Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport of Subsurface Exloration C S Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. c February 28, 2011 Mr. Kent M. Laza, P.E., Manager Phillips Engineering 4490 Castlegate Drive College Station, TX 77845 Re: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Study for Proposed W S Phillips Parkway in the Castlegate II Subdivision From Greens Prairie Road to Past Intersection with Victoria Avenue College Station, Texas CSC Project Number 11008 -34 Dear Mr. Laza: CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CSC) is pleased to submit to Phillips Engineering (PE), two (2) copies (one (1) original unbound document and one (1) bound photocopy) of the accompanying report describing the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study performed by CSC along the alignment of the proposed W S Phillips Parkway in College Station, Texas. The work associated with the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study associated with this project was performed in accordance with CSC's proposal to PE dated January 13, 2011. The proposal was accepted by Mr. Wallace Phillips on behalf of PE and the developer of the subdivision, 3D Development, LLC, on January 20, 2011. General Project Description. The proposed roadway will be constructed as part of development of the Castlegate II Subdivision and will extend northwest from a proposed intersection with Greens Prairie Road for a distance of approximately 4,150 feet to past a planned intersection with the extension of Victoria Drive. We understand that the proposed roadway will be functionally classified as a major collector. The roadway will be constructed within a 100 foot wide right -of -way (ROW). The paved roadway cross - section will be approximately 70 feet wide as measured from back -to -back of curb and will include four (4) drive - through or travel lanes, one turning lane, as well as bike lanes. We anticipate that the pavement for the roadway will consist of either a rigid pavement section or a flexible pavement section. Both types of pavement sections will be constructed over a chemically stabilized layer of subgrade soils. Sidewalks will be constructed on the both sides of the completed roadway section. The final grading plans associated with the proposed roadway improvements are not available at the present time, but some preliminary site grade plans have be formulated. We believe that grade adjustments by filling or excavation are not expected to vary by more than 1 to 2 feet from the present 3407 Tabor Road Phone (979) 778 -2810 Bryan, Texas 77808 Fax (979) 778 -0820 Mr. Kent M. Laza, P.E., Manager, Phillips Engineering Transmittal of Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Study for Proposed W S Phillip Parkway From Greens Prairie Road to Past Intersection with Victoria Avenue College Station, TX Page 2 surface grades, except at the proposed drainage way crossing. Some addition of fill soils will be required at the drainage way crossing in order to elevate the roadway grades above the flood plain elevation at the crossing location. The thickness of theses fill soils is anticipated to be approximately 5 feet. No specific traffic studies are known to have been conducted by the City of College Station (City) for the proposed roadway project. Such traffic studies would typically provide information for traffic volumes, patterns, and vehicle characteristics (e.g., type of vehicles, percentage of heavy truck traffic, etc.). However, we believe that the volume of the traffic that will utilize the proposed roadway will be similar to that of a major collector street as defined under the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines for Streets and Alleys. We believe that the traffic utilizing the proposed roadway will predominantly consist of light passenger vehicles with a small percentage of heavy truck traffic. Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Study. The field exploration program was initiated and completed on January 28, 2011. The field exploration program consisted of drilling eight (8) borings that were advanced to depths varying from approximately 6 feet below the existing surface grade along the major portion of the roadway route where minimum cuts or fills were anticipated, to 10 feet below the existing surface grade at the planned drainage way crossing. Geotechnical laboratory classification and strength tests were assigned to selected soil samples recovered during the field exploration program. The laboratory testing for the project was completed on February 8, 2011. The transmitted report documents the results of the field exploration and the related laboratory testing programs. Subsurface Stratigraphy. The subsurface stratigraphy was somewhat variable along the approximately 4,150 feet length of the roadway as might be expected. In general, the subsurface stratigraphy at the boring locations consisted of two distinct zones: (1) a surficial zone; and (2) a near - surface or intermediate zone. The surficial zone was composed of silty, clayey sands and clayey sands that extended to depths ranging from 0.5 to 4 feet at the various boring locations and which exhibited a relative density that could generally be described as loose. The surficial zone was underlain by thick deposits of clays and sandy clays of moderate to generally high plasticity that exhibited consistencies, i.e., strength categorizations, in the stiff to very stiff range. All of the borings were advanced using dry auger drilling techniques so that ground water levels could be monitored during and immediately following completion of drilling. No ground water was observed in any of the eight (8) boreholes during drilling or immediately following completion of the drilling operations. Report Recommendations. The report contains recommendation for both rigid and flexible pavement sections that are being considered for the proposed roadway. The recommended pavement sections were determined from the previously stated assumed traffic characterization and the anticipated natural and embankment soil subgrade conditions. The rigid pavement section is composed of a Portland cement concrete (PCC) surface course and a chemically stabilized and compacted subgrade soil layer. The flexible pavement section has a hot mix asphalt concrete (HMAC) surface course, a crushed rock base course that is also known as flex -base, and a chemically stabilized and compacted subgrade soil layer. The transmitted report presents recommendations related to construction of the proposed project including embankment fill placement and preparation of the embankment subgrade soils, stabilization of the pavement subgrade soil layer, and material characteristics and placement requirements for roadway project materials. CSC ENGINEERING 6c ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Mr. Kent M. Laza, P.E., Manager, Phillips Engineering Transmittal of Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Study for Proposed W S Phillip Parkway From Greens Prairie Road to Past Intersection with Victoria Avenue College Station, TX Page 3 Closing. CSC would like to thank you for the opportunity to be of service to Phillips Engineering and the City of College Station on this project and looks forward to continuing our working relationship in the future. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (979) 778 -2810. Kindest regards, (5)6.1 e acr i _ fres. M. Frederick Conlin, Jr., P.E. Senior Engineer MFC:rc Enclosures Via e- mail [ klaza @phillipsengineeringbcs.com] and Hand Delivery C SC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 4 ,.; CSC ENGINEERING 5c ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1.1.1 Sources of Project Information 1 1.1.2 General Description of Proposed Project 1 1.1.3 Proposed Project Grading Plans Along Roadway Alignment 2 1.1.4 Traffic Characterization 2 1.1.5 Pavement Sections 3 1.1.6 Utilities Associated With Proposed Roadway Project 3 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE EXPLORATION AND STUDY 4 1.3 LIMITATIONS OF SCOPE OF STUDY 5 1.4 REPORT FORMAT 5 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM 7 2.1 BORING LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS 7 2.2 DRILLING AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES 7 2.3 OBSERVATION OF GROUND WATER LEVELS IN BOREHOLES 8 2.4 BORING LOGS 8 2.5 SAMPLE CUSTODY 8 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM 9 3.1 CLASSIFICATION TESTS AND MOISTURE CONTENT TESTS 9 3.2 STRENGTH TESTS 9 4.0 SITE OBSERVATIONS OF SURFACE CONDITIONS ALONG ALIGNMENT OF ROADWAY AND DESCRIPTIONS OF SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY 11 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF SURFACE CONDITIONS ALONG ALIGNMENT OF ROADWAY 11 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE OR STRATIGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS 11 4.2.1 Soil Classification System Used in Subsurface Descriptions 12 4.2.2 General Description of Subsurface Stratigraphy 13 4.2.3 Limitations of General Description of Subsurface Stratigraphy 14 4.2.4 Water Level Observations 15 5.0 GENERAL PAVEMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS 17 5.1 GENERAL ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN OF PAVEMENT SECTION FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY 17 5.2 SUBGRADE CLASSIFICATION 17 5.2.1 General Discussion of Anticipated Pavement Subgrade Soils 17 5.2.2 Potential Problem Areas Of Existing Soils Within the Planned Subgrade Zone of the Pavement and Embankment 18 5.2.3 Chemical Stabilization of Roadway Pavement Subgrade Soils 19 5.3 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CHARACTERISTICS 20 5.4 PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS REQUIREMENTS 20 5.5 PAVEMENT SYSTEM DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE 23 5.5.1 Pavement Drainage 23 5.5.2 Pavement Maintenance 23 6.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 24 6.1 CLEARING OF EXISTING SURFACE VEGETATION AND STRIPPING OF SURFICIAL ORGANIC MATERIALS 24 ii CSC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX 6.2 PROOF ROLLING OF ROADWAY EMBANKMENT SUBGRADE SOILS 24 6.3 COMPACTION OF SUBGRADE SOILS IN PAVEMENT AREAS 25 6.4 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE 25 6.5 SELECT ROADWAY EMBANKMENT FILL SOILS MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PLACEMENT PROCEDURES 26 6.5.1 General 26 6.6 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS 27 6.7 FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT SECTION MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS 28 6.7.1 Flexible Pavement Base Course and Surface Course 28 6.7.2 PCC Pavement, Curb and Gutter, and Drainage Structures 28 7.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS 30 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Additional Pavement Design Values For Proposed WS Phillips Parkway 4 Table 2. Pavement Thickness Schedule for Conventionally Reinforced and Jointed PCC 21 Table 3. Pavement Thickness Schedule for Hot -Mix Asphalt Concrete (HMAC) 22 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A — Figures, Boring Logs, and Key Sheets to Terms and Symbols Used on the Boring Logs Figures Figure 1 — Project Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Plan of Borings Boring Logs B -1 through B -8 Key Sheet to Terms and Symbols Used on the Boring Logs Appendix B— Summary of Laboratory Test Results iii CSC E N G I N E E R I N G & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, I N C . Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report was prepared by CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CSC) for Phillips Engineering (PE) and documents the results of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study of geologic conditions along the route of the proposed roadway known as W S Phillips Parkway. The proposed project will involve the construction of a new roadway as part of development of the Castlegate II Subdivision and is located to the southwest of the existing Castlegate Subdivision as illustrated on Figure 1 — Project Vicinity Map in Appendix A of this report. The area of the proposed roadway extension project is hereinafter referred to as the project site, subject site, or simply "the site." The work associated with the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study associated with this project was performed in accordance with CSC's proposal to PE dated January 13, 2011. The proposal was accepted by Mr. Wallace Phillips on behalf of PE and the developer of the subdivision, 3D Development, LLC, on January 20, 2011. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1.1 Sources of Project Information Initial project information was provided in an e-mail communication of January 10, 2011 from Mr. Kent Laza, P.E., Manager of Phillips Engineering (PE), the design engineering firm for the project. The e -mail also included a plat of the proposed development illustrating the proposed roadway alignment. 1.1.2 General Description of Proposed Project CSC understands that a new road will be constructed as part of development of the Castlegate II Subdivision and that PE is the design engineering firm for the project. The proposed roadway will extend northwest from a proposed intersection with Greens Prairie Road for a distance of approximately 4,150 feet to past a planned intersection with the extension of Victoria Drive as illustrated on Figure 2 — Site Plan and Plan of Borings in Appendix A. The location of the proposed roadway intersection along Greens Prairie Road will be between two existing major roadways; Castlegate Drive and Sweetwater Drive. We understand that the proposed roadway will be functionally classified as a major collector. A major collector is defined under the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines for Streets and Alleys, which is hereinafter referred to as the Guideline. Table VI — Street Classification Definitions of the referenced Guidelines defines a major collector street as... 1 CSC ENGINEERING St ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX A street which primarily serves vehicular traffic (in the general range of 5, 000 to 10,000 VP [vehicles per day] from residential streets and minor collectors to arterials. A collector may also provide very limited access to abutting properties is approved by the City. We anticipate that the roadway will be constructed within a 100 foot wide right -of -way (ROW). We anticipate that the paved roadway cross - section will be approximately 70 feet wide as measured from back -to -back of curb. The paved roadway section will include four (4) drive- through or travel lanes, one turning lane, as well as bike lanes. We anticipate that the pavement for the roadway will consist of either a rigid pavement section or a flexible pavement section. Both types of pavement sections will be constructed over a chemically stabilized layer of subgrade soils. Sidewalks will be constructed on the both sides of the completed roadway section. 1.1.3 Proposed Project Grading Plans Along Roadway Alignment The final grading plans associated with the proposed roadway improvements are not known at the present time, but some preliminary site grading concepts have been formulated. We believe that approximately 5 feet of fill will be needed to cross the drainage way area in the central portion of the alignment in order to elevate the roadway grades at the crossing location. We anticipate that most of the remaining length of the roadway will only require less than 1 to 2 feet of excavation or fill placement in order to achieve final grades. 1.1.4 Traffic Characterization No specific traffic studies are known to have been conducted by the City of College Station (City) for the proposed roadway project. Such traffic studies would typically provide information for traffic volumes, patterns, and vehicle characteristics (e.g., type of vehicles, percentage of heavy truck traffic, etc.). However, we believe that the volume of the traffic that will utilize the proposed roadway will correspond to that of a major collector street as defined under the previously referenced Guidelines. As indicated in the previously stated definition, major collectors are defined as roadways that may have to accommodate a volume of traffic in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day. Consequently, we have assumed an average daily traffic count (ADT) of 7,500 vehicles per day for design of the proposed roadway. The traffic volume is believed to be representative for the average daily traffic volume over a 30 -year design period. The stated ADT is assumed to have already incorporated growth factors over the indicated 30 -year design period. By defmition, the ADT represents two -way traffic per day. There are two southeast directional lanes and two northwest directional lanes. Therefore, the design traffic volume for the two drive lanes in the northwest direction will be one -half of the referenced ADT, or approximately 3,750 VPD, and the 2 CSC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX design traffic volume for two southeast bound lanes would be the same number. We have assumed that approximately 80 percent of the traffic in each of the two (i.e., northwest and southeast) directional drive lanes will use the outside drive lane. The outside drive lane is sometimes referred to as the truck lane and will be considered to be the design lane for the project. Therefore, the volume of traffic in the design lane was assumed to be approximately 80 percent of the directional ADT or approximately 3,000 VPD ( -80 percent of 3,750 VPD). In addition, we anticipate that a small percentage of the traffic on the proposed roadways will of medium- to heavy - weight trucks. We believe that the percentage of heavy - weight trucks that will be part of the daily vehicle count for the proposed roadways will be in the order of 2 percent of the ADT. We believe that the percentage of trucks using the proposed roadway will be limited by the restricted connectivity of the proposed roadway with any connecting streets to the south of Greens Prairie Road. Heavy weight trucks are described as those with two (2) or more axles and six (6) or more tires. Most of the heavy - weight trucks that will utilize the proposed roadways are expected to be no larger than typical solid waste collection trucks, i.e., trucks having a single front axle and a tandem rear axle group. The maximum loading of the front axle is expected to be 20,000 pounds and the maximum loading of the tandem rear axle is expected to be 34,000 pounds that would result in a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of approximately 54,000 pounds. Only a few very heavy - weight trucks, such as large tractor - trailer combinations, are expected to utilize the roadway. The very heavy - weight trucks would have a single front axle, and a middle and rear tandem axle with similar axle loads as previously described for the heavy - weight trucks that would result in GVWs in the range of 72,000 to 80,000 pounds. Other pavement design values are presented in the following Table 1 — Other Pavement Design Values. 1.1.5 Pavement Sections As previously discussed, we believe that both rigid pavement sections and flexible pavement are being considered for construction of the proposed roadway. The rigid pavement section will consist of a surface course of Portland cement concrete (PCC) constructed over a chemically stabilized and compacted subgrade soil layer. The flexible pavement section is expected to consist of a surface course of hot mix asphalt concrete (HMAC), a base course of crushed limestone rock referred to as flex -base, and a chemically stabilized and compacted subgrade soil layer. 1.1.6 Utilities Associated With Proposed Roadway Project We do not anticipate that any public utility line construction will be associated with the proposed project. However, some underground storm sewer construction will be included with the proposed 3 CSC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX roadway but burial depths of the storm sewer piping is expected to be relatively shallow in the order of 4 to 6 feet below the existing surface grade. Table 1. Additional Pavement Design Values For Proposed WS Phillips Parkway PAVEMENT RIGID PAVEMENT FLEXIBLE DESIGN PARAMETER SECTION PAVEMENT SECTION Reliability 90 percent 90 percent Standard Deviation 0.35 0.45 28 -day Flexural Strength 650 psi -- Load Transfer, J 2.7 -- Drainage Coefficient 0.9 -- Initial Serviceability Index 4.5 4.2 Terminal Serviceability Index 2.25 2.25 The referenced traffic information was utilized to develop projections of anticipated traffic volumes, patterns, and vehicle characteristics that could be expected for the proposed roadway extension. 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE EXPLORATION AND STUDY We understand that the current geotechnical study was performed to identify subsurface conditions along the alignment of the proposed roadway. The specific objectives of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study were to: • Secure information on the general surface and subsurface conditions at the widely spaced boring locations along the length of the proposed roadway. • Evaluate the subsurface soils information developed from the field exploration and laboratory testing program. • Perform an engineering analysis of the subsurface information developed from the field exploration and laboratory testing program in order to develop recommendations for pavement design and drainage way crossing structure design associated with the proposed roadway. • Present recommendations for pavement system design and drainage crossing structure design in a written engineering report along with discussions of construction considerations. 4 CSC E N G I N E E R I N G & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, I N C . Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geoteclmical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX 1.3 LINIITATIONS OF SCOPE OF STUDY It should be recognized that the exclusive purpose of this study was to develop general recommendations for the pavement system and the drainage way crossing of the proposed roadway. This study did not directly assess, or even attempt to address, specific environmental conditions encountered at the site (e.g., the presence of waste products [except as their mechanical properties might impact the proposed pavement systems], gasoline, diesel, or other fuels or pollutants in the soil, rock, ground water, or surface waters), historical uses of the site, threatened or endangered species, or the presence of jurisdictional wetlands or "waters of the United States" on the site. These environmental conditions are typically addressed as part of separate biological studies, environmental constraints studies, environmental site assessments (ESAs), or ecological assessments (EAs). 1.4 REPORT FORMAT The following sections of this report initially present descriptions of work and test procedures employed to collect the subsurface information for the project. The later sections of the report present analysis of the information developed from the field and laboratory studies and offer recommendations for foundation support of the proposed project elements. First, descriptions of the field exploration program are presented in Section 2. Appendix A contains the project vicinity map, the project site plan and boring location map (plan of borings) that illustrates where the exploratory borings were drilled. The boring logs, which indicate the types of soils encountered at each of the boring locations and present the results of some field test procedures and observations, are also presented in Appendix A. Section 3 of the report presents a summary discussion of the laboratory tests performed for the project. The summary results of the laboratory testing program are presented in tabular form in Appendix B. Some laboratory test results are also presented numerically and symbolically on the boring logs in Appendix A. Section 4 of the report offers a description of our observations of surface conditions along the alignment of the proposed roadway at the time of the field study. A general discussion and interpretation of subsurface conditions developed from the field and laboratory studies is also presented in Section 4. Section 5 of this report presents CSC's recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed rigid and flexible pavement systems. Section 6 of the report offers a general discussion of surface and subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations that might have a significant impact upon site development and 5 CSC ENGINEERING 8c ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX construction operations. Section 6 also offers specific guidance with respect to construction material characteristics and placement requirements for the materials expected to be associated with the proposed project. Finally, Section 7 presents the basis for the recommendations given in the report and the general limitations for the information presented as part of the report. 6 CSC E N G I N E E R I N G & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, I N C . Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX Sampling of Soils for Geotechnical Purposes. Purely granular soils are typically sampled during the perform and of the standard penetration test (SPT), which involves driving a split - barrel sampler into the soil in accordance with procedures outlined in ASTM D 1586 — Standard Test Methods for Penetration Test and Split- Barrel Sampling of Soils. However, no significant thicknesses of purely granular soils wee encountered during the field exploration program and consequently, no SPTs were performed. The depths at which samples were collected, the types of samples collected, and the results of field tests are presented on the individual boring logs in Appendix A. 2.3 OBSERVATION OF GROUND WATER LEVELS IN BOREHOLES As previously mentioned, all of the boreholes were drilled using dry rotary drilling techniques so that ground water could be observed during and immediately following completion of drilling activities. The results of the ground water observations are presented in a Section 4 of this report. Following completion of drilling and short-term ground water monitoring, the boreholes were filled with soil cuttings to limit moisture infiltration into surface formations and as a safety precaution for pedestrian and animal traffic within the project area. 2.4 BORING LOGS A field geotechnical engineer was present during the field exploration to describe the subsurface stratigraphy and to note obvious anomalies in the stratigraphy that may have been present at specific bor- ing locations. Descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered at the individual boring locations are shown on the individual boring logs presented in Appendix A of this report. A "Key to Symbols and Soil Classification" sheet explaining the terms and symbols used on the logs is presented immediately following the logs. The logs represent CSC's interpretation of the subsurface conditions based upon the field geotechnical engineer's notes together with engineering observation and classification of the materi- als in the laboratory. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata represent approximate boundaries only, as transitions between materials may be gradual. 2.5 SAMPLE CUSTODY Representative soil samples recovered during the drilling operations were sealed in appropriate packaging and placed in core boxes for transportation to the laboratory for further analysis. The samples will be stored for at least 30 days following the date of this report. At the end of the 30 -day storage period, the samples will be discarded unless a written request is received from the owner requesting that the samples be stored for a longer period. 8 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Samples of subsurface materials recovered from the borings were examined and classified by the geotechnical engineer and various laboratory tests were assigned for selected samples. The laboratory tests were performed to aid in soil classification and to determine the engineering characteristics of the foundation materials. The laboratory testing study was completed on February 8, 2011. The laboratory test results are presented in a summary tabular form in Appendix B. The results of the laboratory testing programs are also presented symbolically and numerically on the individual boring logs. As previously stated, the symbols and terms used on the logs are explained both on the logs and also on the Key to Symbols and Soil Classification sheet presented immediately following the logs. 3.1 CLASSIFICATION TESTS AND MOISTURE CONTENT TESTS Tests were performed in order to classify the foundation soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487 -06 — Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), which is hereinafter referred to as the USCS, and to determine the soil - moisture profile at the boring locations. The classification tests performed consisted of Atterberg limits determinations (liquid limit and plastic limit) and grain -size distribution determinations. The Atterberg limit determinations were performed in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 4318 -05 — Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. The grain -size distribution tests were also performed to determine the percent of soil particles passing the U.S. Standard sieve size No. 200 (ASTM D 1140 -00 — Standard Test Method for Amount of Material in Soils Finer Than No. 200 (75 -pm) Sieve). The soil fractions passing the No. 200 sieve size are the silt- and clay -size particles and are generally referred to as "fines," as subsequently discussed in greater detail in Section 4. The natural moisture content of individual samples was determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2216 -05 — Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass. 3.2 STRENGTH TESTS Emphasis was also directed toward an evaluation of the strength or load - carrying capacity of the foundation soils. Strength tests were performed to develop an estimate of the undrained cohesion or c- 9 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX value of the soils. The unconfined compression test was performed in the laboratory on undisturbed samples of cohesive soils to determine the compressive strength characteristics. The test procedures outlined in ASTM D 2166 -06 — Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil were utilized. The unit dry weight was also determined for each unconfined compression test sample in accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2166. In addition, hand or pocket penetrometer tests were also performed both in the field and in the laboratory on undisturbed soil samples. The hand or pocket penetrometer tests provide only an approximate indication of the unconfined compression strength of the soils. Experience with similar soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project site has indicated that the hand penetrometer tests tend to overestimate the unconfined compression strength of the soil samples. 10 CSC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX 4.0 SITE OBSERVATIONS OF SURFACE CONDITIONS ALONG ALIGNMENT OF ROADWAY AND DESCRIPTIONS OF SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF SURFACE CONDITIONS ALONG ALIGNMENT OF ROADWAY The ground surface along the alignment of the proposed roadway is predominantly covered with woodlands. The woodlands contain numerous types of trees of varying sizes, and there is a thick underbrush beneath the tree canopy. A cleared pipeline easement that is covered with short native grasses parallels the proposed roadway alignment and is situated immediately to the northeast. The developed urban residential lots of Castlegate Subdivision lie further to the northeast. Undeveloped, heavily vegetated woodlands lie to the southwest of the proposed roadway alignment. As can be seen from a review of the topographic information on Figure 2, the ground surface elevation along the alignment of the proposed roadway are strongly influenced by the presence of the previously referenced drainage way that appears to be an un -named tributary of Spring Creek. The drainage way crosses the north - central portion of the proposed roadway alignment. The side slopes of the drainage way are flat and there was little to no water in the drainage channel at the time of the field investigation. The elevations within the drainage channel appear to slope downward in a northerly direction towards the main channel of Spring Creek which is several thousand feet north of the project site. The ground surface slopes upward from approximately EL 326 Mean Sea Level (MSL) near the proposed intersection with Greens Prairie Road to approximately EL 334 MSL at the top of a knoll of high ground near the position of boring B -7 before sloping downward in a northwesterly direction towards the drainage way and an elevation of EL 308 MSL near the location of boring B -4. The existing ground surface then slopes upward in a northwesterly direction towards EL 336 MSL at the top of a second knoll of high ground near the northwestern boundary of the project in the vicinity of boring B -1. 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE OR STRATIGRAPFIICAL CONDITIONS The subsurface stratigraphy at the boring locations drilled along the route of the proposed roadway is presented in detail on the individual boring logs in Appendix A. The individual boring logs should be consulted for a detailed description of the stratigraphy at a particular location along the alignment of the proposed roadway. The engineering descriptions and classifications used to describe the stratigraphy followed the general guidelines of the previously referenced USCS as discussed in more 11 CSC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX detail in the following Section 4.2.1 of this report. A general and idealized description of the stratigraphy present at the boring locations based upon the USCS is presented in Section 4.2.2 of this report. 4.2.1 Soil Classification System Used in Subsurface Descriptions The soils comprising the proposed roadway subgrade and foundation zones were generally classified in accordance with the criteria set forth in the previously referenced USCS. Classification of the soils was primarily based upon the test results derived from the laboratory classification testing of the various soil strata within the stratigraphy, but visual and manual classification of some of the soils was also utilized in conformance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2488 -00 — Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual- Manual Procedure). As previously discussed, the laboratory performed classification tests consisted of determining the percent "fmes" of the soils and of determining the Atterberg limits of the soils. The percentages of fines, i.e., the silt- and clay -size particles, were measured by determining the percentage of soils that would pass through or be "finer than" the No. 200 U.S. Standard sieve size. The openings in the No. 200 sieve are approximately 75 -gm (microns) which roughly corresponds to the smallest size soil particle that can be seen by the "naked" eye (i.e., unaided by a microscope). The particles that are retained on the No. 200 sieve are generally referred to as granular soils and consist of sands and gravels. Thus, the portion of the sample that does not consist of fmes represents granular soils, and typically only of sands. Soils with a percent fines content of 50 percent or greater would classify as clays or silts under the USCS. Conversely, by definition, sands and/or gravels would have a percentage of fines of less than 50 percent. Sands are designated by the letter S under the USCS and modifiers such as M or C are used to designate silty sands (SM) or clayey sands (SC), respectively. "Pure" sands are given the designators W and P to represent well graded sands (SW) or poorly graded sands (SP). The Atterberg limit tests are cumulatively defmed as consisting of the liquid limit (LL) test and the plastic limit (PL) test, along with the shrinkage limit test. Only the more common LL and PL tests were performed as part of the classification testing of the present study. These limits distinguish the boundaries of the several consistency states of plastic soils. The LL represents the moisture content at which the soil is on the verge of being a viscous fluid (i.e., a "very wet" condition), and the PL represents the moisture content at which the soil behaves as a non - plastic material (i.e., a "slightly moist" condition). The plasticity index (PI) of soil is defined as the range of moisture contents at which the soil behaves as a plastic material and is defmed as the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit (LL - PL = PI). The magnitude of the PI of a soil is typically considered to be an indication of the clay content and the volumetric change (shrink- swell) potential of the soils (although the volumetric change can also vary with the type of clay mineral and the nature of the ions adsorbed on the clay surface). 12 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX Although the soil classifications utilized in the subsequently presented descriptions and discussions generally follow the criteria established by the current USCS, there is one exception with respect to clays. Under the current USCS, highly plastic clays with a LL value equal to or greater than 50 are given a CH designation (C for clays and H for high plasticity) and clays with a LL value of less than 50 are given a CL designation (C for clays and L for low plasticity). However, when Arthur Casagrande performed the original work for the soil classification system, he proposed an intermediate classification in which clays with LL values between 30 and 49 were termed CM (M for moderate) soils, or clays of moderate plasticity. Therefore, clays of moderate plasticity that have LL values ranging between 30 and 49 have been designated by the letters CM in the following discussions in accordance with the originally proposed USCS. Although not adopted by ASTM, the CM designation is still sometimes used to describe in greater detail the soils with plasticities between the low and high ranges. 4.2.2 General Description of Subsurface Stratigraphy The subsurface stratigraphy was somewhat variable along the approximately 4,150 feet length of the roadway as might be expected. In general, the subsurface stratigraphy at the boring locations consisted of a surficial layer of silty, clayey sands and clayey sands that was underlain by clays of moderate to generally high plasticity. However, there were important variations in the subsurface stratigraphy both horizontally between the different boring locations and also vertically with depth at any single boring location. The subsurface stratigraphy can generally be divided into two (2) distinct zones: (1) a surficial zone that extended to depths ranging from 0.5 to 4 feet at the various boring locations and which contained granular soils that consisted of silty, clayey sands and clayey sands that typically exhibited a loose relative density; and (2) a near - surface or intermediate zone composed of strong clays and sandy clays of moderate to high plasticity that extended from immediately below the bottom of the surficial zone to the maximum exploration depths ranging from 6 to 10 feet below the surface at the various boring locations. Each of these zones is described in more detail in the following sub - sections of this report. Surficial Zone. The surficial zone extended from the ground surface to depths range from 0.5 feet to 4 feet at the various boring locations and consisted of both silty sand and clayey sands. The sands were present in greatest thickness in the northwestern portion of the project (borings B -5, B -6, and B -7). The sands were generally dark brown, to brown, to tan, to light in color. Laboratory classification tests were performed on samples of soil recovered from the surficial zone. The laboratory classification tests indicated that the percent fmes within the soils was high and ranged from 19.5 to 49.2 percent. Since fines are described as silt and clay sized particles, the percentage of the soil samples that are not considered as fmes will represent the sand and gravel portions of the samples, with the sands generally being much more common than the gravels. Therefore, the samples of 13 CSC ENGINEERING at ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geoteclmical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX the surficial zone soils that were tested in the laboratory exhibited a wide variation in sand content that ranged from 50.8 percent (100 percent total soil sample — 49.2 percent fines = 50.8 percent sands) to 80.5 percent (100 percent total soil sample — 19.5 percent fines = 80.5 percent sands). As previously discussed, the fines represent either silts or clays. The Atterberg limit test results indicated that the fines present within the sands ranged from silts to clays. The LL values of the tested soils ranged from 19 to 43, and the corresponding PI values ranged from 5 to 26. The sands therefore classified as either SC type soils, i.e., as clayey sands, or as SC -SM type soils, i.e., silty, clayey sands, under both the originally proposed USCS and the current USCS. Based upon the results of the pocket penetrometer tests performed on the sands, the relative density of the sands was estimated to vary from loose to dense, but to generally be in a loose condition. Near- Surface or Intermediate Zone. The near - surface or intermediate zone extended from immediately below the surficial zone to depths ranging from 6 to 10 feet at the boring locations. The soils present within the near - surface or intermediate zone ranged in color from tan, to brown, to grayish- brown, to dark tan, to dark brown, to dark grayish- brown, to dark reddish - brown. The soils within the near- surface or intermediate zone typically consisted of clays or sandy clays of moderate to high plasticity. The results of the laboratory classification tests performed on samples of the clayey soils of the near - surface or intermediate zone indicated that the clays exhibited LL values that varied widely from 20 to 72, although most of the LL values were above 50. The corresponding PI values ranged from 6 to 50 with most of the PI values being above 25. The measured percentage of fines in the clays also generally varied widely from 66.0 to 87.9 percent. Therefore, the clay samples exhibited a wide variation in sand content that ranged from 12.1 to 34.0 percent. The laboratory tests results indicated that the majority of the clays classified as clays of high plasticity, i.e., as CH type soils both the originally proposed USCS as well as the current USCS. Some of the soils also classified as clays of low plasticity, or CL type soils under the current USCS, or as clays of low medium plasticity, i.e., as CL to CM type soils, under the originally proposed USCS. The results of the unconfined compression test and the pocket penetrometer tests indicated that the consistency of the clays ranged from stiff to very stiff and generally was very stiff. 4.2.3 Limitations of General Description of Subsurface Stratigraphy The previously described generalized stratigraphy was utilized in the analysis as described in subsequent sections of this report. As previously indicated, it should be recognized that there may be some variations in the generalized stratigraphy between the boring locations along the length of the proposed roadway alignment. Furthermore, subsurface conditions are known to be variable in proximity to drainage ways. Consequently, soil conditions encountered along the portions of the proposed roadway alignment in proximity to the planned crossing of the existing drainage way may vary from the conditions encountered at the boring locations drilled at the high banks and other portions of the drainage way. 14 CSC ENGINEERING 5c ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX 4.2.4 Water Level Observations As previously discussed, all of the borings were advanced using dry auger drilling techniques to the maximum depths of exploration which varied from 6 to 10 feet below the existing ground surface. No ground water was observed in any of the eight (8) boreholes during drilling or immediately following completion of the drilling operations. All of the boreholes were subsequently filled following completion of the ground water observations as a safety measure for animals and/or pedestrians crossing the drill site. The borings were filled with soils cuttings. Therefore, longer term ground water readings could not be obtained for the project. It is also worth noting that there were some granular soils, i.e., silty sands or clayey sands, encountered in the surficial zone at most of the boring locations. Sand seams were also present in the clay formations comprising the near - surface or intermediate zone of the stratigraphy. Sand strata and sand seams are significant in that they are typical of water bearing zones that can hold and /or transmit ground water. In addition, seams of sands and fissures or cracks in the clay formations can also be sources of ground water. Consequently, it is possible that although no ground water was present within the depths of exploration at the time of the field study, some ground water could be encountered in the sand strata and within the sand seams or fissures present within the clay formations at the time of construction, especially if some of the climatological conditions favorable to ground water development as discussed in the following paragraph are present. It is important to recognize that ground water elevations may vary both seasonally and annually. As previously indicated, the absence of ground water at the time of the field study or the presence of ground water at specific observed depths does not mean that ground water will not be present or will be present at the same observed depths at the time of construction. Ground water elevations at any site are known to fluctuate with time and are dependent upon numerous factors. Ground water levels can be af- fected by such factors as the following, among others: (1) the amount of precipitation in the immediate vicinity of the project site and in the regional ground water recharge area; (2) the amount of infiltration of precipitation through the surface and near- surface soils; (3) the degree of evapotranspiration from surface vegetation at the project site; (4) the water levels in adjacent bodies of water, such as the un -named tributary of Spring Creek; (5) any dewatering operations on adjacent sites; and (6) the construction and post - development site drainage schemes which will influence the volume of storm water runoff directed towards, around, or away from the project site. The amount of precipitation that occurs immediately prior to the start of construction and also during the time frame of construction is especially important and will strongly influence ground water conditions that are experienced during construction operations. 15 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX Furthermore, it should be understood that ground water information determined during this study was obtained to evaluate potential short term impacts on construction activities and should not be considered a comprehensive assessment of ground water conditions at the site. Consequently, as previously emphasized, the ground water levels observed at the time of the field investigation may vary from the levels encountered both during the construction phase of the project and also during the design life of the proposed project. Also as previously discussed, the long -term ground water levels may be somewhat dependent upon any changes to the existing storm water runoff patterns at the site caused by construction of the subject project or adjacent projects. If the long -term variation of the ground water level is critical to some design aspect of the proposed project, an extended hydrogeologic study involving the installation and long -term monitoring of piezometers should be undertaken to better define the pertinent ground water conditions at the site that may influence the design. 16 CSC ENGINEERING 8c ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX 5.0 GENERAL PAVEMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the report presents our analysis and recommendations for foundation support of the paving system for the proposed roadway. 5.1 GENERAL ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN OF PAVEMENT SECTION FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design procedure was used to compute the pavement thickness requirements for the rigid and flexible pavement sections being considered for the proposed roadway. We have assumed that both pavement sections would include a chemically- stabilized subgrade soil layer. The anticipated traffic loads and the load - carrying characteristics of the expected subgrade soils were used to determine required constructed thicknesses for both the rigid pavement section and the flexible pavement section as discussed in the following sub - sections of this report. 5.2 SUBGRADE CLASSIFICATION 5.2.1 General Discussion of Anticipated Pavement Subgrade Soils As previously indicated in Section 1 of this report, the final grading plans for the proposed roadway improvements are not known at the present time. However, the preliminary site grading plans indicate that most of the length of the roadway will only require less than 1 to 2 feet of excavation or fill placement in order to achieve fmal subgrade elevations, except at the proposed drainage way crossing. Approximately 5 feet of fill will be needed to cross the un -named tributary of Spring Creek in the north - central portion of the roadway alignment. The fill will be placed as an earthen "embankment" that will permit the elevation of the roadway pavement surface above the flood plain at the crossing location. We believe that "embankment" fill soils will be placed over the existing soils in the drainage channel, unless the existing soils are not sufficiently strong to be able to support the proposed "embankment." Consequently, we anticipate that the proposed roadway will be constructed on both natural soils and on an "embankment" of fill soils in the area of the proposed drainage way crossing. As previously indicated, based upon the borings drilled along the route of the proposed roadway, silty, clayey sands and clayey sands will be present in the surficial zone of the stratigraphy that extends to depths ranging from 0.5 to 4 feet below the existing ground surface at the various boring locations. These fine sandy and silty soils can develop very poor load support characteristics and can be very difficult to 17 CSC ENGINEERING SC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX compact if they are in a very moist to wet condition at the time of construction. Very moist to wet silty and fme sandy soils will tend to exhibit "pumping" characteristics as subsequently discussed. The soils underlying the surficial sands consisted of clays that are generally of moderate to high plasticity. The natural clays are expected to have relatively high PI values of 25 or higher, although the PI of some soils may be as low as 6 (boring B -6 location). We also anticipate that the embankment at the drainage way crossing will be constructed of imported clay soils of moderate to high plasticity. Recommended properties of the clay fill soils are presented in Section 6 of this report. The embankment itself will be constructed over existing soils that will represent the subgrade for the earthen embankment (but not the pavement section subgrade). Potential problems with both the roadway subgrade soils and the embankment subgrade soils that could adversely impact the construction of the proposed embankment are discussed in the following sub- section of this report. In the case of both the natural soils and the imported fill soils, we anticipate that the subgrade soil layer will be improved when the soils are chemically stabilized and compacted as subsequently recommended. The chemically stabilized and compacted subgrade soils will provide adequate support for the proposed pavement section. 5.2.2 Potential Problem Areas Of Existing Soils Within the Planned Subgrade Zone of the Pavement and Embankment The nature of the surficial soils of the stratigraphy along the alignment of the proposed roadway is very important since these soils will impact the design and construction of the both the roadway pavement and the earthen embankment being constructed as part of the proposed roadway project. For example, as previously discussed in Sections 4.2 and 5.2.1 of this report, the surficial soils at all of the boring locations consisted of either granular soils or clayey soils with a high percentage of silts and/or fine sands. The surficial zone soils generally extended from the existing ground surface to depths ranging from approximately 0.5 to 4 feet. Surficial silty and fine sandy soils of low cohesion that were present can be difficult to process and compact if the soils are in a very moist to wet condition at the time of construction. Surficial silts and fme sands that are underlain by clay formations have a tendency to trap rainwater and to "pump" when compacted. Pumping refers to the condition when the energy applied during the compaction of the soils is transferred into the relatively incompressible water trapped within the void spaces of the silt or fme sand soil matrix and not to the soil structure itself. Thus, the compaction energy is "absorbed" by the water within the void spaces of the soil structure and not by the actual soil structure. As a result, the soil 18 CSC ENGINEERING 8c ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX structure undergoes little or no densification under the applied energy of compaction. Rather, the compaction energy is transferred laterally within the water mass to produce a "wave" in the soil water that resembles a "water bed" effect. As a result, the silts and fine sands can remain in a loose condition and will not provide adequate subgrade support for either the roadway pavement or the roadway embankment. Furthermore, although the clay soils along the bank of the drainage channel at the boring B -4 location were relatively strong and exhibited consistencies in the range of stiff to very stiff, it is possible that weaker clays with a soft to firm consistency could be encountered across the bottom of the drainage channel in some areas of the proposed earthen embankment location. If such weak soils are encountered during construction, we recommend that these potentially weak and difficult to process soils be stripped from the areas of proposed construction and replaced with select roadway embankment fill soils as subsequently specified. Consequently, we strongly recommend that the existing weak surficial soils present either along the planned roadway alignment or in the area of the embankment at the drainage way crossing be stripped from the site to at least the previously indicated depths at the boring locations. Deeper depths of stripping may be required along portions of the roadway alignment to effectively remove all of the weak surficial soils. The stripped soils should be replaced with select roadway embankment fill soils as subsequently defined in this report. If the existing weak surficial soils and any associated organic matter are not removed, they may be very difficult to process and compact if they are wet at the time of construction. In addition, any ground- supported roadway elements such as the embankment that are supported on such soils could experience appreciable movements due to the weak and compressible character of the subgrade soils. The movement could result in some distress to the supported pavement system. 5.2.3 Chemical Stabilization of Roadway Pavement Subgrade Soils The addition and processing of chemical - stabilizing agents, such as hydrated lime, fly ash, and/or Portland cement, into the pavement subgrade soils can increase the strength and volumetric stability of the soils within the treated subgrade zone, especially with compaction of the chemically - altered soils. Consequently, we strongly recommend that the subgrade soils for the proposed roadway pavement section be chemically stabilized. If the subgrade soils are not chemically stabilized, there may be a significant loss of subgrade support if the unstabilized soils become wet and saturated during the design life of the pavement system. Accordingly, we have assumed in our analysis that the subgrade soils will be chemically stabilized and compacted to a depth of at least 8 inches below the surface of the subgrade layer to improve the support capacity for the subgrade layer. The chemical used to stabilize the subgrade soils will depend upon the character of the subgrade soils. If the subgrade soils consist of clays or sandy clays of moderate to high plasticity with a minimum PI value of 20 as anticipated over the major portion of the roadway, these types of soils can readily be 19 CSC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX stabilized by the addition of hydrated lime. Details concerning material characteristics and placement procedures for a lime- stabilized subgrade are presented in Section 6.6 of this report. However, it should be noted that soils with PI values lower than 20 may also be encountered in some areas along the proposed roadway alignment. Subgrade soils with PI values between 7 and 19 should be stabilized with a mixture of Type A hydrated lime or Type C quick lime and Class C fly ash. Similarly, if subgrade soils have PI values of 7 or less they should be stabilized with either Class C fly ash or with Portland cement mixture. Specific percentages of the stabilizing agents for preliminary planning purposes and other recommendations for chemical stabilization of the subgrade soils are presented in Section 6.6 5.3 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CHARACTERISTICS The traffic volume used in the pavement design analyses for the proposed roadway was based upon the assumptions outlined in Section 1 of this report. The characterization of the vehicles that are believed to comprise the traffic using the proposed roadway was also presented in Section 1. In addition, other traffic information that was required for the design of pavement sections was discussed in Section 1 of this report. The loading for all the different types of vehicles that may travel over the paved surface of the roadway is typically expressed in terms of a "unit" single axle load. The unit term is known as the equivalent 18 kips single -axle load, or ESALs. ESALs provide a means of expressing traffic loading from numerous types of vehicles with various axle configurations and loadings in terms of unit 18 kips single - axle loads. Thus, every vehicle, no matter what the axle loading, can be expressed as a number of 18 kips equivalent single -axle load units. For example, passenger cars with single -axle loads of 1 kip can have an ESAL of 0.00018, whereas a large truck with a single -axle loading of 20 kips can have an ESAL of 1.51. The traffic loading for the present project was calculated using the previously discussed traffic conditions, the subgrade strength properties (assuming that the subgrade soils will be chemically stabilized), and assumed typical paving material strength properties and reliability factors. The ESALs were computed for a 30 -year design period for the rigid pavement system and for 20 -year design period for the flexible pavement system based upon the estimated average daily traffic volume and other traffic characteristics listed in Section 1. 5.4 PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS REQUIREMENTS The pavement calculations utilized the previously discussed traffic conditions as expressed by the ESALs, the previously indicated subgrade strength properties (assuming that the subgrade soils will be 20 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX chemically stabilized and compacted to a minimum depth of 8 inches in accordance with the provisions of a subsequent section of this report), and assumed typical paving material strength properties and reliability factors. The required total pavement thicknesses were computed for both rigid and flexible pavement systems and are presented separately in the following tables. The recommended rigid pavement section for the proposed roadway consists of a two -layer system that incorporates a surface course of PCC and a subgrade layer composed of chemically stabilized and compacted soils. The minimum thicknesses for the various layers of the rigid pavement section are presented in the following Table 2. Table 2. Pavement Thickness Schedule for Conventionally Reinforced and Jointed PCC Thickness (inches) Note 1 Material Description 7.0 Note 2 Reinforced Portland cement concrete surface course Note 3 8.0 Compacted chemically- stabilized subgrade soils Note 4 15.0 Total constructed pavement thickness Notes: 1. The design section for entrances to adjoining property driveways and tie -ins to intersecting city and state roadways may differ from those presented in the table, and should be established based on applicable requirements. 2. The Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines for Streets and Alleys (2009) specifies a minimum "concrete pavement" thickness of 8 inches and a minimum subgrade treatment of "6 -in Lime-Stab." For streets classified as collectors. 3. Concrete assumed to have a minimum modulus of rupture (as determined in a third point beam loading test) corresponding to 650 psi (approximately equivalent to concrete with a 28 -day compressive strength of 4,000 psi). 4. The requirements for compaction and chemical stabilization of the subgrade soils are presented in Section 6. The recommended pavement section presented in the table represents the minimum required thicknesses for the planned roadway. It should be noted (as indicated in the footnotes to the table) that the Bryan /College Station Unified Design Guidelines for Streets and Alleys (2009) may specify a greater thickness of pavement section for certain street classifications than indicated by the calculated minimum required thicknesses. Also note that tie -in sections to existing streets or highways should be made in accordance with applicable city /state design criteria if these section thicknesses are greater than indicated in the table. All of the concrete paving should be reinforced with steel reinforcing bars to minimize temperature and shrinkage cracking, to discourage widening of any cracks that may form, and to aid in transferring loads across joints. We recommend that the PCC paving be reinforced with a minimum of #4 reinforcing steel bars placed at the mid -point of the paving section at spacings corresponding to 18 inches on- center, each way as specified in the Bryan/College Station Unified Construction Details for Streets (2009), which is hereinafter cited as B /CS Unified Details. In addition, adequate jointing of the concrete pavement should be included in the design and construction of the pavement system. Concrete pavement should be segmented by the use of control or 21 CSC E N G I N E E R I N G & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, I N C . Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX contraction joints placed a recommended spacing of 12 feet center to center and a maximum spacing of 15 feet. Keyed and doweled longitudinal joints should be located in all roadway sections greater than one lane (10 to 13 feet) in width. Expansion and/or construction joints should be placed at a maximum spacing of 120 -foot intervals. Expansion joints should not be placed through the middle of area inlet boxes in the pavement. Isolation joints should be placed between the pavement and all existing or permanent structures (such as retaining walls or drainage inlets). All joints should be sealed with Sonoborn Sonolastic SL1 (or equivalent) to minimize infiltration of surface water to the underlying subgrade soils. Please note that the B /CS Unified Details may require a closer spacing of joints than recommended in this report. If the proposed roadway will have to carry a significant percentage of truck traffic, we recommend that strong consideration be given to the use of a rigid pavement section for the heavy traffic lanes since the PCC section tends to require less maintenance under moderate to heavy truck loading than flexible pavement systems. If it is anticipated that the truck traffic will exceed the previously indicated volumes and vehicle weights, then the wearing surfaces of the rigid pavement section should be increased to 8 inches. If it is determined that a flexible pavement system would provide the more economical section for the proposed roadway, we recommend the pavement section outlined in Table 3 be employed for the roadway. Table 3. Pavement Thickness Schedule for Hot -Mix Asphalt Concrete (HMAC) Thickness (in) 1 Material Description 4.0 HMAC (Item 340), To consist of 2" of Type D and 2" of Type C Note 2 8.0 Compacted crushed limestone base (Item 247), Type A, Grade 1 Notes 2,3 8.0 Compacted chemically - stabilized subgrade soils Note 4 20.0 Total constructed pavement thickness Notes: 1. The design section for entrances to adjoining property driveways and tie -ins to intersecting city and state roadways may differ from those presented in this table and should be established based on applicable requirements. Tie -in sections may be required to be constructed of rigid pavement. 2. Item number refers to sections of the Texas Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges, June 1, 2004. 3. The base course should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum density achievable in the Modified Proctor Moisture- Density (Compaction) test (ASTM D 1557) at moisture contents in the range of the optimum moisture content to +4% of the optimum moisture content. 4. The requirements for compaction and chemical stabilization of the subgrade soils are presented in Section 9. The edges or periphery of pavement sections are a natural weak point due to the lack of edge support beyond the paved area. Parallel cracks in the pavement section along the edge of many paved areas are a common indication of partial edge failure. Some provision for support of the edge of the paved 22 CSC ENGINEERING 8c ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX areas should be included in the current design plans. The most common means of edge support is a PCC curb and gutter. In addition, we recommend that the exterior boundary of the chemically - stabilized subgrade layer extend at least 2 feet beyond the edge of the pavement surface layer. These extensions will help to minimize the formation of edge cracks in the pavement system due to either a lack of boundary support under wheel loading as previously discussed or due to shrinking of subgrade soils away from the outer edge of the pavement during dry weather and the subsequent loss of subgrade support. 5.5 PAVEMENT SYSTEM DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE 5.5.1 Pavement Drainage The control of surface drainage and sometimes even ground water drainage is a critical factor in the performance of a pavement system. Adequate provisions for surface and subsurface drainage should be included in the pavement design scheme. Drainage provisions should include the following, among other items and features: a steeply graded pavement surface to quickly transport storm water to collection or discharge points that drain away from the paved areas; an adequate number of storm water catch basins or curb inlets in the paved areas to capture the storm water; and adequately sized storm sewer piping. In addition, landscaping or "green" areas and other potential sources for moisture infiltration within the limits of the paved areas should be minimized. The landscape waterings in these "green" areas should be carefully controlled to minimize the introduction of excess moisture into the pavement subgrade soils. 5.5.2 Pavement Maintenance The owner should institute and budget for a regular maintenance program for the paved areas. Regular pavement maintenance is a prerequisite for achieving acceptable performance levels over the anticipated life of the pavement system. Cracks occurring in the surface course of the pavement should be sealed as soon as they occur in order to minimize storm water infiltration into the underlying pavement system layers and subsequent degradation of performance. Sealants that can withstand exterior exposures, such as Sonoborn SL -1 for rigid pavements sections or rubberized asphalt sealants for flexible pavement sections, should be considered for these purposes. A periodic inspection program should be conducted to identify the formation of cracks, eroded areas, and other indications of pavement distress, such as ruts, pot holes, areas of ponded water, etc. The need for possible patching and overlaying of the pavement system should be anticipated over the expected life of the pavement. 23 CSC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX 6.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS General construction recommendations for various aspects of the construction phase of the proposed project are offered in the following sub - sections of this report. These items should be considered "minimum standards" and are intended to be used in conjunction with the project specifications developed by the design engineer. 6.1 CLEARING OF EXISTING SURFACE VEGETATION AND STRIPPING OF SURFICIAL ORGANIC MATERIALS The existing vegetation, which includes grass and any bushes or trees, as well as all organic topsoils, should be stripped from the area of proposed paved area and the proposed roadway embankment in order to reduce the potential detrimental effects of these organic materials on the proposed pavement systems and roadway embankments. In addition and as previously discussed, we recommend that all of the potentially weak surficial zone soils with high percentages of fines and low clay contents be stripped from the construction areas. Special attention should be directed during the stripping operations to the removal of all roots. It is very important to remove the major root systems associated with any large trees that are either present on the site or which may have been previously present on the site. Removal of the root systems of large trees should include all desiccated soils present within the "root bulbs" of such trees. The clearing and stripping operations should also include the removal of any existing organic materials or "muck" that may be present in the existing drainage way that crosses the proposed roadway alignment. Any identified organic materials or "muck" should be excavated and removed from the site. The excavated organic materials and topsoils should either be removed from the site or stockpiled and used in landscaped areas that will not have to support structural elements. If the existing organic materials and topsoils are not removed from the site prior to construction of the paved roadway area and embankment, it is possible that these existing materials will interfere with the proposed construction and could potentially adversely impact the future performance of the proposed roadway pavement systems and embankment. 6.2 PROOF ROLLING OF ROADWAY EMBANKMENT SUBGRADE SOILS All surfaces exposed after the stripping of the vegetation and topsoils and planned for fill placement should then be proof - rolled with a 20 -ton pneumatic roller or equivalent vehicle in order to identify soft or weak areas of soils, especially in the areas of the existing drainage way. Any soft or weak 24 CSC E N G I N E E R I N G & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, I N C . Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX soils identified during the proof rolling process should be excavated down to "firm" ground, removed from the project site, and replaced with compacted select embankment fill that meets the material characteristics and that is placed in accordance with the recommendations subsequently presented in Section 6.5. Over - excavated areas or areas of depressions created by the removal of tree root bulbs or existing utilities that are to be replaced or relocated should also be backfilled with compacted select roadway embankment fill. The reasons for proof - rolling of the subgrade is that some soils have been found to compact to minimum density requirements but to still exhibit "pumping" tendencies. Proof - rolling of the subgrade should identify the soils that have a tendency to pump so that they can be removed and replaced with more suitable foundation soils 6.3 COMPACTION OF SUBGRADE SOILS IN PAVEMENT AREAS The subgrade soils in areas planned for fill placement, which includes the roadway embankment, should be compacted following proof -roll testing to at least 95 percent of the maximum density determined by the previously referenced Standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 698 -07e1 — Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft- lbf /ft (600 kN- m/m at moisture contents in the range of the OMC to 4 percent above the OMC, inclusive. Compaction characteristics of the subgrade layer in the general fill areas or in the embankment areas should be verified by in -place density tests. The tests should be performed at an average rate of one test for every 5,000 sq ft in the planned embankment base area or for every 300 linear feet of roadway alignment, whichever criterion produces the greater testing frequency. 6.4 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE As previously mentioned, the surface soils in some areas of the project may consist of silt and sands that are in a wet condition at the time of construction. As discussed in Section 5.2 of this report, these silty and sandy soils will exhibit poor load - bearing characteristics with increased moisture contents, such as could occur after periods of heavy and/or prolonged precipitation. Consequently, the contractor should make early efforts to crown and grade the surface of the paved areas as soon as possible following stripping of the surface vegetation to promote positive drainage away from proposed embankment and paved areas during construction. Inadequate site preparation and protection of roadway pavement and embankment subgrade soils has been associated with numerous distressed paving systems in this area since the structural layers of the pavement and the roadway embankment are supported on the subgrade soils. In no event should water be allowed to pond next to the paved areas or the area of the embankment. Also, consideration should be given to the stabilization of the exposed soils within ground- supported 25 CSC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX pavement areas or in embankment fill areas as soon as possible. Weak or unsuitable surficial soils in these areas should be removed and replaced with select roadway embankment fill soils as previously recommended and as subsequently detailed. The replacement scenario should be consistent with compaction requirements outlined in Section 6.5. As previously discussed, storm water generated by development of the project should be managed to ensure that precipitation runoff does not pond in the work areas but is routed away from the construction areas and discharged downstream of the work areas into existing storm drainage systems. Provisions should be made to the maximum extent possible to discourage utility trenches serving as pathways for water to migrate from outside to beneath the paved areas. Sloping the bottom of the utility trench away from the paved areas and the use of anti -seep collars (such as thin, vertical "sheets" of compacted clay) should be considered. 6.5 SELECT ROADWAY EMBANKMENT FILL SOILS MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PLACEMENT PROCEDURES 6.5.1 General Any fill used to adjust grades in the paved areas, to construct roadway the embankment, to fill existing depression, or to fill over - excavated areas should conform to the requirements of select roadway embankment fill. Select roadway embankment fill is defined as materials that meet the following criteria with respect to material and placement requirements for the fill: • Selected fill material used for roadway embankment construction should consist of a moderate plasticity material with a PI between 20 and 40, inclusive, and a LL value of between 35 and 60, inclusive. The select fill soils should classify as clays of moderate plasticity or CL type soils under the current USCS (and as CM type soils under the originally proposed USCS), or as clays within the lower range of high plasticity, or CH type soils under both the current and the originally proposed USCS. The minimum PI value of 20 should help to discourage storm water from infiltrating into the soils of the embankment or into the pavement subgrade. • Soils containing an excessive amount of silt (i.e., greater than approximately 20 to 25 percent) should not be used unless there is a corresponding percentage of clay to "balance" the potential negative effects of the silt. Soils classifying as ML, OL, MH, OH, or PT type soils under the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487) shall not be used as fill. • The fill soils placed in embankments and exposed to impounded water should also be characterized as non - dispersive soils. The non - dispersive character of the soils should be documented through the performance of pinhole dispersion tests (ASTM D 4647). • Compaction of the structural fill should be at moisture contents in the range of the OMC to 4 percent above the OMC, inclusive, and should be in lifts not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Density should be at least 95 percent of the maximum 26 CSC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX dry density as determined by the previously referenced Standard Proctor compaction test, ASTM D 698. • Compaction characteristics of the roadway embankment fill should be verified by in- place density tests. The tests should be performed on each 6 -inch -thick lift at an average rate of one test for every 5,000 ft of plan roadway area or every 300 linear feet of roadway, whichever produces the greater frequency of testing. 6.6 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS The pavement design recommendations presented in a previous section were developed assuming that the subgrade soil layer would be chemically stabilized and otherwise prepared as listed below and that the various materials comprising the pavement section would comply with the material requirements and would be constructed in accordance with the specifications listed below. The specifications include recommendations for chemical stabilization of the subgrade soils in the paved areas. If the subgrade soils in the paving area at the site are wet and not easily workable at the time of construction, the soils can also be chemically stabilized as a construction expedient. • A minimum depth of stabilization of 8 inches is recommended. • The pavement subgrade soils will likely consist of clays of moderate to high plasticity with PI values = or > 20). These soils should be stabilized with Type A hydrated lime or Type C quick lime. For preliminary planning purposes, the amount of lime to be added to the soils can be estimated to be approximately 6 percent. The percentage is measured with respect to dry soil unit weight. For example, for a subgrade soil layer of 8 inches in thickness that has a unit dry weight of approximately 100 pcf, approximately 36 lb /yd of hydrated lime should be used in the mixture. • If any of the pavement subgrade soils consists of clayey sands or very sandy clays of intermediate plasticity (i.e., 7 < PI < 20), these intermediate plasticity soils should be stabilized with a mixture of Type A hydrated lime or Type C quick and Class C fly ash in equal parts. For preliminary planning purposes, we recommend that 3 percent hydrated lime and 3 percent fly ash be used as the stabilizing mixture. The percentages are measured with respect to dry soil unit weight. For example, for a subgrade soil layer of 8 inches in thickness that has a unit dry weight of approximately 100 pcf, approximately 18 lb /yd of hydrated lime and 18 lb /yd of fly ash should be used in the mixture. • Similarly, in the unlikely event that nearly "pure" granular soils of low plasticity (i.e., PI < 7) are present in some of the areas to be paved, these soils should be stabilized with Class C fly ash at a rate of 12 percent as measured by dry weight of soil (72 lb /yd for a lift of 8 inches thickness). Alternately, approximately 5 percent Type I Portland may be used in lieu of the fly ash. • Stabilization procedures should be in accordance with the Texas Department of Transportation's Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges (June 2004) Item 260, Lime Treatment For Material Used As Subgrade (Road Mixed), Type A Treatment specification, or Item 265, Lime -Fly Ash (LFA) Treatment For Materials Used As Subgrade. Modifications to 27 CSC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX this specification should include a minimum of 48 hours of tempering time before fmal mixing, a minimum of 60 percent of the lime /soil mixture passing a No. 4 sieve before compaction, and a restriction against the use of carbide or byproduct lime. • The stabilized layer should extend at least 2 feet beyond the curb or pavement edge. This extension of the stabilized area will assist in the formation of a moisture barrier and will help reduce moisture fluctuations in the underlying expansive soils. • Compaction of the stabilized fill soils meeting the requirements presented herein should be at moisture contents within the range of the OMC to 4 percent above the OMC, inclusive. Density should be at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the previously standard Proctor compaction test, ASTM D 698. • The recommended percentages of lime, fly ash and cement to be admixed with the subgrade soils should be confirmed by specific laboratory tests performed at the time of construction. 6.7 FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT SECTION MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS The pavement materials used for the proposed roadway construction should comply with the material requirements outlined in the Texas Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges (2004) (hereinafter abbreviated as SSCMHSTB) and in the current version of the joint Bryan/College Station Unified Technical Specifications (2009). More specifically, the following pavement material types, properties, and placement procedures are recommended for the various pavement section materials. 6.7.1 Flexible Pavement Base Course and Surface Course Base Course • The base course in a flexible pavement section should consist of crushed limestone aggregate base that meets or exceeds the requirements of SDHPT Item 247 — Flexible Base, Grade I. Compaction of the base material should be at a moisture content that is at the optimum moisture content to 4 percent above the OMC, and to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 -78 (Modified Proctor density). Surface Course (HMAC) • The HMAC surface course should comply with SDHPT Item 340, Type D. Hveem stability, as determined by ASTM D 1560, should be between 35 and 55. 6.7.2 PCC Pavement, Curb and Gutter, and Drainage Structures • The concrete used for the construction of any rigid pavement sections and any curbs and gutters, as well as all drainage structures associated with the proposed roadway construction should consist of a mix that has been shown to comply with the requirements of ACI 214 and ACI 301, Section 3.9.2.1. • Submitted mix designs should indicate that the aggregates have been tested in accor- dance with ASTM C 33 within a time period that does not exceed one year. 28 CSC E N G I N E E R I N G & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, I N C . Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX • The concrete used in the pavement system should also have a minimum modulus of rupture of 650 psi (as determined using a third point beam loading test, ASTM C78- 08 — Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam With Third -Point Loading), which roughly corresponds to a minimum 28 -day compressive strength of 4,000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM C 39. • The compression strength of the concrete should be verified by testing sets of concrete cylinders. A test set of concrete cylinders which consists of a minimum of four (4) cylinders should be cast during each placement of concrete at a rate of one set for every 75 cu yd of concrete placed, with at least one set of cylinders being cast during each placement day. One of the cylinders should be tested for compressive strength after a time lapse of 7 days following placement and the other two cylinders tested after a time lapse of 28 days. The fourth remaining cylinder may be held in reserve pending the evaluation of the compression test results for the first three (3) cylinders. • Water may be added to the mix at the site by an experienced materials engineer in order to develop design workability, but only to the extent that the water /cement ratio does not exceed 0.55 lb /lb. • If fly ash is used in the concrete, the replacement percentage should not exceed 20 percent of the total cementitious material. • An appropriate percentage of air entrainment admixture should be added to the concrete that is exposed to the weather elements. 29 CSC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX 7.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations contained in this report are based in part on the project information provided to CSC. If statements or assumptions made in this report concerning the location and design of project elements contain incorrect information, or if additional information concerning the project becomes available, the owner or designer should convey the correct or additional information to CSC so that CSC may evaluate the correct or additional information and determine if any of the recommendations presented in this report should be modified. The field exploration which provided information concerning subsurface conditions was considered to be in sufficient detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the conceptual planning and fmal design of the foundation systems for the proposed roadway project. Recommendations contained in this report were developed based the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations and upon generalizations of the subsurface stratigraphy based upon the assumption that the generalized conditions present at the boring locations are continuous throughout the areas under consideration. It should be noted that regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is always a possibility that subsurface conditions encountered over a given area will be different from those present at specific, isolated boring locations. Therefore, we recommend that experienced geotechnical personnel be employed to observe con- struction operations and to document that conditions encountered during construction conform to the assumed generalizations which formed the basis for the recommendations presented in this report and any supplemental reports. Furthermore, the construction observers should document construction activities and field testing practices employed during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project. The owner's construction project manager should review the results of all field and laboratory construction materials tests for conformance with the recommendations presented in this geotechnical report and in the project construction documents and should verify that the assumptions made in design conform to as- constructed conditions. Questionable construction procedures and/or practices and non- conforming test results should be reported to the design team, along with timely recommendations to solve any issues raised by the questionable procedures, practices, and/or test results. The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the fmdings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice contained herein have been made after preparation in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice in the field of geotechnical engineering in this geographic area. No other warranty is implied or expressed. This report was prepared for the subject project specifically identified in the report. Information presented in the report shall not be used for other projects in the area of the subject project without the express written permission of the engineer. 30 CSC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. APPENDIX A Figures Figure 1 — Project Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Plan of Borings Boring Logs B -1 through B -8 Key Sheets to Terms and Symbols Used on the Boring Logs ( SP r9 ir \ 49: "N 11 z� _ iii A •<O LJ SOUL O` R- P Q� LOCATION OF PROPOSED O + ROADWAY ALIGNMENT (> + G` l WELLBORN O �a S V — C____;'(' 46." .p9l� 00 o r z S w F. 4� a Salem ��((cci 4 w qsT y a Cemetery O 0 a h 0. h � ti J A 4 Z c) ,P4 N .s i z ' Source Map: Texas Department of Transportation tion 2000 0 2000 FEET Urban Files - Brazos County Map Modifications: Project Location (CSC 2011) C S s En ineering & Environmental PROJECT VICINITY MAP Consultants, b,c. ,, C Regirtranon Number F -7078 J w q Prepared For : - PROJECT LOCATION: COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS PHILLIPS APPR: MFC REV. DATE: -- ENGINEERING DRAWN BY: AEA SCALE: AS SHOWN 'i DATE: 03/01/11 FIGURE NO.: 1 / f �_ __ � \ � `� \ 5 ,� BORING LOCATION, `1i ( DESIGNATION AND DEPTH 1 ��` � CONTOURS OF 1 Oe E / 1 E ELEVATION 0 w i z � � /7 ti z � > � �� J �� i W J 1 \ < ., '\ I 2 V 1I d / (! , i di i , ...- , ‘ ) c.,\_ ,-,- j i , 1 g k(2c2 &mart ) \ \ \ ■ 2 1 \----, 44111A2011'1E'J 4 -\ I i .4 0 >- J - - -„ smaj `,- : �" 1 , . +., egf, ` _.� .., ,- - : U) Z . - : @ dw � e�ww�w�@�ww@w�w��il�� " J z W cc I _ (.4____ r ( J l � Y L Q .' - - Ft �. . 7 —, r @ ► 0 Z / i p _ a ,./ i 0 - -- a CL I J I r I (� 1 „ °„ m o r _ " � _ 2 9 B u ? € i \ . tom G o 0 I I I L` �_) p .---- _ G ti N ! Ci ,. i © (I) V Ni `� U III PROD. NO.: 11008-34 Itouhit 1•1,..-1,t1,\• ., DRAWN BY: AEA 1 ✓ — DATE: 03/01/11 / ' REV. DATE: g \ SCALE: AS SHOWN 0 300 FEET APPR: MFC , V — I—I - 1 11 FIGURE: c 2 1 LOG OF BORING NO. B -1 PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3 -1/2' Solid Flight Dry Auger DRILLER: TAYLOR /CCI LOCATION: See Plan of Borings 181-- POCKET PENETROMETER 0 -- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST m • DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ., °' COHESION, TON /SQ. FT. • 3 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 u a a Plastic Water Liquid y A at e :r+ Limit Content, X Limit w a 10 o 0) SURFACE ELEVATION: Not Known pq a � 20 30 • 50 60 70 Loose, dark brown, silty, clayey SAND, dry to 00011 slightly moist • 1 � 0111 _ —with occasional small roots to 1' 3L1 % Fines . • Very dense, tan, very clayey SAND, with • occasional ggrravel, and with orange ferrous + g 1.5+ A _ stains, slightly moist A9.2 % Fines Very stiff, dark tan, fat CLAY with sand and 1 5+ — 5 — with occasional thin seams o tan, weakly cemented sandstone and with orange ferrous stains, slightly moist —10- -15- -20- -25— —30 a_ — U COMPLETION DEPTH: 6' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: Borehole dry during and DATE: 01/28/11 DATE: immediately after drilling on 01/28/11. CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 6 3 LOG OF BORING NO. B -2 PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3 -1/2* Solid Flight Dry Auger DRILLER: TAYLOR /CCI LOCATION: See Plan of Borings ® -- POCKET PENETROMETER 0 -- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST A D -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 01 COHESION, TON /SQ. FT. w •• A D 3 0. 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 c 13 p ' A Plastic Water Liquid 4 ? g a k . 5 Limit mit Content, % Limit 3. 6. E~ o } q rn SURFACE ELEVATION: Not Known a� a 10 20 30 • � 50 60 70 Loose. SA. dry Loose to o medium u dense, brown — 4D-F- --f- X 15+ 0 clayey SAND, slightly moist to moist 3a8 x Fines Very stiff, grayish – brown, sandy fat CLAY, �1 5+ with seams of tan sand, and occasional gravel, slightly moist — Very stiff, dark tan, fat CLAY, with orange 1 5+ – 5 – ferrous stains, slightly moist -f-- - � - t56 % Fines -10- -15 -20- -25– ai - 30 — a 1 w COMPLETION DEPTH: 6' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: Borehole dry during and DATE: 01/28/11 DATE: immediately after drilling on 01/28/11. CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. g U 2 LOG OF BORING NO. B -3 PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3 -1/2` Solid Flight Dry Auger DRILLER: TAYLOR /CCI LOCATION: See Plan of Borings 18E -- POCKET PENETROMETER 0 -- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST m DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL .. COHESION, TON /SQ. FT. d • 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 c a •■ Plastic Water Liquid 41. c Limit Content, % Limit co r2 SURFACE ELEVATION: N ot Known as 10 20 30 • 50 60 + 70 tv Lose - e ` to me um ense, daac rown, sail yy ,� �, clayey SAND, slightly moist –with occasional small roots to 1' A1.8 % Fines — Very stiff, grayish –tan, fat CLAY, with sand, and with numerous very small white ♦ _ –+ 1.5+ calcareous nodules, slightly moist L1.0 % Fines - - Very stiff, tan to dark tan, fat CLAY, with 01.5+ – 5 – yellow ferrous, stains, slightly moist -10- -15 - 20- - 25– –30– a U COMPLETION DEPTH: 6' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: Borehole dry during and DATE: 01/28/11 DATE: immediately after drilling on 01/28/11. CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. • i3 LOG OF BORING NO. B -4 PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3 -1/2 Solid Flight Dry Auger DRILLER: TAYLOR /CCI LOCATION: See Plan of Borings El -- POCKET PENETROMETER 0 -- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST ,"G A -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST m DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL COHESION, TON /SQ. FT. ... m A. D 3 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 6' °' a ' A \ Plastic Water Liquid y . 0 . i z.. N Limit Content, % Limit a q 0 a7 „, SURFACE ELEVATION: Not Known w 10� 20 30 • 50 60 10 thin 1 J.oa. hrown. silty SAND. dry - - - il:l Very stiff, dark brown, sandy, lean CLAY, with " -' pockets of tannish — brown, clayey sand, and 102.5 6 7.9 i Fine: with yellow ferrous stains. slighny moist n Very stiff, brown, sandy, lean CLAY, with X1.5+ large pieces of gravel and with orange ferrous stains, slightly moist Very stiff, tan, fat CLAY, with sand, and with ih1 1.5+ moist — becoming dark tan, with numerous very �—� small pockets and thin seams of light tan 1.5+ sand, and with yellow ferrous stains below 6' —with sand seams becoming slightly more 21-- numerous below 8' 1.5+ — 10— Very CLAY staff d th seams of brown to light t dark reddish— brown , fat , an sa sometimes weakly cemented, slightly moist / — 15- -20- - 25— 1 i E — 30— 1 a 8 COMPLETION DEPTH: 10' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: Borehole dry during and DATE: 01/28/11 DATE: immediately after drilling on 01/28/11. N i" CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 0 U `3 LOG OF BORING NO. B -5 PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3 -1/2' Solid Flight Dry Auger DRILLER: TAYLOR /CCI LOCATION: See Plan of Borings 18E -- POCKET PENETROMETER 0 -- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST m DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL �' COHESION, TON /SQ. FT. 3 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 a a � / Plastic Water Liquid p a ., Limit Content, % Limit a o en to S URFACE E LEVATION: Not Known m ] 10 20 30 • 50 60 70 Loose, light tan to light brown, clayey fine SAND. dry Very stiff, grayish — brown, fat CLAY, moist with occasional small roots to 2' — becoming brown below 2' 1 . 5 + ,+, 67.3 % Fines — — becoming tannish — brown, with occasional _ thin seams of tan sand, and occasional 1.5+ — 5 — — small white calcareous nodules below 4' —10- - 15- - 20- - 25— —30— a_ COMPLETION DEPTH: 6' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: Borehole dry during and DATE: 01/28/11 DATE: immediately after drilling on 01/28/11. CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (7 LOG OF BORING NO. B -6 PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3 -1/2' Solid Flight Dry Auger DRILLER: TAYLOR /CCI LOCATION: See Plan of Borings 381 -- POCKET PENETROMETER 0 -- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL COHESION, TON /SQ. FT. w m U 3 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 c , a A \ Plastic Water Liquid e, p p' ! 9 Limit Content, Z Limit , a SURFACE ELEVATION: Not Known o 10 2 30 40 50 60 70 — Soft to firm, light tan to light brown, sandy very silty. lean CLAY, with occasional small yy roots, moisi 4111---- 57.2 % Fires Stiff, dark brown, very Very stiff, dark brown it sand, rwslightly , ady, moist 0-- CLAY, slightly moist 1.5+ — becoming dark brown, with thin seams of — tan, clayey sand below 4' 321 - - 5 — —with numerous pockets of tan, sandy, fat 1.5+ clay below 5' — 10- - 15- -20- -25— Z —30 a 2 a COMPLETION DEPTH: 6' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: Borehole dry during and 5 DATE: 01/28/11 DATE: immediately after drilling on 01/28/11. CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3 i3 LOG OF BORING NO. B -7 PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3 -1/2' Solid Flight Dry Auger DRILLER: TAYLOR /CCI LOCATION: See Plan of Borings 0 -- POCKET PENETROMETER 0 -- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST A -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ."'. ° COHESION, TON /SQ. FT. I • 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 p' a Plastic Water Liquid A P a i .., 5 Limit Content, % Limit a o q Ea u) SURFACE ELEVATION: Not Known cc 10-1-- 20 30 • 50 60 --1- 20 Loose. brown. silty find SAND. oist Very stiff, dark brown to brown, sandy, fat 2 1.5+ 0 CLAY, slightly moist — Very stiff, brown, sandy, fat CLAY with _ _ _ X 1.5+ numerous pockets and seams of light tan, ----+ clayey sand, with occasional gravel, slightly g3 % ines (Sand Seam F — -with seams of clayey sand becoming more 01.5+ _ 5 _ numerous and thicker below 3 ...1 _ Very stiff, brown to dark brown, sandy. lean CLAY, slightly moist -10- - 15- - 20- - 25- 1 1 re a -30- a J I a x x IFS' COMPLETION DEPTH: 6' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: Borehole dry during and DATE: 01/28/11 DATE: immediately after drilling on 01/28/11. CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Q % s 2 U' 3 LOG OF BORING NO. B -8 PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3 -1/2 Solid Flight Dry Auger DRILLER: TAYLOR /CCI LOCATION: See Plan of Borings -- POCKET PENETROMETER 0 -- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST m DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL .. COHESION, TON /SQ. FT. U 3 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 a ca Plastic Water Liquid 4 5 a a e Limit Content, % Limit ti SURFACE ELEVATION: Not Known w 1 20 30 0 • 50 60 70 0011 Loose, brown, silty, clayey, fine SAND, with lkgk occasional gravel, moist • + —+ 0041 19.5 % Fines Very stiff, dark grayish — brown, fat CLAY, 1.5+ with large pockets of light tan, weakly cemented sandstone, dry -'�'1 Thinly interbedded, very stiff, dark tan, sandy, 1 5+ lean CLAY, and dense, light tan clayey SAND, Of — 5 — V e� sometimes weakly cemented with orange 660 z Fines + B/ _ ferrous stains. slightly moist — 10- - 15- - 20- - 25— —30 a S COMPLETION DEPTH: 10' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: Borehole dry during and DATE: 01/28/11 DATE: immediately after drilling on 01/28/11. CSC Engineering a Sc Environmental Consultants, Inc. 0 U 5 KEY TO SYMBOLS AND SOIL CLASSIFICATION Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487) SAMPLE TYPES COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TESTS AND LABORATORY TEST DATA k 01 *1 \ ® O Thin -Wall Split -Barrel Rock Core Cone Disturbed Cuttings No Hand Torvane Unconfined Compression U -U Tube w/kstable Penetrometer Recovery Penetrometer Recovery Triaxial Sample 30% Finer - Percent Frier than No. 200 Seive Major Divisions Group Symbols Typical Names Relative Density of Coarse Strained Soils Penetration Resistance :4 m z GW ! Well- Graded Grovels, Gravel -Sand N Value Descriptive ' o :/I . / �� Mi x t ures, • L or No Fines (Blows/Ft') Term rn ` o . � J u c t o 1- 0 -4 Very Loose N ~ . o L. Poorly Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand 4-10 Loose rn --I a w F ° -+ GP Mi xtures, Little or No Fi nes o W w 0 O• —• 10 -30 Medium Dense J o Q Z ed > 30 -50 Dense < u m O g o m N 0 2 GM 4 Silty Gravels, Gravel- Sand -Silt Over 50 Very Dense V) CD v ° o Mixtures o e I' u "5 •Based on driving osplit- barrel p € ° ° ; ° o sampler with a 140 lb weight - Z ee m o > < a c GC \' \ Q < < Clayey Gravels, Gravel- Sand -Clay dropped 30 inches �' it a " E • Mixtures G J CO A z° z SW Well- Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, SOH Modifiers 1 LL.I u m o r a n ■° 2 Little or No Fines < o o rc c o 5 CC � o o: N N m = `` CLAYEY SP Poorly Graded Sands, Gravelly ' \ � \ \` \ O• p N J Sands, Little or No Fines 0 0 U c Q ... SILTY o re a SM Silty Sands, Sand -Silt Mixtures o s '�-. : 1 vr�. p N n C ln.; ± 1�(: a g r i = t::�, SANDY 4 N`<,` SC Cla Sands, Sand -Clay Mixtures , '. t� ; ,.' i r. d m ML Inorganic Silts with Slight Plasticity Consistency Terms of Fine— Grained Soils 0 o o Compressive N .' i ° Inorganic Cloys of Low to Medium Strength, qu Descriptive 0 W } *Zr t CL Plasticity, Gravelly Clays, Lean Clays (ton /sq ft) Tenn R Q e 0 to 0.25 Very Soft s H J o- 0.25 to 0.50 Soft O (1) in U n Or Silts and Organic Silty W O OL 0.50 to 1.00 Fir Clays of Low Plasticity m Z -, 'm -p 1.00 to 2.00 Stiff Q rn Co . Inorganic Silts, Micaceous or 2.00 to 4.00 Very Stiff CC a o o MH Diatomaceous Fine Sand or Silty Over 4.00 Hard O M r o c Soils, Elastic Silts I a J Q o Li W c w Inor Clays of High Plasticity, N m M CH Fat Clays Groundwater Levels a J o Q - STATIC WATER LEVEL x ,o c OH Organic Clays of Medium to High o ° ‘ �� A Plasticity. Organic Silts V - HYDROSTATIC WATER LEVEL Rock Classification HARDNESS CLASSIFICATION OF INTACT ROCK APPROX. RANGE OF UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION STRENGTH P.S.I. — SHAL °l'I' SILTSTONE HARDNESS ( ) H'1=1'I EXTREMELY HARD >13,900 - -- / / VERY HARD 6,940 - 13,900 _ LIMESTONE V. /. CLAYSTONE HARD 3,470 - 6,940 — SOFi 1,740 - 3,470 - SANDSTONE - COAL VERY SOFT 70 - 1,740 •- CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. CSC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. APPENDIX B Summary of Laboratory Test Results O Z § 3 ■ H ) , , . , . . ƒ 5 m 7 R Z $ « o R U IS % ) � = / 0 } + \ \ j § C.4) Li, I / W ¥ 4 4 ¥ m . CI •>, >-. » z 2 A / 2 / ■ ; : : : ; O Ll / 9 ƒ 0 ] , , , . . , -I ■ - f / / § 7 , , , . . , _ / § / . : : : : ; ? � I E* § — z e§ e . . 1 1 , 1 ■ ao El Q / j / / . . . , . , « - ) ) ;3'1'. 3 2 E > ?: « a ' z @ et w %§ e 2 k . _ . @ C § �� U �� E \ g / A » . % , R LI 2 QQ z w ® 2§ 2 Z a a J k / e 9 iZ oci 2 }_\ 7 r $ ' r ' 00 wi I . W £ f r": e z / $ 'e ] 2 ' _ ' 4 A CA t / / } 1 / .1- ƒ "t% & o « c m - W ■ \ A I. .. CV r .--1 CV r 2 Q / } / \ \ 00 } 00 \ \ in ( ... i 4 r, \ ��• - 2 u \ 6 3 a ƒa Q z $ • ■ • § . ■ , ■ ■ , ■ . § G u Ili a) I @ i Z © « 2 . C. \ \ \ \ / \ / f / \{ \ 4 w w W ¥ @ m " z \ ^ & » , . . , ■ . . , L. k 3 0 r.,) 2 ■ MO / q ƒ % ) . . , / . , . , Q _ t ■ • / cA { / / § 7 • • • a • • • • • W _ z & J • b 2 / . 1 ■ S . , . . • / �= 2 z 6 ` t r . . , .14 0 § I e , . . & . • 2 E u §� ■ $ CD ea ] \ % . % . . . . \ O $ 0. 7 — Z > J 7 § ••• \ \ % . & . . . . • / Q Lti k �M 2 ƒ j 3 r . $ . . . , ■ z J Fr $_2— 3 J 2 re 2 t � g ) / f / , . , . CO » - 00 W • . % a P • 2 7 i / 0,7 \ _ . .1 . ■ . O k - CV - CV « 3 t \ Z / & c o - 0 \ w r . r — r - u ) \ \ \ } ƒ \ \ \ ) In 2 #\ 6. _ 6 r F _ 0 & 3 3 Za Ll z - . . ■ ■ . . 8 a. 2 u to e / z § •« et 1 c \ \ 0 + + cn 3 f a) w ¥ n ¥ ¥ rri '- _ z f . . , . . , 2 � /a k 6 O [ E / j . , , , , . b 1 _ . ■ < / / / § f , . . . , . W _ • H S. W q Q ■ § / , . ■ . . ■ CA I 0 = z g a0t / / ( \ } ' , , , , . o $ C"' z 1:e GO ct f ) / s @ . 9 . , > O $ �� z J 9 § ] / . g . 2 . , ■ 2Q 0 $ d @= 6 t j @ . . . . LI Q z J t. t` ^ / / \ • / \ } ' \ ' r"-: , ■ Atl W (A W = , a r 2 2 f 2 7 / ..4. . / , \ , , k = Cq - VD C1 t 7 I I I I I / 0 CA ':1 0 <V .1- \ W ts 0 ) \ \ \ \ \ \ Q 7 0 m § 2 § 3 j � ) = 3 3 / 8 • u Z y C a; E °' y o 0 U Ul ° H o o O a Z 'o g et F.. 41? Q VD dm o VD a '. Y 4. Y Y Y Y cn rd rz Cr z • d L . ry i + + + , p J O p y + VI h Q .G. U Om 0 tr1 b Z s L g it a a ; c q A ' y 0 Can I. Ll E* = L aw ; O o .� .o `) a w • -J r .� b $0 L= — e <IJ F W as z' z E""A c yE W ' L e , ; ; , , , o H •::1- z .4) o ° P� V O O H L — Gs, c0 U y w _ H aJ p ; Vl ; [ � 1 O t u C ° ..- N ' t ed O a w .. rD nz '0 a z >y y W a.a �ga0 = a E y 11/1 00 CA Pr4 11:1 • Q' o ' N G L1. v a s = O C w E z x , - ° cr : L # ri d — 00 O •1 ,..0 0$ C C a W `'' V] M - w c� W I ;3 0 CA W b = E N M bA b bo Id �I. = , C MI :O • y 5. N b u WI a' VI a) 1.0 0 t N N tt 0 a v I I I I I I o . _ .= .� Z 1... A O N ' O N 'rt. a> w�. L . a Id u r, N M ---' N ,.p y ,~1 Z' E o I I I I I I y a EZ CD o v a z o C] m 0.o II m Loo „ Z ya °° II n a,' a s z ci AVMN1b'd SdI11IHd .S.M S!A!- d .aqu^N wpm asg,)/ 3 A co JN12:03NIJN9 SdIIIIHd drq' ftiwP ruoJ 8 w o O 1N3WN011d a3SOd021d ,nmatit,o.,,.,,,� si,�.,s III adi//3 -- Q = gn o CV 2104 a3811d38d SONI2108 JO N`dld 0 ci m 5 di Q LL z Q � W � J d' c 2 Q W C a —_ - ; � _ , 1 1. - _ I z J r : 1 A Q i J j i t 7 i f:" O W O X i / F , � , � ' ( 0 1 / 1` 1 4 t 1 � � ( € ` 0 Y �\- � A ! �� •. i 1 !\, n u w / i i $ u / \ '\ f C / / \\ ) I. ` opi � `' 1 \ \ i � I i � i'/ a° A f \ F- `� \ V - \---, // N./- '5 �v v `-" t / / N - ! (;" j 1 ' v 0 � ,— r/ i a ! A 1 \\ �� _ / �._ . r , �i v �' / l-,✓ _/ i 4 , , , A \ 07--- 1 - /-----/ / \ 1 E y ° ...N { �tiu - - - ` A % r \ * , e • �( � , \ , = ' � : r ') i A '� _ r o / � � I j iad � _.. ( Q 1 dal a3v .) _____„//,' . ,...-.., j.„., 1 10 1 , ---------- , , / / (:. )r) ‘‘ ),, . ,r , ---'-'-'-; l / / i �� �•� t� 1� — y I r 7 -../ � �' �� � � �� �i. � tom.._ _- r ( i- € , :. • � - - - - '_ - \� ♦ �>.. __ ` .--/ . , �, r J/ — f - I l� •� , i �� Z , . _ a \ � c .... �� .} a v V / .. ` - � � 1 �- �� i ' ,.--/ •a � (n O 1 / \ X 6 - r 1 , o a , / l,( • /A `L1 j -, / - al �, a __ f f t 1 i 1 . r i \ / a � % 4 ' r r -_ �� s y i , 3 (__,_ r -"---- ---"---;1_______,. '''.---_, , li,.;-' .- 4 44. �� J r --f v 1 \ 11 i -,, ,, , ,/,"`, j; 11 J i • j 1 e . g i ( a . 1 i J / v "� \ � �_ ` ? /� I f l =l '&+D'Z .ndt.J M)WVd Sdrnr - SMIHZ)3103C1S3IHdW (NOW %CNdBJ X