956. 727 3384

TBPE Reg istration No. F-10341

Laredo International Airport CET Project No. 16G050 Taxiway G Extension Improvements July 1, 2016

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Authorization and Scope ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Description .................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Climate ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Geology ..................................................................................................................... 3

2. FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING ......................................................................... 3 2.1 Field Testing .......................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................ 3 2.3 Chloride Ion Concentration .................................................................................. 4 2.4 Sulfate Ion Concentration ..................................................................................... 4

3. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 5

3.1 Site Conditions ...................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Subsurface Conditions ......................................................................................... 5 3.3 Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 6

4. EVALUATION ............................................................................................................... 6 4.1 General ................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) ................................................................................ 6

5. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 6 5.1 Pavement Subgrade Preparations ....................................................................... 7 5.2 Pavement Design Parameters .............................................................................. 8 5.3 Other Construction Considerations ..................................................................... 8 5.3.1 Drainage ........................................................................................................ 8 5.3.2 Landscaping ................................................................................................. 9 5.4 Selection and Placement of Fill ............................................................................ 9 5.5 Utility Trench Excavation and Backfill ............................................................... 10

6. GENERAL REMARKS ................................................................................................ 10 6.1 Construction Services ....................................................................................... 10 6.2 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 10

APPENDIX


1

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Authorization and Scope Castle Engineering & Testing, LLC. (CET) is pleased to submit the report of our Geotechnical Engineering Study for the above-referenced project. This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Investigation to support the development the proposed General Aviation Taxiway G Extension Improvements, for Laredo International Airport in Laredo, Texas. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions and provide geotechnical design and construction criteria for the project. The scope was described in our Proposal (CET G160xx) dated June 16, 2016, which was made part of the LAN Master Agreement. This report is based on strata and groundwater levels found in our exploratory borings, results of field and laboratory tests, engineering analysis of field and laboratory data, previous investigations, and our experience with similar conditions and projects. Our scope of services was to develop engineering recommendations for the pavement subgrade and guidelines to be used is appropriate design preparation and related construction documents for this project. We understand that the new taxiway improvements will be designed based on the FAA guidelines. A Vicinity Map, Bore Location Plan and individual boring logs are presented in Appendix of this report. The report contains descriptions of the soil, bedrock and groundwater found in our exploratory borings, recommendations and general construction criteria for site mass grading, pavements, site utilities, and basic surface and subsurface drainage. The recommendations presented in the report are based on the construction as currently planned. Revisions to the planned construction could affect our recommendations. If the construction will differ from the descriptions herein, we should be contacted to review our recommendations and determine if revisions are needed. A brief summary of our conclusions and recommendations follows, with more detailed discussion and design criteria presented in the report. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

1. Strata found in our borings consisted of clay, gravel and sand soil mixtures (SC & CL) and are underlain by any of the following: sandstone or claystone cemented sedimentary rock in most borings drilled. There is no apparent fill identified above the cemented layers encountered at about five feet in depth and which is very difficult to distinguish from the natural soils. Testing indicates the soils vary from non-expansive to low-expansive.

2. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling operations. Groundwater

may be encountered during installation of pier foundations. Groundwater may fluctuate seasonally and rise in response to precipitation, landscape irrigation, and water levels in nearby drainages.

3. Risk of distress due to soil movement is considered to be low at this site.

Potential differential difference (heave or settlement) of about one (1) inch is considered possible.


2

4. Naturally occurring sulfates of sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium and chlorides are sometimes contained in soils or dissolved in groundwater. These sulfates have been known to chemically attack concrete and mortar. Wet chemistry test results found sulfate concentrations ranging from 200 to over 6800 ppm; chlorides were found to range from less than 50 to about 1300 ppm. Final design of the taxiway pavement must consider the concentrations found in the natural soils.

5. Surface drainage should be designed, constructed, and maintained to

provide rapid removal of runoff away from and off of pavements and flatwork. Water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to the pavements and flatwork. Area drains should be used where grades are low or flat and surface runoff may be impeded.

1.2 Project Description Mr. Chad E. Pannel, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, Inc., authorized this geotechnical engineering study on June 16, 2016, per CET proposal G16029. Based on information provided to us by the City of Laredo and LAN Corporation, we understand that plans are underway to design the Taxiway G extension at Laredo International Airport in Laredo, Texas. 1.3 Climate Laredo is located in a climatic zone described as hot during summer when temperatures tend to be in the 80's and cool during winter when temperatures tend to be below the 50's. The climatological data presented below was obtained from Weather Underground; average monthly temperatures for Laredo in degrees Fahrenheit and total monthly precipitation amounts in inches for the periods of 2010, 2011 and part of 2012 are shown below:

Table No. 1 - Average Monthly Temperatures and Precipitation for 2014


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Temp. (º F) 55 61 66 78 81 90 90 91 83 79 62 60 Actual Precip. (in.) 0.01 0.08 0.96 0.03 3.71 0.14 1.13 0.18 5.51 0.48 1.81 0.94

Average Precip. (in.) 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.19 0.02 0.08 0.04


Temp. (º F) 53 58 64 75 77 85 89 90 86 80 68 62 Actual Precip. (in.) 0.59 0.29 2.58 4.48 0.04 1.13 0.06 0.03 1.19 3.59 1.19 0.12 Average Precip. (in.) 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.05 0.00


3


* The data for the month of June is only available until the date when the report is signed. 1.4 Geology The Laredo Sheet (1976) of the Geologic Atlas of Texas published by the Bureau of Economic Geology of the University of Texas at Austin has mapped the Laredo Formation within the Eocene Period of Tertiary Geologic Age at the project location. The Laredo Formation generally consists of sandstone and clay; thick sandstone members in upper and lower part, very fine to fine grained, in part glauconitic, micaceous, ferruginous, cross bedded, dominantly red and brown; clay in middle, weathers orange-yellow; dark-gray limestone concretions common, some fossiliferous; marine megafossils abundant. The thickness of this formation is about 620 feet. 2. FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING 2.1 Field Testing The project site was explored by drilling a total of ten (10) soil test borings within the proposed taxiway construction limits. The field investigation to determine the engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials included a reconnaissance of the project site, drilling of borings, performing standard penetration tests (SPT) and obtaining disturbed split-barrel samples, and auger samples. Soil samples were obtained at selected intervals in the soil test borings. Undisturbed soil samples were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D-1587 (Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils) using a standard split-spoon sampler. A split-spoon sampler is a 2-inch O.D. tube that is driven into the soil to be sampled that can be split open lengthwise for easy removal and visual inspection of the soil obtained. Disturbed soil samples were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D-1586 (Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils). The results of the standard penetration test indicate the relative density and comparative consistency of the soils, and thereby provide a basis for estimating the relative strength and compressibility of the soil profile components. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were carried out in a number of selected soil samples in order to acquire necessary soil engineering preparation with regards to the physical and mechanical properties of the soil layers and further on to evaluate and determine the parameters required for the engineering recommendations. Atterberg limits, moisture content and percent fines tests were performed to assist in classifying the soils and to provide indicators of soil strength and behavior. All phases of the laboratory-testing program were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM Specifications.


Temp. (º F) 57 66 73 78 81 86* --- --- --- --- --- --- Actual Precip. (in.) 1.88 0.01 3.97 1.91 2.70 1.92* --- --- --- --- --- --- Average Precip. (in.) 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.08 0.11 0.07* --- --- --- --- --- ---


4

A summary of the laboratory test results is presented in the Appendix. The samples collected will be stored for 30 days from the date of issue of this report, and then disposed of unless otherwise instructed in writing by the client. 2.3 Chloride Ion Concentration Breakdown of passive film on mortar embedded steel with subsequent corrosion of the steel and accelerated corrosion of other metallic elements can occur if chlorides are present at the steel or metal surface. Chloride ions usually reach metallic surfaces by groundwater transmission. Chloride ion concentrations greater than 50 ppm are considered significant and corrosion prevention should be considered. 2.4 Sulfate and Chloride Ion Concentration Naturally occurring sulfates of sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium and chlorides are sometimes contained in soils or dissolved in groundwater. These sulfates have been known to chemically attack concrete and mortar.

Table No. 4 – Requirements for Concrete Exposed to Sulfates Attack

Sulfate Exposure

Water Soluble Sulfate (SO4) in

Soil, Percent

by Weight

Sulfate (SO4)

in Water (ppm)

Cement Type

Maximum Water-Cement Ratio by Weight, Normal Weight

Aggregate Concrete

Minimum f’cNormal Weight

and Light Weight

Aggregate Concrete

(psi)

ASTM C-150

ASTM C-595

ASTM C-1157

Negligible 0 - 0.1 0 - 150 --- --- --- --- ---

Moderate 0.1 - 0.2 150 - 1,500 II

II, IP (MS), IS

(MS), P(MS), I

(PM)(MS), I(SM)(MS)

MS 0.50 4,000

Severe 0.2 - 2.0 1,500 - 10,000 V --- HS 0.45 4,500

Very Severe Over 2.0 Over

10,000 V Plus

Pozzolan --- HS Plus Pozzolan 0.45 4,500

Ten (10) selected soil samples were analyzed by Alamo Analytical Laboratories, Ltd. and the laboratory test results are listed in the table below.


5

Table No. 5 – Soil Chemical Characteristics

Boring No. Depth interval, feet

Sulfate Content, ppm

Chloride Content, ppm

B-1 0.0 – 1.5 2,000 100 B-2 2.5 – 4.0 6,840 120 B-3 0.0 – 1.5 4,000 80 B-4 2.5 – 4.0 1,560 140 B-5 0.0 – 1.5 3,380 1,320 B-6 2.5 – 4.0 1,650 80 B-7 0.0 – 1.5 115 <50 B-8 2.5 – 4.0 1,170 60 B-9 0.0 – 1.5 196 <50 B-10 2.5 – 4.0 188 <50

3. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Site Conditions Based on our site recognizance and following our site drilling exploration, our portion of the work is part of ongoing master plan that includes the New Taxiway Extension improvements that terminates inside the airside of the northern end of the airport on the west side of the existing runways. 3.2 Subsurface Conditions In general, the soils encountered at this site consisted primarily of fine grained soils. The fine- grained soils generally consisted of SANDY CLAY (CL) and CLAYEY SAND (SC). Based on the result of the laboratory tests and our local experience, the fine grained SANDY CLAY (CL) and CLAYEY SAND (SC) materials are expected to have a LOW potential for volumetric changes (shrink/swell) due to fluctuations in their moisture content. Each boring log, representing the stratum descriptions, types of sampling used, laboratory test data and additional field data, is presented in Appendix A. These subsurface exploration records represent an interpretation of subsurface conditions at the test locations and the soil conditions may vary from bore location to bore location.

Table No. 6 - Major Strata Stratum Depth, feet* Description and Classification

I Various Depths Clay (CL): lean, sandy, dark yellowish brown, grayish brown, dark brown, olive brown, cemented below 5’.

II Various Depths Clayey sand (SC): firm, cemented at various depths, light olive gray, yellowish brown and brownish gray.

* The depths and thicknesses of the strata presented are based on information at the borehole locations and variations outside of the ranges of depth and thickness could occur between borehole locations.


6

The site soil has been evaluated by performing field and laboratory tests on the subsurface samples recovered during the drilling operations. The types of tests conducted on the subsurface samples are listed in the Appendix. The results of the tests are tabulated on the Logs of Borings, which are also provided in the Appendix. Field tests and the laboratory testing program were directed towards evaluating the shear strength, moisture content, volume change characteristics, and plasticity of the subsurface strata for this project. The Symbol Key and Unified Soil Classification System and Terms Sheets, which define the terms and descriptive symbols used on each boring log and also presented in the Appendix. 3.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during the drilling operations at the depths drilled. It is noted that groundwater levels will fluctuate with seasonal climatic variations; however, groundwater should not be a factor affecting design or construction at this site. Groundwater levels could be significantly higher after a major rainfall or in rainy season. As such, the water table must be checked immediately prior to construction to assess its effect on dewatering and other construction activities. 4. EVALUATION 4.1 General All recommendations are based on knowledge of the area; however, the project design team should specify actual construction requirements. The final selection of the pavement section and depth should be based on considerations of several factors, such as: 1) function of the improvements, 2) soil strength properties, expansive properties, and settlement characteristics of subsurface materials; 3) the magnitude of applied structural loads; and 4) construction costs. 4.2 Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) Potential vertical soil movements have been estimated using the Texas Department of Transportation method TEX-124-E, Potential Vertical Rise (PVR). This method utilizes the soils in-situ moisture conditions and plasticity characteristics within the active zone. It is estimated that depth of the active zone at this site is approximately 15 feet. Based on the borings drilled at the site, our laboratory analyses indicate that the PVR at this site is less than one (1) inch in its present condition. A sustained surcharge load of one (1) pound per square inch is assumed to be supplied by the floor and sustained live load in the PVR calculations. It is noted that the PVR estimates are provided as an indicator of the severity of potential soil movements at this site and are not intended as a prediction of actual soil foundation movements.


7

5. RECOMMENDATIONS ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS We understand that the proposed concrete pavement section will match the existing finished pavement. Pavement sections should be designed in accordance with “Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation” of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). We performed sulfate tests on selected soil samples from the site in accordance with TX DOT Testing Procedure TEX-145E. The sulfate content was recorded between 188 ppm and 6,840 ppm. According to ACI-332 R-4 Table 2.2.2, CET Table 4, these values are classified as moderate to very severe exposure respectively for the concrete. TX DOT does not recommend the use of soil stabilization by use of either lime or cement for a soil with sulfate concentration of more than 8,000 ppm. Sulfate attack in cement and lime-stabilized materials containing clay is a potentially serious problem. Sulfate-rich soils treated with lime or cement have experienced severe distress in Texas. Sulfate attack may be due either to sulfate from adventitious sources or to sulfate within the aggregate. In addition, cement treated materials (such as Cement Treated Base CTB) should not be constructed in contact with the sulfate rich soils. Therefore, we do not recommend the use of CTB if placed in contact with the subgrade. Other alternatives may be considered like crushed limestone or crushed concrete (granular base) or asphalt stabilized base. 5.1 Pavement Subgrade Preparation Pavement areas within the site should be stripped of all existing concrete and foundations as required to meet design elevations and should be proof rolled with a 15-ton roller or equivalent machinery to evidence any soft or weak areas. If weak or soft zones are evidenced during proof rolling operations, the weak material in the subject area should be removed to expose competent subgrade soils in both the horizontal and vertical limits. The excavated soil can be reused to restore grade at these isolated areas provided that the material is free and clean of any organic and other deleterious debris. The reused soil should be placed in 6 inch compacted lifts that are moisture conditioned to between -2 and +3 percentage points of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698. We recognize the uncertainty of knowing what will be encountered during site excavation as a result of the existing structures or previous underground construction. Any debris, foundations or utilities that are present within recommended cut or fill zones must be removed. If these elements are below any cut/fill, they may remain in place provided they do not interfere with the pavement construction. However, if the utility is a sewer line, we recommend that it be filled with a cementitious grout material as part of the abandonment. If foundations or utilities are removed, the excavated on-site soils may be used to fill these excavated areas provided that there is sufficient space to prepare, place, and compact the soil as discussed in the following paragraphs. If the void or excavated area is too confined, we recommend the use of select material or lean concrete to fill these areas. Proper


8

backfilling and compaction of these excavations is critical for the proper performance of a shallow foundation. We recommend that excavation and backfill operations be monitored by qualified personnel on a full time basis to help ensure proper compaction of the backfill and preparation of the pavement subgrade. Pavement subgrade areas requiring fill or base placement should be scarified to a depth of about six (6) inches and moisture conditioned between -2 and +3 percentage points of the optimum moisture content. The moisture conditioned pavement subgrade should then be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 698. Subgrade areas should be moisture conditioned and compacted just prior to fill or base placement so the subgrade maintains its compaction moisture levels and does not dry out. The final grade elevation proposed for the Taxiway G improvements were not provided to us; however, final site grades will be based on existing ground elevations and must provide effective drainage away from the taxiway pavement and that it remain in conformance with existing drainage patterns during and after construction. 5.2 Pavement Design Parameters We understand that the proposed taxiway pavement section will match the existing finished pavement. Pavement sections should be designed in accordance with “Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation” of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). FAA and the City of Laredo requires pavement subgrade modification for soil with a Plasticity Index (PI) value of 20 and greater. The soils to a depth of 5 feet below existing grades encountered in our borings have a Plasticity Index (PI) below 18. Therefore, no subgrade modification is required to reduce the plasticity of the soil. The pavement section should be constructed according to the recommendations provided in this report and to follow “Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation” of the Federal Aviation Administration FAA AC 150-5320-6D dated June 23, 2006. Pavement design considerations will be based on either the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) or the modulus of subgrade reaction (k). Based on the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer test results and on the seasonal climatic variations for the area, CET recommends a CBR minimum value of four (4) percent be used for the pavement design analysis for the natural subgrade soils encountered at the site. The estimated modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 125 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for the corresponding CBR value of four (4) percent; all approximations are based on AASHTO Design guidelines. 5.3 Other Construction Considerations When establishing final grade around the structures, we recommend the following:

5.3.1 Drainage

For drainable subgrade soils with high water tables or for draining permeable subbases, the installation of subgrade drains will effectively reduce the amount of water available that may impact the pavement performance. However, the benefit of subgrade drains to lower the water table in relatively impervious, fine-textured soils is


9

questionable and not anticipated. Intercepting drains are useful where wet spots are found due to seepage through a permeable stratum underlain with an impervious material. Drainage and backfill details are not given here but may be found in the manuals of the FAA. Elevation of ground surface adjacent to the pavements should be graded a minimum of at least two (2) percent slope.

5.3.2 Landscaping

We realize landscaping is vital to the aesthetics of any project and is generally typical for any project. However, this project limits the magnitude of landscaping and therefore there is limited future distress attributed to large brushes and trees adjacent to structures or pavements as per FAA design guidelines. 5.4 Selection and Placement of Fill The comments and suggestions in this section are provided for planning and informational purposes so project specifications can be prepared and to indicate conventional methods to achieve the intent of our design recommendations. Details regarding excavation, dewatering, selection of equipment/machinery, traffic control, project site safety, shoring, and other similar construction techniques that require “means and methods” to accomplish the work is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. It should be recognized that the comments contained in this report are based on the observations of small diameter boreholes and the performance of larger excavations may differ significantly as a result of the differences in excavation sizes. Construction means and methods selected by the contractor may differ from those described in this report. Any variations may significantly impact the anticipated behavior of the subsurface conditions during the construction process. Based on the field and laboratory data acquired during this study, the upper five (5) feet of the site soils at the site are considered low expansive materials and generally consisting of Sandy lean Clay (CL) or Clayey Sand (SC). The PI’s were found to range from 9 to 17 in the upper portions and CET anticipates that final subgrade design depths will be above the three (3) foot level and of the opinion that subgrade modification will not be required. However, if excavations to the deeper portions of the soils encountered is necessary, select fill soils may be required to achieve the proposed site grades. All imported or on-site non expansive select fill soils should be nearly-free of organic or other deleterious debris, essentially non-plastic, and less than two and one-half (2 ½) inches in maximum dimension. Coarse-grained soils are preferred for fill; however, most fine-grained soils can be used advantageously if attention is given to drainage, compaction requirements, moisture and density control. Well-graded mixtures of gravel, clayey gravel, crushed limestone; caliche and small quantities of cobbles, rock fragments, and/or clayey soils are generally acceptable for use as select fill. The clayey gravel should meet the gradation criteria for Item 247, Type B, Grades 1 through 3 as specified in the 2004 TX DOT Standard Specifications manual. The crushed limestone should meet the gradation criteria for Item 247, Type A, Grades 1 through 3 as specified in the 2004 TX DOT Standard Specifications manual. The fill material should meet


10

the PI requirements presented in this section. On-site soils should be clean of all debris and meet the requirements of select fill material presented in this report. The fill should be placed in compacted lifts not to exceed six (6) inches in thickness, moisture conditioned between minus two (-2) to plus three (+3) percentage points of the optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D-698 (Standard Proctor). 5.5 Utility Trench Excavation and Backfill It appears that excavation for utility trenches can be readily made with a conventional excavator in either native soil or compacted imported fill. If trenches are extended deeper than five (5) feet or are allowed to dry out, the excavations may become unstable and should be evaluated to verify their stability prior to occupation by construction personnel. Shoring or sloping of any deep trench walls may be necessary to protect personnel and provide temporary stability. All excavations should comply with current OSHA safety requirements for soils (Federal Register 29 CFR, Part 1926). During wet weather, runoff water should be prevented from entering excavations. Water should be collected and disposed of outside the construction and the construction limits. Heavy construction equipment, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should not be allowed within a distance of at least one-third (⅓) the slope height from the top of any excavation. We recommend all backfill be placed in compacted lifts not to exceed six (6) inches in thickness, moisture conditioned between minus two (-2) to plus three (+3) percentage points of the optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D-698 (Standard Proctor). Jetting and flooding should not be permitted. Poor compaction in utility trench backfill may cause excessive settlements resulting in damage to the pavement structural section or other overlying improvements. Compaction of trench backfill outside of improvement areas should be a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Another fast and economical backfill alternative is the use of Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) mixtures due to the saving of labor and time over placing and compacting soil or granular materials. If it is anticipated or specified that the flowable lean-mix backfill may be excavated at some point in the future the strength must be much lower than the 1,200 psi which the American Concrete Institute (ACI) uses as the upper limit for CLSM. The late-age strength of removable CLSM materials should be in the range of 30 to 150 psi as measured by compressive strength in cylinders. Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) is defined in ACI 229R and TX DOT Item 401. 6. GENERAL REMARKS CET should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. CET should also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project.


11

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. 6.1 Construction Services We recommend that Castle Engineering & Testing, LLC (CET) be retained to provide construction materials testing services during grading and foundation construction activities. This is to observe compliance with the plans, specifications, and geotechnical recommendations and to allow design changes if the subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated before construction. 6.2 Limitations The evaluation and recommendations submitted in this report are based, in part, upon the information obtained from the soil borings drilled. The nature and extent of variations in the soil conditions between or beyond the borings and excavations may not become evident until actual construction. The transition lines shown on the boring logs are approximate and the actual transitions may be gradual. If changes in nature or design of the project are planned, the conclusions and recommendations in this report should be reviewed by the soils engineer and if necessary, modified. Soil samples not altered by laboratory testing will be retained for a period of 30 days and then, unless we are directed otherwise, will be discarded. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of LAN Corporation and their design team for specific application to the proposed Laredo International Airport – New APRON improvements in Laredo, Texas, according to accepted foundation-engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.


APPENDIX

Vicinity Map

Boring Location Plan

Boring Logs

DCP Test Results

The Symbol Key Sheet

Unified Soil Classification System and Terms Sheet

Field and Laboratory Testing Procedures

a CASTLE

TAXIWAY G EXTENSION Laredo International Airport

LAFl.~DC.~

9HWl'JUL9 VICINITY MAP

Doto 08/Z4/201el Prepared fr. 1.aatn.wc:1c:1e1 • .Andreiv.,a a N9¥11man. lno. Project No •

.. -Oealgned B~ Oac:ar Martel, E.I.T

a CASTLE -.... ~ .. -.... ---.... __.. _____ --

TAXIWAY Gi EXTENSION Laredo International Airport

LAAED0,TEXA8

9HWl'JUL9 BORE LOCATIONS

Date oe/2A,la01$ PrepQrcd for. Lacfn.uaad. And......,_ A NBINl'nan. Inc:. ProJect No. 1ecaoso o .. 1gned By. 0-M-1. E,l,T

14

15

7

6

6

27

31

27

18

16

17

9

15

10

45

54

57

N = 43

N = 52

N = Ref50/3"

N = Ref50/0"

N = Ref50/0"

-CLAYEY SAND (SC); Light Olive Brown

-SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL); Yellowish Brown

-SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL); Light Olive Brown

Boring Terminated at 10 Feet

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(TO

NS

/SQ

FT

)

FA

ILU

RE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

NF

ININ

G P

RE

SS

UR

E(P

OU

ND

S/S

Q IN

)

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

SA

MP

LES

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

R: R

QD

%

The borehole was backfilled with cuttings upon completion of the drilling operations.

Straight Flight

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION:

PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING B-1

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL

ATTERBERGLIMITS

SO

IL S

YM

BO

LPROJECT NUMBER: 16G050

DATE(S) DRILLED: 6/19/16

SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A

REMARKS:

Subsurface water was not encountered during or after completion of drillingoperations.

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10

PROJECT: Taxiway G Extension

LOCATION: Laredo International Airport

CLIENT: Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, Inc.

DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM

LOG

OF

BO

RIN

G -

CA

ST

LE.G

DT

- 6

/24/

16 1

5:4

1 -

N:\G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

\GIN

T F

ILE

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\16G

050.

GP

J

8

5

7

8

10

29

28

35

19

17

18

10

11

17

51

45

52

N = 50/3"

N = Ref50/3"

N = Ref50/1"

N = Ref50/2"

N = Ref50/0"





MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(TO

NS

/SQ

FT

)

FA

ILU

RE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

NF

ININ

G P

RE

SS

UR

E(P

OU

ND

S/S

Q IN

)

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

SA

MP

LES

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

R: R

QD

%


Straight Flight

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING B-2

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL

ATTERBERGLIMITS

SO

IL S

YM

BO




REMARKS:


DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10





LOG

OF

BO

RIN

G -

CA

ST

LE.G

DT

- 6

/24/

16 1

5:4

1 -

N:\G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

\GIN

T F

ILE

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\16G

050.

GP

J

7

10

5

4

3

27

28

24

17

16

15

10

12

9

34

38

49

N = 75/3"

N = Ref50/4"

N = Ref50/3"

N = Ref50/3"

N = Ref50/2"

-CLAYEY SAND (SC); Yellowish Brown




MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(TO

NS

/SQ

FT

)

FA

ILU

RE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

NF

ININ

G P

RE

SS

UR

E(P

OU

ND

S/S

Q IN

)

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

SA

MP

LES

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

R: R

QD

%


Straight Flight

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING B-3

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL

ATTERBERGLIMITS

SO

IL S

YM

BO




REMARKS:


DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10





LOG

OF

BO

RIN

G -

CA

ST

LE.G

DT

- 6

/24/

16 1

5:4

1 -

N:\G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

\GIN

T F

ILE

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\16G

050.

GP

J

6

7

6

4

3

31

31

32

27

17

18

18

19

14

13

14

8

54

60

58

46

N = 44

N = 52

N = Ref50/3"

N = Ref50/2"

N = Ref50/0"

-SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL); Brown





MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(TO

NS

/SQ

FT

)

FA

ILU

RE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

NF

ININ

G P

RE

SS

UR

E(P

OU

ND

S/S

Q IN

)

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

SA

MP

LES

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

R: R

QD

%


Straight Flight

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING B-4

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL

ATTERBERGLIMITS

SO

IL S

YM

BO




REMARKS:


DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10





LOG

OF

BO

RIN

G -

CA

ST

LE.G

DT

- 6

/24/

16 1

5:4

1 -

N:\G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

\GIN

T F

ILE

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\16G

050.

GP

J

5

6

7

6

5

29

29

29

17

18

17

12

11

12

47

50

57

N = 40

N = 50

N = 62

N = Ref50/0"

N = Ref50/0"

-CLAYEY SAND (SC); Dark Yellowish Brown

-SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL); Dark Yellowish Brown



MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(TO

NS

/SQ

FT

)

FA

ILU

RE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

NF

ININ

G P

RE

SS

UR

E(P

OU

ND

S/S

Q IN

)

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

SA

MP

LES

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

R: R

QD

%


Straight Flight

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING B-5

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL

ATTERBERGLIMITS

SO

IL S

YM

BO




REMARKS:


DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10





LOG

OF

BO

RIN

G -

CA

ST

LE.G

DT

- 6

/24/

16 1

5:4

1 -

N:\G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

\GIN

T F

ILE

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\16G

050.

GP

J

4

5

5

5

5

33

29

41

18

16

16

15

13

25

53

47

43

N = 40

N = 54

N = 63

N = Ref50/1"

N = Ref50/0"

-SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL); Brown

-CLAY SAND (SC); Yellowish Brown

-CLAY SAND (SC); Dark Yellowish Brown


MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(TO

NS

/SQ

FT

)

FA

ILU

RE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

NF

ININ

G P

RE

SS

UR

E(P

OU

ND

S/S

Q IN

)

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

SA

MP

LES

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

R: R

QD

%


Straight Flight

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING B-6

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL

ATTERBERGLIMITS

SO

IL S

YM

BO




REMARKS:


DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10





LOG

OF

BO

RIN

G -

CA

ST

LE.G

DT

- 6

/24/

16 1

5:4

1 -

N:\G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

\GIN

T F

ILE

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\16G

050.

GP

J

4

6

5

5

6

29

32

30

16

17

18

13

15

12

49

54

48

N = 43

N = 51

N = Ref50/3"

N = Ref50/2"

N = Ref50/0"





MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(TO

NS

/SQ

FT

)

FA

ILU

RE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

NF

ININ

G P

RE

SS

UR

E(P

OU

ND

S/S

Q IN

)

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

SA

MP

LES

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

R: R

QD

%


Straight Flight

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING B-7

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL

ATTERBERGLIMITS

SO

IL S

YM

BO




REMARKS:


DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10





LOG

OF

BO

RIN

G -

CA

ST

LE.G

DT

- 6

/24/

16 1

5:4

1 -

N:\G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

\GIN

T F

ILE

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\16G

050.

GP

J

5

6

7

6

6

33

33

18

17

15

16

45

55

N = 44

N = 53

N = Ref50/3"

N = Ref50/0"

N = Ref50/0"

-CLAYEY SAND (SC); Brown



MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(TO

NS

/SQ

FT

)

FA

ILU

RE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

NF

ININ

G P

RE

SS

UR

E(P

OU

ND

S/S

Q IN

)

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

SA

MP

LES

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

R: R

QD

%


Straight Flight

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING B-8

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL

ATTERBERGLIMITS

SO

IL S

YM

BO




REMARKS:


DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10





LOG

OF

BO

RIN

G -

CA

ST

LE.G

DT

- 6

/24/

16 1

5:4

1 -

N:\G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

\GIN

T F

ILE

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\16G

050.

GP

J

8

6

4

4

4

34

34

32

18

17

18

16

17

14

47

80

27

N = 39

N = 51

N = 43

N = 66

N = Ref50/4"


-SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL (CL); Dark YellowishBrown

-CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC); Yellowish Brown


MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(TO

NS

/SQ

FT

)

FA

ILU

RE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

NF

ININ

G P

RE

SS

UR

E(P

OU

ND

S/S

Q IN

)

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

SA

MP

LES

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

R: R

QD

%


Straight Flight

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING B-9

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL

ATTERBERGLIMITS

SO

IL S

YM

BO




REMARKS:


DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10





LOG

OF

BO

RIN

G -

CA

ST

LE.G

DT

- 6

/24/

16 1

5:4

1 -

N:\G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

\GIN

T F

ILE

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\16G

050.

GP

J

4

5

5

5

4

33

31

32

28

17

18

16

19

16

13

16

9

55

56

53

56

N = 40

N = 50/3"

N = Ref50/2"

N = Ref50/0"

N = Ref50/0"






MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

YP

OU

ND

S/C

U.F

T

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(TO

NS

/SQ

FT

)

FA

ILU

RE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

NF

ININ

G P

RE

SS

UR

E(P

OU

ND

S/S

Q IN

)

MIN

US

NO

. 200

SIE

VE

(%

)

SA

MP

LES

N: B

LOW

S/F

TP

: TO

NS

/SQ

FT

R: R

QD

%


Straight Flight

SHEET 1 of 1

DRILLING METHOD(S):


PI

FIELD DATA

LOG OF BORING B-10

LL

LABORATORY DATA

PL

ATTERBERGLIMITS

SO

IL S

YM

BO




REMARKS:


DE

PT

H (

FT

)

5

10





LOG

OF

BO

RIN

G -

CA

ST

LE.G

DT

- 6

/24/

16 1

5:4

1 -

N:\G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

\GIN

T F

ILE

\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\16G

050.

GP

J

SILTYCLAY(CL-ML)

SILTPLASTIC(MH)

SAND(SC-SM)

SAND(SP-SC)

CLAY(CL)

NO SAMPLERECOVERY

SAMPLE RECOVERY

STRATUMDESCRIPTION

GROUNDWATERTABLE

END OF TEST HOLE

SILT(ML)

GRABSAMPLE

10

FILL

SANDPOORLYGRADED(SP)

SANDCLAYEY(SC)

CLAY

12

DISTURBEDSAMPLE

BASE

CONCRETE

SANDWELLGRADED(SW)

Sampler was seated 6 inches, then 25 blows were required to advance the sampler 12 inches.Sampler was seated 6 inches, then 50 blows were required to advance the sampler 4 inches.Sampler could only be driven 2 inches of the 6 inch seating penetration before the 50 blow limit was reached.

SHELBYTUBE (3")

SPLITBARREL(SPT)

COREBARREL

PISTONSAMPLER

FLIGHTAUGER

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

SAND(SW-SC)

TOPSOILPEAT(PT)

ORGANICCLAY (OH)

ORGANICSILT (OL)

SANDSILTY(SM)

GRAVELWELLGRADED(GW)

GRAVELPOORLYGRADED(GP)

GRAVELCLAYEY(GC)

GRAVELSILTY(GM)

GRAVEL(GW-GC)

GRAVEL(GW-GM)

GRAVEL(GP-GM)

LIME-STONE

SHALE BASALTSAND-STONE

BEDROCK ASPHALT

CLAYSTONEMARL

CLAYPLASTIC(CH)

DescriptionNote: Driving is limited to 50 blows per interval, or 25 blows for 0.25 inch advancement, whichever controls. This is done to avoid damaging sampling tools

SYMBOL KEY SHEET

SPLIT SPOONSAMPLERSTRATA CHANGE

UNDISTURBEDSHELBYTUBESAMPLE

GRABSAMPLE

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D 1586) DRIVING RECORDBlows Per Foot

FLIGHTAUGER

10 INDICATES THAT 10BLOWS OF A 140POUND HAMMERFALLING 30" WEREREQUIRED TO DRIVESAMPLER 12 INCHES

NORECOVERY

SAND(SW-SM)

GRAVEL(GP-GC)

MATERIAL SYMBOLS

SAND(SP-SM)

2550/4"ref/2"

Figure No. 1Project Name: Taxiway G ExtensionProject Number: 16G050

SY

MB

OL

KE

Y S

HE

ET

- C

AS

TLE

.GD

T -

6/2

4/16

16

:07

- N

:\GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L\G

INT

FIL

E\G

INT

\PR

OJE

CT

S\1

6G05

0.G

PJ

FOR CLARIFICATION OF FINE-GRAINED SOIL ANDFINE-GRAINED FRACTION OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

16

Atterberg limits below "A"line or P.I. less than 4

Sie

ve s

izes

mm

)2

4

7

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

(P

I)

between 1 and 3

Med

ium

Atterberg limits below "A"line or P.I. less than 4

Poorly-graded sands, gravelly sands,little or no fines

C

Fin

e-G

rain

ed s

oils

(Mor

e th

an h

alf t

he m

ater

ial i

s sm

alle

r th

an N

o. 2

00 s

ieve

siz

e)GENERAL NOTES

Fin

e19

.1 t

o 76

.2

Bou

lder

s

Cob

ble

60

Gra

vel

Coa

rse

u

Fin

e

304.

8 to

91

4.4

Laboratory Classification Criteria

San

d#4

to 3

/4 in

.

greater than 4;10

30(

u

d

#10

to #

4

#40

to #

10

#200

to

#40

2.00

to

4.7

6

0.07

4 to

0.4

2

*

**

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

3/4

in. t

o 3

in.

Mat

eria

l

< 44 to 1010 to 3030 to 50> 50

C =U

Atterberg limits above "A"line or P.I. greater than 7

Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sandmixtures, little or no fines

Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fat clays

< 22 to 44 to 88 to 1515 to 30> 30

< 2525 to 5050 to 100100 to 200200 to 400> 400

Very softSoftMedium stiffStiffVery stiffHard

Unconfined CompressiveStrength kPa

Relative Density SPT Blow CountDescriptive Terms

0 to 15 %15 to 35 %35 to 65 %65 to 85 %85 to 100 %

Very looseLooseMedium denseDenseVery dense

1. Classifications are based on the United Soil ClassificationSystem and include consistency, moisture, and color. Fielddescriptions have been modified to reflect results of laboratory testswhere deemed appropriate.

2. Surface elevations are based on topographic maps and estimatedlocations.

3. Descriptions on these boring logs apply only at the specificboring locations and at the time the borings were made. They arenot guaranteed to be representative of subsurface conditions at otherlocations or times.

TERMS DESCRIBING CONSISTENCY OR CONDITION

SPT Blow Count

Organic silts and organic silty claysof low plasticity

Inorganic clays of low to mediumplasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,silty clays, lean clays

Inorganic silts and very fine sands,rock floor, silty or clayey fine sandsor clayey silts with slight plasticity

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixturesSC

SP

SWD

Par

ticle

Siz

e

Gra

vel w

ith fi

nes

(App

reci

able

amou

nt o

f fin

es)

D

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND TERMS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Plasticity Chart

Descriptive Terms

3 in

. to

12

in.

76.2

to

304

.8

< #

200

Pt

OH

CH

MH

OL

CL

ML

Silt

or

clay

12 in

. to

36

in.

60

10D

=U

greater than 6; between 1 and 3C =C

C10D x D

Cle

an s

ands

(Litt

le o

r no

fine

s)

D

Above "A" line with P.I.between 4 and 7 are border-line cases requiring use ofdual symbolsAtterberg limits above "A"

line or P.I. greater than 7

Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW

Above "A" line with P.I.between 4 and 7 are border-line cases requiring use ofdual symbols

Not meeting all gradation requirements for GWLe

ss th

an 5

pe

rcen

t.....

.. G

W, G

P, S

W, S

PM

ore

than

12

perc

ent

......

. G

M, G

C, S

M, S

C6

to 1

2 pe

rcen

t.....

.. B

orde

rlin

e ca

se4s

req

uiri

ng d

ual

sym

bols

**

Det

erm

ine

perc

enta

ges

of s

and

and

gra

vel f

rom

gra

in s

ize

curv

e,D

epen

ding

on

per

cent

age

of f

ines

(fr

actio

n sm

alle

r th

an N

o. 2

00si

eve)

coa

rse

-gra

ined

soi

ls a

re c

lass

ified

as

follo

ws:

SM*

Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg Limits:suffix d used when L.L. is 23 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less; the suffix is used when L.L. is greater than 26.Borderline classifications used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of groups symbols.For example; GW-GC, well-graded gravel-sand mixture with clay binder.

Gra

vels

(Mor

e th

an h

alf o

f co

arse

frac

tion

is la

rger

than

No.

4 s

ieve

siz

e)

San

ds(M

ore

than

hal

f of

coar

se fr

actio

nis

sm

alle

r th

an N

o. 4

sie

ve s

ize)

Silt

s an

d C

lays

(Liq

uid

limit

grea

ter

than

60)

Silt

s an

d C

lays

(Liq

uid

limit

less

than

60)

x D60

D

GC

GP

Major Divisions

GW

GroupSymbols

Cle

an g

rave

l(L

ittle

or

no fi

nes)

San

ds w

ith fi

nes

(App

reci

able

amou

nt o

f fin

es)

< 0

.074

0.42

to

2.0

0

Sie

ve

Well-graded sands, gravelly sands,little or no fines

Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-siltmixtures

Silty gravels, gravel-sand-siltmixtures

Well-graded gravels, gravel-sandmixtures, little or no fines

Typical Names

=C

Inorganic silts, micaceous or disto-maceous fine sandy or silty soils,organic silts

Organic clays of medium to highplasticity, organic silts

Silty sands, sand-silt mixturesd

D 30( )2D 60

10

Peat and other highly organic soils

Par

ticle

Siz

e

FINE-GRAINED SOILS (major portions passing on No. 200 sieve): includes (1) inorganic andorganic silts and clays, (2) gravelly, sandy, or silty clays, and (3) clayey silts. Consistency israted according to shearing strength, as indicated by penetrometer readings, SPT blow count,or unconfined compression tests.

GM*

4.76

to

19.1

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (major portions retained on No. 200 sieve): includes (1) cleangravel and sands and (2) silty or clayey gravels and sands. Condition is rated according torelative density as determined by laboratory tests or standard penetration resistance tests.

Coa

rse

Hig

hly

Org

anic

Soi

ls

Coa

rse-

Gra

ined

soi

ls(M

ore

than

hal

f the

mat

eria

l is

larg

er th

an N

o. 2

00 s

ieve

siz

e)

mm

Mat

eria

l

Project Name: Taxiway G ExtensionProject Number: 16G050

US

CS

AN

D T

ER

MS

- C

AS

TLE

.GD

T -

6/2

4/16

16

:06

- N

:\GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L\G

INT

FIL

E\G

INT

\PR

OJE

CT

S\1

6G05

0.G

PJ

OR

ORCL

OL

MH OH

OR

CL-ML

"A" L

INE"U

" LIN

E

CH

OH

OLORML

DCP TEST DATA

Project: Taxiway G extension Date: 21-Jun-16Location: DCP-1 Soil Type(s):

No. of Accumulative Type ofBlows Penetration Hammer

(mm)0 1

10 29 110 88 110 157 110 214 110 294 110 318 110 331 110 350 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.00

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

10160.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

DEP

TH, i

n.CBR

DEP

TH, m

m

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

10160 14 28 42 56 69 83

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

DEP

TH, m

m

BEARING CAPACITY, psi

DEP

TH, i

n

BEARING CAPACITY, psf

Based on approximate interrelationshipsof CBR and Bearing values (Design ofConcrete Airport Pavement, Portland Cement Association, page 8, 1955)

10.1 lbs.

17.6 lbs.

Both hammers used

Soil TypeCHCL

All other soils

Hammer

DCP TEST DATA



(mm)0 1

10 115 110 151 110 177 110 202 110 228 110 280 110 319 110 364 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.00

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

10160.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

DEP

TH, i

n.CBR

DEP

TH, m

m

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

10160 14 28 42 56 69 83

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

DEP

TH, m

m


DEP

TH, i

n



10.1 lbs.

17.6 lbs.

Both hammers used

Soil TypeCHCL

All other soils

Hammer

DCP TEST DATA



(mm)0 1

10 90 110 130 110 183 110 233 110 313 110 373 110 410 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.00

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

10160.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

DEP

TH, i

n.CBR

DEP

TH, m

m

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

10160 14 28 42 56 69 83

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

DEP

TH, m

m


DEP

TH, i

n



10.1 lbs.

17.6 lbs.

Both hammers used

Soil TypeCHCL

All other soils

Hammer

DCP TEST DATA



(mm)0 1

10 70 110 161 110 280 110 407 110 550 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.00

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

10160.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

DEP

TH, i

n.CBR

DEP

TH, m

m

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

10160 14 28 42 56 69 83

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

DEP

TH, m

m


DEP

TH, i

n



10.1 lbs.

17.6 lbs.

Both hammers used

Soil TypeCHCL

All other soils

Hammer

DCP TEST DATA



(mm)0 1

10 103 110 165 110 217 110 263 110 307 110 350 110 397 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.00

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

10160.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

DEP

TH, i

n.CBR

DEP

TH, m

m

0

127

254

381

508

635

762

889

10160 14 28 42 56 69 83

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

DEP

TH, m

m


DEP

TH, i

n



10.1 lbs.

17.6 lbs.

Both hammers used

Soil TypeCHCL

All other soils

Hammer