ADDENDUM No.1 Page 1 of 46 CITY OF LAREDO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
lARED�, T�Xp.$ 1755 ADDENDUM No.1 November 30, 2017
PROJECT: Riverbank Drive Extension
All contractors, holders of plans and specifications, plan rooms and all interested parties on the above identified project are hereby notified of the following revisions taking precedence over all previous declarations and notes made on this project.
This addendum is to clarify comments brought up during the pre-bid meeting held on November 29, 2017.
1. Street Lights (2) are by others. A $12,500.00 "Street Lights System" allowance was added through Item 42 in attached Bid Schedule ( 4 pages) which shall be submitted with the bid documents properly signed and showing the total base bid amount written with numbers and words.
2. Attached is the Geotechnical Report and its Addendum #1 (32 and 7 pages respectively).
3. There is a $750,000.00 total budget for this project.
4. Regarding the availability of Type "A" HMAC, if this material cannot be found, the Contractor may submit an alternate similar material for approval.
5. About "Partial Monthly Payments" please read section C-9.06 for information on this subject and the retainage.
6. Pavement striping and markings by others.
This addendum is being submitted to all contractors, holders of plans and/or specifications, plan rooms, and all interested parties to the project and acknowledgement of same is required by inserting its number and date in the proposal form. --''o''''' City of La edo Engineering D art.m��1J.... f..tf-t''• , * ..• t ,, *.. •.v·\ I , .... : ... ····· �,.. * l1. ,,, ..·· * •.:,.,,. ' t, ... .JA/Me·to.....•...• A �··nCIA··· ..··· · iiI = ·.. · 9 2 0 ·a· ·g· .•••• ·.= ••••6', a1me . a crn, . i. +u- --J _;:_---r-----r. --t-b�I>.,,_=---E ---+.,��f °-<-.·· .•• f,cc sf.0 ....·�!(,� Proj� anagt: / / "7 ',tssjo··-�····i���.t' I ,,, 1'ALE -- 11 1 0 HOUSTON ST. P.O. BOX 5 79 LAREDO, TEXAS 78040-05 79 Ph.(956) 791-7rz 46 FAX (956) 79,�,"5- ADDENDUM No.1 Page 2 of 46
CITY OF LAREDO ENGINEERIKG DEPARTMENT BID SCHEDULE
PROJECT· ruvcrbank DriveExtension Item Estimated Description of item with Unil Price Unit No. Qty. Unit Price Written in Words (in numbers Amount words) &
GENERAL ITEMS I I L.S. �10BILIZATION,COMPLETE AND IN PLACE
2 7 - ACRE SITE CLEARJNG, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 3 5, 100 S.1'. REMOVE/DISPOSEor EXlS'llNG CONCRETE PILOT CHANNEL, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE
STREET CONSTRUCTION � ------6,500- C.Y. STREET EXCAVATION, - COMPLETE AND INPLACE ----- �-- 5 2,000 C.Y. STREET EMBANKMENT, - - -� - - -- COMPLETE AND IN Pl .ACE 6 8,000 C.Y. EMBANKMENT (LOSE ONSITE), COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 7 l,060 L.F. CURBAND GUITER (TYPE A) COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 8 6,385 S.F. 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 9 2,180 S.Y. 2" TYPE CORD H.M.A.C, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 10 2,180 S.Y. 4" TYPE A H.M.A.C, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE -- - �11 2,180 S.Y. - 14.5" FLEX BASE, TYPE B, - GRADE 2, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 12 355 S,Y, 7" FLEX BASE, TYPE B, GRADE 2, UNDER CURB, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE-·---- 13 2,535 S.Y. ·- - - 6" MOISTURE CONDITIONED - - SUB GRADE, COMPLETE AND lN PLACE 2,S35 14 S.Y. - PRIME COAT (SPEC. 516), COMPLETEAND INPLACE
16 ADDENDUM No.1 Page 3 of 46
------15 I S.Y. 7.,535 TACK COAT (SPEC 518), ! COMPLETE AND IN PLACE -� --Item... Description of item with Unit Price Amount No. Estimated Unit Unit Price \Vrittcn in \Vords (in numbers & Qty, I words) '---··--·-- STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
S.Y 16 360 EROSION CONTROL I : BLANKET. COMPLETE AND 17 IN PLACE 3,535 CY CHAl'iNEL EXCAVATION, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE --·-- 18 --- 35 CY. CHANNEL EMBANKMENT, COMPLETE AND INPLACE 19 1,655 S.Y. HYDROMULCH/SEED!NG, S.F COMPLETE AND IN PLACE , 20 1,590 6" CONCRETE PILOT CHANNEL, COMPLETE AND 182 INPLACE 21 CY. (3)7'x4' MULTIPLE BOX CULVERT, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE HO -- 22 CY. CONCRETE HEADWALLS, ----- COMPLETE AND IN PLACE ------· -- 23 I EA 20' CURil INLET, �i L______COMPLETE AND INPLACE _ 24 76 L.F. 30" REINFORCEDCONCRETE , PlPE, COMPLETE AND IN 7,475 S.F PLACE --·- 25 5" CONCRETE RIP-RAP, COMPLETE AND INPLACE --·· 26 252 L.F. SIDEWALK llRIDGE RAILING, COMPLETEAND IN TRAFFIC SIGNS PLACE -
- 27 I EA. STOP SIGN WITH POLE, ------. COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 28 2 -- EA STIU:ET SIGN, COMPLETE ------STORM WATER CONTROLS AND INPLACE
29 ------.. 2,550 L.F. SILT FENCE, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE - - 30 l EA. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE
·.7 ADDENDUM No.1 Page 4 of 46
Item Estimated Unit Description of item with Unit Price ( Amount No. Qty. Unit Price Written in Words in numbers & words) 31 I EA. CONCRETE WASHOUT PIT, COMPLETE AND JN PLACE 32 25 L.F. INLETPROTECTION. COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 33 40 L.F. ROCK BERM, COMPLETE , ANDlNPLACE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
34 505 L.F. 12" PVC C-900PIPE (DR-14), COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 35 l EA. 2" SINGLE SERVICEW/ METER BOX (SHORT), COMPLETE AND INPLACE 36 I EA. HYDROSTATIC TEST & CHLORINATION,COMPLETE AND INPLACE 37 505 LI'. TRENCH EXCAVATION PROTECTION 38 I EA. 1" AIR RELEASE VAL VE, COMPLETEAND IN PLACE 39 2 EA. WATER LINE TIE-INTO EXISTING LANES, ) COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 40 40 L.I'. 24" STEEL CASING WITH SPACERS, COMPLETEAND IN PLACE 41 l EA. STANDARD FIREHYDRANT, COMPLETE AND INPLACE • . STREET LIGHTS SYSTEM
STREET LIGHTS SYSTEM 42 1 L.S. ALLOWANCE $12,500.00 $12,500.00
TOTAL BASE BIDAMOUNT ______
TOTAL BASE BID WRITrEN!N WORDS:______
Contractor
Signature Title ADDENDUM No.1 Page 5 of 46
Address Cily/Siatc Zip Cede
Telephone Nurnbcr:LJ __
c__ Fax Nuniber: _L______
Date: NOTE: ALL BID ITEMS WILL BE PAID FOR WHEN COMPLEIT IN PLACE, TESTED, AND ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER.
19 ADDENDUM No.1 Page 6 of 46
BLANK ADDENDUM No.1 Page 7 of 46
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT DESIGN
ROADWAY AT VILLAS SAN AGUSTIN SUBDIVISION - UNIT 11 SOUTH OF VILLAS SAN AGUSTIN SUBDIVISION, UNIT 5 & NORTH OF DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION, PHASE 2 LAREDO, WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS
Prepared for:
Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. 833 Milo Rd. Laredo, TX 78045
Attn.: Benjamin /1.. Puig, PE, SIT, LI
Submitted By:
HOW:-•ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING CO.
www.howlandcompanies.com 7615 N. Bartlett Avenue P.O. Box 451128 (78045) Laredo, TX 78041 P. 956.722.4411 . F. 956.722.5414 TBPE Firm Registration No. F-4097 TBPLS Firm Registration No. 100464-00 ADDENDUM No.1 Page 8 of 46 HOW ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING CO.
Report Ne,: ,1 1 48(1 July ll,2016
Fas1'cn Oil and Ranch. Ltd. 8333 Milo Rd. Laredo. TX 780cl5
Attn: Benjamin A. Puig PE. SIT. LI Se111 \li11 E-Mail lo /i.f!J}i1 � '/orl.cm11 !vl anager
Subject: (;cokchniral Report - Pm·r111e11I Design Recn111111r11datio11 Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 Laredo, Wehb County, Texas
Dear Mr. Puig: llowland Engineering and Surveying Co .. Inc. (lfowland) is pleased lo submit the enclosed gcotcchnical engineering study for the above referenced project lo be locatccl in Laredo. Texas. This report addresses the field exploration and laboratory testing procedmes and results along \\'ith our recommendations for site preparation and pavement recommendations for Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit l l.
This report was conducted in accordance with an email by Mr. Arturo Camacho with Camacho Hernandez and Associates. LLC dated May l 9, 20 16.
We appreciate the opportunity to be or service to you in this phase nl the project. Please call us if' you have any questions or if we may he of further service.
Sincerely, Howland Engineering Hl!,,-d.�j ng Co., Inc. TBPE Firm Rcgistratii;ir,-»,�J9-.�.�/\1 .:'�"- ....*' '·,:f..'•1 '7 . ..i.. ..<., ... ,. ,,. ..:, .� ..� 0 I � · . �l\! ... ..E. '.,.J.�.j ' ,� 0 : , R M:utineJ• �-.p ,, /�; �- ·, ... � ....__ ,� - I p J _ 1cer ,,� •,,8 <-E Sf- , .. /,; ..- • C �/ •,/''° ,,,,,IONAL !'...... f. ... ,\•� ..:- Copies Suhmitted: 1 (ohme) -- 07,\\.\lo
www.howlandcompanies.com 7615 N. (kirtlettAvenue PO Box 451178 (78045) Laredo, TX 78041 P. 956.722.4411 F. 956.722.5414 TBPE Firm Registration No. F,4097 TBPLS Firm Registration No. 100464-00 ADDENDUM No.1 Page 9 of 46
CONTE'\TS
INTRODUCTIO'\...... 4
PURPOSE Al\:D SCOPE ...... 4
FIELD INVESTIGATION ...... 4
LABO RA TORY TESTl'.'\G ...... 5
GENERAL SITE AND SUBSVRFACE CONDITIONS ...... 5 Site Physiography ...... 5 Site Geology ...... 5 Subsurface Stratigraphy ...... 6 Groundwater ...... 6 Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) ...... 6
PAVEMENT Rli'.COMMENDATIONS...... 7 General ...... 7 Clearing and Grubbing ...... 7 Preparation of Natural Finish Ground ...... 7 Utilization of Natural In-Situ Soils ...... 8 Bulking or Shrinkage Factor...... 8 Pavement Sections ...... 9 Flexible Pavement Design...... 9 Rigid Pavement Design ...... I 4 Drainage Considerations ...... 15
PRELIMINARY UTILITY TRENCIHNG AND BACKFILL CONSIDERATIONS ...... I 5 General...... 15 Trench Excavations ...... 16 Trench Safety Guidelines ...... 16 Utility Trench Backfill Methods ...... 16
LIMITATIONS ...... 17 ADDENDUM No.1 Page 10 of 46
APPEl\:DICES • Soil Boring Location Plan
• Boring Logs
• Photographs
• Symbols and Terms used on Boring Logs
• Field and Laboratory Testing Procedures
• Recommended Specificationsfor Placement of Compacted Select Fill
• Pavement Design Options - Computer Program Outputs
• Relevant Information About Your Geotechnieal Engineering Report ADDENDUM No.1 Page 11 of 46 FCJsken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. Howland Engineering and Surveying Inc Geotechnical Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 Co., July 11, 2016 Page ./ of 17
11\TRODCCTION On June 28, 2016, Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. (Howland) conducted a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Cnit 11. The followingis a summary of the proposed roadway:
Roadwa e Riverbank Drive Ma· or Collector Type �( Roadway as per City of Laredo Long Range Thoroughfare Plan (COLLRTP) The planned roadway is an extension of the existing Riverbank Drive located south of Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 5 and north of Deerfield Subdivision, Phase 2 end. The planned subdivision lies on a 6.49 AC tract of land within the 100-year floodplain and will propose one (I) Major Collector roadway.
The planned construction for the new roadway construction will consist of hot mix asphaltic concrete (HMAC) pavement with concrete curb and gutters, valley gutters, sidewalks and accessible ramps.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this exploration was to determine the stratification and engineering properties of the soil and to develop recommendations for site preparation and provide pavement recommendations with compaction requirements for the proposed roadway improvements of the above referenced project. Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) are based on the type of road use as classifiedby the City of Laredo. Please note a traffic engineering study was beyond this scope of work.
The scope of this exploration includes the following: I) a field investigation phase for determining the surface conditions (slope & drainage) and subsurface conditions obtaining representative soil samples for classification and testing, 2) a laboratory testing program designed to establish pertinent engineering properties of subsurface soils encountered, and 3) a compilation and evaluation of field and laboratory data in order to develop preliminary pavement recommendations.
FIELD 11\-VESTIGATION The site was explored by drilling a total of two (2) 1 O' depth bores along the approximate centerline of the proposed roadways at fluctuating intervals. The boring locations were predetermined by Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. on a site map provided by Camacho-Hernandez & Associates, LLC. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 12 of 46 Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc Geotechnicaf Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 July 11, 2016 Pag_e_5 "f_l_7______------� ------� ------The borings were drilled at the approximate locations that are shown on the Boring Location Plan in the appendix, The borings were advanced using a mobile B-53 drilling rig utilizing continuous flightsolid stem augers, Samples of the materials encountered were obtained by split barrel sampling in conjunction with automatic standard penetration testing. The test boring logs are presented in the appendix along with descriptions of the test methods. The field sampling and testing were performed in substantial compliance with applicable ASTM standards D-1586.
LABOl{A TORY TESTING The soil samples were examined and visually classified by our senior laboratory technician and samples representative of the various soil strata encountered were selected for laboratory testing. Six (6) sets of Atterberg limits, moisture content and percent fines tests were performed to assist in classifying the soils and to provide indicators of soil behavior. The lest results arc presented on the boring logs and the test procedures arc described in the appendix.
GENERAL SITE AND SUBSURFAC" CONDITIONS
Site Physiography The proposed Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 is a residential development within a tract of vacant land with one planned roadway. The planned subdivision is located at the south of the existing Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 5 and south of Deerfield Subdivision, Phase 2.
At the time of our field activities, the project exhibited high native vegetation with isolated stands of brush and trees. The topography is of irregular grades with high and low areas throughout the property with approximate elevations from 438' to 4 I 9' sloping from north to south down a natural creek. Please note high traffic trails, eroded and minor marshy areas were observed throughout the site.
Site Geology Bureau of Economic Geology The Un iversity of Texas at Austin The "Geologic Atlas of Texas", Laredo Sheet, indicates the Laredo Formation, El underlie the site with adjacent Fluvial Terrace Deposits, Qt.
The Laredo Formation, El, typically consists of clays interbedded with scams and/or layers of sandstones and clay with thick sandstone members in upper and lower part, very fine to fine grained, in part glauconitic, micaceous, fcrruginous, crossbedded. The Laredo Formation is about 620 feet thick with some fossiliferous, marine megafossils abundant.
Fluvial Terrace Deposits, Qt, are streambed deposits typically consisting of clay, sands, silts and gravels. Such deposits are associated with point bars, cutbanks, oxbows, and abandoned fluvial associated with slreambed activity. As a result, soil profiles in terrace deposits areas may vary considerably within a given area.
A cursory review of available geologic maps of this area indicates that several faults are located in the general area of the site; however, faults in the area of Laredo are considered inactive. Therefore, seismic risk should be noted as low. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 13 of 46 Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. Geotechnical Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 July I/, 2016 Page 6 of 17
Subsurface Stratigraphy
The subsurface Stratigraphy at this site encountered various conditions that can be described by one (I) generalized strata described below. The stratum has been identified by grouping soils that possess similar physical and engineering characteristics following the guidelines, presented in the ASTM D-2487 (Unified Soil Classification System). The lines designating the interfaces between strata on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries.
• Sandy Lean Clay - Firm to hard, brown to yellowish brown, brown to yellowish brown to dark brown sandy lean clay soils were encountered fr om the surface to bore termination (-10') at all bores.
The soil samples tested from these stratums had liquid limits ranging from 24 to 27, plasticity index ranging from 9 to 11 with finesfractions ranging from 52% to 68%. These soils are classified as medium plasticity, CL, clays under the Unified Soil Classification System.
The consistency of these stratums is firm to hard (strongly cemented) based on automatic standard penetration resistance test values of 5 blows per foot of penetration to 10 blows per 0" of penetration.
The above descriptions are generalized to highlight the major subsurface stratification. The boring logs should be consulted for specific information at each boring location.
Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered during the drilling operations. The recovered soil samples contained generally dry soil moisture conditions during our subsurface investigation.
It should be noted that groundwater levels usually will fluctuate with seasonal variations in rainfall, during the construction process and surface water run-off. The short-term field observations are not a complete evaluation of the subsurface water levels at this location. The Contractor should check the subsurfacewater conditions prior to excavation activities.
Potential Vertical Rise (PVR)
Potential vertical soil movements have been estimated using the Texas Department of Transportation test method TEX-1 24-E, Potential Vertical Rise. 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 in this area is approximately fifteen feet. The potential vertical rise is expressed in inches and hence is the latent or potential ability of a soil material to swell, at a given density, moisture, and loading condition. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 14 of 46 fasken Oil and Ranch, ltd Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. Geotechnica/ Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit I l July I/, 2016
Page 7 of 17 When the soil material is exposed lo capillary or surfacewaler an increase in elevation (heave) of the upper surface along with anything resting on it is plausible. The sandy lean clay and clayey sand with gravel soils which represent the majority of the soils encountered at the site exhibit a low shrink / swell potential. Estimated PVR value is calculated at a range as follows:
PVR Range (in) Low · I High 0.00" 0.07" Please note the analys is is based on approximate depth of bores
Please note that the ahovc reported values represent total vertical in-situ movements and does not take into account movements by uncontrolled water sources such as poor drainage, migration of subsurface water from off-site locations and utility line leaks.
PAVEMENT RECOMMENDA TIO NS
General
The following recommendations are based the American Association of Stale Highway and Transportation Officials (AAS! ITO) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures and the soil test results and our experience with pavements in areas with similar subsoil conditions. The minimum pavement-sections we recommend are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Clearing and Grubbing
Site preparation for the roadway areas should consist initially of clearing and grubbing. This work shall consist of cutting, removing from the ground and properly disposing trees, stumps, brush, roots, weeds and construction debris, if any, and other materials that will interfere with the work or are considered objectionable.
Removal of trees and shrubs shall include the removal of stumps and roots greater than 3" in diameter. Grubbing shall include removal of slumps and 3" roots to 2' below finished grade elevations. Burning is not permitted on the subject property and all waste material and unsuitable materials should be disposed of legally.
Preparation of Natural Finish Ground
As per our understanding, the roadway profiles should minor fill areas and major cut areas of -1O' in depth.
In regard to soil consistency, our borings did encounter strongly cemented layers of sandy lean clay soils at bore P-1. Due to the long distance spacing between boreholes, possible isolated cemented soils may be encountered while excavating between our borings.
This may result in construction constraints during pavement construction. The Contractor should be equipped with special power equipment for its removal, if required. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 15 of 46 Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Howland Engineering and Surveying Co .. Inc Geotechnica! Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit I I July I I, 2016 Page 8 of 17
Afterclearing and grubbing operations, exposed subgrades should be thoroughly proofro1led in order to locate and dcnsify any weak, compressible zones, A minimum of 5 passes of a fu11y loaded dump truck or a similar heavily-loaded piece of construction equipment should be used forplanning purposes.
Proofrolling operations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative to document subgrade condition and preparation. Weak or soft areas identifiedduring proofro11ing should be removed and replaced with suitable, compacted on-site soils, free of organics, oversized materials, and degradable or deleterious materials.
Upon completion of the proofro11ing operations and just prior to fill placement, the preparation of natural finish ground in areas to be fi11ed should consist of reworking the surface to the 6" depth by watering and re-compacting the soils to a minimum of 95% of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) or TxDOT Method TEX 1 14-E ± 2% of optimum moisture in 6" lifts or less.
Upon completion of the proofrolling operations, the preparation of natural finishground in areas cut should consist should initially consist of reworking the exposed surface to the 6" depth by watering and re-compacting the soils to a minimum of 95% of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D- 698) or TxDOT Method TEX 114-E ± 2% of optimum moisture 6" lifts or less.
Utilization of l'\aturalIn-Situ Soils
The utilization of natural in-situ soils are considered in our pavement design. The following are recommendations for the use of these materials.
In general, the natural soils to be cut and utilized as fill material should be watered and compacted in lifts not to exceed 6" to 95 % of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) ± 2 % of optimum moisture. All lifts not meeting the required compaction must be reworked and compacted until the specifieddensity is achieved.
Ilowland recommends to stock-pile the cut soils to visually inspect and sample for the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) or TxDOT Method TEX I I 4-E. Several Proctors may be required to establish a Density Control Plan.
Bulking or Shrinkage Factor
Excavation increases the volume of material. To determine the volume of material that will be created by excavation the bulking factor is definedas:
Bulking Factor � Volume after Excavation / Volume before Excavation
Similarly a shrinkage factor is definedfor the compaction of a soil at its final destination.
Shrinkage Factor � Volume after Compaction / Volume before Excavation
Typical values for the site soils can be found in Table 1 below. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 16 of 46 Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. Geotechnical Reporl - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 July 11, 2016 Page 9 of 17
Table 1 - Soil Properties
,. ,' - - .· ' . ,_ .. Bulk Density Material' , ' Bulking. . . Factor' Shrinkage Factor Diggability , · Mt!lm' . Clay (Low PI) I.GS !JO vledium - 7 Clay (High Pl) 2.10 1.40 0.90 "Mediumto Hard Clay and G� 180 135 Medium to 1 Jard - Sand 2.00 I.OS 0.89 Easy Sand and Gravel 1.95 LIS - Easy Sandstone (Porous) 2.50 1.60 Medium - Pavement Sections for the proposed roadways design purpose, we arc following the AASIITO guide for Design of Pavement Structures with consideration to the modulus of subgrade reaction (k) and our field Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results which we correlated an approximate CBR and the pavement specificationrevisions set forth by the City of Laredo,
Flexible Pavement Design
The 1993 AASHTO pavement design method is typically used in this location. The AASHTO design parameters include the following:
. ' '· ·- _,_ ' . . . _,' ': ; ·:, . ' ·, ' . , AASJITO Desie.n Paranieters Index _ _, : ' " ' ' , 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL) Wis Reliability R Standard Deviation So Environmental Effects i'.PSIENv�i'.PSlsw + i'.PSirn Loss in Serviceability Index Due to Swelling Soils i'.PSisw Loss in Serviceability Index Due to Frost Heave i'.PSirn Initial Serviceability Index Po Minimum Terminal Serviceability Index Pt Total Change in Serviceability Index Ms1�Po-P, Effective Road Bed Soil Resilient Modulus Mr
The proposed roadway is classified as a Major Collector under the City of Laredo Long Range Thoroughfare Plan (COLLRTP).
Values for these parameters except for Environmental Effects and Subgrade Resilient Modulus are include in the COLLRTP and are presented below, Recommendations for the Environmental Effects and Subgrade Resilient Modulus along with other pertinent information are presented in the followingparagraphs. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 17 of 46 Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc Geotechnical Report Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit J 1 July I I, 2016 Page JO of 17 -
-� -� ------
', . , AASIITO.Desilin Parameters COLLRTP j Ma or / Minor Major Collector Arterials Industrial Street l ,ocal Collector Local Street Industrial Collector Wis 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 I 00,000 R 95 % 90 % 70 % 70 % flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid So i 0.45 0.35 0.45 0.35 0.45 0.35 0.45 i 0.35
Po 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.2 ' 4.5 I P, 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 i 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.5 f;ps1T 20 20 20 20 ··- Min. Max. I SN Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. 3.80 5.76 2.92 5.08 2.58 4.20 1.98 I 3.18 Source. City of Laredo Long Range Thoroughfa re Plan (COLLRTP)
The actual traffic volumes and wheel loads for these various pavements were unavailable at the time of the preparation of this report. If the specific traffic data relative to the design becomes available, we may review the information and make any necessary changes to our pavement recommendations. Please advise us if the available traffic data is diffe rent from our assumptions, so we can revise our design traffic calculations and thereby revise our pavement design.
The value of L;PSlsw is the pottion of design serviceability loss caused by the environmental (t.PSIE:sv) factors of swelling soils. Since frost heave is not a concern in Laredo, the impact due to frost heave (L;PSirn) is not considered. Therefore, the environmental impacts (L;PS!El\V) are reduced to the impact of expansive (swelling) soils only.
The environmental factors reduce the maximum possible performance period of the pavement before an overlay is required to meet the expected service life. Based on the AASHTO design procedure and the subsurface soil properties, the value for the loss in Serviceability Index due to swelling soils (L;PSlsw) is presented in the following table:
0 0 5 0.50 10 0.78 15 0.95 20 1.04 ADDENDUM No.1 Page 18 of 46 Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Howland Engineering and Surveying Co .. Inc. Geotechnical Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision. Unit 11 July II, 2016 Page II of 17
Modulus of Subgradc Reaction /k) The modulus of subgrade reaction (k) is determined by performingplate load bearing tests, Due to time and expense of perfonning lest, researchers have developed correlations between k and CBR values, Based on these published correlations, an estimated k value of 200 per cubic inch (pci) for the subgrade may be used for this site.
Resilient Modulus Value /M,) The resilianl modulus value, M, is based on the most common subgrade soil conditions encountered in our soil test borings. Based on AASHTO recommendations, the following empirical strength values can be converted to a Modulus for use in pavement thickness calculations. We recommend that a CBR value of 12 percent to be used in the pavement design analysis for the soils at the site for Riverbank Drive. This design CBR value assumes that the subgrade soils will be prepared in accordance with the recommendations stated in the Preparation ofNatural Finish Ground subsection of the Pavement Recommendations section of this report,
064 :vie = 2550 (CBR) psi
Therefore, for this project we recommend the following M, values:
M, = 2550 (12)064 12,509 psi
The next step in the AASI-ITO method is the determination of the Structural Number (SN), which can either be calculated using formulas in the AASIITO Guide or by using a nomograph contained in the guide. The SN is used to determine the required pavement sections.
The total required pavement thickness is then based on the following equation:
Where: an = structural coefficient of material "n"
Dn = thickness of material "n", inches
mn = drainage coefficient for material "n"
Generally, the most cost effective pavement section can be obtained by max1m1zmg the thicknesses of the materials with the lowest structural coefficientwhere applicable or where the pavement materials are locally available. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 19 of 46
Oil flow/and Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc FaskenGeotechnical and Report Ranch, · l'illasLtd San AgustinSubdivision, Unit 11 July I/, 2016 "- f'_a/!,e 12 o,f_I _7______The drainage coefficient, m, is dependent on the quality of drainage in the untreated base and sub-base material layers of the flexible pavement section, Good drainage (i,e, Drainage Coefficient,m = I) corresponds to water being removed from each layer in one (I) day; and, that the percent of time the pavement structure is exposed to moisture levels approaching saturation ranges from five (5) to twenty-five (25), If improper materials are used or standing water can develop due to construction or design deficiencies, the quality of drainage would be fair to very poor and reduce the drainage coefficient, m, and ultimately the structural capacity of the pavement, The AAS! ff() design procedure provides more guidance and discussion regarding this issue,
Recommended structural coefficientand drainage coefficients are as follows:
Type C or D HMAC Surface 0,44 I .00 Asphalt Stabilized Base 0.34 I .00 Flexible Base (Type A, Grade I - 2) 0.14 1.00 Flexible Base (Type B, Grade 1 - 2) 0.1 I 1.00
Resulting pavement sections arc as follows:
, J!'lex\ble ne�ig�,Se,ctlon (>>,?:)h·.- ,- ,> r r r- tn � �,; , �-,� .' ·
Type C or D HMAC Surface 2.5" 2.5" 2.5" 2.5" Type A or B HMAC Base Flexible Base (Type A, Grade I - 2) I 5.5" 9.5" Flexible Base (Type B, Grade I - 2) I 9.5" 13.5" ® ® Tensar TriAX TX5 Geogrid No Yes No Yes Moisture Conditioning Subbase 6" 6" 6" 6" Structural Number (SN) Design 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Structural Number (SN) Actual 3.27 3.25 3.25 3.23 Estimated Calculated ESAL's 2,268,000 2,173,000 2, I 65,000 2,117,000 ADDENDUM No.1 Page 20 of 46
Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Howland Ji.ngineeringand Surveying Co., Inc. Geotechnica! Report Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit I 1 July 11, 2016 Page 13 of /7 -
Black Base:
. · ,, .. , Flexible· .. De$ign S�ction , · < ' ·•· . ·. ,_ ·· .. '' . ,-.-:
Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement: The I lot Mix Asphaltic Concrete (HMAC) shall meet the requirements set forth by the Texas Department of Highways (TxDOT) Specifications, Item 340, using Type "C" or "D" mix. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 1.5% below the optimum density of the laboratory density as determined using TxDOT, Tex 206-F test method or ASTM D- 1 560 (Hvecm or Marshall Method).
Hot Mix Asphaltie Concrete Pavement (Black Base): The Ilot Mix Asphaltic Concrete (HMAC) shall meet the requirements set forth by the Texas Department of Highways (TxDOT) Specifications, Item 340, using Type "A" or "13" mix. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 1 .5% below the optimum density of the laboratory density as determined using TxDOT, Tex 206-F test method or AST\1 D-1560 (Hveem or Marshall Method).
Flexible Base Material (Crushed Limestone): The base should meet the requirements of the TXDOT specifications for Item 247, Type A, Grade 1 - 2. The base should be compacted to at least 98% of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) or TxDOT Method TEX 1 13-E, al ± 2% of optimum moisture content.
Flexible Base \1aterial (Calichc): The base should meet the requirements of the TXDOT specifications forItem 247, Type B, Grade I - 2. The base should be compacted to at least 98% of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) or TxDOT Method TEX 113-E, at ± 2% of optimum moisture content. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 21 of 46 Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Howland Engineering and Surveying Co. , Inc. Geotechnical Report Villas San Agustin Subdivision, ()nit I 1 July I/, 2016 Page 14 of 1 7 . -
Mechanically Stabilized Layer (MSL): The gcogrid can increase the effective strength of a pavement structure or an unpaved working surface through the composite of a high performance geogrid and granular fillto form a mechanically stabilized layer (MSL). The gcogrid is placed directly below the granular fill for reinforcement in an effort to increase the bearing strength of the subbase soils. Based on the soil information above, we recommend the Tensar® TriAx® TX5.
Moisture Conditioned Subbase: The subbase beneath the crushed or uncrushed gravel subgrade should be moisture conditioned by reworking the surface to the 6" depth by watering and re compacting the soils to a minimum of95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698 (Standard Proctor) or TxDOT Method TEX 114-E, at ± 2% of the optimum moisture content at 6" lifts.
Rigid Pavement Design
The Rigid Structural Design is used for both the analysis and design of rigid (Portland cement concrete) pavements. For design, ESALs are an input and the slab thickness required for the specifiedtraffic is calculated. All calculations arc based on the AASHTO rigid pavement design procedure.
4,000 si 474 3,604,997 Standard Modulus of Soil Reaction "k" 250 ci Load Transfer Coefficient 2.6 Overall Draina e Coefficient,Cd Calculated ' /·" , .. lf;_'s' e· · '.,;. ,.. Desi n Thickness 7.79
Portland Cement Concrete: The concrete should have a maximum slump of 4 ½" ± 1 ". The concrete should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi.
Moisture Conditioned Subgrade: The subgradc should be moisture conditioned by reworking the surface to the 6" depth by watering and re-compacting the soils to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698 (Standard Proctor) or TxDOT Method TEX 114-E, at ± 2% of optimum moisture content at 6" lifts.
The design assumes doweled or keyed joints, temperature and flexural reinforcing steel of #5 @ 12" o.c.c.w for heavy duty traffic (major collector) and adequate control, expansion and construction joints. All joints should be sealed as per manufacture recommendations. A control joint spacing of no more than 15' is recommended. Since rainfall is light, no special provisions for drainage, such as permeable base course is necessary. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 22 of 46
Fasken Oil and Ranch. Ltd. Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. Geotechnica! Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 July 11, 2016 f_ Page 15 o l _7 ______�
Drainage Considerations
Proper perimeter drainage is extremely impmtant and should be provided so infiltration of surface water from unpaved areas surrounding the pavement is minimized, Improper drainage which allows saturation of the pavement subgrade will greatly reduce the performance and service life of the pavement systems, even when the system is constructed using either typical pavement sections or design recommendations based on site-specificsoils testing.
Surface and subsurface drainage considerations crucial to the performance of pavements al this site include, but are not limited, to the fo11owing:
• Any man-made subsurface or known natural groundwater seepage at the site as to influence moisture contents within the subgrade should be intercepted by drainage ditches or below grade French drains. • Final site grading should eliminate isolated depressions adjacent to curbs which may a1low surface water to pond and infiltrate into the underlying soils. • Pavement surfaces should be maintained to minimize surface ponding and to provide proper sealing of any developing cracks. These measures will help reduce infiltration of surface water downward through the pavement section. • Drainage channels adjacent to roadway should have adequate transverse slopes for proper drainage away from the roadway so that ponding or stagnant water does not accumulate and infiltrate below the roadway thus weakening the sub-pavement section.
Poor drainage features provide an avenue for water to enter into the pavement section and underlying soil subgradc and can result in weakening of the subgradc soils. These conditions could result in degradation of pavement sections with time as vehicular traffic traverses the affected areas.
PRELIMI'.\'ARYUTILITY TRENCHING AND BACKFILL CONSIDERATIONS
General
In general, the exploration and testing of the soil samples indicated a consistency of soil conditions with low plasticity, firmto hard (strongly cemented) sandy lean clay soils.
This report may not reflect the exact variations of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. The nature and extent of variations across the site may not become evidence until construction commences. If variations then appear evident, it may be essential to reevaluate our recommendations after performing on-site observations and test to establish the engineering significanceof such variations. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 23 of 46 Fasken Oil and Ranch. Ltd Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. Geotechnical Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit I I July I I, 2016 Page 16 of 1 7
Trench Excavations
In regard to soil consistency, our borings did encounter strongly cemented layers of clayey sand and sandy lean clay soils al bore P-1 at the 7' and 8½' depths. Due lo the long distance spacing between boreholes, possible isolated cemented soils may be encountered while trenching between our borings.
This may result in construction constraints during utility line trenching. The Contractor should be equipped with special power equipment for its removal, if required.
In regard to groundwater conditions, no groundwater was encountered during our drilling operations. Due to the long distance spacing between boreholes, the extent of subsurface groundwater depth and locations between our borings is not certain.
However the Contractor should provide and maintain adequate dewatering equipment to remove and dispose of all surface and ground water. Each excavation should be kept dry during the preparation of the subgrade until the installation of the utility lines is completed. The utility trenching, safety and backfill considerations for the proposed roadways arc included in the following section.
Trench Safety Guidelines
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSIIA) Safety and Health Standards contained in the Section 1926.652 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR) require that all trenches in excess of five(5) feet deep be shored or appropriately sloped or benched unless the trench sidewalls arc comprised of solid rock.
Based on the our laboratory results, the soils encountered at the boring locations should be considered primarily a Type A soils which means cohesive soils i.e. silty clay, sandy clay, clay loam, and in some cases silty loam and sandy clay loam.
If during the construction process dissimilar soils are encountered, then the following soil types should be considered. Cemented soils i.e. caliche and hardpan are also considered Type A according to OSHA soil classificationguidelines.
If soils are granular cohesion-less similar to crushed rock or fissured then Ty pe B is the appropriate classificationand if groundwater or water seepage is present in these strata then Typ e C is the appropriate classification.
Please note that the Contractor is responsible for development of the excavation plan which will meet all State and Federal requirements with regard to trench safety.
Utility Trench Backfill Methods
Please see the latest City of Laredo "Utility Trench Backfill Methods " in the City's web site (www.eityonaredo.co111). The design team is to verify the latest specifications of the City of Laredo at date of design insurance. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 24 of 46
Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. !lowland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. Geotechnica! Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 July I 1, 2016 11______Page_n of
LI:\JJTATIONS The evaluation and recommendations submitted in this report are based, in part, upon the information obtained from the two (2) soil test borings. The nature and extent of variations in soil conditions between or beyond the borings may not become evident until actual construction. It is also noted that the transition lines shown on the boring logs arc approximate and the actual transitions may be gradual. Also, this report docs not consider environmental opinions.
If changes in the 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 recovered for laboratory testing will be retained for a period of 30 days and then, unless we arc directed otherwise, will be discarded.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. and the design team for specific application to the proposed roadways at Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 in Laredo, Texas in general accordance with the American Association of Stale I Iighway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Additional information regarding the limitations and use of geotechnical engineering reports is included in the appendix. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 25 of 46
>. '\J r.
'
< ! r.... r> r:,i } �g!·iI! � ::tl o, I"'o o u1 ��0 r:,i N t --.J � ui 0 > I �� �� O>_ q n_ c, I z ,. > �. C"l t �< V)"l 1 d I t 1 i<\�8 ,r r:,i 0 i rri .., q���0 t l � 0 0 • • g ...ill -,oA .., F S; I \ To ....§ . 0 · ¼" \1. .t F.� z > \ \ •,;;l2 N ·� 1'' I I \. I r:,i z 9 &l I ·" ·" ta. d "' \; I;::, � o& e I i ,•.\ ....e j: \; gg < �< \\\ I .... \ ', - r, r:,i · .... i:"I l\ f��� '-' I I ,-.. _...------:""'0 - �z -�ci'·:q ";�'.)-;,;· \\ "'� d '' z \\I, 71 .... 1 1 I " :-g Q .., I' t'i'r;:.:g .... I I �£oi .... ,, '.:1-'rB�-;p +! 0 ����;- :�;1V 0 PT 6+24.56 � : q
t t �
.) ri�/\! !\ ! U<)l·., r
.. APPROXIMATE TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN I HOW ENGINl,ERINGAND SURVEYING CO.
A d 7c,I) \, ll.H1lcu .\,�rn.,·
I' ,,,,_, 7:� -1 111 -�-:-: -� _'s _' ==7 F '!'(, ::: 5� 1-1 ::�bs�:u�:,' -- : ::::::�v,1::,:: fBPF Ftrrnl{�,;,;t,.t1:c,n ,,, f-:(r•::' 1131'1 S F,i in R,·c1!<1r:Hhl� \,"0 t -'; �,,-1 !'·•, , REPORT NCMBER 4!486 \,._, -., 1,_,._,l. rnJc·,,,T';,.u,ie, c, ·m ADDENDUM No.1 Page 26 of 46
LOG OF BORlNG Nlll\1BER1'-1 PROJECT: \'illas San .\gu�lin Suhdh·ision. l"nit 11 REPORT NO., 41486 CLIENT: Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. DATE: ,lune 28, 201(1 PROJECT LOCATIO!\: \'illas San :\gu�tin Subdl\ hion, l'nit 11 BORING LOCATIO:\; A!. Per Plan DRILLER: lingo Rrndon ELE\'ATIO;'I,: \A DRILLl='' G METHOD: Straight Flight .-\ugl·r· WEATHER: Hot and Clear LOGGED BY, .I. Reyes DEPTH TO WATER INITIAL: .\ E AFTER 24 HOURS: \R
Atterberg Limits (%) l f- '§0 :< 0 Description of Stratum l C ;; e .,, :ie C � "' E u". " G:' Q . .0 ·�- N .'! .,, Vo ;.. C.0 .0 � -;; "' .� ·; 0 E f- ;, � = - '- ·a; " -0 Depth " :;0 ,? " � ::, "' "' i "' - .. i: (Feet) � LL P. L P. I. O" 5 I - ; ; V ii 4 Pl ;'.'.i, - Stiff to llard, '., 'X Brown to Yellowish Bro,,n to Dark Brown Sand�· Lean Clay 3 - ,,
4 2 P-2 3 5 - 5 s 55 14 2(, II, Ccmrnlrd at 7' Slrnngl�·Crmrntl ·d at 8½' 6 - lllli!1li!illll 7 18 P-3 :i0/3" 1m:mmm1!l 8 - 200 59 15 27 11, II
9 10/0" P-4 (CL) 24 15 9 IO - 600 64 15 BORING TERMINATED -- II
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -
SPT = Standard Penetration Resistance 0.5 FT Intervals NE "° Not Encountered NA = Not Applicable N = Total Blows Final IFT within Sample Depth ( BL/FT ) NR = Not Required ND= l\otDetermined Qp = Pocket Penetrometer Test ( TSF ) qu = Unconfined Compressive Strength Test ST = Shelby Tube Sample PAGE 1 OF I HOWENGINEERING ANO• SURVEYING CO. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 27 of 46
LOG OF BORING NUMBER P-2 PROJECT: \'illas San Ag_ustinSubdh i�ion. l nit 11 REPORT l\0.: 41486 CLIE!"i'T: Fasken Oil and Ranrh. Ltd. DATE: .lune 28, 20Hi PROJECT LOCATIOl\: \ 'illas San :\gu,tin Subdh h,iun, l'nit 11 BORI.\G LOCATIO�: A� Prr Plan DRILLER: Hugo lll'ndon £LEVATl0:'I.: .\A DRILLING I\1ETHOD: Straight Flight :\uger WEATHER: Hot and Clear LOGGED BY, .J. lll'y('S DEPTH TO WATER l\'ITIAL: \E AFTER 24 HOURS: .\I{ Atterberg Limits (%) G:' !:,, '§ Description of Stratum c " 0 C ,. 0 s � E u" ] �.!a G:' , " en " �·; • � C ·; � 0 t: Depth :: ·; � a' • • , "' z "' ;: ::i' 0: 0:-� a' z (Feet) LL. P. L. P. I. C, 2 V i:'/ - 0 Pl 2 5 ?<: Finn to Stiffto I lanl, 53 13 25 9 - ""' 16 'N llrnwnto Yellowish Bro,,n 3 - Sandy l.elln Cllly
4 I P-2 2 5 - 4
-- 7 4 1'-3 4 - 5 9 25 9 8 52 16 16 9 15 Ci l'-4 211 JO - 30 50 ) 6H 1 5 26 16> I O fu=' +· --======�----"(('--''lc,, +-__::c'--f--.!.c._+--'"''--f--.!.,:_ _ Cc'-- ---+-----J BORli\GTERMINATED --+ f-- II --
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 �--
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -
SPT = Standard Penetralion Resistance 0.5 FT Intervals NE= Not Encountered NA = Not Applicable N = Total Blows Final 1 FT within Sample Depth ( BL/FT ) NR = Not Required ND= Not Determined Qp = Pocket Penetrometer Test ( TSF ) qu = UnconfinedCompressi\!e Strength Test ST= Shelby Tube Sample PAGE 1 OF I ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING CO. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 28 of 46
View north toward bore P2
Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 Report '\o.:414 86 ADDENDUM No.1 Page 29 of 46
HOENGINEERINGW AND SURVEYING CO.
SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BORING LOGS
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
GW Well graded gravels or sand and gravel mixture. little or no fines. � GRAVELS �:""."' · . GP Poorly graded gravels or sand and gravel mixture, little or no fines. More than half of coarse fraction -- .-.� ------larger than No. 4 sieve size �ml.l!I� GM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixture �S,,"-1 GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures. W0"A SW Well graded sand or gravelly sands, little or no fines. SANDS :.•1 SP Poorly graded sand or gravelly sands, little or no fines. More than half of coarse fraction r-��-:\.;_;_ smaller than No. 4 sieve size l'.Jl:l:1-lHHII SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixtures l>·t'.:'_ .'.-;] SC Clayey sands. poorly graded sand-clay mixtures.
ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands of low to medium plasticity. SILTS AND CLAYS 111111111111 More than half of coarse fraction CL --lnorganic· clays oflow to medium plasticity. smaller than l\o.4 sieve size �� OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. .... I 111111111111 MH Inorganic silts and very fine sands oflow to medium plasticity. SIL TS Al\DCLAYS CH Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity. Liquid Limit more than 50% ��� !:::::: :::.:\•:•:::.:::.::•:•:] OH Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS E----� Pl Peats and other higly organic soils.
TYPE OF TEST OR SA.t'v:1PLE
C - Rotary Coring Sample. A - Auger Sample. S - Thin wall Tube (Shelby Tube) Sample. P - Split Barrel Sample with Standard Penetration Test. T - THO Cone Penetrometer Test.
CONSISTENCY OF SOILS Sand Clay
Descriptive Tenn "N" Value (BL/LF) Descriptive Tenn "N" Value (BL/LF) Very Loose 0-4 Very Soft Less than 2 Loose 4 - 10 Soft 2-4 Medium Dense 10 - 30 Finn 4 - 8 Dense 30 - 50 Stiff 8 - 15 Very Dense Greater than 50 Very stiff 15 - 30 Hard Greater than 30
Form Last Revised: October 29, 2014 ADDENDUM No.1 Page 30 of 46 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES (TEST PROCEDCRES ARE PRESE'-:TED FOR l'-:FORMATIOC'JALPCRPOSES)
FIELD TESTI:-.G A. Boring Procedure between Samples B. Particle Size Analysis of Soils (l\1inus 200) (ASTM D-422 and TEX 110-E) The borehole is extended downward, between samples. by continuous flight. hollow or solid stem augers or by rotary drilling techniques using Grain size analysis tests are performed to determine the particle size and bentonite drilling fluid or water. distribution of the samples tested. The grain size distribution of the soils coarser than the Standard :\umber 200 sieve was determined by Il. Prnetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (ASTi\1 D- passing the sample through a standard set of nested sieves. The test 1586) results are presented on the boring logs.
This sampling method consists of driving a 2 inch outside diameter split C. Laboratory Detc-rmination of Water (Moisture) Content or Soil barrel sampler using a 140 pound hammer freely falling through a and Rock (ASTM D-2216 and TEX 103-E) distance of 30 inches. The sampler is first seated 6 inches into the material to be sampled and then driven an additional 12 inches. The The moisture content of soil is defined as the ratio, expressed as a number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is percentage, of the weight of water in a given soil mass to the weight of known as the Standard Penetration Resistance. Recovered samples are solid particles. It is determined by measuring the wet and oven dry first classified as to color and texture by the driller. Later, in the ,veights of a soil sample. The test results are presented on the boring laboratory, the driller's field classification is reviewed by the soils logs. engineer who examines each sample. D. Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil (ASTi\1 D- C. Thin-walled Tube Geotechnical Sampling of Soils (ASTM D- 2166) 1587) The unconfinedcompressive strength of soil is determined by placing a This method consists of pushing thin walled steel tubes, usually 3 section of an undisturbed sample into a loading frame and applying an inches in diameter, into the soils to be sampled using hydraulic or other axial load until the sample fails in shear. The test results are presented means. Cohesive soils are usually sampled in this manner and relatively on the boring logs adjacent to the appropriate sampling information. undisturbed samples are recovered. E. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) or Lab Compacted Soils (ASTI\1 D. Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings (ASTM D- D-1883) 1452) The CBR test is performed by compacting soil in a six inch diameter This method consists if augering a hole and removing representative mold at the desired density, soaking the sample for four days under a soil samples from the auger flight or bit at 5 foot intervals or with each surcharge load approximating the pavement weight and then testing the change in the substrata. Disturbed samples are obtained and this soil in punching shear. A two inch diameter piston is forced into the method is, therefore, limited to situations where it is satisfactory to soil to determine the resistance to penetration. The CBR is the ratio of determine the approximate subsurface profile. the actual load required to produce 0. 1 inches of penetration to that producing the same penetration in a standard crushed stone. E. Diamond Core Drilling for Site Investigation (ASTM D-2 I 13) F. Swell Test (ASTM D-4546)
This method consists of advancing a hole into hard strata by rotating a The Swell Test is performed by compacting soil in a steel mold at single or double tube core barrel equipped with a cutting bit. Diamond. varying moisture contents. Layers are compacted using a hammer tungsten carbide, or other cutting agents may be used for the bit. Wash weight and number of blows per layer which vary with the different test water is used to remove the cuttings and to cool the bit. >l"ormally, a 2 procedures. ASTM D-698, D-1557, TEX- 113-E and 114 E. The data is inch outside diameter by 1-3/8 inch inside diameter (1\'X) coring bit is plotted and the maximum unit weight and optimum moisture content used unless otherwise noted. The rock or hard material recovered determined. The test results are given in the appendix with a notation of within core barrel is examined in the field and in the laboratory and the the test method used. core samples are stored in partitioned boxes. The core recovery is the length of material recovered and is expressed as a percentage of the G. Compaction Tests (ASTM D-698, D-1557, TEX 113E or 114-E) total distance penetrated. The compaction test is perfonned by compacting soil in a steel mold at varying moisture contents. Layers are compacted using a hammer LABORATORY TESTING weight and number of blows per layer which vary with the different test procedures, ASTM D-698, D-1557, TEX-1 1 3-E and 114-E. The data is A. Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity plotted and the maximum unit weight and optimum moisture content Index of Soils (ASTM D-4318, TEX 104-E, 105-E and 106-E) determined. The test results are given in the appendix with a notation of the test method used. Atterberg Limits determine the soil's plasticity characteristics. The soil's Plasticity Index (Pl) is representative of this characteristic and is the difference between the Liquid Limit (LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL). The LL is the moisture content at which the soil will flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The PL is the moisture content at which the soil begins to lose its plasticity. The test results are presented on the boring logs adjacent to the appropriate sampling information. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 31 of 46
RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED SELECT FILL
1. General
The soils engineer shall be the owners' representative to control the placement of compacted fill. The soils engineer shall approve the subgrade preparation, the fill materials, the method of placement and compaction; and shall give written approval of the completed fill.
2. Preparation of Existing Ground All topsoil, plants and other organic material shall be removed. The exposed surface shall be scarified, moistened if necessary, and compacted in the manner specified for subsequent layers of fill.
3. Select Fill Material Pill shall have a liquid limit of 40 or less and a Plasticity Index between 7 and 18. The fill shall contain no organic or other perishable material, and no stones larger than two (2) inches. The soils engineer shall approve select fill material.
4. Placing Fill Pill materials shall be placed in horizontal layers not exceeding six (6) inches thickness after compaction. Successive loads of material shall be dumped so as to secure even distribution avoiding the formation of layers or lenses of dissimilar materials. The contractor shall route his hauling equipment to distribute travel evenly over the fill area.
5. Compaction of Fill Moisture Control: The moisture content of the fill material shall be distributed uniformly throughout each a. layer of the material. The allowable range of moisture content during compaction shall be within plus two (·<2) and minus two (-2) percentage points of the optimum moisture content. The contractor may be directed lo add necessary moisture to the material either in the borrow area or upon the fill surfaceor to dry the material, as directed by the soils engineer. The drying of cohesive soils between lifts to moisture contents less than seventy percent (70 %) of optimum before the placement of subsequent lifts shall be avoided or the fill reworked at the proper moisture content. b. Compaction: The material in each layer shall be compacted to obtain proper densities. Compaction by the hauling equipment alone will not be considered sufficient. Structural fills, including pavement subgrade, sub base and base, shall be compacted to densities equivalent to the percentages of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) or the Modified Proctor (J\STM D- 1557) maximum dry density listed in Table I. The Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation Method TEX-113-E compaction test, which varies the compactive effort with soil type, may be substituted for the Standard or Modified Proctor methods and the percentages listed in table I used. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 32 of 46
Recommended Specifications for Placement of Compacted Select Fill (Cont'd)
TABLE I
AREA PERCEl\'TCOMPACTION fine Grained Soils ASTM Coarse Grained Soils ASTM D-698 Standard Proctor D-1557 ModifiedProctor Within five (5)feet of building lines, under footings 95 95 + floor slabs, slab-on-grade foundations and structures attached to buildings (i.e. walls, patios, steps) More than five (5) feet beyond building lines, under 90 90 walks, and fill areas to be landscaped Pavement subgrade and including lime 95 95 + treated soils subbase,
Flexible Base NIA 98
Soils classifiedas coarse grained soils are those with more than fifty(50) percent, by weight, retained on the No. 200 Standard Sieve and with plasticity index of less than 4.
6. Compaction Testing A qualified testing laboratory in accordance with recognized procedures for making such tests shall perform field density tests for the determination of the compaction of the fill. A representative number of tests shall be made in each compacted liftat locations selected by the soils engineer or his representative. For general structural and paving fills, we suggest one test per 3,000 square feet per lift with a minimum of four (4) tests per lift. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 33 of 46
SpectraPave4 PRO™ Te nsar. Pavement Optimization Design Analysis
Design Parameters for AASHTO (1993) Equation Aggregate fill shall conform to following requirement:
= 90 = 4 2 Rel1ab1lity (%) Initial Serv1ceab1l1!y 050 <= 27mm (Base course) Standard Normal Deviate = -1 282 Terminal Serv1ceab1l1ty = 2 5 Standard Dev1at1on = 0 45 Change in Serv1ceab1l1ty = 1 7
Unstabilized Section Material Properties Stabilized Section Material Properties
Cost Layer Drainage Cost Layer Drainage Description Layer Description Layer ($/ton) coefficient factor (Slton) coefficient factor Asphalt Wearing Asphalt Wearing 70 0 440 N/A 70 0 440 N/A ACC1 Course ACC1 Course Aggregate Base Mechanically 20 0140 1 0 MSL 20 0 226 1 0 ABC Course S!ab1l1zed Base Gour
Unstabilized Pavement Stabilized Pavement 8 ACC1 2 50 (in) ACC1 2 50 (1n)
MSL 950 (in)
ABC Tensar TX5 (Overlap=1.0ft)
Subgrade Modulus = 12,509 (psi) Subgrade Modulus = 12,509 (psi) Structural Number = 3.270 Structural Number = 3.247 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 2,268,000 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 2,173,000
LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual in nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design °'>-___ r_ec_o_m_ _em _n d_ _at_io_n_s _c_a�nrb_e_pr_o_v_i d_e_d _a_s_ t_h _e_p_r �oj_e_c_t d_ e_ v_ e_l o_ p_ s_. ______, Project Name Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 Company Name Howland Engineering and Surveying Co .. Inc. Designer SG Date 07-11-16 This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRO m Software Version 4.6.1 Developed by Tensar International Corporation Copyright 1998 - 2016, All Rights Reserved ADDENDUM No.1 Page 34 of 46
SpectraPave4 PRO™ Te nsar� Pavement Optimization Design Analysis
Design Parameters for AASHTO (1993) Equation Aggregate fill shall conform to following requirement:
Rehab1hty (%) = 90 ln1t1al Serv1ceab1hty = 42 D50 <= 27mm (Base course) Standard Normal Deviate = -1 282 Terminal Serv1ceab1hty = 25 Standard Deviation = 0 45 Change 1n Serviceability = 1 7
Unstabilized Section Material Properties Stabilized Section Material Properties
Cost Layer Drainage Cost Layer Drainage Layer Description Layer Description (S/ton) coefficient factor ($/ton) coefficient factor
Asphalt Wearing Asphalt Wearing ACC1 70 0 440 N/A ACC1 70 0 440 N/A Course Course Aggregate Base Mechan cally ABC 20 0 110 1 0 MSL i 20 0 158 1 0 Course Stabilized Base Cour Aggregate Base SBC 16 0 110 1 0 None Subbase Course 16 0.080 Course 1 0
Unstabilized Pavement 8 Stabilized Pavement _:; 1 ACC1 2 so (in) ACC1 2.50 (1n) ·c ::,
� "'C .,,< �:a 13 50 (in) 15 50 (1n) "' �
Tensar TX5 "' (Overlap=1 .0ft) .., 6
C V SBC 4.00 (1n) "'�0 u �z
UJ Subgrade Modulus= 12,509 (psi) Subgrade Modulus = 12,509 (psi) "'0 Structural Number = 3.245 Structural Number = 3.233 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 2,165,000 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 2,117,000 � � zUJ"' 5UJ z z6 5 LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT @ i The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual in .,, nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design 1-----re__co_m__men__d_ta_io_n_s_c_an b_e_p_ro__v_id_e_d as_th_e---'_p_roJ--- e'· _c_t_ de__v_e_lo_p_.s ______- � ..,_ ---i �1---__P_ro _:__je_ct__N_a_me_ ---<,______V_illa__s S_a_n_A.....:g'-u_s_ti_n_S__ub_d_iv__is_io_n_, _Un_it_1_1 ______--j C Company Name Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. 0 =------.-=--- ]1--- -'------'------¼------,----C -----=------' ------l °"'--" - ---Designer---'------'------'------�------SG Date 07 11 16 -----' This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRO'M Software Version 4.6.1 Developed by Tensar International Corporation Copyright 1998 - 2016, All Rights Reserved. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 35 of 46
SpectraPave4 PRO™ Te nsar. Pavement Optimization Design Analysis
Design Parameters for AASHTO (1993) Equation Aggregate fill shall conform to following requirement:
Rel1ab1l1ty (%) = 90 Initial Serviceability = 42 050 <= 27mm (Base course) Standard Normal Deviate = "1 282 Terminal Serviceab1l1ty = 25 Standard Dev1at1on = 0 45 Change m Serviceab1l1ty = 1 7
Unstabilized Section Material Properties Stabilized Section Material Properties
Cost Layer Drainage Cost Layer Drainage Layer Description Layer Description (Slton) coefficient factor (Slton) coefficient factor Asphalt Wearing Asphalt Wearing ACC1 0 440 ACC1 0 440 N/A Course 70 N/A Course 70 Dense-graded Dense-graded 0 340 0 340 N/A ACC2 Asphalt Course 70 NIA ACC2 Asphalt Course 70 Aggregate Base Mechanically 0 140 0 238 1 0 ABC Course 20 1 0 MSL Stab1l1zed Base Cour 20
Unstabilized Pavement Stabilized Pavement
200 (in) 2 00 (in)
4 00 (m) 4 00 (in)
ABC 8 00 (in) MSL 8 00 (1n)
Tensar TX5 (Overlap= 1.0ft) Subgrade Modulus = 12,509 (psi) Subgrade Modulus = 12,509 (psi) Structural Number = 3.360 Structural Number = 4.144 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 2,674,000 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 9,860,000
LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The designs, 1llustrat1ons, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual in nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design o n on n e ov e t o t lo Nl-___ re_c__rn_ _rne__d _t_a i__s _c_a_rb_ �p _r__i d__d _a_s__h_e �p_r�1� e_c__d e_ v_ e_ �p� s_. ______, � --=-P_ro�J_ec_t_N. -,-a, _me_ _ ,-,---V-,-_illa_s�S_a_n�Agu...s_ti_n_S_u...b..d�iv_is_i_o...n_, �Un�it_1_1 - l- .. __,,1------� � , ,. , , �------I 5 Company Name Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. ]t------Designer t------�SG ------Date �------07-1 1 1 6 -i &�__ _ _� ____�� ----- ______�______�______-_____� This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRQTM Software Version 4.6 1 Developed by Tensar International Corporation Copyright 1998 - 2016, All Rights Reserved ADDENDUM No.1 Page 36 of 46
SpectraPave4 PRO™ Te nsar. Pavement Optimization Design Analysis
Design Parameters for AASHTO (1993) Equation Aggregate fill shall conform to following requirement:
= 90 Reliability (%) Initial Serv1ceab1l1ty = 4 2 D50 <= 27mm (Base course) Standard Normal Deviate = -1 282 Terminal Serv1ceab1l1ty = 2 5 J Standard Dev1at,on = 0 45 Change in Serv1ceab1l1ty = 1 7 Unstabitized Section Material Properties Stabilized Section Material Properties
Cost Layer Drainage Cost Drainage Layer Description layer Description Layer ($/ton) coefficient factor {$!ton) coefficient factor
Asphalt Wearing Asphalt We aring ACC1 0 440 NIA ACC1 0 440 NIA Course 70 Course 70 Dense-graded Dense-graded ACC2 0 340 NIA ACC2 0 340 NIA Asphalt Course 70 Asphalt Course 70 Aggregate Base Mechanically 0 110 MSL 0 187 ABC Course 20 1 0 Stab1l1zed Base Gour 20 1 0
Unstabilized Pavement Stabilized Pavement
2 00 (1n) 2 00 (1n)
4 00 (in) 400 (in)
MSL B00 (in) ABC 9 00 (in)
Tensar TXS (Overlap= 1.0ft)
Subgrade Modulus = 12,509 (psi) Subgrade Modulus = 12,509 (psi) Structural Number = 3.230 Structural Number = 3.736 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 2,105,000 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 5,127,000
LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual in nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design recommendations can be provided as the project develops. ProJect Name Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 Company Name Howland Engineering and Surveying Co , Inc Designer SG Date 07-11-16 This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRQ TM Software Version 4.6.1 Developed by Tensar International Corporation Copyright 1998 - 2016, All Rights Reserved ADDENDUM No.1 Page 37 of 46 Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for • elevatio11, cc11!iguratio11, location. rnientation, or weiyl1! o'.the Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects proposed st111ct11re, Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the sp,0cilic needs ol • composition of tire design team. or their clients A geoteclinicalengineering study conducted !or a civil engi • pro1cct ownership. neer may not lullill t11e 11e2ds ol a co11struclio11 contractor or even a11Jtlier civil engineer Bec/i use each geotechnical engineering study is unique, e3 ch As a genecal rule, always inform y,Jllr genlechnical engineer ol pro1ect geotechni;al engmeenng rep:ir1 is unique prepared solelyior the client fl:i changes----even minor ooes-and request an assessment of their impact 011e except you should rely on your geotechnical engi
I subsurfa:.e corid1tions revealtd during construs!1on The georechmcai have led to drsappointrnenls, claims. and disputes. To neip reduce tt1e risk 1 eng1!1eer who developed yo:Jr repmt cannot assume responsibility or ol sucl1 outcomes. geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety ol 1 liahilt!y l1Y thr re{lorf's mc::n:mendations ifthat engineet does not perform explanatory provisions i1 their reports So·nctin1es labeled "lrrnitatio11s" cunstrutf1D11 o/Jservati:111 rnany o! !hesP provisions indicate \\ hP-regeDtectinical er1g111er.rs'responsi bilities beg,n and end. to he:p ott1ers recogn,ze their ow.1 responsibilities A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to and risks. Read these pro'lisions closely Ask questions. Yo,rr geotechnical Misinterpretation engineer should respond full, and !rankly. OIiier design learnrrrernllers· rrrisinl erpretal1on of gcotechc1ical engincer:ng reports l1as resulted ,n costly problems Lower tliat risk liy li,ving your grn GeoenvironrnentalConcerns Are Not Covered tcclmic;ilengineer confer with appropriate rrrerrrbers of the design team after The equ,prnent, teclrn,ques. and personnel used to perform a geoenv,ron sulimilling the rerorl. Also retain your geole:::!nicalengineer to reviev,ipe·ti- men/al study diller signilicanl'y from tt•ose used to perlorn1 a geoteDhm1al 11e11t elements ol !he design 1mm s plans ;111d speci1ica!lons. Con!rnctors can siudy For t11at reason. a geolechnicat enqineerirr!I report does not usually also misinterpret a geotectmic:alengineering report. Reduce lllat risk b) relate a17Y aeoerwironmental l1ndmgs, conclusions. or recommendations having your geotechnic;iteng:n cer participate in prcbid and preconstruction e.(t., about the t1kelihood ol rncountcring underground storage tanks or con!e:cnccs. and by providing construc\ion obsc1vc1!ior: rl\JU!1tcd cun!amim.flls Unar:tio/iated cnvironmcn!al p!Ob!cms have led to 111,merous /HO/CCI failures. !I you have not yet obtained your own gecen Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs v1ronrnental information. ask your geoteclinicat consultant for risk rnarr Geotechnical engineers prepare final t1oring and testing logs based upo1 agenient guirJance. Do not rely on an enwonmenta! reportprepared tor t11eir interpretation al field togs and lauoratory data. To prevent errors or smneone else. om1ss1ons, t11e logs included in a geotecl1oica: engineering report sl1outu never be red1awn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Only photographic or erectro111c reproduction is acceptallle. but recogmze Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, !hat separating fogs from t//e report cao elevate risk operation. and rrrai!llenance to prevent signilicant amounts ol mold frorn growing on indoor surlaces. To be ellective, a'I such s'rategies should be Give Contractors aComplete Report and devised for the express purposeoi mold prevention, integrated into a com Guidance prehensive plan, and executed with d ligent oversigtit by a professional Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can 111ake rnotdpreventiorr consultant Because just a sirnll amount ol water or contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface condrtions by limiting what rnois'urecan lead to the development ol severe mold iritestatio11s. a num tliey provide lor Did preparJtion. To tielp prevent costly problems. give con ber cl mold prevention strategies locus on keeping building surfaces dry tractors tlie complete geotechnical engineering report. bu/ preface it with a Wliile groundwater. water infiltration, and similar issues may have been clearly written letter of transrnrttal Irr that letter. advise contractors that the addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings report was not prepared for purposes of brd development and that t11e are conveyed in this report, thegeoteclmicat engineer in charge of this report's accuracy is limited: encourage tt1ern to confer with the geotechnicat project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per engineer who prepared t11e report (a modest feerrray be required) and/or to formed in connection with the geotechnica/ engineer's study conduct additional study to obtain the specific lypes of inlorrnation they were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven need or prefer A preb1d conference c;in also be valuable. Besure contrac tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed tors have sufficient time to perform additional study Only then might you in this report w/11not of itself be sufficientto prevent mold from lie in a posilion to give contractors the lies! inlormalion available to you. growing in or or, the structure involved. while requiring them to at least share some ol tl1e financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Rely, on Your ASFE-MernberGeotechncial Engineer tor Additional Assistance Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be ol geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci genuine benefit for everyone involved with a corrstruclion project. Cooler plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations t11at with you ASFE-rnembergeotechnical engineer for more inlorrnation i
j/ ASFE TII lflt PIDPII ON URJI 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring MD 20910 Telephone 301/565-2733 Facsimile 301/589-2017 C·mail: in!o@asfe org wwwasle org
Copyrig/1/ 2004 by ASFE, Inc Oup/;cation, reproducrion, or rnpymg ol rtns document in whole 01 in {Jilrf. b1-wy mea'ls wha1soever, 15 strictly prohitifted, etcep: with ASFF's specific written perm1ss1on. Excerpting, quotma. or otherwise e:"11actmg WNding from !/11s document Is pemJl/fed only with /he 8\'Pf8S5 wntlen pe:misswn of ASFE. and only /or purposes of scholarly 1esea1ch or book 1eview. Only members of ASFE may use this docuruent as J compleme/11 to 01 as an element of a geotechnic,1/ e11Q1naeIing report. Any other firm, md1vIdua/, or other ontI/y that so uses this document wi!hoal be;no ;in ASFE member coofd be comm,tmg negligent or intentwnal {fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGtF\060?'.,OMRP ADDENDUM No.1 Page 39 of 46
BLANK ADDENDUM No.1 Page 40 of 46
HOWENGINEERING AND SURVEYING CO. ADDENDUM NO. 1 ...... -- "E. OF T-,, '\ To: Benjamin A. Puig PE. SIT. LJ �?.'A t;;r·wl�,ltj10, PE rasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. Camacho-Hen)#i1.cjtz an . sochfi�si, LLC From: Rbo erlo P. M.artmez, Jr., PE� '*: . .. 1 , , ...... · Howland Engineering and Surveying Co .. Inc. t����.�:.9 ..� ..�- ��T:�g,_J_�J...... :.... Project: Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 t1 ,;;-.., 8 7 0 ,..:� f Subject: Pavement Design - Aclclilional Option 1 ··.!it !.). ··�itc.._ Date: Octohcr 22, 2016 · Li' ! ------�,it L ...... - , l O , 1 ly.\l9 Mr. Puig:
As per an email with Mr. Arturo Camacho with Camacho-Hernandezand Associates, LLC dated October 21, 2016, a roadway was inadvertently misidentified in our geolechnical report elated July 11, 2016 (Report No. 41486). Rivcrhank Drive was incorrectly labeled as a Major Collec1or Industrial Street and should be identified as a Majo,/Minor Arterials Industrial Collector as classified under the City of Laredo Long Range '/110roughfc1re Plan (COlLRTP) cluelo the 90' Right-or-Way (R.O.W.).
AASHTO Desiim Parameters COLLRTP . Major / Minor Major Collector I Arterials Local Collector Local Street Industrial Street Industrial Collector ' W18 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 100.000 ' R 95 % 90 'k 70 'le 70 '7c ' Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid So 0.45 0.35 0.45 0.35 0.45 0.35 0.45 0.35 Po 4.2 4.5 4� 4.5 4.2 4.5 : 4.2 4.5 p, 2.5 2.5 2.5 ! 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 ----·- - 1.7 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.5 LJ.ps1T 20 20 20 20 Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. I Max. SN 3.80 5.76 2.92 5.08 2.58 . 4.20 1.98 I 3.18 Source: City of Laredo Long Range T!wro11�/(fare Plan (COLL!?JP) -
www.howlandcompanies.com 7615 N. Bartlett Avenue P.O. Box 451128 (78045) Laredo, TX 78041 P. 956.722.4411 F. 956.722.5414 4902 Sinclair Road San Antonio, TX 78222 P. 210.648.1600 F. 210.648.1605 TBPE Firm Registration No, F-4097 TBPLS Firm Registration No. 100464-00 ADDENDUM No.1 Page 41 of 46
Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. Addendum lv'o.I Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit I I Pavement Design October 22, 2016 Page 2of3 - -
Resulting pavement sections are as follows for a Maj orllvfinor Arterials Industrial Collector:
-- > Flexible Design Sticfion . - - · . . ' ,, . -Ill Crushed Limestone Pit Run (Ca/ic/1e)
Op tion I Op tion 2 Op tion 3 Option 4 f------+-Type C or D HMAC Surface --·---2.5"------1---2.5"- --+------+--2.5" --2.5" -__, Type A or B HMAC Base Flexible Base (Type A, Grade 1 - 2) 19.5" 13.5" !! 1111 11* Flexible Base (Type B, Grade 1 - 2) 25 ;g ® ® Tensar TriAX TX5 Gcogrid No Yes ;\lo Yes Moisture Conditioning Subbase 6" 6" 6!1 6" Structural Number (SN) Design 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 Structural Number (SN) Actual 3.83 3.81 3.85 3.94 Estimated Calculated ESAL's 4,107,000 3,998,000 4,243,000 4,168,000 * - Denotes thickness of material separated by Geogrid; the minimum thickness offlexible baseas noted on the right side of the slash is placed with the Ceogrid laid over and the remaining minimum thickness of flexible base as noted on the left side of the slash.
Black Base:
Op tion 5 Option 6 Op tion 7 Option 8 Type C or D HMAC Surface 2" 2" 2" 2" Type A or B HMAC Base 4" 4" 4" 4" Flexible Base (Type A, Grade 1 - 2) 11.5 " 8" Flexible Base (Type B, Grade 1 - 2) 14.5" 8.5" ® ® Tensar TriAX TX5 Geogrid No Yes No Yes Moisture Conditioning Subbase 6" 6" 6" 6" Structural Number (SN) Design 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 Structural Number (SN) Actual 3.85 4.14 3.84 3.80 Estimated Calculated ESAL's 4,243,000 6,767,000 4,141,000 3,936,000 ADDENDUM No.1 Page 42 of 46 Fasken Oil and Ranch, ltd !lowland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. Addendum No. I Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit I I Pavement Design October 22. 2016 Page 3 o/ 3 - -
Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement: The Ilot Mix Asphaltic Concrete (HMAC) shall meet the requirements set forth by the Texas Department of Highways (TxDOT) Specifications, Item 340, using Type "C" or "D" mix. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 1.5% below the optimum density of the laboratory density as determined using TxDOT, Tex 206-F test method or ASTM D-1560 (Hvccm or \1arshall Method).
Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Black Base): The Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete (HMAC) shall meet the requirements set forth by the Texas Department of Highways (TxDOT) Specifications, Item 340, using Type "A" or "13" mix. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 1.5% below the optimum density of the laboratory density as determined using TxDOT, Tex 206-F test method or ASTM D-1 560 (Hveem or Marshall Method).
Flexible Base Material (Crushed Limestone): The base should meet the requirements of the TXDOT specifications for Item 247, Type A, Grade 1 - 2. The base should be compacted to at least 98% of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor (ASTM D- 1557) or TxDOT Method TEX 1 13-E, at ± 2% of optimum moisture content at 6" lifts.
Flexible Base Material (Caliche): The base should meet the requirements of the TXDOT specifications for Item 247, Type B, Grade l - 2. The base should be compacted to at least 98% of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) or TxDOT Method TEX 1 13-E, at ± 2% of optimum moisture content at 6" lifts.
Mechanically Stabilized Layer (MSL): The gcogrid can increase the effective strength of a pavement structure or an unpaved working surface through the composite of a high performance geogrid and granular fillto form a mechanically stabilized layer (MSL). The gcogrid is placed directly below the granular fill for reinforcement in an effort to increase the bearing strength of the subbase soils. Based on the soil information above, we recommend the Tcnsar® TriAx® TX5.
Moisture Conditioned Subbase: The subbase beneath the crushed or uncrushed gravel subgrade should be moisture conditioned by reworking the surface to the 6" depth by watering and re-compacting the soils to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698 (Standard Proctor) or TxDOT Method TEX 114-E, at ± 2% of the optimum moisture content at 6" lifts.
Please not recommendations of Preparation of Natural Finish Ground and Utilization of Natural In-Situ Soils can be found in our original geotcchnical report.
Please find attached the output supporting these options. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 956-722-4411. Thank you. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 43 of 46
SpectraPave4 PRO™ Te nsar. Pavement Optimization Design Analysis
Design Parameters for AASHTO (1993) Equation Aggregate fill shall conform to following requirement:
Rel1ab1l1ty = 95 ln1t1al Serv1ceab1l1ty = 42 (%) 050 <= 27mm (Base course) Standard Normal Deviate = -1 645 Terminal Serv1ceab11ity = 25 Standard Dev1at1on = 0 45 Change in Serviceability = 1 7
Unstabilized Section Material Properties Stabilized Section Material Properties
Cost Layer Drainage Cost Drainage Layer Description Layer Description Layer ($/ton) coefficient factor ($/ton) coefficient factor Asphalt Wearing Asphalt Wearing 0 440 NIA 0 440 NIA ACC1 Course 70 ACC1 Course 70 Aggregate Base Mechanically 0 140 0 201 ABC Course 20 1 0 MSL Stab1l1zed Base Gour 20 1 0 Aggregate Base Aggregate Base 0140 None 0 140 SBC Course 16 1 0 Course 16 1 0
Unstabilized Pavement Stabilized Pavement ACC1 2 50 (in) ACC1 2 50 (in)
ABC 13.50 (1n) MSL 13 50 (1n)
Tensar TX5 (Overlap=1 .0ft) 6 SBC 6 00 (1n)
Subgrade Modulus = 12,509 (psi) Subgrade Modulus = 12,509 (psi) Structural Number = 3.830 Structural Number = 3.814 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 4,107,000 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 3,998,000
LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual in nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design recommendations can be provided as the project develops ProJect Name Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 Company Name Howland Engineering & Surveying Co .. Inc. Designer SG Date 10-22-16 This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRQ H' Software Version 4 6.1 Developed by Tensar International Corporation Copyright 1998 - 2016, All Rights Reserved ADDENDUM No.1 Page 44 of 46
SpectraPave4 PRO™ Te nsar. Pavement Optimization Design Analysis
Design Parameters for AASHTO (1993) Equation Aggregate fill shall conform to following requirement:
Rel1ab1lity (%) = 95 Initial Serv1ceab1l1ty = 4 2 050 <= 27mm (Base course) Standard Normal Deviate = -1 645 Terminal Serv1ceab1lity = 2 5 Standard Dev1at1on = 45 Change 1n Serv1ceab1l1ty = 1 7
Unstabilized Section Material Properties Stabilized Section Material Properties
Layer Drainage Cost Layer Drainage Cost Layer Description Layer Description ($/ton) coefficient factor (S/ton) coefficient factor Asphalt Wearing Asphalt Wearing ACC1 0 440 N/A ACC1 0 440 N/A Course 70 Course 70 Aggregate Base Mechanically 0 110 0 169 ABC Course 20 1 0 MSL Stab1l1zed Base Gour 20 1 0 Aggregate Base Aggregate Base 0 110 0 110 SBC Course 16 1 0 SBC Course 16 1 0
Unstabilized Pavement Stabilized Pavement ACC1 250 (in) ACC1 2 50 (in)
MSL 11 00 (1n)
18 00 (1n) ABC Tensar TX5 (Overlap=I.0ft)
SBC 8 00 (in)
SBC 7 00 (1n)
Subgrade Modulus = 12,509 (psi) Subgrade Modulus = 12,509 (psi) Structural Number = 3.850 Structural Number = 3.839 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 4,243,000 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 4,168,000
LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual in nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design
" f----re_c_o_m_ m_e _d_a_tn _io_n_s _c_a n_b_e �p_r_o_v _i d_e_d_a_s_t_h_e_c.p_r o�j_e_ct_d_e_v_e_l o�p_s_. ______, 7 � Project Name Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 "e---��------<------�------s § Company Name Howland Engineering & Surveying Co , Inc. J � Designer�---�------SG -�-----Date- --�------10-22-16 ---� --- 1 This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRO M Software Version 4.6.1 Developed by Tensar International Corporation Copyright 1998 - 2016, All Rights Reserved ADDENDUM No.1 Page 45 of 46
SpectraPave4 PRO™ Te nsar. Pavement Optimization Design Analysis
Design Parameters for AASHTO (1993) Equation Aggregate fill shall conform to following requirement:
= 95 = 42 Rel1ab1lity (%} Initial Serv1ceab1l1ty D50 <= 27mm (Base course) Standard Normal Deviate = -1 645 Terminal Serv1ceab1lily = 2 5 Standard Dev1at1on = 0 45 Change 1n Serv1ceab1l1ty = 1 7
Unstabilized Section Material Properties Stabilized Section Material Properties
Cost Layer Drainage Cost Layer Drainage Layer Description Layer Description {$/ton) coefficient factor ($/ton) coefficient factor
Asphalt Wea nng Asphalt Wearing ACC1 0 440 N/A 0 440 N/A Course 70 ACC1 Course 70 Dense-graded Dense-graded ACC2 0 340 N/A 0 340 N/A Asphalt Course 70 ACC2 Asphalt Course 70 Aggregate Base Mechanically e ABC 0140 0238 Course 20 1 0 MSL Stab1l1zed Base Cour 20 1 0 j
Unstabilized Pavement Stabilized Pavement
2 DO (1n) 2 00 (in)
4 00 (1n) 4.00 (in)
MSL 8 oo (1n)
ABC 11 50 (1n) Tensar TX5 0 (Overlap=1.0ft)
Subgrade Modulus = 12,509 (psi) Subgrade Modulus = 12,509 (psi) Structural Number = 3.850 Structural Number = 4.144 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 4,243,000 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 6,767,000
LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual m nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design recommendations can be provided as the project develops ProJect Name Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 11 Company Name Howland Engineering & Surveying Co , Inc Designer SG Date 10-22-16 This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRQ 1fl Software Version 4.6.1 Developed by Tensar International Corporation Copyright 1998 - 2016, All Rights Reserved. ADDENDUM No.1 Page 46 of 46
SpectraPave4 PRO™ Te nsar. Pavement Optimization Design Analysis
Design Parameters for AAS HTO (1993) Equation Aggregate fill shall conform to following requirement:
Rel1ab1l1ty (%) = 95 Initial Serv1ceab1l1ty = 4 2 050 <= 27mm (Base course) Standard Normal Deviate = -1 645 Terminal Serv1ceab1ilty = 2 5 Standard Dev1at1on = 45 Change in Serv1ceab1l1ty = 1 7
Unstabilized Section Material Properties Stabilized Section Material Properties
Cost Layer Drainage Cost layer Drainage Description Layer Description Layer (Slton) coefficient factor {Sfto n) coefficient factor Asphalt Wearing Asphalt Wearing ACC1 0 440 N/A ACC1 0 440 NIA Course 70 Course 70 Dense-graded Dense-graded ACC2 0 340 N/A ACC2 0 340 NIA Asphalt Course 70 Asphalt Course 70 Aggregate Base Mechanically ABC 0 110 MSL 0 184 1 0 Course 20 1 0 Stab1l1zed Base Gour 20
Unstabilized Pavement Stabilized Pavement ACC1 2 00 (1n) ACC1 2 00 (in)
�;
' ' �1 \:� � ;����.. , 'ACC2L• { ! "'�:,".i.'i :�·: 4 00 (1n) ; ,, ACC2 4.00 (m) �- . . . � �', ' ,, ', ': � y \' �·' '..,.':·.1 ],,,�. ,.,' ,. - -'
MSL 8 50 (1n)
14 50 (1n) ABC Tensar TX5 (Overlap=1 .0f1)
Subgrade Modul us = 12,509 (psi) Subgrade Modulus = 12,509 (psi) Structural Number = 3.835 Structural Number = 3.804 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 4,141,000 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 3,936,000
LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual In nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design � recommendations can be provided as the project develops __ __ ------�f- -= -, -c cc - r � �� ...,-,�ill--,,___� -i--, � -, -� i "" --i --� --i --I Project Name V as San Agust n Subd vi s on, Un t 1 1 a Company Name Howland Engineering & Surveying Co .. Inc. J Designer SG Date 10-22-16 �------�---This document------was prepared using�� SpectraPave4------PRQTM Software�------Version 4.6 1 � Developed by Tensar International Corporation Copyright 1998 - 2016, All Rights Reserved