final geotechnical investigation and … standard proctor & california bearing ratio (cbr) test...

FINAL

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND PAVEMENT DESIGN ACCESS ROAD RECONSTRUCTION: POPA, NELSON, AND SCHOLL ROADS

ELLINGTON AIRPORT HOUSTON, TEXAS

SUBMITTED TO RS&H, INC.

11011 RICHMOND AVENUE, SUITE 900 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042

BY HVJ ASSOCIATES, INC.

HOUSTON, TEXAS OCTOBER 12, 2015

REPORT NO. HG1213272

October 12, 2015 Matthew Thomason, PE, LEED AP RS&H, Inc. 11011 Richmond Avenue, Suite 900 Houston, Texas 77042 Re: Geotechnical and Pavement Engineering Services Access Road Reconstruction: Popa, Nelson, and Scholl Roads

Ellington Field Airport Houston, Texas

Owner: Houston Airport System (HAS) HVJ Proposal No. HG1213272 Dear Mr. Thomason: Submitted herein is the final report of our geotechnical investigation for the above referenced project. The study was conducted in general accordance with our fee proposal number HG1213272 dated February 26, 2015 and is subject to the limitations presented in this report. We appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this project. Please read the entire report and notify us if there are questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, HVJ ASSOCIATES, INC. Texas Firm Registration No. F-000646

10/12/2015 Sharmi P. Vedantam, PE Linda Barlow, PE Project Manager Senior Engineer, Pavement SV/SS/LB/AB Copies submitted: 2 The seals appearing on this document were authorized by authority of Sharmi P. Vedantam, PE 100218 and Linda Barlow, PE 63878 on October 12, 2015. The geotechnical investigation was completed under the direction of Mrs. Vedantam; and the pavement recommendations were developed by Mrs. Barlow. Alteration of a sealed document without proper notification to the responsible engineer is an offense under the Texas Engineering Practice Act.

• Main Text – 13 pages • Appendix A – 8 pages • Appendix C – 4 pages • Plates – 5 pages • Appendix B – 2 pages • Appendix D – 3 pages

10/12/2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... I

2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Geotechnical Investigation Program ........................................................................................... 1

3 FIELD INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................................................... 1 3.1 Geotechnical Borings .................................................................................................................... 1 3.2 Survey Data ..................................................................................................................................... 1 3.3 Sampling Methods ......................................................................................................................... 2 3.4 Water Level Measurements .......................................................................................................... 2

4 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................................................................................... 2 4.1 Standard Proctor & California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test ....................................................... 2

5 SITE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................................... 3 5.1 General Geology ............................................................................................................................ 3 5.2 Geologic Faulting ........................................................................................................................... 3 5.3 Soil Stratigraphy.............................................................................................................................. 3 5.4 Groundwater Conditions .............................................................................................................. 4

6 PAVEMENT DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 4 6.1 General ............................................................................................................................................ 4 6.2 Existing Pavement Thickness ...................................................................................................... 5 6.3 Design and Performance Constraints ......................................................................................... 5 6.4 Pavement Layer Characterization ................................................................................................ 5 6.5 Summary of Rigid Pavement Design Inputs .............................................................................. 6 6.6 Pavement Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 6 6.7 Preparation of Subgrade ................................................................................................................ 7

7 DESIGN REVIEW .................................................................................................................................... 8

8 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 8

PLATES Plate

SITE VICINITY MAP ....................................................................................................................................... 1

PLAN OF BORING .......................................................................................................................................... 2

GEOLOGIC MAP.............................................................................................................................................. 3

FAULT MAP ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

APPENDICES

Appendix

BORING LOG AND KEY TO TERMS & SYMBOLS ............................................................................. A

LAB SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. B

PROCTOR AND CBR TEST RESULTS ...................................................................................................... C

DARWIN OUTPUT .......................................................................................................................................... D

i

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

HVJ Associates, Inc. was retained by RS&H, Inc. to perform geotechnical investigation and provide pavement design recommendations for the reconstruction of Popa, Nelson, and Scholl Roads near Ellington Field Airport in Houston, Texas. Based on the subsurface conditions obtained by the soil borings, HVJ summarizes the findings and recommendations of this report below:

1. Cohesive soils were generally encountered in the borings from the existing ground surface to the termination depths. Cohesionless soils were encountered below 8 feet in borings B-2 and B-3. Details of the subsurface soils encountered in the borings are shown on the boring logs presented in Appendix A.

2. Based on the water level readings during drilling operations, we expect groundwater at a depth

of 9 to 10 feet below the existing ground. It should be noted that groundwater levels determined during drilling may not accurately reflect the true groundwater conditions, and therefore should only be considered as approximate. The long term groundwater study is not within the scope of this study.

3. A literature review of surface faults near the project area was conducted based on the Bureau of

Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, Geologic Atlas of Texas Houston Sheet, Paul Weaver Memorial Edition (revised in 1982). Based on our review, the project site is located approximately 0.5 miles south of an unnamed fault. Faulting is not anticipated to impact the project site. However, unmapped faults may exist near the project site. A detailed fault study is not within the scope of this study.

4. The recommended pavement section is 8” Reinforced Concrete Pavement over 2” Asphalt

Bond Breaker over 6” Cement Treated Base over 6” Lime Stabilized Subgrade. HVJ also designed a temporary asphalt pavement for haul route/detour during the project construction: 2” Dense-graded Hot Mix Asphalt Type C or D on 12” Flexible Base

Please note that this executive summary does not fully relate our findings and opinions. Those findings and opinions are only presented throughout our full report.

1

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Project Description HVJ Associates, Inc. was retained by RS&H, Inc. to perform a geotechnical investigation and provide pavement design recommendations for the reconstruction of Popa, Nelson, and Scholl Roads at Ellington Field Airport in Houston, Texas. The site vicinity map is presented on Plate 1 of the report.

2.2 Geotechnical Investigation Program The major objectives of this study were to gather information on subsurface conditions at the site and to perform pavement design for the reconstruction of Popa, Nelson, and Scholl Roads. The objectives were accomplished by:

• Drilling six (6) soil borings to a depth of 10 feet below the existing grade to determine soil stratigraphy and to obtain samples for laboratory testing.

• Performing laboratory tests to determine physical and engineering characteristics of the soils.

• Performing pavement design for the reconstruction of Popa, Nelson, and Scholl Roads.

Subsequent sections of this report contain descriptions of the field exploration, laboratory-testing program, general subsurface conditions and pavement recommendations.

3 FIELD INVESTIGATION

3.1 Geotechnical Borings The field exploration program undertaken at the project site was performed on May 22, 2015. Subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling six soil borings to a depth of 10 feet below the existing grade to determine soil stratigraphy and to obtain samples for laboratory testing. The boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite chips. Approximate boring locations are presented on Plate 2 of the report. 3.2 Survey Data The survey data of borings (northing and easting) were provided to us by RS&H, Inc. and are presented in Table 3-1 and on boring logs in Appendix A.

Table 3-1 Survey Data Boring No. Northing (feet) Easting (feet)

B1 13789774.21 3183914.93 B2 13789851.66 3184261.52 B3 13790291.14 3184267.92 B4 13790388.62 3184613.53 B5 13790412.99 3185078.29 B6 13790434.95 3185496.58

2

Coordinates shown are referenced to U.S. State Plane Texas South Central Zone, North American Datum 83. 3.3 Sampling Methods Soil samples were obtained continuously to the termination depth of the borings. Cohesive soil samples were obtained with a three-inch thin-walled (Shelby) tube sampler in general accordance with ASTM D-1587 standard. Each sample was removed from the sampler in the field, carefully examined, and then classified. The shear strength of the cohesive soils was estimated by a hand penetrometer in the field. Cohesionless soils were sampled with the split spoon sampler in accordance with ASTM D 1586 standard. Suitable portions of each sample were sealed and packaged for transportation to our laboratory. Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered in the boring are also given on the boring log presented in Appendix A. A key to the soils classification and symbols used in the boring logs is also presented in Appendix A. 3.4 Water Level Measurements Groundwater was measured at the boring locations during the drilling operations. Results of groundwater readings are presented in Section 5.4 of the report and the boring logs are presented in Appendix A.

4 LABORATORY TESTING

Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine applicable physical and engineering properties. All tests were performed according to the relevant ASTM Standards. These tests consisted of moisture content measurement, percent passing No. 200 sieve, Atterberg limits, unconsolidated undrained compression, unit dry weight, proctor and CBR tests.

The Atterberg Limits and percent passing number 200 sieve tests were utilized to verify field classification by the Unified Soils Classification System, the unconsolidated undrained compression tests were performed to obtain the undrained shear strength of the soil and proctor and CBR tests were perfomed to obtain subgrade soil properties for pavement design. The type and number of tests performed for this investigation are summarized below:

Table 4-1 Type and Number of Test Performed

Type of Test Number of Tests Moisture Content (ASTM D2216) 25 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) 13 Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve (ASTM D1140) 14 Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial (ASTM D2850) 11 Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) 1 Laboratory CBR (ASTM D1883) 1

The laboratory test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A and also on the lab summary in Appendix B.

4.1 Standard Proctor & California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test HVJ performed one standard proctor & California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test in accordance with ASTM D1883 on a composite sample obtained from all the borings in the upper 4 feet. The method of compaction was in accordance to ASTM D698. According to the ASTM requirements, 95% of Maximum Dry Density (MDD) obtained from Standard Proctor is considered for CBR testing. The

3

MDD for the composite sample was found to be 109.1 pcf and the CBR corresponding to 95% of MDD is 3.65. The CBR and Standard Proctor test results are presented in Appendix C. 5 SITE CHARACTERIZATION

5.1 General Geology There are two major surface geological formations that exist in the Houston area: the Beaumont formation and the Lissie formation. The Beaumont formation is a relatively younger formation generally found to the southeast of the Lissie formation. The Beaumont formation dips southeastward and extends beneath beach sand and waters of the Gulf of Mexico as far as the continental shelf. The project site is located in an area where the Beaumont formation is typically encountered. A geologic map is presented on Plate 3.

The Beaumont formation was deposited on land near sea level in flat river deltas and in inter-delta regions. Soil deposition occurred in fresh water streams and in flood plains (as backwater marsh and natural levees). The courses of major streams and deltaic tributaries changed frequently during the period of deposition, generating within the Beaumont clay a complex stratification of sand, silt and clay deposits. Frequently, stream courses were diverted significant distances from a given point in a backwater marsh, and the water overlying the soil would evaporate since it was cut off from a drainage path. Such water, which would be highly alkaline, would precipitate large nodules of calcium carbonate (calcareous nodules) throughout the surface of evaporation. With the coming of the Second Wisconsin Ice Age, the nearby sea withdrew, leaving the formation several hundred feet above sea level and permitting the soil to desiccate. The process of desiccation compressed the clays in the formation such that they became significantly overconsolidated to a large depth. In addition to preconsolidating the soil, the process of desiccation, together with the later rewetting, produced a network of fissures and slickensides that are now closed but which represent potential planes of weakness in the soil. 5.2 Geologic Faulting The tectonic history of the Texas Gulf Coast includes a relatively stable depositional cycle since the Cretaceous Period (about 65 million years). During this period the area was subjected to deposition of clays, silts, and sands resulting in over 30 thousand feet of sedimentary rocks. Underlying this clastic sequence are salt formations, which have migrated upwards to produce the typical salt dome features associated with the Texas Gulf Coast. In conjunction with salt movement, dewatering and compaction of some of the deeper sediments in the basin have resulted in the development of growth faults. A literature review of surface faults near the project area was conducted based on the Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, Geologic Atlas of Texas Houston Sheet, Paul Weaver Memorial Edition (revised in 1982). The primary objective of this review was to evaluate available information from published and open file reports. Based on our review, the project site is located approximately 0.5 miles south of an unnamed fault. Faulting is not anticipated to impact the project site. However, unmapped faults may exist near the project site. A detailed fault study is not within the scope of this study. A fault map is presented on Plate 4. 5.3 Soil Stratigraphy HVJ’s interpretation of soil and groundwater conditions at the project site is based on information obtained at the boring location only. This information has been used as the basis for our

4

conclusions and recommendations. Significant variations at areas not explored by the project boring may require reevaluation of our findings and conclusions.

Cohesive soils were generally encountered in the borings from below the pavement to the termination depth of borings. Details of the subsurface stratigraphy encountered in the borings are shown on the boring logs presented in Appendix A.

Substantial deviations from the summarized conditions exist at the boring locations and should be accounted for in the design and construction recommendations.

Table 5-1 Generalized Soil Profile

Stratum Approximate Depth, Feet Material From To I Below the

Pavement 10.0 Cohesive Soil (CL, CL-ML, CH) Note:

(1) Sandy silt layer was encountered in boring B-2 from 8 to 10 feet below the existing grade. (2) Clayey sand layer was encountered in boring B-3 from 8 to 10 feet below the existing grade.

5.4 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered in borings B-1 and B-2 during the drilling operations.

Table 5-2 Groundwater Observations

Boring No. Groundwater Depth First Encountered (feet)

B-1 10.0 B-2 9.0 B-3 dry B-4 dry B-5 dry B-6 dry

It should be noted that groundwater levels determined during drilling may not accurately reflect the true groundwater conditions, and therefore should only be considered as approximate. Groundwater levels measured in open standpipe piezometers are on the other hand more accurate; however, these readings will fluctuate seasonally and in response to rainfall. Other factors that might impact piezometric groundwater levels include leakage from existing water lines, storm sewers and/or sanitary sewers.

6 PAVEMENT DESIGN

6.1 General The project scope included a pavement design to be based on current traffic count data, including total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and vehicle classifications to be provided by HAS. During design phase, HAS provided plans and cross-sections from the recent Challenger 7 project which extended Challenger 7 to Brantly, Project No 628; however, HAS was not able to provide the ADT or vehicle classifications for the project roads. HAS indicated that the traffic on the project roads will like be similar to or less than the traffic that occurs on the Challenger 7 project roadways.

5

HVJ analyzed the Challenger 7 pavement cross sections using DARWin computer program based on the AASHTO Design Guide to determine the number of ESALs the pavement structure can carry during its lifetime, based on the subgrade strength determined for the project streets. The design inputs required include: design and performance constraints, pavement layer characterization and subgrade strength. 6.2 Existing Pavement Thickness The existing pavement within the project area was cored prior to drilling at all the boring locations. The existing pavement structure and thickness are presented in Table 8-1 below:

Table 6-1 Existing Pavement Thicknesses

Boring No. Road Concrete Thickness

(inch) Stabilized Clay Subgrade

B-1 Popa 8 8 CL B-2 Nelson 6 _ CL B-3 Nelson 7 _ CH B-4 Scholl 6 _ CL B-5 Scholl 6 _ CL B-6 Scholl 6.5 _ CL

6.3 Design and Performance Constraints The design and performance constraints include reliability level, performance period, initial serviceability index after construction, and terminal serviceability index. Based on City of Houston guidelines, reliability (R) of 95 percent was selected for the pavement design performance. A mean value of the overall standard deviation (So) was selected to be 0.39 for rigid pavements. The design performance period selected was 30 years. The serviceability of a pavement is defined as its ability to serve the type of traffic that uses the facility. The condition of the pavement after the performance period is characterized by a Terminal Serviceability Index (Pt), which is a function of the pavement structure. A Terminal Serviceability Index of 2.5 is recommended. An Initial Serviceability Index, Po, of 4.5 was selected. The design serviceability loss, the difference between the initial and terminal serviceability indices is 2.0.

6.4 Pavement Layer Characterization Subgrade Strength. The resulting Lab CBR @ 95% MDD was 3.65. For fine-grained soils, the resilient modulus can be estimated by CBR correlation as 5,475 psi. Concrete Elastic Modulus and Modulus of Rupture. Based on the City of Houston Standard Specification 02751, a mean value of 600 psi for S'c (Flexural Strength) is considered appropriate for the design. A value of 3.37 x 106 psi was used for the modulus of elasticity of the new concrete (Ec) using the correlation recommended by the American Concrete Institute.

Ec = 57,000(f’c)0.5

Where, Ec = elastic modulus of concrete in psi and, f’c = compressive strength of concrete in psi; a value of 3,500 psi is used based on City of Houston requirements.

6

Drainage. The treatment for the expected level of drainage for a rigid pavement is through the use of a drainage coefficient, Cd. A Cd value of 1.0 was selected based on 48 inches of annual rainfall per year, > 25% time pavement is exposed to saturation, and good drainage due to inlet improvements.

Load Transfer. The load transfer coefficient, J, is a factor used in rigid pavement design to account for the ability of a concrete pavement structure to transfer load across discontinuities, such as joints. Based on the values developed by AASHTO, a mean value of the load transfer coefficient (J) of 2.8 was selected for the design of jointed reinforced concrete pavement (JRCP) with tied curbs and load transfer devices.

Loss of Support. This factor, LS, was included in the design of rigid pavement to account for the potential loss of support arising from subbase erosion and/or differential vertical soil movement. An LS value of 0 was selected according to the AASHTO suggestion for the option of Cement Treated Base considered beneath the pavement.

6.5 Summary of Rigid Pavement Design Inputs The estimated and/or assumed values for the parameters relative to these categories are summarized in the following table:

Table 6-2 Summary of Pavement Design Inputs Parameter Value Concrete Slab Thickness 8” Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR 5,475 psi Cement Treated Base Option:

Thickness, Db

6 inches Elastic Modulus, Eb 150,000 psi Loss of Support Factor, LS 0

Modulus of Rupture, S'c 600 psi Concrete Elastic Modulus, Ec 3.37 x 106 psi Drainage Coefficient, Cd 1.0 Design Serviceability Loss, D psi 2.0 Load Transfer Coefficient, J 2.8 Reliability, R 95% Overall Standard Deviation, So 0.39

6.6 Pavement Recommendations 6.6.1 Challenger 7 Road Pavement Section The cross section for the Challenger 7 project to be considered for the pavement reconstruction on these roads – Scholl Road, Nelson Avenue and Popa Street is:

8” Reinforced Concrete Pavement 2” Asphalt Bond Breaker 6” Cement Treated Base

6” Lime Stabilized Subgrade

HVJ analyzed the Challenger 7 pavement cross sections using DARWin computer program based on the AASHTO Design Guide to determine the number of ESALs the pavement structure can carry

7

during its lifetime, based on the subgrade strength determined for the project streets. The results from this analysis indicate the Challenger 7 road section will accommodate approximately 3,304,000 ESALs. The DARWin output of ESALs calculation is presented in Appendix D of the report. HAS indicated that the traffic on the project roads will like be similar to or less than the traffic that occurs on the Challenger 7 project roadways. Based on the expected level of traffic on the project roads (Scholl Road, Nelson and Popa Street), the 3,304,000 ESALS will be more than adequate for the project roads. The cross section utilized on the Challenger 7 roads will be acceptable for this project. The cross section is 8” Reinforced Concrete Pavement over 2” Asphalt Bond Breaker over 6” Cement Treated Base over 6” Lime Stabilized Subgrade. In assessing the need for lime stabilization versus lime-fly ash stabilization, the type of soils were assessed. Cohesive soils were encountered only near the top of the borings. Cohesionless soils were not encountered in this area. Hence, it is recommended that only lime stabilization be utilized. 6.6.2 Reinforcing Steel Requirement Longitudinal and transverse reinforcing steel is required to resist warping stresses in the pavement section and to hold pavement cracks that develop tightly closed. In addition, reinforcement is required at pavement joints in order to prevent deflections across the joint. Minimum reinforcing steel strength should be 60,000 psi. Steel reinforcement for concrete pavement including the bar size and spacing should be in accordance to City of Houston Standard Drawing 02751-01.

6.6.3 Temporary Pavement An additional temporary asphalt pavement was designed to be used for both haul route for the contractor as well as a detour for vehicles during construction. The construction period was assumed to last for 6 to 9 months and the haul road traffic was used as the controlling traffic during that period. Considering typical construction equipment’s, HVJ has estimated approximately 340 ESALs per day of construction resulting in 67,320 ESALs for the 9 months period. The temporary section that will support this ESAL loading is:

2” Dense-graded Hot Mix Asphalt Type C or D 12” Flexible Base

If construction is anticipated to occur for a longer period, or additional construction traffic information (specifically regarding the number of trucks) is known, then additional analysis will need to be performed. 6.7 Preparation of Subgrade The surficial soils underlying the existing pavement consist of lean clays and fat clays. HVJ recommends stabilizing the top 6 inches of subgrade soil beneath the proposed concrete pavement with lime. Stabilization of the subgrade will increase the modulus of subgrade reaction and provide subgrade stability for construction during inclement weather. Subgrade stabilization will enhance long-term pavement performance by reducing the tendency of the soil to displace from beneath pavement by pumping. HVJ recommends the following procedures for subgrade preparation.

1. Clear the proposed development area of existing pavement and subgrade to the grade required for the proposed pavement section. Since the recommended section is thicker than the existing section, this will require over excavation into the subgrade.

8

2. In areas where soft, compressible or loose soils are encountered, additional stripping may be required. Stripping should extend a minimum of two feet beyond the edge of the proposed pavement, if appropriate.

3. Surfaces exposed after stripping should be proof-rolled in accordance with TxDOT Standard Specification Item 216 or equivalent City of Houston specification. If rutting develops, tire pressures should be reduced. The purpose of the proof-rolling operation is to identify any underlying zones or pockets of soft soils and to remove such weak materials.

4. Before stabilizing the subgrade, scarify the upper six inches of exposed surface as required, mix with lime and compact to 95 percent of standard proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698). Lime series test should be conducted at the time of construction for subgrade soils by conducting laboratory tests on the exposed subgrade material during construction.

7 DESIGN REVIEW

HVJ should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications for this project to determine whether the geotechnical recommendations have been properly interpreted, and to confirm that the assumptions made at the time this report was prepared are consistent with the project as finally design. 8 LIMITATIONS

This investigation was performed for the exclusive use of RS&H, Inc. to provide geotechnical recommendations for the reconstruction of Popa, Nelson, and Scholl Roads at Ellington Airport in Houston, Texas. HVJ has endeavored to comply with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice common in the local area. HVJ makes no warranty, expressed or implied. The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based on data obtained from subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, the project information provided to us and our experience with similar soils and area conditions. The methods used indicate subsurface conditions only at the specific locations where samples were obtained, only at the time they were obtained, and only to the depths penetrated. Samples cannot be relied on to accurately reflect the strata variations that usually exist between sampling locations. Should any subsurface conditions other than those described in our boring logs be encountered, HVJ should be immediately notified so that further investigation and supplemental recommendations can be provided.

PLATES

APPROVED BY:

6120 S. Dairy Ashford RoadHouston, Texas 77072-1010281.933.7388 Ph281.933.7293 Fax

PROJECT NO.:

PREPARED BY:

DRAWING NO.:

DATE: 4/21/2015 SV SS

HG1213272

PLATE 1

SITE VICINITY MAP ACCESS ROAD RECONSTRUCTION

PROJECT ALIGNEMENT

PROJECT NO.:

PREPARED BY:

DRAWING NO.:

APPROVED BY:


APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS LEGEND:

DATE: 4/28/2015

PLAN OF BORINGS Access Road Reconstruction

SV SS

HG1213272

B-16 B-17 B-18 B-12 B-14 B-15 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-7 B-8

B-13

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4 B-6 B-5

Plate 2

PROJECT NO.:

PREPARED BY:

DRAWING NO.:

APPROVED BY:


DATE: 4/21/2015

GEOLOGY MAP ACCESS ROAD RECONSTRUCTION

SV RE

HG1213272 PLATE 3

Beaumont Formation - Dominantly clay and mud of low permeability, high water-holding capacity, high compressability, high to very high shrink-swell potential, poor drainage, level to depressed relief, low shear strength, and high plasticity; geologic units include interdistributary muds, abandoned channel-fill muds, and overbank fluvial muds

Beaumont Formation - mostly clay, silt, and sand; includes mainly stream channel, point-bar, natural levee, backswamp, and to a lesser extent coastal marsh and mud flat deposits; concretions of calcium carbonate, iron oxide, and iron-manganese oxides in zone of weathering; surface almost featureless, characterized by relict river channels shown by meander patterns and pimple mounds on meanderbelt ridges, separated by

PROJECT NO.:

PREPARED BY:

DRAWING NO.:

APPROVED BY:


DATE: 4/21/2015

FAULT MAP ACCESS ROAD RECONSTRUCTION

SV SS

HG1213272 PLATE 4

APPENDIX A

BORING LOG AND KEY TO TERMS & SYMBOLS

39

40

29

81.6

71.4

106

107

2021

20

21

22

19

20

17

20

20

12

Pavement: 8'' Concrete, 8'' LimeStabilized ClayFirm to very stiff, reddish brown, LEANCLAY WITH SAND (CL)

-w/ calcareous nodules @ 6'-8'

DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING:

SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-1

HAND PENETROMETER

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,TSF

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F

SAMPLER: Shelby Tube/Split Spoon

DRY AUGER:

Logged By:

TO FT

WET ROTARY:

OFFSET:DATE: 5/22/2015

SolTek Edgar PLATE A-1

LOCATION:PROJECT:

COMPLETION DEPTH: 10 FT

Access Road ConstructionN: 13789774.21; E: 3183914.93

TO FT

N/A

FREE WATER DURING DRILLING: 10.0 FT

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10

PROJECT NO.: HG1213272

STATION:

SURFACE ELEVATION: N/A

N/A

WATER DEPTH 24 HOURS AFTER DRILLING: ---

CO

H H

G-1

2-13

272

CO

H.G

PJ

10

/6/1

5

40

2670.9

51.3

111 20

24

26

19

19

21

7

8

Pavement: 6'' ConcreteFirm to very stiff, brown and gray,LEAN CLAY (CL)-w/ ferrous and calcareous nodules @2'-4'

Stiff, reddish brown, SILTY CLAYWITH SAND (CL-ML)

Loose, brown, SANDY SILT (ML)


SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-2

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER:

Logged By:

TO FT

WET ROTARY:



LOCATION:PROJECT:



TO FT

N/A

FREE WATER DURING DRILLING: 9.0 FT


DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10


STATION:


N/A


CO

H H

G-1

2-13

272

CO

H.G

PJ

10

/6/1

5

52

4685.4

47.2

116

109

15

20

19

21

23

22

29

24

Pavement: 7'' ConcreteStiff to very stiff, brown and gray, FATCLAY (CH)-w/ calcareous nodules and ferrousnodulesStiff to very stiff, brown and gray, LEANCLAY (CL)-w/ calcareous nodules and ferrousnodules

Brown and gray, CLAYEY SAND (SC)


SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-3

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER:

Logged By:

TO FT

WET ROTARY:



LOCATION:PROJECT:



TO FT

N/A

FREE WATER DURING DRILLING: ---


DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10


STATION:


N/A


CO

H H

G-1

2-13

272

CO

H.G

PJ

10

/6/1

5

32

39

77.2

85.0

125

104

22

12

23

26

16

20

16

19

Pavement: 6'' ConcreteFirm to stiff, brown and gray, LEANCLAY WITH SAND (CL)-w/ calcareous nodules and ferrousnodules

Very soft to firm, reddish brown, LEANCLAY (CL)-w/ calcareous nodules


SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-4

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER:

Logged By:

TO FT

WET ROTARY:



LOCATION:PROJECT:



TO FT

N/A



DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10


STATION:


N/A


CO

H H

G-1

2-13

272

CO

H.G

PJ

10

/6/1

5

38

66

73.3

71.3

92.8

107

110

16

24

19

20

27

20

32

18

34

Pavement: 6'' ConcreteFirm to stiff, gray, LEAN CLAY WITHSAND (CL)-w/ calcareous nodules

Stiff to very stiff, reddish brown, FATCLAY (CH)-w/ calcareous nodules


SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-5

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER:

Logged By:

TO FT

WET ROTARY:



LOCATION:PROJECT:



TO FT

N/A



DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10


STATION:


N/A


CO

H H

G-1

2-13

272

CO

H.G

PJ

10

/6/1

5

45

45

84.5

81.9

75.5

112

89

19

20

18

37

19

20

26

25

Pavement: 6.5'' ConcreteStiff to very stiff, reddish brown, LEANCLAY WITH SAND (CL)-w/ calcareous nodules and stones


SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-6

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER:

Logged By:

TO FT

WET ROTARY:



LOCATION:PROJECT:



TO FT

N/A



DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10


STATION:


N/A


CO

H H

G-1

2-13

272

CO

H.G

PJ

10

/6/1

5

sselvaratnam

Typewritten Text

sselvaratnam

Typewritten Text

PLATE A-7

sselvaratnam

Typewritten Text

HG1213272

sselvaratnam

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

sselvaratnam

Typewritten Text

Project: Access Road ConstructionLocation: Houston, TexasNumber: HG1213272

B-1 0B-1 1.3 39 19 20 20 0.8B-1 2 21 106 0.7 0.7B-1 4 40 20 20 81.6 20 1.2B-1 6 21 107 1 1B-1 8 29 17 12 71.4 22 0.3B-2 0B-2 0.5 1B-2 2 40 19 21 20 111 1 0.8B-2 4 0.4B-2 6 26 19 7 70.9 24 0.6B-2 8.5 51.3 26B-3 0B-3 0.6 52 23 29 15 116 1.2 0.9B-3 2 1.3B-3 4 46 22 24 85.4 20 1B-3 6 19 109 0.8 1.2B-3 8 47.2 21 1B-4 0B-4 0.5 77.2 22 0.9B-4 2 32 16 16 12 125 0.3 1B-4 4 0.8B-4 6 39 20 19 85 23 0.3B-4 8 26 104 0.1 0.2B-5 0B-5 0.5 73.3 16 0.6B-5 2 24 107 0.4 0.5B-5 4 38 20 18 71.3 19 0.8B-5 6 20 110 0.7 0.9B-5 8 66 32 34 92.8 27 1.5B-6 0B-6 0.5 84.5 19 0.7B-6 2 45 19 26 81.9 20 112 1.2 0.8B-6 4 1B-6 6 45 20 25 75.5 18 0.9B-6 8 37 89 0.7 0.8

13 13 13 14 25 11 11 29

% Passing #200 sieve

Water Content

(%)

Dry Density (pcf)

Shear Strength (UU) (tsf)

Shear Strength

(Pocket Pen) (tsf)

Total

Borehole Depth Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

Plate B-1

APPENDIX C

PROCTOR AND CBR TEST RESULTS

DATE TESTED: 1/27/14 LIQUID LIMIT : 32TYPE OF MATERIAL : Brown Sandy Lean Clay with Gravel (CL) PLASTICITY INDEX : 18MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY : 114.0 pcf -200 SEIVE % : 61.2OPT. MOISTURE CONTENT : 12.7 %

APPROVED BY:


PROJECT NO.:

PREPARED BY:

DRAWING NO.:

DATE: 6/16/2015 SV SS

PROCTOR TEST RESULTS ACCESS ROAD RECONSTRUCTION

HG1213272 PLATE C-1

APPROVED BY:


PROJECT NO.:

PREPARED BY:

DRAWING NO.:

DATE: 6/16/2015 SV SS CBR TEST RESULTS

ACCESS ROAD RECONSTRUCTION

HG1213272 PLATE C-2

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

90 95 100 105 110

CBR, %

DRY UNIT WEIGHT, PCF

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST RESULT

Composite SampleMaximum Dry Density (MDD) = 109.1 pcf

Lab CBR @ 95% MDD = 3.65

10 blows/layer

65 blows/layer

25 blows/layer


DRAWING NO.:PROJECT NO.:

APPROVED BY: PREPARED BY:DATE: 6/16/2015

CBR TEST RESULTS ACCESS ROAD RECONSTRUCTION

PLATE C-3 HG1213272

SS SV

APPENDIX D

DARWIN OUTPUTS

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWareComputer Software Product

Rigid Structural Design Module

Ellington Airport - Access Road ReconstructionESALs Calculation

HG-12-13272

Rigid Structural Design

Pavement Type JRCP Slab Thickness for Performance Period Traffic 8 inInitial Serviceability 4.5 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 28-day Mean PCC Modulus of Rupture 600 psi28-day Mean Elastic Modulus of Slab 3,370,000 psiMean Effective k-value 409 psi/inReliability Level 95 %Overall Standard Deviation 0.39 Load Transfer Coefficient, J 2.8 Overall Drainage Coefficient, Cd 1

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 3,303,815

Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

Period

Description

Roadbed SoilResilient

Modulus (psi)

Base ElasticModulus

(psi)1 - 5,475 150,000

Base Type Cement Treated Base Base Thickness 6 inDepth to Bedrock 100 ftProjected Slab Thickness 8 inLoss of Support Category 0

Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 409 psi/in

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWareComputer Software Product

Flexible Structural Design Module

Ellington Airport - Temporary PavementHG-12-13272

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 67,320 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Reliability Level 90 %Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 5,475 psiStage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 2.56 in

Specified Layer Design

Layer

Material Description

StructCoef.(Ai)

DrainCoef.(Mi)

Thickness(Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in)1 HMAC Surface 0.44 1 2 12 0.882 Flexible Base 0.14 1 12 12 1.68

Total - - - 14.00 - 2.56

final geotechnical investigation and … standard proctor & california bearing ratio (cbr) test...

Documents