HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 DP Marion Push 05-48 305 Marion PushRABON M ETCALF ENGINEER~IN;!G .-==!!!!!!!~~~~~~~-05-1? ~~~~~~~~ox~ 842 gim~~-~~~~ --~\JD~~-. /[ /<1 I DS-"'•" ,..;;;;: ........ ,.. El5 l
November 9, 2005
Josh Norton, E.l.T.
Graduate Engine er
City of College Station
110 I Texas A venue South
College Station, TX 77842
RE: Marion Pugh Drive Extension -Luther Street West to Holleman Drive West
Transmittal Letter for Revision "A"
RME No.178-0245
Dear Josh :
Please fi n d attached the following set s of construction plans for the above referenced project .
Also attached is the revised hydraulic analysis that reflects the incorporated changes.
Please cont act me w hen the approved plans are ready to be picked up .
Thanks so very much for the help . Please do not hesitat e to call if you have any questions .
Rabon A. Metcalf, P .
nnengineer@verizon.n
CD 1-1 78-0245-Ll 7 Page-I
~K.
stmOutput
WinStorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN) Version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002
Run @ 11/9/2005 10:48:27 AM
PROJECT NAME : 178
JOB NUMBER 0245
PROJECT DESCRIPTION : Marion Pugh Drive -Extension
DESIGN FREQUENCY
ANALYSYS FREQUENCY
MEASUREMENT UNITS:
10 Years
100 Years
ENGLISH
OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of: 10 Years
===========================================
Runoff Computation for Design Frequency.
=============================================================================
ID C Value
A2 0.469
0.82
0.35
Al 0.82
0.82
A3 0.519
0.82
0.35
A4 0.82
Area
(acre)
10.70
2.72
7.98
1. 67
1. 67
1.11
0.40
0.71
0.34
Tc
(min)
63.33
Concrete
Tc Used
(min)
63.33
Undeveloped
31. 57 31. 57
Concrete
10.00 10.00
Concrete
Undeveloped
10.00 10.00
Sag Inlets Configuration Data.
Intensity
(in/hr)
3.07
4.79
8.63
8.63
Supply Q
(cfs)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total Q
(cfs)
15.407
6.556
4.978
2.407
=================================================================================
Inlet Inlet Length/ Grate
ID Type Perim. Area
Al
A2
A3
A4
Curb
Curb
Curb
Curb
(ft) (sf)
10.00
15.00
5.00
5.00
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Sag Inlets Computation Data.
Left-Slope
Long Trans
(%) (%)
0.60 3.00
0.60 3.00
0.60 3.00
0.60 3.00
Right-Slope
Long Trans
Gutter
n DeprW
(ft) (%) (%)
0.60
0.60
0.94
0.94
3.00 0.014
3.00 0.014
3.00 0.014
3.00 0.014
1.50
1.50
1. 50
1. 50
Depth
Allowed
(ft)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Critic
Elev.
(ft)
323.58
323.58
322.97
322.97
================================================================================
Inlet Inlet Length Grate Total Q
Page 1
Inlet Total Ponded Width
o;:-4~
I l) CJ ID~
/O:S-5 R> \<...
stmOutput
ID Type Perim Area Capacity Head Left Right
(ft) (ft) (sf) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Curb 10.00 n/a n/a 6.556 10.327 0.369 11. 40 5.00
A2 Curb 15.00 n/a n/a 15.407 14.393 0.523 15.70 6.90
A3 Curb 5.00 n/a n/a 4.978 6.261 0.429 8.23 7.57
A4 Curb 5.00 n/a n/a 2.407 6.261 0.264 6.27 5.77
Cumulative Junction Discharge Computations
=================================================================================
Node Node Weighted Cumulat. Cumulat. Intens. User Additional Total
I. D. Type C-Value Dr.Area Tc Supply Q Q in Node Disch.
(acres) (min) (in/hr) cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01 CircMh 0.524 13.82 65.16 3.01 0.000 0.00 21.809
Al Curb 0.820 1. 67 31.57 4.79 0.000 0.00 6.556
A2 Curb 0.517 12.37 63.33 3.07 0.000 0.00 19.607
A3 Curb 0.517 13.48 65.05 3.01 0.000 0.00 20.993
A4 Curb 0.820 0.34 10.00 8.63 0.000 0.00 2.407
Jl JnctBx 0.524 13.82 65.16 3.01 0.000 0.00 21.809
OUT Jn ct Bx 0.524 13.82 65.16 3.01 0.000 0.00 21.809
Conveyance Configuration Data
=================================================================================
Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev.
US DS US DS Shape # Span Rise Length
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 Al A2 321. 53 321. 36 Circ 1 0.00 1. 50 56.00
2 A2 A3 320.91 320.25 Circ 1 0.00 2.50 444.54
3 A3 Jl 320.25 320.22 Circ 2 0.00 2.00 22.63
4 A4 Jl 320.20 320.09 Circ 1 0.00 1. 50 38.09
5 Jl OUT 319.55 318.75 Circ 1 0.00 2.50 313.99
6 OUT 01 318.75 318.70 Ditch 1 7.00 2.00 10.00
Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tailwater = 0.000 (ft)
Slope
( % )
0.30
0.15
0.13
0.29
0.25
0.50
n value
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.026
=================================================================================
=
Hydraulic Gradeline Depth
Run# US Elev DS Elev Fr.Slope Unif. Actual
(ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft)
Page 2
Velocity
Unif. Actual
(f/s) (f/s)
Q
(cfs)
Cap
(cfs)
June
Loss
(ft)
stmOutput
1 323.25 323.10 0.279 1.17 1. 50 4.43 3.71 6.56 6.84 0.000
2 323.10 322.00 0.164 2.19 2.19 4.30 4.30 19.61 18.68 0.000
3 322.00 321. 39 0.154 1. 75 1. 75 3.60 3.60 20.99 19.47 0.000
4 321. 39 321. 39 0.038 0.62 1. 30 3.48 1. 48 2.41 6.67 0.000
5 321. 39 320.34 0.202 1. 84 1. 84 5.64 5.64 21. 81 24.47 0.000
6 319.55 319 .50 0.015 0.80 0.80 2.91 2.91 21. 81 126.65 0.000
=================================================================================
=
OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQUENCY of: 100 Years
=============================================
Runoff Computation for Analysis Frequency.
=============================================================================
ID C Value
A2 0.469
0.82
0.35
Al 0.82
0.82
A3 0.519
0.82
0.35
A4 0.82
Area Tc
(acre) (min)
10.70 63.33
2.72 Concrete
Tc Used
(min)
63.33
7.98 Undeveloped
1. 67 31. 57 31.57
1. 67 Concrete
1.11 10.00 10.00
0.40 Concrete
0.71 Undeveloped
0.34 10.00 10.00
Sag Inlets Configuration Data.
Intensity
(in/hr)
4.26
6.55
11. 64
11. 64
Supply Q
(cfs)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total Q
(cfs)
21.398
8.969
6.710
3.245
=================================================================================
Inlet Inlet Length/ Grate
ID Type Perim. Area
Al
A2
A3
A4
Curb
Curb
Curb
Curb
(ft) (sf)
10.00
15.00
5.00
5.00
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Sag Inlets Computation Data.
Left-Slope
Long Trans
(%) (%)
0.60 3.00
0.60 3.00
0.60 3.00
0.60 3.00
Right-Slope
Long Trans
Gutter
n DeprW
(ft) (%) (%)
0.60
0.60
0.94
0.94
3.00 0.014
3.00 0.014
3.00 0.014
3.00 0.014
1.50
1. 50
1.50
1. 50
Depth
Allowed
(ft)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Critic
Elev.
(ft)
323 .58
323.58
322.97
322.97
================================================================================
Inlet Inlet Length Grate
ID Type Perim Area
Total Q Inlet Total
Capacity Head
Page 3
Ponded Width
Left Right
.. stmOutput
(ft) (ft) (sf) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Curb 10.00 n/a n/a 8.969 10.327 0.455 12.80 5.63
A2 Curb 15.00 n/a n/a 21.398 23.379 0.499 17.77 7.80
A3 Curb 5.00 n/a n/a 6.710 6.261 0.524 9.23 8.47
A4 Curb 5.00 n/a n/a 3.245 6.261 0.323 7.03 6.47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Junction Discharge Computations
=================================================================================
Node
I.D.
01
Al
A2
A3
A4
Jl
OUT
Node
Type
CircMh
Curb
Curb
Curb
Curb
JnctBx
JnctBx
Weighted
C-Value
0.524
0.820
0.517
0.517
0.820
0.524
0.524
Cumulat. Cumulat. Intens.
Dr.Area Tc
(acres) (min) (in/hr)
13.82 64.75 4.20
1. 67 31. 57 6.55
12.37 63.33 4.26
13.48 64.67 4.20
0.34 10.00 11. 64
13.82 64.75 4.20
13.82 64.75 4.20
Conveyance Configuration Data
User
Supply Q
cfs)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Additional
Q in Node
(cfs)
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
Disch.
(cf s)
30.435
8.969
27.232
29.288
3.245
30.435
30.435
=================================================================================
Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev.
US DS US DS Shape # Span Rise Length Slope n value
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%)
1 Al A2 321. 53 321. 36 Circ 1 0.00 1. 50 56.00 0.30 0.011
2 A2 A3 320.91 320.25 Circ 1 0.00 2.50 444.54 0.15 0.011
3 A3 Jl 320.25 320.22 Circ 2 0.00 2.00 22.63 0.13 0.011
4 A4 Jl 320.20 320.09 Circ 1 0.00 1. 50 38.09 0.29 0.011
5 Jl OUT 319.55 318.75 Circ 1 0.00 2.50 313.99 0.25 0.011
6 OUT 01 318.75 318.70 Ditch 1 7.00 2.00 10.00 0.50 0.026
Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tailwater = 0.000 (ft)
=================================================================================
Hydraulic Gradeline Depth
Run# US Elev DS Elev Fr.Slope Unif. Actual
(ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft)
1 324.35 324.05 0.522 1. 50 1. 50
Page 4
Velocity
Unif. Actual
(f/s) (f/s)
5.08 5.08
Q
(cf s)
8.97
Cap
(cfs)
June
Loss
(ft)
6.84 0.000
~ " . .. stmOutput
2 324.05 322 .25 0.315 2 .50 2.50 5 .55 5.55 27.23 18.68 0.000
3 322.25 322 .12 0.300 2 .00 2.00 4.66 4.66 29 .29 19 .47 0.000
4 322.15 322 .12 0.068 0.74 1. 50 3.75 1. 84 3.25 6.67 0.000
5 322.12 320 .63 0.394 2.50 2.50 '6, 20 6 .20 30.43 24.47 0.000
6 319.70 319 .65 0 .029 0 .95 0.95 3 .24 3.24 30.43 126.65 0.000
===================================END===========================================
=
NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM .
Warning Messages for current project:
Runoff Frequency of: 10 Years
Capacity of sag inlet exceeded at inlet Id= A2
Decreasing conduit size @ downstream Run# 3
Discharge decreased downstream node Id= OUT Previous intensity used.
Tailwater set to uniform depth elevation= 319 .50(ft)
Upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= OUT
Run# 3 Insufficient capacity.
Run# 2 Insufficient capacity.
Runoff Frequency of: 100 Years
Computed left ponded width exceeds allowable width at inlet Id= A2
Capacity of sag inlet exceeded at inlet Id= A3
Decreasing conduit size @ downstream Run# 3
Discharge decreased downstream node Id= OUT Previou s intensity used.
Tailwater set to uniform depth elevation= 319 .65(ft)
Upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= OUT
Run# 5 Insufficient capacity.
Run# 3 Insufficient capacity.
Run# 2 Insufficient capacity .
Upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= A2
Run# 1 Insufficient capacity .
Upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= Al
Page 5
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
PERMIT NO. 05-488
CnY OF COLLEGE STATION
Plannit1g cT Dewlopmmt Serviu1
FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE
SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Right-of-Way of Marion Pugh Dr.
btw Luther St. and Holleman Dr. West
DATE OF ISSUE:
OWNER:
American Campus Developers, LLC
805 Las Cimas Parkway, Suite 400
Austin, Texas 78746
SITE ADDRESS:
Marion Pugh Extension -South
DRAINAGE BASIN:
Bee Creek Trib. "B"
VALID FOR 12 MONTHS
CONTRACTOR:
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: Full Development Permit
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans
All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with Section
7 .5.E., Landscape/Streetscape Plan Requirements of the City's Unified Development Ordinance, prior to any operations of
this permit. The cleaning of equipment or materials within the drip line of any tree or group of trees that are protected and
required to remain is strictly prohibited. The disposal of any waste material such as , but not limited to , paint, oil, solvents,
asphalt, concrete, mortar, or other harmful liquids or materials within the drip line of any tree required to remain is also
prohibited.
Full Development Permit
The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site
in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design
Criteria . If it is determined the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective to retain all sediment onsite , it is the
contractors responsibility to implement measures that will meet City, State and Federal requirements. The Owner and/or
Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation occurs prior to removal of any
silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor shall also insure that any
disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition, placement and state . The Owner and/or Contractor shall be
responsible for any damage to adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy machinery and/or equipment
as well as erosion, siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work .
In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure
that debris from construction, erosion , and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets , or existing drainage
facilities.
I hereby grant this permit for development of an area outside the special flood hazard area . All development shall be in
accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit
application for the above named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station that apply.
Owner/ Agent/Contractor
Date lz t/y.../~
I t
Date
October 27, 2005
Josh Norton, E .I.T .
Graduate Engineer
EMAIL: r m e n gin eer @i u n o .co m
City of College Station
1101 Texas A venue South
College Station, TX 77842
RE: Drainage Letter for Marion Pugh Drive Extension -REVISED 2
Luther Street West to Holleman Drive West
RME No.178-0245
Dear Josh :
Please find the enclosed findings, calculations and attachments for the above referenced project 's
drainage facilities and improvements. This drainage letter and the supporting design methods
were performed in accordance with the City of College Station's Drainage Design Policies and
Standards .
Information used for the design, and the resulting calculations, of these drainage improvements
are as follows:
·:· A-1: Bee Creek Watershed Map ;
·:· A-2 : FEMA Map Panel ;
·:· A-3 : Drainage Area Map ;
·:· A-4 : Grading & Drainage Plan;
·:· B-1 : WinStorm (Storm Drain Design);
General
The project site is an extension of Marion Pugh Drive, from it current terminus, just south of
Luther Street West, to Holleman Drive West. This thoroughfare improvement is approximately
1, 066 linear feet in length and is located within the Bee Creek watershed . Runoff is conveyed
overland to the curb and gutter of Marion Pugh Drive . Thence runoff travels in a southernly
direction to the current terminus of Marion Pugh Drive. Runoff is then discharged into a open
channel, earthen and trapezoidal in shape, along the proposed right-of-way of the thoroughfare .
An 18" RCP storm drain receives runoff from this open ditch and coveys it under Holleman
Drive West and back into an open ditch. Runoff continues south, along the abandoned I&GN
Railroad right-of-way and eventually reaches the headworks of an unnamed tributary which
drains into the North Fork-Tributary "B " (see Exhibit A-1).
Marion Pugh Drive Extension
Drainage Letter -REVISED 2
Rabon Metcalf Engineering
October 27, 2005
The improvements for this project are not located or adjacent to any FEMA mapped floodplain
(see Exhibit A-2). In general, the project site is undeveloped and covered by native weeds and
grasses, and tree coverage along the right-of-way areas.
Hydrology
Using the Rational Method for hydrology modeling, runoff values were determined for each
drainage basins (see Exhibit A-3). Results from the 10 & 100-year rainfall events for these
drainage basins are summarized below in Table #1 (see Exhibit B-1). Runoff rates are the
resultants of using the TxDOT hydrology and hydraulic program WinStorm v3 .0.
Hydraulics
TABLE#l
HYDROLOGY SUMMARY
-ear lUU-Year
D.A. (cfs) (cfs)
Al 6 .56 8.97
A2 1 5 .41 21.40
A3 4.98 6 .71
A4 2 .41 3.25
Al -1.67 acre watershed -drains to Curb Inlet Sta. 7+40.00 (LT.);
A2 -10.70 acre watershed -drains to Curb Inlet Sta. 7+40.00 (RT.);
A3 -1.11 acre watershed -drains to Curb Inlet Sta. 11+84.54 (RT.);
A4 -0 .34 acre watershed -drains to Curb Inlet Sta. 11+84.54 (LT.);
The extension of Marion Pugh Drive is classified as a major collector. Therefore drainage
constraints will be dictated by this classification. Hydraulic calculations employed the use of the
TxDOT hydrology and hydraulic program WinStorm v3 .0 .
STREET DRAINAGE & FLOWS :
Constraints :
Rainfall Event:
Velocity of Flows:
Depth of Flow:
Spread of Flow:
Results :
IO-Year (Design) 100-Year (Analyzed)
Maximum=lO fps Minimum=0.400/o gutter slope
Top of curb @design storm Contained in R.O .W . @analyzed storm
12 foot clear lane@ design storm
TABLE #2
STREET DRAINAGE & FLOWS SUMMARY
Maximum Minimum Maximum
Event Velocity Grad e Depth ClearWidth
(yr) (fps) (%grad e) (ft) (ft)
10 2 .90 0 .60 0 .50 24.40
100 3 .20 0 .60 0 .52 NIA
Marion Pugh Drive Extension
Drainage Letter -REVISED 2
STORM DRAIN INLETS :
Constraints:
Rabon Metcalf Engineering
October 27 , 2005
Rainfall Event: 10-Y ear (Design) 100-Y ear (Analyzed)
Opening: Minimum opening of 5 feet
Inlet Sizing: Maximum ponding at sag inlets less than 18 inches
Results:
TABLE#3
STORM DRAIN INLETS
Event Cwblnlet Runoff Opening
(yr) 1.D . (cfs) (ft)
10 Al 6.56 10 0 .37
100 Al 8.97 10 0 .46
10 A2 15.41 15 0 .52
100 A2 21.40 15 0 .50
10 A3 6 .26 5 0 .43
100 A3 6 .71 5 0 .52
10 A4 2 .41 5 0 .26
100 A4 3 .25 5 0.32
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM:
Constraints :
Rainfall Event : 10-Year (Design) 100-Year (Analyzed)
Velocity of Flows: Maximum= 15 fps Minimum=2. 5 fps
Hydraulic Grade: 0 .50 feet below gutter@ design storm
Results : Refer to summary data generated by WinStorm calculations.
Rabon A. Metcalf, P .E .
nnengineer@verizon.net
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
/
,--~
0
' '
' ' \
\
0
r---
...... I ~ -;---+---.
I
I
I
~ .. __ _
.....-
' '
' '
·~' , ' ,
f
~
ZONE X
zo
~ ~
APPROXIMATE SCALE
500 0 500FEET
eE9:3::::::JE9=:C::~E9:3C::::C::::C::::C::::C::::::::J•
UTIOHL fLODD IHllAllCE PIGllAI
FLOOD INSURANCE RA TE MAP
BRAZOS COUNTY,
TEXAS AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
1111 M» INOSlC ,011 PANILI NOT PlllNTIO)
"*•111'1tu:1'tM.6'IUllltll• .......... llil .... - -.., -· °" COllMUllln 1111111R -__ ._,. ...... _..,.......fw ... Nljtll -..
MAP NUMBER
41041C0144 C
EFFECTIVE DATE:
JULY 2, 1992
Thi• It .,, Olldll copy of I p0111on of the lbM rwfwencld tlood map . n WH extrac:tld
ullng F·MIT Vll'llon 1.0. Thia map doe1not reflect ct11ng11or1mtndment1whk:h
mey hive been mlde tubMQUllll lo th• d1t1 on ti• lltll blodc . Futhw lnfonnallOn
about Na9onll l'lood lnlUl'llllC8 Progrwn tlood h&Zlld map1 l1 IVllllbl1 II
www .fema. lmltllld.
\
\
\
\
\
01
CY
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ \)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/0
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
\?Cx:!~
0 I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
' ' I
I
,Q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\0
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1''
I
I
11
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
'-,
I
I
I
I
I
® ,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
stmOutput
WinStorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN) Version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002
Run @ 10/27/2005 4:27:31 PM
PROJECT NAME : 178
JOB NUMBER 0245
PROJECT DESCRIPTION : Marion Pugh Drive -Extension
DESIGN FREQUENCY
ANALYSYS FREQUENCY
MEASUREMENT UNITS:
10 Years
100 Years
ENGLISH
OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of: 10 Years
===========================================
Runoff Computation for Design Frequency.
=============================================================================
ID C Value
A2 0.469
0.82
0.35
Al 0.82
0.82
A3 0.519
0.82
0.35
A4 0.82
Area
(acre)
10.70
2.72
7.98
1. 67
1. 67
1.11
0.40
0.71
0.34
Tc
(min)
63.33
Concrete
Tc Used
(min)
63.33
Undeveloped
31. 57 31. 57
Concrete
10 .00 10.00
Concrete
Undeveloped
10.00 10.00
Sag Inlets Configuration Data.
Intensity
(in/hr)
3.07
4.79
8.63
8.63
Supply Q
(cfs)
0 .000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total Q
(cfs)
15.407
6.556
4.978
2.407
=================================================================================
Inlet Inlet Length/ Grate
ID Type Perim. Area
Al
A2
A3
A4
(ft) (sf)
Curb 10.00
Curb 15 .00
Curb 5 .00
Curb 5.00
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Sag Inlets Computation Data.
Left-Slope
Long Trans
(%) ( % )
0.60 3.00
0.60 3.00
0.60 3 .00
0.60 3.00
Right-Slope
Long Trans
Gutter
n DeprW
(ft) ( % ) ( % )
0.60
0.60
0. 94
0.94
3.00 0.014
3.00 0.014
3.00 0.014
3.00 0.014
1. 50
1.50
1. 50
1. 50
Depth
Allowed
(ft)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Critic
Elev.
(ft)
323.58
323.58
322.97
322.97
================================================================================
Page 1
stmOutput
Inlet Inlet Length Grate Total Q Inlet Total Ponded Width
ID Type Pe rim Area Capacity Head Left Right
(ft) (ft) (sf) (cfs) (cf s) (ft) (ft) (ft)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Curb 10.00 n/a n/a 6.556 10.327 0.369 11. 40 5.00
A2 Curb 15.00 n/a n/a 15.407 14.393 0.523 15.70 6.90
A3 Curb 5.00 n/a n/a 4.978 6.261 0.429 8.23 7.57
A4 Curb 5.00 n/a n/a 2.407 6.261 0.264 6.27 5.77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Junction Discharge Computations
=================================================================================
Node Node Weighted Cumulat. Cumulat. Intens. User Additional Total
I. D. Type C-Value Dr.Area Tc Supply Q Q in Node Disch.
(acres) (min) (in/hr) cfs) (cf s) (cfs)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01 CircMh 0.524 13.82 64.76 3.02 0.000 0.00 21.899
Al Curb 0.820 1. 67 31.57 4.79 0.000 0.00 6.556
A2 Curb 0.517 12.37 63.33 3.07 0.000 0.00 19.607
A3 Curb 0.517 13.48 64.69 3.02 0.000 0.00 21. 072
A4 Curb 0.820 0.34 10.00 8.63 0.000 0.00 2.407
Jl JnctBx 0.524 13.82 64.76 3.02 0.000 0.00 21. 899
OUT JnctBx 0.524 13.82 64.76 3.02 0.000 0.00 21. 899
Conveyance Configuration Data
=================================================================================
Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev.
US DS US DS Shape #
(ft) (ft)
1 321.53 321.36 Circ 1
2 320.91 319.80 Circ 1
3 319.70 319.65 Circ 1
4 320.20 320.09 Circ 1
5 19.55 318.75 Circ 1
6 318.75 318.70 Ditch 1
Span
(ft)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.00
Rise
(ft)
1.50
2.50
2.50
1.50
2.50
2.00
Length
(ft)
56.00
444.54
22.63
38.09
313.99
10.00
Slope
(%)
0.30
0.25
0.22
0.29
0.25
0.50
n value
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.026
--?---------------------------------------------------------------
Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tailwater = 0.000 (ft)
=================================================================================
Hydraulic Gradeline Depth
Run# US Elev DS Elev Fr.Slope Unif. Actual
(ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft)
Page 2
Velocity
Unif. Actual
(f/s) (f/s)
Q
(cfs)
Cap
(cfs)
June
Loss
(ft)
stmOutput
322.77 322.63 0.279 1.17 1. 27 4.43 4.11 6.56 6.84 0.000
322.63 321. 58 0.164 1. 72 1. 77 5.45 5.26 19.61 24.23 0.000
321.43 0.189 1. 88 1. 88 5.34 21. 07 22.79 0.000
3 1. 43 0.038 0.62 1. 34 .41 6.67 0.000
320.34 0.204 1. 88 1. 88 .90 24.47 0.000
319.50 0.015 0.80 0.80 21. 90 126.65 0.000
:========================================================'?=====================
OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQUENCY of: 100 Years
=============================================
Runoff Computation for Analysis Frequency.
=============================================================================
ID C Value
A2 0.469
0.82
0.35
Al 0.82
0.82
A3 0.519
0.82
0.35
A4 0.82
Area Tc
(acre) (min)
10.70 63.33
2.72 Concrete
Tc Used
(min)
63.33
7.98 Undeveloped
1. 67 31.57 31. 57
1. 67 Concrete
1.11 10.00 10.00
0.40 Concrete
0.71 Undeveloped
0.34 10.00 10.00
Sag Inlets Configuration Data.
Intensity
(in/hr)
4.26
6.55
11. 64
11. 64
Supply Q
(cfs)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total Q
(cfs)
21.398
8.969
6.710
3.245
=================================================================================
Inlet Inlet Length/ Grate
ID Type Perim. Area
Al
A2
A3
A4
Curb
Curb
Curb
Curb
(ft) (sf)
10.00
15.00
5.00
5.00
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Sag Inlets Computation Data.
Left-Slope
Long Trans
( % ) ( % )
0.60 3.00
0.60 3.00
0.60 3.00
0.60 3.00
Right-Slope
Long Trans
Gutter
n DeprW
(ft) (%) (%)
0.60
0.60
0. 94
0.94
3.00 0.014
3.00 0.014
3.00 0.014
3.00 0.014
1. 50
1. 50
1.50
1. 50
Page 3
Depth
Allowed
(ft)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Critic
Elev.
(ft)
323.58
323.58
322.97
322.97
. \ stmOutput
================================================================================
Inlet Inlet Length Grate Total Q Inlet Total Ponded Width
ID Type Pe rim Area Capacity Head Left Right
(ft) (ft) (sf) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Curb 10.00 n/a n/a 8.969 10.327 0.455 12.80 5.63
A2 Curb 15.00 n/a n/a 21. 398 23.379 0.499 17.77 7.80
A3 Curb 5.00 n/a n/a 6.710 6.261 0.524 9.23 8.47
A4 Curb 5.00 n/a n/a 3.245 6.261 0.323 7.03 6.47
Cumulative Junction Discharge Computations
=================================================================================
Node Node Weighted Cumulat. Cumulat. Intens. User Additional Total
I. D. Type C-Value Dr.Area Tc Supply Q Q in Node Disch.
(acres) (min) (in/hr) cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01 CircMh 0.524 13.82 64.73 4.20 0.000 0.00 30.440
Al Curb 0.820 1. 67 31.57 6.55 0.000 0.00 8.969
A2 Curb 0.517 12.37 63.33 4.26 0.000 0.00 27.232
A3 Curb 0.517 13.48 64.67 4.20 0.000 0.00 29.288
A4 Curb 0.820 0.34 10.00 11.64 0.000 0.00 3.245
Jl JnctBx 0.524 13.82 64.73 4.20 0.000 0.00 30.440
OUT JnctBx 0.524 13.82 64.73 4.20 0.000 0.00 30.440
Conveyance Configuration Data
=================================================================================
=
Run# Node I. D. Flow line Elev.
us DS us DS Shape # Span Rise Length Slope n value
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Al A2 321. 53 321. 36 Circ 1 0.00 1.50 56.00 0.30 0.011
2 A2 A3 320.91 319.80 Circ 1 0.00 2.50 444.54 0.25 0.011
3 A3 Jl 319.70 319.65 Circ 1 0.00 2.50 22.63 0.22 0.011
4 A4 Jl 320.20 320.09 Circ 1 0.00 1. 50 38.09 0.29 0.011
5 Jl OUT 319.55 318 .75 Circ 1 0.00 2.50 313.99 0.25 0.011
6 OUT 01 318.75 318.70 Ditch 1 7.00 2.00 10.00 0.50 0.026
Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tailwater = 0.000 (ft)
=================================================================================
Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Velocity
Run# US Elev DS Elev Fr.Slope Unif. Actual Unif. Actual
Page 4
Q Cap
June
Loss
.. stmOutput
(ft) (ft) ( % ) (ft) (ft) (f/s) (f/s) (cfs) (cfs) (ft)
1 324.42 324 .13 0.522 1.50 1. 50 5 .08 5.08 8. 97 6.84 0.000
2 324.13 322 .21 0.315 2.50 2.50 5.55 5.55 27.23 24.23 0.000
3 322.21 322.12 0.365 2.50 2.50 5. 97 5. 97 29.29 22 .79 0.000
4 322.15 322.12 0.068 0.74 1. 50 3.75 1. 84 3.25 6.67 0.000
5 322.12 320.63 0.394 2 .50 2.50 6 .20 6.20 30.44 24.47 0.000
6 319.70 319.65 0 .029 0.95 0.95 3.24 3.24 30.44 126. 65 0.000
===================================END===========================================
NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM.
Warning Messages for current project :
Runoff Frequency of: 10 Years
Capacity of sag inlet exceeded at inlet Id= A2
Discharge decreased downstream node Id= OUT Previous intensity used.
Tailwater set to uniform depth elevation= 319.50(ft)
Upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= OUT
Runoff Frequency of: 100 Years
Computed left ponded width exceeds allowable width at inlet Id= A2
Capacity of sag inlet exceeded at inlet Id= A3
Discharge decreased downstream node Id= OUT Previous intensity used.
Tailwater set to uniform depth elevation= 319.65 (ft)
Upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= OUT
Run# 5 Insufficient capacity.
Run# 3 Insufficient capacity.
Run# 2 Insufficient capacity.
Upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= A2
Run# 1 Insufficient capacity .
Upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= Al
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE-10/27/2005
MARION PUGH DRIVE EHENSRJN"
LUTHER STREET WEST to HOLLEMAN DRIVE WEST
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
PAVING IMPROVEMENTS
Mobilization, Construction Staking, Demolition & 1 LS $10,000.00 Construction Coordination
Barricades, Signs & Traffic Control 1 LS $10,000 .00
Erosion, Sedimentation Control & Seeding 1 LS $5,000.00
Earthwork Excavation (Includes stripping & ROW 1,800 CY $6.00 Preparation)
Earthwork Embankment (Includes Also Topsoil & 1,800 CY $9 .00 Final Grading)
4" Thick Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk (Includes 12 ,792 SF $3.50 H/CRamps)
6" Raised Standard Monolithic Concrete Curb & 2,132 LF $13.00 Gutter
6" Thick Compacted Lime Stabilized Subgrade (6% 6,160 SY $5 .00 Lime by Weight)
7" Thick Portland Cement Concrete Street Pavement 5,686 SY $34 .00
Striping, Symbols & Signage 1 LS $4,000 .00
SUB-TOTAL=
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Mobilization, Traffic Control, Construction Staking, & 1 LS $10,000.00 Trench Safety (Storm Sewer)
15" ADS (N-12) Storm Sewer w/Cement Stabilized 56 LF $30.00 Sand Bedding
18" ADS (N-12) Storm Sewer w/Cement Stabilized 38 LF $35.00 Sand Bedding
30" ADS (N-12) Storm Sewer w/Cement Stabilized 721 LF $60.00 Sand Bedding -
Junction Box 1 EA $2,400.00
(5' Opening) Curb Inlet 2 EA $2,200.00
(10' Opening) Curb Inlet 1 EA $2,500.00
(15' Opening) Curb Inlet 1 LF $3,000.00
Street Bore @ Holleman Drive (Ory Bore -42" Steel
Encasement {Sch 40} -30" ADS {N-12} Storm 60 LF $500.00
Sewer Carrier Pipe
CD1-178-0245-E04
$10,000 .00
$10,000 .00
$5 ,000 .00
$10,800.00
$16,200.00
$44,772 .00
$27,716.00
$30,800.00
$193 ,324.00
$4,000.00
$352,612.00
$10,000.00
$1,680 .00
$1,330.00
$43,260 .00
$2,400.00
$4,400.00
$2,500.00
$3,000.00
$30,000.00
1of2
..
( ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE-10/27/2005
SUB-TOTAL=
10% CONTINGENCY =
$98,570.00
$45,118.20
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST = $496,300.20
This Engineer's Cost Estimate was prepared in our office,
at the date shown, and is released for the purpose of
public infrastructure ·
CD1-178-0245-E04
RABON METCALF ENGINEERING
POST OFFICE BOX 9253
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842
CELL: (979) 219-4174
FAX: (979) 690-0329
E-mail: nnengineer@verizon.net
2 of2
~n Notice of Intent (NOi) for Storm Water Discharges TCEQ Office Use Only
•
Associated with Construction Activity under the TPDES Permit Number: TXR15·~·~·~·~·--NO
TPDES Construction General Permit (TXR150000) GIN Number: ·~·~·~·~·:_·:_·~··
For help completing this application, read the TXR150000 NOi instructions
(TCEQ-20022-lnstructions).
A. Construction Site Operator lllNew C]No Change Customer Reference Number: CN 1
Name : American Caml!!!S Develooers, LLC
Mailing Address: 805 Las Cimas Parkwax, Suite 400 City: Austin State : TX Zip Code: 78746
Country Mailing Information (if outside USA) Territory: Country Code: Postal Code:
Phone Number: (512} 732-1000 Extension: Fax Number: (512} 732-2453
E-mail Address: XH!rcia@.!tudenthousing.com
Type of Operator: D Individual D Sole Proprietorship -D. B.A lll Partnership [J Corporation D Federal Government
[J State Government CJ County Government CJ City Government Cl Other:
Independent Operator? llJ Yes IJ No Number of Employees: CJ 0-20IJ21-1000101-250 0 251-500 0 501 or higher
Federal Tax ID: State Franchise Tax ID Number: DUNS Number:
B. Bllllng Address
Name: American Caml!!!s Develooers, LLC
Mailing Address: 805 Las Cimas Parkwax, Suite 400 City: Austin State:~Zip Code: 78746
Country Mailing Information (if outside USA) Territory: Country Code: Postal Code:
c. Project I Site Information (llNew C)No Change Regulated Entity Reference Number: RN
Name: Marion Pugh Drive Extension
Mailing Address: 305 Marion P!:!51h Drive City: COll!51e Station State : TX Zip Code: n84o
Physical Address: 305 Marion Pygh Drive City: Colleee Station County: BRAZOS Zip Code: n84o
Location Access Description: Extesnion of street from Luther Drive to Holleman Drive
Latitude: 0 . " N Longitude: __ 0 _' .JL." W Degrees (0
), Minutes (1, and Seconds c-) ------
Latitude: 30.§.!2~8 Longitude : -96.340865 Decimal Form
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code: 1522 Also, describe the construction activity at this site (do not repeat the SIC code):
l:ligh l2!ID!ilx Rgidential ADartment Q!veloomenl
Has a storm water pollution prevention plan been prepared as specified in the general permit (TXR150000)? llJYes D No
Estimated area of land disturbed (to the nearest acre): 2.0 Is the project I site located on Indian Country Lands? 0 Yes llJ No
Does this project I site discharge storm water into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)? I.II Yes D No
If yes, provide the name of the MS4 operator: Citx of College Station
Provide the name or segment number of the water body that receives storm water from this project I site: Bee Creek to Carters Creek
D. Contact -If the TCEQ needs additional information regarding this application, who should be contacted?
Name: Rabon Metcalf Engineering Title: P.E.
Phone Number: 979-690-0329 Extension: Fax Number: 979-690-0329
E-mail Address: nnengineer@verizon.net
E. Payment Information -Check I Money Order Number: Name on Check I Money Order:
F. certmcat1on
I certify under penaly of law lhatthis document was prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete . I am
aware there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Construction Site Operator Representative:
Prefix: First: Xavier Middle:
Last: Garica Suffix: Title : Prgect ManaS!!
Signature: Date :
If you have questions on how to fiH out this form or about the storm water program, please contact us at (512) 239-4671 .
Individuals are entitled to request and review their personal information that the agency gathers on its forms. They may also have any errors in their information
corrected. To review such information, contact us at (512) 239-3282.
The completed NOi must be mailed to the following address. Use the attached document to submit the $100
application fee . Please note that the NOi and application fee are submitted separately to different addresses.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Storm Water & General Permits Team; MC -228
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
TCEQ-20022 (02/03) Page 1 of2
.. A
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Payment Submittal Fonn
The storm water application fee shall be sent under separate cover to the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality.
This form must be used to submit your Storm Water Application Fee. Please complete the following
information, staple your check in the space provided at the bottom of this document, and mail it to:
BY REGULAR U.S. MAIL
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Financial Administration Division
Cashier's Office, MC-214
P .O . Box 13088
Austin , TX 78711-3088
Fee Code: GPA
BY OVERNIGHT/EXPRESS MAIL
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Financial Administration Division
Cashier's Office, MC-214
12100 Park 35 Circle
Austin , TX 78753
Storm Water General Permit: TXR150000
Check I Money Order No: __________ Amount of Check/Money Order: _____ _
Date of Check or Money Order:--------
Name on Check or Money Order: ------------------------
Facility I Site Name: Marion Pugh Drive Extension
Facility I Site Physical Address: _30_5...._Ma_n_·on ........ P __ us ....... h .... D....,n.._·v_e ________________ _
City : College Station Zip Code : ..... 7.._784 ........ o __________ _
Staple Check In This Space
TCEQ-20022 (02/03) Page2 of2
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning & Development Strvicts
SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Right of Way of Marion Pugh Dr
btw Luther St and Holleman Dr West
DATE OF ISSUE: October 10, 2005
OWNER:
American Campus Developers, LLC
805 Las Cimas Parkway, Suite 400
Austin , TX 787 46
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
PERMIT NO. 05-48A
Project Description
FOR AREAS Outside THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE
SITE ADDRESS:
Marion Pugh Extension -South
DRAINAGE BASIN:
Bee Creek North Fork Tribe "B"
VALID FOR 12 MONTHS
CONTRACTOR:
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: Clearing and Grading Only
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans
Clearing and Grading Only
The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate
construction site in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station
Drainage Policy and Design Criteria. If it is determined the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective
to retain all sediment onsite, it is the contractors responsibility to implement measures that will meet City, State
and Federal requirements. The Owner and/or Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and
establishment of vegetation occurs prior to removal of any silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion
control. The Owner and/or Contractor shall also insure that any disturbed vegetation be returned to its original
condition, placement and state. The Owner and/or Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to
adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy machinery and/or equipment as well as erosion,
siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work.
Any trees required to be protected by ordinance or as part of the landscape plan must be completely fenced
before any operations of this permit can begin.
In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be
taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets,
or existing drainage facilities.
I hereby grant this permit for development of an area Outside the special flood hazard area. All development
shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the
development permit application for the above named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of
College S 'on that apply.
p :\group\htltr\pzltr\prod\pz2005 \p 011817.doc
'
CITY OF Coll.EGE STATION
Planning & Development Servim
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FO 'Kr.fJ.C~U ~~LY
case No .. ~~ ......... """"'--~,....,V,=------,=.....-
oate Subn;e;q -C\ -OS-
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
~ $200.00 development permit fee.
~ Drainage and erosion control plan, with supporting Drainage Report two (2) copies each
~ Notice of Intent (N .0.1.) if disturbed area is greater than 5 acres
Date of *Required Preapplication Conference: .... M .... a_.r .... c ..... h_.7 ......... 2 ..... 0 ..... 0 .... s ____________ _
*(Required for areas of special flood hazard)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Right-of-way of Marion Pugh Drive between Luther Street West and Holleman Drive
West.
APPLICANTS INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name Rabon Metcalf. P.E. (Rabon Metcalf Engineering) E-Mail __ ..;..;.rm.:..;..e=n""""g=in=e=e'-"r@-.v~e;;..:..ri=zo=n..:.:.·.:..;..ne=t __ _
Street Address P.O. Box 9253 --------------~-~~~-----------
City __ __:::C:;..::o"""lle=-g"'""e"-S=t=a=tio=n-'-----State TX Zip Code 77842
Phone Number (979) 690-0329 Fax Number (979) 690-0329
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name American Campus Developers. LLC E-Mail xgarcia@studenthousing.com
Street Address _____________ _..;:;8-=-0-=-5-=L=as;:;;.....:C.;..:..im;.;.;;a=s"--'P-'a=r=kw"""'a:;:..;yu.., -=S=u=ite;:......;..40"'"'0:;..._ ___ _
City ____ ..:...A=u=sti=·n-'------State TX Zip Code 787 46
Phone Number (512) 732-1000 Fax Number (512) 732-2453
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
Name ____ ---'S~a=m~e---.;;A-=-s~A~P~P=lic=a=n=t ____ _ E-Mail -------------
Street Address ------------------------------
City ___________ State-------Zip Code--------
Phone Number Fax Number ------------------------
Application is hereby made for the following development specific site/waterway alterations :
Paving and drainage improvements of Marion Pugh Drive located within the Carters Creek watershed
draining to the North Fork. Tributarv "B" of Bee Creek.
( 1lr
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
I, Rabon A. Metcalf. P.E., design engineer/owner, hereby acknowledge or affirm that:
The information and concl sions contained in the above plans and supporting documents comply with the
current requirements of th City of College Station, Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and its associated Drainage
Policy a Standa s.
As a condition of approval of this permit application, I agree to construct the improvements pr.oposed in this
application according to these documents and the requirements of Chapter 13 of the College Station City
Code
Contractor
CERTIFICATIONS:
A. I, N/A, certify that any nonresidential structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application
is designated to prevent damage to the structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100-
year storm.
N/A N/A
Engineer Date
8 . I, N/A , certify that the finished floor elevation of the lowest floor, including any basement, of any
residential structure , proposed as part of this application is at or above the base flood elevation
established in the latest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study and maps , as
amended .
Engineer Date
C. I, Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E., certify that the alterations or development covered by this permit shall not
diminish the flood-ca ing capacity of the waterway adjoining or crossing this permitted site and that
such alterations or d elopment are consistent with requirements of the City of College Station City
Code , Chapter 13 co ceming encroachments of floodways and of floodways fringes.
:i/'1/6
Date
' · D. I, Rabon A . Metcalf. P.E., do certify that the proposed alterations do not raise the level of the 100 year
flood above elevation tablished in the latest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study.
Date
Conditions or comments as part of approval :----------------------
In accordance wjth Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measur.es shall be
taken to insure that debris from construction , erosion , and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets,
or existing drainage facilities . All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer for the above named project. All of the applicable codes and
ordinances of the City of College Station shall apply.
October 31, 2005
Cn'Y o.r Cou.EGI:: s·1~nON
Plmmi"f & ~mt Str11ius
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 I l•'ax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rabon Metcalf, RME, Via fax 690.0329
FROM: Bridgette George, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: DP-MARION PUGH
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned engineering documents as requested. The
following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be
addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information for
further staff review and approval of the plans:
I_ Two (2) sets of revised construction documents.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please Josh Norton or myself
at 979.764.3570 .
Attachments: Staff Review Comments
Cc: American campus Developers, LLC, via fax 512.732.2453
Case file no. 0~100048
Home of Texas A&M University
.I.VI ttt1i1 C.VW'"" ... • .. '
#. l
DP-MARION PUGH (05-00100048)
ENGINEERING REVIEW
COMMENTS No. 3
~Sheet DA-01) Show RFD at the end of the ditch improveme ~
~ J Sheet ST-03) Show RFD at the end of the ditch improvemerie('"
y.·(Orainage Report: Sheet DA-01) Correct so that "Outfalr and "01 · are not the
,..-same area .
tK Provide dry bore spec and detail and/or make reference to BCS Standard Spec
-~nd Detail for dry bore. ~
{/6· ~Sheet ST-03: Steel Encasement Detail) Void between ADS and Steltt""'
Encasement must be grout filled or non-deteriorating material must be used for
spacers.
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: October 31, 2005
NOTE: Arty ~ nmde to the plllna, tt1llt have nat been requated by the Cly of College station, mult be expllined in
~ net ni......, letter ..S "bubblld" en your plans. Any llddlional dllngls on thete plans that haw not been
pointed out to the City of College station wm constlute a completaly new review.
Page 2ol2
October 19. 2005
CrrY Of CoL~GE STKBON
P/mming & Dtr.vlopmm1 Smtim
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979. 764.3570 / Fax 979. 764.3496
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rabon Metcalf. via fax 979-690-0329
FROM: Josh Norton, Development Engineering
SUBJECT: DP-MARION PUGH
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned engineering documents as requested. The
following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be
addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information for
further staff review and approval of the plans:
j_ Two (2) sets of revised construction documents.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call * or myself at
764.3570.
Attachments : Staff Review Comments
Cc: American Campus Developers, via fax: 512-732-2453
Case file no. 05-00100048
Home of Texas A&M University
DP-MARION PUGH (05-00100048)
Engineering Review
Comments No. 1
lude ADS Spec in detail.
Check bedding detail for ADS under pavement and under sidewalk and under
on structural, to illustrate our previous conversation.
ase illustrate all water line/stonn line conflicts in profile view.
he water line/storm line conflict at Sta. "( +50 appears to only have 5" of
clearance. Would it be possible to change the 18" ADS to a smaller size to
· ease the clearance?
he water line/storm line conflict at Sta. 12+00 appears to have no clearance.
y look to be hitting each other?
,...-_, . .__water line/storm line conflict at Sta. 14+00, please show conflict in profile .
profile view at Sta. 12+50, ADS pipe labeled as 2 -24" ?
how detail of the full length of ditch improvements in plan and profile (also
~ow on erosion control and grading plan).
? -----/.,,,JP' Use rip-rap at the drainage outfall point in plan and profile (also show on erosion
, j:OOtrol and grading plan).
1 --~7 %. Show full length of ditch improvements to be sodded in plan and profile (also
show on erosion control and grading plan). Sodding is required due to the
proposed outfall velocity . However, if rip-rap is used and the outfall velocity is
own to be less than 4 .5 ft/sec than seed may be used.
inage Report (pg. 2) -Table 2 : UMinimum Velocity" to "Minimum Grade•.
he indude Bryan-College Station standard construction details (ie . open cut,
ving. etc.)
ere the recommendations made in the geotechnical report reflected entirely in
construction documents?
. The construction plans are still under review by other offices within the city.
Please contact me before resubmitting plans so that I make you aware of any
anges.
lease submit a NOi for this project
. FYI : Handicap Ramp is fine as shown, please include the B-CS Detail anyways .
Looks like it may match the SW1-02 ramp with the exception of 3' back to curb .
Reviewed by: Josh Norton
_L~V.S-r, oJ
Y'"~~ ti
~ o~ ~J ....b,.
Date: October 19. 2005
s~
..Shu.-t OA-... O, -? .J'1-
J(~t-..)\ ... 0) -")
f'lf A(' @ ~ ;if cAh( •'r-f~
NOTE: Arly dlanges made to lhe plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in
YIXI' n8!lCI ll • 1s11111ta1 letter and "bubbled" on YQll' plans. Arf'( llddlional chaf9I$ on these plans that have not been
paned out to the City of College Station wlN constitute a completely new review .
Page 2of2
.l.V/ L I I t.VV..J -S, t."I Yrl uwrAA -) ~/~b~UU~~~
CITY Of COLLEGE STATION
Planning & Development Serviw
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, 'l'exas 77842
Phone 979. 764.3570 I Fax 979. 764.3496
MEMORANDUM
October 27, 2005
TO: Rabon Metcalf. RME, Via fax 690.0329
FROM: Bridgette George, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT : DP-MARION PUGH
Page 1 of 2
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned engineering documents as requested . The
following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be
addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information for
further staff review and approval of the plans:
.4::., Two (2) sets of revised construction documents.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Josh Norton or
myself at 979. 764.3570 .
Attachments : Staff Review Comments
Cc : American Campus Developers, LLC, via fax 512 .732 .2453
Case file no. 05-00100048
Home of Texas A&M University
lU/Zd/ZUU~ i:Zi Pft uwrAx -> 9~96900329
DP-MARION PUGH (05-00100048)
ENGINEERING REVIEW
COMMENTS No. 2
Page 2 of 2
· raffic Signage -Please make changes to the traffic signage plan as indicated.
The corrected plan was left for you to pick up at the front desk on Tuesday,
ober 25. 2005.
Electrical -Please advise contractor to notify CoCS Electrical in advance
arding the guy wire relocation .
blic Works -The proposed open cut of Holleman Dr. for the storm sewer pipe
installation will not be allowed. The storm sewer pipe installation must be done
by way of boring of Holleman Dr. This requirement is per the City of College
Station's -Code of Ordinances: Chapter 3, Section 2 - G (10) as stated below:
It is the City's policy not to cut streets or sidewalks ; however, when a street or sidewalk
cut is necessary, prior written approval must be obtained from the Ctty and all
requirements of the City shall be followed. Repair of all street and sidewalk removals
must be made promptly to avoid safety hazards to vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: October 27, 2005
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station , must be explained in
your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your plans . Any addiional changes on these plans that have not been
pointed out to the City of College Station will constitute e completely new review .
Page 2of2
DP-MARION PUGH (05-00100048)
Engineering Review
Comments No. 1
&" t:I: Plew Iii 1es r rot 3etmer
V"ADsSpec
3. Check bedding detail for ADS under pavement and under sidewalk and under
on structural
--=~"'-ater Line/ Storm Line Conflict at Sta. 7+50 & Sta. 12+00 & Sta . 14+00
~I Em pa ve:: :er rt := ~n profile view at Sta. 12+50, ADS pipe labeled as 2 -24" ?
Detail of open street cut??? ii!: Show detail of the full length of ditch improvements.
~ Use rip-rap at the drainage outfall point
10. Show full length of ditch improvements to be sodded. Sodding is required due to
the proposed outfall velocity.
~raffic Signage -Troy Rother
~01 ~ctrical Comments
~ lry drel"lt &4
Reviewed by:
~I&
~-r ... 7
Josh Norton
~~,.1..1,~ J "'"'3
J-~~
~...,,..,>.l t... (~ ~ (
~ !$ (;t~~
~g \t.,tl, 4.A-1 l-J-h-J-
Date:
NOTE : Any changes made to the plans , that have not been requested by the City of College Station , must be
explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled " on your plans . Any additional changes on these plans
that have not been pointed out to the City of College Station will constitute a completely new review .
Page 2 of 2
RA BON METCALF ENGINEER~~N!G-==~~~~i::-==~~~-,,' '~--C)79)690 -0329 -Home
POST OFFlCE BOX 92S3 ---C)79)690 -0329 -FAX
COLLEGE STATION , TEXAS77842 (979)219-4174 -CELL
November 1, 2005
Josh Norton, E.I.T.
Graduate Engineer
EMAIL: rm en gin eer @ju n o .com
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue South
College Station, TX 77842
05#'1'{
11/1/0)
f:JD
/1Jl_.
RE: Marion Pugh Drive Extension-Luther Street West to Holleman Drive West
Transmittal Letter for Permit Set Submissions
RME No.178-0245
Dear Josh :
Please find attached the following sets of construction plans for the above referenced project.
These plans are ready for your approval.
3 -Complete Sets of Construction Drawings;
4 -Extra Sets of Construction Drawings -RETURN TO RME;
1 -Staff Review Comments No. 3
3 -Revised Sheet DA-01 for Drainage Report;
Please contact me when the plans and Development Permit are ready to be picked up .
Thanks so very much for the help. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
nnengineer@verizon
CD l-l 78-0245-Ll6 Page-I
October 27 , 2005
Josh Norton, E.I . T.
Graduate Engineer
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue South
College Station, TX 77842
RE: Marion Pugh Drive Extension -Luther Street West to Holleman Drive West
Transmittal Letter for 3rd Submittal
RME No.178-0245
Dear Josh :
Please find attached the following information for the above referenced project.
1 -Copy of Construction Drawings addressing Engineering Review Comments No . 1;
1 -Copy of "Revised" Drainage Letter;
1 -Copy of "Revised" Engineer's Cost Estimate;
1 -NOI ;
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions .
Ra n A. Metcalf, P .E .
rmengineet@verizon.ne
CDI-178-0245 -Ll4 Page -I
October 10, 2005
Josh Norton, E .I. T.
Graduate Engineer
EMAIL: rm engineer @j u u o .com
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue South
College Station, TX 77842
RE: Marion Pugh Drive Extension-Luther Street West to Holleman Drive West
Transmittal Letter for 2nd Submittal
RME No.178-0245
Dear Josh:
Please find attached the following sets of construction plans for the above referenced project. As
we discussed the revised set of drawing submitted on Thursday will be utilized for review.
4 -Copies of Erosion Control & Grading Plan sheets;
1 -Copy of "Revised" Drainage Letter;
1 -Copy of "Revised" Engineer's Cost Estimate;
The following items were submitted at the initial tum-in and are still applicable to this project:
1. Development Permit and $200 application fee ;
2 . Two (2) copies of the Geotechnical Investigation & Report;
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions .
Rab n A. Metcalf, P.E.
rmengineer@verizon.net
CDl-178-0245-LB Page-1
October 31, 2005
C ITY OF COLLEGE STATI ON
Planning & Development Services
110 1 Texas Ave nue, P .O . B ox 996 0
Co ll ege Sta ti o n , Texas 778 42
Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.7 64.3496
MEMORANDUM
TO : Rabon Metcalf, RME, Via fax 690.0329
FROM : Bridgette George, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT : DP -MARION PUGH
Staff reviewed the above -mentioned engineering documents as requested . The
following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be
addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information for
further staff review and approval of the plans :
__ Two (2) sets of revised construction documents.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please Josh Norton or myself
at 979 .764 .3570.
Attachments : Staff Review Comments
Cc : American Campus Developers, LLC , via fax 512 .732.2453
Case fi le no. 05-00100048
Home of Texas A&M University
,
DP-MARION PUGH (05-00100048)
ENGINEERING REVIEW
COMMENTS No. 3
1. (Sheet DA-01) Show RFD at the end of the ditch improvements .
2. (Sheet ST-03) Show RFD at the end of the ditch improvements.
3. (Drainage Report: Sheet DA-01) Correct so that "Outfall " and "01 " are not the
same area.
4 . Provide dry bore spec and detail and/or make reference to BCS Standard Spec
and Detail for dry bore .
5. (Sheet ST-03 : Steel Encasement Detail) Void between ADS and Steel
Encasement must be grout filled or non-deteriorating material must be used for
spacers.
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date : October 31 , 2005
NOTE : An y changes made to the pl ans , that have not been requested by th e City of College Station , must be
explain ed in yo ur next transmittal lett er an d "bub bled" on yo ur pla ns. An y add itional changes on these plans
that have no t bee n pointed ou t to the City of College Station will co nstitute a completely new rev iew .
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF C OLLEGE S TATIO N
Planning & Development Services
1101 Texas Ave nue, P .O. Box 996 0
Co ll ege Statio n , Texas 77842
Phone 979 .764.357 0 / Fax 979.7 64.3496
MEMORANDUM
October 27, 2005
TO : Rabon Metcalf, RME , Via fax 690 .0329
FROM : Bridgette George , Development Coordinator
SUBJECT : DP-MARION PUGH
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned engineering documents as requested. The
following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be
addressed . Please address the comments and submit the following informa ti on for
further staff review and approval of the plans :
__ Two (2) sets of revised construction documents .
If you have any questions or need addit ional information, please call Josh Norton or
myself at 979.764.3570.
Attachments : Staff Rev iew Comments
Cc : American Campus Developers , LLC , via fax 512.732.2453
Case fi le no . 05-00100048
Home of Texas A&M University
,
DP-MARION PUGH (05-00100048)
ENGINEERING REVIEW
COMMENTS No. 2
1. Traffic Signage -Please make changes to the traffic signage plan as indicated.
The corrected plan was left for you to pick up at the front desk on Tuesday,
October 25, 2005.
2. Electrical -Please advise contractor to notify CoCS Electrical in advance
regarding the guy wire relocation .
3. Public Works -The proposed open cut of Holleman Dr. for the storm sewer pipe
installation will not be allowed . The storm sewer pipe installation must be done
by way of boring of Holleman Dr. This requirement is per the City of College
Station's -Code of Ordinances: Chapter 3, Section 2 -G (10) as stated below:
It is the City's policy not to cut streets or sidewalks ; however, when a street or sidewalk
cut is necessary, prior written approval must be obtained from the City and all
requirements of the City shall be followed. Repair of all street and sidewalk removals
must be made promptly to avoid safety hazards to vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: October 27, 2005
NOTE : Any changes made to the plans , that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be
explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your plans . Any additi ona l changes on these plans
that have not been pointed out to the City of College Station will constitute a completely new review.
Page 2 of 2
C ITY OF C OLLEGE S TATION
Planning e!r D evelopment Services
110 1 Texas Ave n ue, P .O . Box 996 0
Co ll ege Stati o n , Texas 77842
Pho n e 97 9.76 4.3 570 /Fax 979.7 64 .3496
MEMORANDUM
October 19 , 2005
TO : ~Metcalf , via fax 979-690-0329
FROM: Josh Norton , Development Engineering
SUBJECT : DP-MARION PUGH
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned engineering documents as requested. The
fo ll owing page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be
addressed . Please address the comments and submit the following information for
further staff review and approval of the plans:
__ Two (2) sets of revised construction documents .
If you have any questions or need additional information , please call * or myself at
764 .3570 .
Attachments : Staff Review Comments
Cc : ~an Campus Developers , via fax: 512-732-2453
Case file no . 05-00100048
Home of Texas A&M University
..
DP-MARION PUGH (05-00100048)
Engineering Review
Comments No. 1
1. Include ADS Spec in detail.
2. Check bedding detail for ADS under pavement and under sidewalk and under
non structural, to illustrate our previous conversation .
3. Please illustrate all water line/storm line conflicts in profile view.
4. The water line/storm line conflict at Sta. 7+50 appears to only have 5" of
clearance. Would it be possible to change the 18" ADS to a smaller size to
increase the clearance?
5. The water line/storm line conflict at Sta. 12+00 appears to have no clearance.
They look to be hitting each other?
6. The water line/storm line conflict at Sta. 14+00, please show conflict in profile.
7. In profile view at Sta. 12+50, ADS pipe labeled as 2 -24"?
8. Show detail of the full length of ditch improvements in plan and profile (also show
on erosion control and grading plan).
9. Use rip-rap at the drainage outfall point in plan and profile (also show on erosion
control and grading plan).
10. Show full length of ditch improvements to be sodded in plan and profile (also
show on erosion control and grading plan). Sodding is required due to the
proposed outfall velocity. However, if rip-rap is used and the outfall velocity is
shown to be less than 4.5 fUsec than seed may be used.
11. Drainage Report (pg . 2)-Table 2: "Minimum Velocity" to "Minimum Grade".
12 . The include Bryan-College Station standard construction details (ie . open cut ,
paving. etc.)
13. Were the recommendations made in the geotechnical report reflected entirely in
the construction documents?
14. The construction plans are still under review by other offices within the city.
Please contact me before resubmitting plans so that I make you aware of any
changes.
15. Please submit a NOi for this project.
16. FYI: Handicap Ramp is fine as shown, please include the B-CS Detail anyways .
Looks like it may match the SW1-02 ramp with the exception of 3' back to curb.
Reviewed by : Josh Norton Date : October 19, 2005
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans , that have not been requested by the City of College Station , must be
expla in ed in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled " on your plans . Any additional changes on these plans
that have not been pointed out to the City of College Station will constitute a completely new review .
Page 2 of 2
Josh Norton -Re: Marion Pugh Extension
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Pete Vanecek
Josh Norton
10/17/2005 4:58 PM
Re: Marion Pugh Extension
Ric Ploeger
Page 1of1
Josh,Marshall Wallace with Public Works reviewed the site with me 2 weeks ago.He said they will also help us by
some mowing and grading and also cutting a new ditch across the old railroad bed further south of where we
have a picnic slab.That will get the runoff to drain closer to where there is an existing ditch and a large concrete
box drain that drains under the railroad bed to a creek heading southeast.
thanks, Pete
Pete Vanecek '74
Sr.Park Planner
City of College Station
P.O.Box 9960
College Station,Texas 77842
979-764-3412 phone
979-764-3737 fax
pvanecek@cstx.gov
>>>Josh Norton 10/17/05 4:29 PM >>>
I am in the process of reviewing the Marion Pugh extension construction documents done by Rabon Metcalf.
Rabon is proposing to utilize the same drainage outfall point as currently exists (on John Crompton Park
property), add a head wall, and do approximately 240' of grading in the existing drainage ditch. The ditch is
proposed to be graded to a -0.50% minimum. This proposed 240' of grading takes us about half way to
where the ditch turns towards the west and heads towards the pond.
This project as proposed does improve the conditions of the existing outfall point and ditch, however it does not
deal with the recent parks improvements (ie. slab, etc.) and it's proximity to the down stream ditch.
We had talked previously about having the Parks Department coordinate some grading to be done by Public
Works, specifically the area nearest the recent parks improvements.
The purpose in writing this e-mail is to keep you up to date with the Marion Pugh extension project and to find
out if I need to make any further requirements regarding the drainage ditch.
Thanks -Josh Norton
Josh Norton, E.I.T.
Graduate Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
City of College Station
P. 0. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Ph: (979) 764-6221
Fx: (979) 764-3496
file://C :\Documents %2 0and%2 0Settings\jnorton \Local %20Settings\ Temp\GW} 00001.H... 10/20/20 05
Josh Norton -Re: Marion Pugh Extension
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Pete Vanecek
Josh Norton
10/18/2005 8:02 AM
Re: Marion Pugh Extension
Yes,I knew of the water line,just not the size.thanks, Pete
Pete Vanecek '74
Sr.Park Planner
City of College Station
P.O.Box 9960
College Station,Texas 77842
979-764-3412 phone
979-764-3737 fax
>>>Josh Norton 10/17/05 5:04 PM >>>
Thanks Pete.
Page 1 of 2
FYI -There is a 18" Wellborn water line that runs along the east property line of the John Crompton Park. Just
something to keep in mind as drainage improvements are being constructed.
Thanks -Josh Norton
>>>Pete Vanecek 10/17/05 4:58 PM >>>
Josh,Marshall Wallace with Public Works reviewed the site with me 2 weeks ago.He said they will also help us by
some mowing and grading and also cutting a new ditch across the old railroad bed further south of where we
have a picnic slab.That will get the runoff to drain closer to where there is an existing ditch and a large concrete
box drain that drains under the railroad bed to a creek heading southeast.
thanks, Pete
Pete Vanecek '74
Sr.Park Planner
City of College Station
P.O.Box 9960
College Station,Texas 77842
979-764-3412 phone
979-764-3737 fax
>>>Josh Norton 10/17/05 4:29 PM >>>
I am in the process of reviewing the Marion Pugh extension construction documents done by Rabon Metcalf.
Rabon is proposing to utilize the same drainage outfall point as currently exists (on John Crompton Park
property), add a head wall, and do approximately 240' of grading in the existing drainage ditch. The ditch is
proposed to be graded to a -0.50% minimum. This proposed 240' of grading takes us about half way to
where the ditch turns towards the west and heads towards the pond.
This project as proposed does improve the conditions of the existing outfall point and ditch, however it does not
deal with the recent parks improvements (ie. slab, etc.) and it's proximity to the down stream ditch.
We had talked previously about having the Parks Department coordinate some grading to be done by Public
file:/ IC: \Documents%20and%20Settings~norton \Local %20Settings\ Temp\GW} 00001.H... 10/20/2005
Page 2 of2
Works, specifically the area nearest the recent parks improvements.
The purpose in writing this e-mail is to keep you up to date with the Marion Pugh extension project and to find
out if I need to make any further requirements regarding the drainage ditch.
Thanks -Josh Norton
Josh Norton, E.I.T.
Graduate Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
City of College Station
P. 0. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Ph: (979) 764-6221
Fx: (979) 764-3496
file://C:\Docu ments%2 0and%2 0Settings\jnorton \L ocal %20 Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 l .H ... 10/20/2005
• j Josh Norton -Fwd : Re : Marion Pugh Extension
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Mark Smith
Josh Norton
10/18/2005 12 :46 :08 PM
Fwd: Re : Marion Pugh Extension
If Marshall is comfortable with it I am OK with it.
Mark Smith
Director of Public Works
979-764-3639
>» Josh Norton 10/18/05 11 :58 AM »>
»>Pete Vanecek 10/17/05 4:58 PM»>
Josh , Marshall Wallace with Public Works reviewed the site with me 2 weeks ago .He said they will also
help us by some mowing and grading and also cutting a new ditch across the old railroad bed further
south of where we have a picnic slab .That will get the runoff to drain closer to where there is an existing
ditch and a large concrete box drain that drains under the railroad bed to a creek heading southeast.
thanks , Pete
Pete Vanecek '7 4
Sr.Park Planner
City of College Station
P.O .Box 9960
College Station.Texas 77842
979-764-3412 phone
979-764-3737 fax
pvanecek@cstx .gov
»>Josh Norton 10/17/05 4 :29 PM»>
I am in the process of review ing the Marion Pugh extension construction documents done by Rabon
Metcalf. Rabon is proposing to utilize the same drainage outfall point as currently exists (on John
Crompton Park property), add a head wall, and do approximately 240' of grading in the existing drainage
ditch . The ditch is proposed to be graded to a -0 .50% minimum. This proposed 240' of grading takes us
about half way to where the ditch turns towards the west and heads towards the pond .
This project as proposed does improve the conditions of the existing outfall point and ditch , however it
does not deal with the recent parks improvements (ie. slab, etc .) and it's proximity to the down stream
ditch .
We had talked previously about having the Parks Department coordinate some grading to be done by
Public Works, specifically the area nearest the recent parks improvements .
The purpose in writing this e-mail is to keep you up to date with the Marion Pugh extension project and to
find out if I need to make any further requirements regarding the drainage ditch.
Thanks -Josh Norton
Josh Norton, E .l.T .
Graduate Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
City of College Station
P. 0 . Box 9960
College Station , Texas 77842
Page 1 \
• j Josh ·Norton -Fwd : Re : Marion Pugh ExJension
Ph : (979) 764-6221
Fx : (979) 764-3496
CC: Charles Mclemore; Gary Balmain; Marshall Wallace ; Pete Vanecek
Page 2 I
Josh Norton -Fwd: Re: Marion Pugh Extension
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
great
Alan Gibbs
Norton, Josh
10/18/2005 1:30 PM
Fwd: Re: Marion Pugh Extension
>>>Josh Norton 10/18/2005 11:58 AM >>>
>>>Pete Vanecek 10/17/05 4:58 PM >>>
Page 1 of 2
Josh,Marshall Wallace with Public Works reviewed the site with me 2 weeks ago.He said they will also help us by
some mowing and grading and also cutting a new ditch across the old railroad bed further south of where we
have a picnic slab.That will get the runoff to drain closer to where there is an existing ditch and a large concrete
box drain that drains under the railroad bed to a creek heading southeast.
thanks, Pete
Pete Vanecek '74
Sr.Park Planner
City of College Station
P.O.Box 9960
College Station,Texas 77842
979-764-3412 phone
979-764-3737 fax
pvanecek@cstx.gov
>>>Josh Norton 10/17/05 4:29 PM >>>
I am in the process of reviewing the Marion Pugh extension construction documents done by Rabon Metcalf.
Rabon is proposing to utilize the same drainage outfall point as currently exists (on John Crompton Park
property), add a head wall, and do approximately 240' of grading in the existing drainage ditch. The ditch is
proposed to be graded to a -0.50% minimum. This proposed 240' of grading takes us about half way to
where the ditch turns towards the west and heads towards the pond.
This project as proposed does improve the conditions of the existing outfall point and ditch, however it does not
deal with the recent parks improvements (ie. slab, etc.) and it's proximity to the down stream d itch.
We had talked previously about having the Parks Department coordinate some grading to be done by Public
Works, specifically the area nearest the recent parks improvements.
The purpose in writing this e-mail is to keep you up to date with the Marion Pugh extension project and to find
out if I need to make any further requirements regarding the drainage ditch.
Thanks -Josh Norton
Josh Norton, E.I.T.
Graduate Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
City of College Station
P. 0. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Ph: (979) 764-6221
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings~norton \Local %20Setti ngs \ Temp\GW} 00001.H... 10/20/2005
. ' . ~ Page 2 of2
Fx: (979) 764-3496
file://C: \Documents%20and%20Settings~norton \Local%20Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 l .H... 10/20/2005
September 2, 2005
Xavier Garcia
Director of Construction Management
American Campus Communities
805 Las Cimas Parkway, Suite 400
Austin , TX 78746
Re: Transmittal of Report of Geotechnical Investigation for
Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension Between Holleman Drive and Luther Street
College Station, Texas
Dear Mr. Garcia:
CME Testing and Engineering, Inc. (CME) is pleased to transmit via this Jetter one (1) copy of the report
of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study for the proposed extension of Marion Pugh Drive
and the proposed utility infrastructure improvements associated with the roadway construction. The
proposed work effort is part of general project known as the Callaway Villa Apartment Complex in
College Station, Texas. The referenced report prepared by CME is entitled "Report of Subsurface
Exploration and Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension, Between Holleman
Drive and Luther Street; College Station, Texas."
The general location of the proposed roadway improvements is illustrated in Figure 1 of Appendix A of
the accompanying report. The site of the project is situated in the west-central portion of College Station,
Texas. More specifically, the site of the planned roadway extension is located between the existing
northern end of Marion Pugh Drive, which is near the intersection with Luther Street, and the proposed
southern end of the roadway at the intersection with Holleman Drive. The planned roadway will extend
over a total distance of approximately 1, 100 linear feet and will have a relatively straight configuration .
The enclosed report presents our findings regarding the subsurface conditions in the area of the proposed
roadway extension project as determined by five soil borings. In general, the surface soils across the
major portion of the roadway alignment consisted of clays and sandy clays of high plasticity, although
there were some strata of clayey sands present within the upper portion of the stratigraphy. If these sands
are exposed as part of planned project grading operations for the roadway, they can be become very weak
and difficult to work with, particularly if they are in a wet condition at the time of construction. However,
we anticipate that the currently planned grade adjustments along the roadway alignment will involve
excavations of no more than 1 foot in depth, and that if sandy soils are encountered, they will have a
sufficiently high clay content to permit chemically stabilized with hydrated lime. The majority of the
subgrade soils for the proposed roadway extension are expected to consist of clays of high plasticity,
otherwise known as fat clays. If fat clays not chemically stabilized, the will provide poor subgrade
support when wet. Therefore, we recommend chemical stabilization the fat clays with hydrated lime to a
minimum depth of 6 inches to improve the strength and compressibility characteristics of the subgrade
soils .
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension
College Station , Tex as
Page 2
The accompanying report also presents our recommendations for the pavement system for the proposed
roadway extension . We have recommended that the pavement section consist of a rigid sy stem comprised
of a 7 .0-inch thick Portland cement concrete (PCC) surface course constructed over a 6.0-inch chemically
stabilized subgrade soil layer.
We would like to sincerely thank you for the opportunity to have worked with you on the project and look
forward to continuing our working relationship in the future . P lease do not hesitate to contact us at (979)
764-8 400 if you have any questions or need additional information concerning our study .
Kindest regards ,
Paul L. Evan s
Laboratory Manager
MFC :mf
Enclosure (One (1) report)
via U . S. Mail
cc: Rabon Metcalf Engineering
1411 Elkton Court
College Station, TX 77845
Enclosure (One (1) Report)
via : Hand Delivery
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL STUDY FOR THE
PROPOSED MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
HOLLEMAN DRIVE TO LUTHER STREET
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Prepared for
American Campus Communities
805 Las Ciinas Parkway, Suite 400
Austin, Texas 78746
Prepared by
CME Testing & Engineering, Inc.
1806 Welsh Avenue, Suite C
College Station, Texas 77840
September 2, 2005
1n.~~~
M. Frederick Conlin, P.E . W.R. Cullen, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer QAJQC Reviewer -Senior Engineer
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extensio n College Station, Texas
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... .
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 General Description of Propo se d Impro veme nt s and Roadway Section ................. 1
1.1.2 Traffic Information.................................................................................................. 2
1.1.3 Ut ilitie s.................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 OB JECTIV ES AND SCOPE OF THE EXPLORATION AND STUDY ............................ 3
1.3 REPORT FORMAT............................................................................................................. 3
2.0 FIELD EXPL ORATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................... 5
2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION STUDY ........................................................................................ 5
2.2 DRILLING AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES................................................................... 5
2.3 BORING LOGS.................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS IN BOREHOLES................................. 6
2 .5 SAMPLE CUSTODY........................................................................................................... 7
3.0 LAB ORATO RY TESTING PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 8
3.1 CLASSIF ICATION TESTS................................................................................................. 8
3.2 STRENGTH TESTS............................................................................................................. 8
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 EXISTING SURF ACE COND ITIONS ALONG THE PROPOS ED ROADW AY
ALIGNMENT ....................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 GENERAL SUB SURF ACE STRATIGRAPHY.................................................................. 9
4.2.1 Subsurface Soils Stratigraphy at Borin g Location s ................................................. 9
4.3 SUBSURFACE WATER CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 12
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 14
5 .1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FO R PAV EMENT SYSTEMS...................................... 14
5.1.1 Pave ment System De s ign Pro cedure s ...................................................................... 14
5.1.2 General Co ns ideration s of Subgrade Support for Pave ment Systems..................... 15
5.1.3 Projected Traffic Volumes and Characteristics....................................................... 16
5.1.4 Pavement Thickness Requirem ents......................................................................... 19
5.2 PAVEMENT SYSTEM MAINTENANCE......................................................................... 20
5.2.1 Pavement Drainage .................................................................................................. 20
5.2.2 Pave ment Maintenance............................................................................................ 21
5.3 UT ILITY RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................... 21
5.3.1 Beddin gSo il sforUtilitie s ....................................................................................... 21
5.3 .2 Backfill Soils for Ut ilitie s........................................................................................ 22
5.3.3 Ut ility Trench Stability Considerations................................................................... 22
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS...................................................................................... 24
6.1 GENERAL SITE PREPARATION ...................................................................................... 24
6 .2 STRUCTURAL BACKFILL MATERIAL SELECTION AND COMP ACTION .............. 24
6.3 PA VEMENT SPECIFICATIONS........................................................................................ 25
7.0 BASIS OF RECOMME DATIONS ............................................................................................. 27
II
,....
--
-
...
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnica l Stud y for the Propo sed Marion Pu gh Drive Exten sion College Station, Texas
Table I .
Table 2 .
Table 3
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Summary of Design Traffic Conditions for Proposed Pavement Section............................ 17
Summary of Vehicle Characterization Used to Determine Traffic Loading in ESALs
(Equivalent 18-kip Single-Axle Load Applications)............................................................ 18
Pavement Thickness Schedule for Portland Cement Concrete Section ............................... 19
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A -Figures , Boring Logs , and Key Sheet to Terms and Symbols Used on the Boring Logs
Figure I. Vicinity Plan of Project Area
Figure 2. Plan of Borings and Aerial Photograph of Project Area
Figure 3. Project Topographic Map
Figure 4 . Schematic Diagram of Existing Drainageway Within Proposed Right-of-Way
and Project Boring Locations
Boring Logs for 8-1 through B-5
Key Sheet to Terms and Symbols Used on the Boring Logs
Appendix B -Site Photographs
Appendix C -Summary of Laboratory Test Results
111
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for th e Proposed Marion Pug h Drive Exten s ion College Station , Texas
energy of compaction. Rather, the compaction energy is transferred laterally within the water mass to
produce a "wave" in the soils that resembles a "water bed " effect. Pumping soils provide extremely poor
load support capacity for paving systems.
Potential Variation in Type of Pavement Subgrade Soils. It should be recognized that the nature
of the surficial soils that will represent the subgrade layer for the proposed roadway pavement may vary
somewhat across the project and will be dependent upon the existing subsurface stratigraphy at a
particular boring location and the planned depth of excavation or cut that will be required to achieve final
roadway grades. Thus, if the subsurface stratigraphy at a particular location consists of a surficial layer of
clayey sands overlying thick deposits of fat clays , such as at the boring B-4 location where approximately
2.5 feet of surficial clayey sands are present above the underlying clays, the subgrade soils for the
proposed pavement system will consist of sands if there is no excavation below existing grade, but will
consist of fat clays if there is 2.5 feet or more of excavation planned at the boring location . In general , we
anticipate that the subgrade soils along the roadway alignment will likely consist of fat clays . Similarly,
fill soils are expected to be required in the areas of the previously referenced drainageway crossings and
the type of pavement subgrade soils will depend upon the nature of the soils used as fill.
Limitations of Stratigraphical Descriptions. It should be noted that the previously presented
generalized stratigraphical descriptions represent conceptual depictions of the subsurface conditions at
the boring locations along the proposed roadway alignment based upon the information obtained from the
specific borings. Variations from these generalizations may occur between boring locations. Subsequent
recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed pavement system and utilities were
developed assuming that these generalized conditions are continuous throughout the areas under
consideration. It is recommended that the nearest appropriate boring log (contained in Appendix A) be
consulted for information at a specific location. Should conditions during construction be found to vary
from the outlined generalization , CME should be notified in order to evaluate the potential effect of the
variation on the recommendations presented in this report.
4.3 SUBSURFACE WATER CONDITIONS
As previously stated , the borings were drilled using dry augering techniques in order to monitor
groundwater during and immediately following drilling operations. No gro undwater was observed in any
of the boreholes either during or immediately following completion of drilling. However, some granular
formations were present within the upper portions of the stratigraphy at four ( 4) of the boring locations.
The granular strata are significant in that they can serve as aquifers for groundwater, especially shallow
perched groundwater after periods of heavy rainfall. These granular soils may trap stormwater runoff
12
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pu gh Drive Extension College Station , Texas
after periods of heavy rainfall events and could cause problems durin g construction with excavations that
penetrate the granular strata.
In any event, it should be recognized that water table elevations at any site, particularly those
with granular soils in the stratigraphy, can fluctuate with time . Groundwater levels are dependent upon
the amount of seasonal precipitation and climatic co ndition s, as well as other factors such as infiltration ,
evapotranspiration , water levels in adjacent bodies of water, dewatering operations on adjacent sites, etc.
The groundwater levels or lack of the presence of groundwater at the time of the field investigation may
not be representative of the groundwater encountered either during the construction phase of the project
and during the design life of the proposed project. If the lon g-term variation of the groundwater level is
critical to some design aspect of the proposed development, an extended and comprehensive assessment
of groundwater conditions sho uld be undertaken to better define the pertinent conditions that may
influence the design.
13
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnica l Stud y for th e Propo sed Mar ion Pu gh Drive Ex tension Coll ege Station , Texas
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections of the report present anal y sis and recommendations for foundation
support of the major elements of the project.
5.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PAVEMENT SYSTEMS
5.1.1 Pavement System Design Procedures
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design
procedure was used to compute pavement thickness requirements for the single type of pavement section
considered , i.e., the rigid pavement section consisting of a Portland cement concrete (PCC) surface
course over a chemically stabilized and compacted soil subgrade.
Vehicle traffic volume numbers and characteristics used a s input into the pavement design
analysis were generally outlined in Section 1.0 of this report . The volume of traffic or number of vehicles
expected to use the planned roadway was determined using the City 's assumed traffic volumes for
standard major collector roadway s. As previously indicated , Marion Pu gh Drive has been characterized
as a major collector. The specific ax le and tire configurations and magnitudes of loading for typical
classes of vehicles using the roadway were estimated based upon the planned land use adjacent to the
roadway. We understand that the area along the roadway is planned for development a s apartment
building s and office complex es . In addition , the results of the laboratory testing program were used to
determine the load-carrying characteristics of the subgrade soils, and the subgrade soil support values
determined from the testing program and general information concerning chemical stabilization of the
soils were also used as input in the design procedure. Due to the potential weak character of the sub grade
clay soils when wet and due to the high shrink-swell potential of the clay support soils along essentially
all of the proposed roadway route , we have recommended that the subgrade soils be chemically stabilized
and compacted to a minimum depth of at least 6 inches. Stabilization will improve the support capacity
of the subgrade layer. Based upon the assumption that the soil subgrade layer will be chemically
stabilized and compacted , we have incorporated a relativel y strong subgrade soil support value in the
design assumption s for the pavement section.
The prev iously described factors were used to determine required pavement layer thicknesses for
the previously discussed rigid pavement section . The following sections of this report present in greater
detail the given input values used in the analysis and the resulting pavement design recommendations .
14
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechni cal Study fo r the Proposed Marion Pu gh Drive Extension College Station , Texas
5.1.2 General Considerations of Subgrade Support for Pavement Systems
As previously described , the near-surface soils encountered at the boring locations along the
route of the planned roadway project consisted of fat clays although some clayey sands of moderate to
· high plasticity may also be present along some sect ions of the roadway alignment. Although the fat clays
possessed relativel y high strength properties at the time of the field study, the subgrade-support
properties can deteriorate when the clays are exposed to moi sture , such as frequently happens in roadway
construction where stormwater runoff is collected by the paveme nt system .
The subgrade support characteristics of the soils were established based on a correlation between
soil classification test indices and so il support values, such as resilient soi l moduli (MR) and California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) values. M R and CBR support values are typically low for clays of high plasticity .
The MR and CBR values for the clays along the route of the planned roadway were determ ined based
upon strength correlations with soil classification tests. The classification characteristics determined in
the laboratory study conducted on the near s urfici a l soils at the boring locations for this stu dy were com-
pared to s imilar classified soils for which so il support values had been developed . For example, natural
SC type so ils can be correlated with a CBR val ue of 10 a nd CH type soils with a CBR value of 2.
Chemical stabilization of the so il s with fl y ash , Portland cement, and /or hy drated lime and subsequent
compaction of the soils should increase the CBR value to the range of 15 and 6, re spectivel y.
Current design of pavement systems is typically related to the M R and not the CBR value .
Research by the Co rp s of Engineers indicates that there is a correlation between the CBR and the M R of
subgrade soils and that that relationship can be represented by the follo wi ng equation :
MR= 1,500 x CBR va lue
However, independent research performed by state agencies as part of the AASHTO pave ment
study indicates that a more representati ve strength relati o nship can be expressed by the following
equation :
MR = 800 x CBR value
The more conservative relationship deve loped by the state agencies was used to deve lop
anticipated strength characteristics for the s ubgrade soils. The lowe st CBR value determined from
prev iou s studies of chemically stabilized and compacted natural soils was use d in the equation. As
previou s ly indicated , based upon the soi l classification test re sults for the natural so ils encountered at the
borin g location s alo ng the propo se d roadway, it is likel y that the subgrade soils for most of the proposed
15
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnica l Study for th e Propo sed Marion Pu gh Drive Ex tens ion Coll ege Station , T exas
roadway will consist of fat clays of high plasticity . Therefore , a CBR value of 4 was chosen for design to
represent the chemically stabilized and compacted fat clay subgrade soils. The M R corresponding to the
CBR value of 6 for the natural soils was determined to be approximately 4 ,800 psi .
5.1.3 Projected Traffic Volumes and Characteristics
Traffic volumes along the proposed roadway are expected to be of relatively significant
magnitude during the design life of the roadway. As prev iously indicated in Section 1.0 , there is no
specific current and future traffic information available from the City of College Station for the proposed
roadway. Therefore, the traffic volume used in the design was based upon the City 's classification of the
proposed roadway as a major collector and the assumed projected traffic volumes that are associated with
that street classification which ranges from 5,000 to 10 ,000 vehicles per day. Since the proposed roadway
is not planned to extend south of Holleman Drive and therefore will limit through traffic in the area, we
have assumed that the daily traffic volume would be at the lower end of the previousl y indicated range ,
or approximately 5,000 vehicles per day . This estimate of traffic volume compares favorably with the
projected volume of 5,043 to 5,479 vehicles per day presented in the Callaway Tract Traffic Impa ct
Assessment report prepared by Jeff Milburn Engineering in May 2005. Consequently, a 24-hour daily
traffic volume (ADT) of 5,000 vehicles was used for the entire roadway for the assumed design period of
20 years . The annual traffic growth factor was assumed to be incorporated in the ADT numbers.
Other traffic characteristics not directly measured or reported in the City 's guidance documents ,
but which were assumed for the design of the subject roadway , are listed in Table 1. A traffic split or
directional distribution factor of 50% in each direction was assumed for the planned roadway. Therefore,
the traffic volume for the design lane of pavement was assumed to be 50% of the ADT, or approximately
2 ,500 vehicles per day . The percentage of heavy truck traffic was assumed to be approximately 1 % of the
ADT as listed in Table 1. The percentage of truck traffic was estimated based upon the assumption that
there would not be an extensive number of heavy trucks using the proposed roadway due to the planned
adjacent land use as apartments or office buildings. Heavy trucks are typically defined as three or more
axle and six-tired vehicles or larger and can have a pronounced impact on the design of pavement
systems. Moderate weight trucks are defined as two-axle and six-tired vehicles.
16
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for th e Proposed Marion Pu gh Drive Ex tens ion Coll ege Station, T ex as
Table I . Summary of Design Traffic Conditions for Proposed Pavement Section
Description of Traffic Factor
ADT
Percent Growth over Design Period
Directional distribution
Vehicle volume for design lane (one in each direction)
Percent Heavy Trucks
Value of Traffic Factor
5,000 vehicles
Already incorporated in ADT
50% I 50%
50% of ADT or 2,500 vehicles per day
1% of ADT
Information provided in the Asphalt lnstitute 's publication entitled Thi ckn ess Des ign , Asphalt
Pavements for Highways & Streets, Manual Series No . I [MS-1], February 1991) and the previousl y
referenced AASHTO pavement design guide were used to determine the distribution of different types of
trucks within the total volume of traffic expected to travel over the proposed Marion Pugh Drive
extension. More specifically, Table IV-1 "Distribution of Trucks on Different Classes of Highways -
United States" in the referenced manual was utilized to determine the different axle/wheel configurations
for the classes of trucks that would travel over collector streets in urban roadway systems . For example, a
vehicle that could be described as a 2-axle , 6-tire, single-unit truck may comprise 11 % of the total traffic
volume whereas a 5-axle, multi-unit vehicle may comprise only 2% of the total traffic volume. A x le
loads for the different categories of trucks were determined from the previousl y referenced AASHTO
pavement guide. An illustration of the number, types , and loadings of the vehicles a ssumed to be
representative of the traffic that will use the planned roadway is presented in Table 2. The indicated
traffic loading conditions were used to determine the minimum pavement system layer thickness
requirements for the proposed roadway section.
17
NO . OF VEHICLE
TRIPS PER DAY(D)
TYPE OF NO . OF IN PAVEMENT
VEHICLE AXLE LOAD (KIPS) AXLES DESIGN LANE
Q=oJ-F -2 .0 1 1,470 R -2 .0 1
6 F -2.0 1 980 R -5 .0 1
w dJ F -10.0 1 f->-(/) 38 <( R -24.0 1 a::o >:::i:::: <Cu Wf-w:J 0 IO:: 0 f-
~
cD F -12 .0 1 8 R -34 .0 2
d:J F -12.0 1
M -16.0 1 4
R -34 .0 2
d:J F -12.0 1
M -34.0 2 1
R -34 .0 2
TOTAL VEHICLES PER DAY: 2,500
TOTAL RIGID E 18's : 1 , 180,000
Summary of Vehicle Characterization Used to
CME TESTl~~N~ERING , INC . Determine Traffic Loading in ESALs
\CY '(Jf · {Equivalent 18-kip Single Axle Load Applications)
TABLE 2
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechni cal Stud y for the Proposed M ar ion Pu g h Dri ve Extens ion Co ll ege Station , Texas
5.1.4 Pavement Thickness Requirements
The traffic loading was calculated using the prev iously discussed traffic conditions, the
previously described subgrade soil classifications , and a ss uming that the s ubgrade soils will be
chemically stabilized with lime or lime/fly ash mi xture and compacted to a minimum depth of 6 inches in
accordance with the provisions of a subsequent section of this report. Various pavement material strength
properties, drainage characteristics , and load transfer provi s ion s were also assumed.
The calculated traffic loading was expressed as a unit term , the equivalent 18-kip single-ax le
load application , or ESAL. E SALs provide a means of express ing traffic loading from numerous types of
vehicles with variou s axle configurations and loadings in terms of 18-kip axle loads. Thus , every vehicle,
no matter what the axle loading, can be expressed as a number of 18-kip equivalent single-axle load
units. For example, passenger cars with single-ax le load s of 1 kip can hav e an ESAL of 0 .00018 , whereas
a large truck with a s ingle-ax le loading of 20 kip s can have an ESAL of 1.51 . The ESALs for a ri g id
pavement section were computed for a 20-y ear de s ign period. The rigid pav ement E SALs were
calculated to be approximately 1, 180 ,000 .
Based upon the calculated traffic loading, the total required pavement thicknesses were
computed for a rigid pavement section with a Portland cement concrete (PCC) surface course. The re sults
of those computations are presented in Table 3 . The table presents recommended minimum lay er
thicknesses for each of the materials that compri se the variou s course s or lay ers of the pavement section.
As can be seen from a review of Table 3, the pavement section consists of a surface course of PCC
overly ing a prepared subgrade consisting of chemically stabilized and compacted soils .
Table 3.
Notes :
Pavement Thickness Schedule for Portland Cement Concrete Section
Thickness (in)
7 .0
6 .0
13.0
Material Description
Reinforced concrete surface course 1
Compacted chemically-stabilized subgrade soils or limestone
. 2 screenings
Total constructed pavement thickness
I . Concrete ass um ed to have a minimum mo dulu s of rupture (as dete rmin ed in a th ird po int beam loadin g test) corres po nding to 65 0 psi
(approx im atel y eq uivalent to conc rete with a 28 -d ay compress ive strengt h o f 3,500 psi).
2 . The require me nts fo r comp acti on an d che mical stabili zati o n of th e sub grad e soi ls or lim es tone screenin gs are prese nted in the text.
19
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechn ica l Stud y for th e Proposed Marion Pu g h Dr ive Ex ten sio n Coll ege Station , T exas
All of the concrete paving should be reinforced with steel reinforcing bars to mmtmtze
temperature and shrinkage cracking, to discourage widening of any cracks that may form , and to aid in
transferring loads across joints. 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 joints placed a maximum distance of 15 feet each way. Keyed and doweled lon g itudinal 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 I 00-foot intervals. Expansion joints should
not be placed through the middle of area inlet box es in the pavement. Isolation joints should be placed
between the pavement and all existing or permanent structures (such as drainage inlets). All joints should
be sealed with Sonoborn Sonolastic SLl (or equi valent) to minimize infiltration of surface water to the
underl y ing subgrade soils.
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 areas should be included in the current design plans. The most common means of edge support is a
Portland cement concrete curb and gutter. We recommend that the exterior boundary of the chemically -
stabilized subgrade layer extend at least 3 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 discu ss ed or due to shrinking of s ubgrade soils
away from the outer edge of the pavement during dry weather and the subsequent loss of subgrade
support .
5.2 PAVEMENT SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
5.2.1 Pavement Drainage
The control of surface and groundwater is a critical factor in the performance of a pavement
system . Adequate surface and subsurface drainage provision s s hould be included in the pavement design
scheme . Drainage provisions may include, among other things , the following: a steeply graded pavement
surface to quickl y transport stormwater to collection or discharge points; an adequate number of
stormwater catch basins or curb inlets in the paved areas to capture the stormwater; and adequately sized
stormwater sewer piping to quickly transport the collected stormwater to discharge points in
drainageways aw ay from the roadway . Finally, landscaping or "green " areas and other potential sources
for moisture infiltration within the limits of the parking area should be minimized , if at all possible.
20
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pu gh Dri ve Extension College Station, Texas
5.2.2 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 stormwater infiltration into the underl ying pavement
system layers and subsequent degradation of performance. Sealants that can withstand exterior
exposures , such as Sonoborn SL-I , 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 rut s, pot hole s, areas of ponded water, etc. The need for possible repair should
be anticipated over the expected life of the pavement system.
5.3 UTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
5.3.1 Bedding Soils for Utilities
We understand that it is a pos si bility that some domestic water lines and sanitary sewer lines may
be constructed as part of the proposed roadway improvements. We anticipate that these utility lines will
typically be founded in the depth range of approximately 5 to 10 feet below the present surface grade.
Soils at the anticipated founding depths are expected to predominantly consist of stiff to very stiff, fat
clays which classi fy as CH type soils under the USCS (ASTM D 2487).
Flexible utility line s, s uch as those constructed with plastic PVC and HDPE pip ing, are more
sensitive to beddin g and foundation performance than are rigid utili ty lines , such as those constructed
with ductile iron , steel , or reinforced concrete pipe . Material classifications for soils used in the
foundation , embedment, and backfill zones for plastic utili ty pipe are presented in Table I of ASTM D
2321-89 (Reapproved 1995), Standard Practic e for Underground In stallation of Thermoplastic Pipe for
Sewers an d Oth er Grav ity Flow Applications. The referenced standard indicates that CH type soils would
have a C lass IV-B designation . Accordin g to Table 2 of the referenced standard , Class IV-B so il s are not
considered suitable as beddin g or embedment material and s hould only be used as ge neral backfill when
permitted by proj ect specifications. The standard also indicates that the SC and SM sandy soils would
have a Class III classification and would be considered s uitable for u se as bedding or embedment
material as well as ge neral backfill , if permitted by the proj ect s pecification s .
Analysis of load /deflection performance of the pipe can be performed base d upon the modulus of
subgrade reaction , k, in units of pounds per square inch per inch (psi/inch) of the anticipated foundation
2 1
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechni cal Study for the Propo sed Marion Pu gh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
soils. A k value of 50 psi /inch is recommended for use with the CH type soils and a k value of 300
psi/inch is recommended for any SC and SM type soils encountered.
5.3.2 Backfill Soils for Utilities
All utilities located in the area planned for pavement or other structura l features (e.g., sidewalks,
etc.) should be backfilled with cement-stabilized sands or compacted backfill soils. If cement-stabilized
sands are utilized , we recommend that a minimum of 1 Yi sacks of Portland cement be utilized per cubic
yard of backfill mixture. The cement-stabilized sand backfill shou ld be tamped, vibrated, or compacted to
meet minimum compressive strength requirements.
Existi ng or imported soils may also be used to backfill utility trenches in paved areas or in areas
outside of the paved or structural areas. The backfill soils shall be free of deleterious material and
excessive amounts of silt (greater than 30% without a corresponding percentage of clay to "balance" the
silts). Native soils or imported select soils meeting structural fill requirements may be used for
backfilling of utili ty trenches unless otherwise prohibited by project plans and specifications.
In order to minimize future backfill settlement and resulting surface depressions, the soils used to
backfill utilities shall be compacted. We recommend that backfill in paved areas be compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent of the maximum density achievable in the Standard Proctor compaction test
(ASTM D 698) or to at least 95 percent of the maximum density determined by Test Method Tex 113-E
as presented in the Texas State Department of Highway and Public Transportation (SDHPT) Materials
and Test Division Manual outlining testing methods and procedures at moisture contents that are in the
range of plus or minus 2 percent of the optimum moisture content. Similarly, backfill in landscaped areas
should be compacted to at least 92% of the maxim um dry density as determined by the Standard Proctor
compaction test, ASTM D 698 at moisture contents in the range of plu s or minus 3% of the OMC.
Provisions should be made to discourage utility trenches serving as pathways for water to
migrate from outside to beneath the pavement structure. Sloping the bottom of the utility trench away
from the roadway and the use of anti-seep collars of clay soils should be considered.
5.3.3 Utility Trench Stability Considerations
Trench stabi lity should also be a consideration in the installation of the utilities for the project.
No specific stability analysis was performed for trench excavation since trench locations and excavation
depth s are not known at the time of report preparation. However, based upon the standard soil
classifications described in OSHA Standard 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart P regarding trench safety
22
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnica l Study for th e Proposed Marion Pug h Drive Extens io n Coll ege Station , Texas
requirements, and based upon the limited laboratory classification and strength test results , the very stiff
clays encountered at the majority of the boring locations across the site can probably be classified as
Type A or Type B soils. However, we recommend that the above information be reviewed once specific
trench locations and depths are determined.
23
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for th e Propose d Marion Pu gh Dri ve Extens ion College Station, Tex as
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 GENERAL SITE PREPARATION
The topsoil and surface vegetation (including all major root systems) present along the proposed
roadway alignment should be e xcavated and remo ved from the site . Special attention should be directed
to removal of all "muck" or soft soil s present in the bottoms of an y old channels , ponds, or other
drainageways pre sent along the proposed roadway alignment. In addition , the existing drainageways that
are to be filled as part of the proposed roadway construction should have ledges or "benches" ex cavated
into the sidewalls of the channel side slopes prior to fill placement. The benches or ledges should be at
least 6 feet in width with one bench being placed vertically for every 2 feet of channel height. The
provision for horizontal benches will help to facilitate compaction of new fill soils and will also help to
"integrate" the new fill into the existing side slope soils within the potential development of a failure
plane at the interface between the existing subgrade and the new fill materials.
The subgrade soils ex posed after removal of existing soils should be proof-rolled with a 10-ton
pneumatic roller or equivalent equipment and any soft or weak areas removed and replaced with
compacted fill. An y existing soils excavated from the site as part of the grading operation s may be used
as fill in the proposed roadway if they meet the outlined requirements for select fill stated in this report.
Otherwi se , the excavated soil s should be disposed off-site . The existing topsoil ex cavated from the site
may be stockpiled and used for landscaping of the completed roadway corridor.
The surface of the reconstructed roadway should be crowned and graded to promote positive
drainage away from the paved areas to existing drainageway s to the maximum extent possible. Water
should not be allowed to pond next to the roadway .
6.2 STRUCTURAL BACKFILL MATERIAL SELECTION AND COMP ACTION
Structural fill is herein defined as fill soils placed w ithin the limits of the proposed paved areas .
The following criteria should be observed during selection and compaction of all structural fill:
• Selected structural fill material should be used for replacing excavated material or
for raising the grade of the proposed roadway . Select fill should be defined as a low
to medium plasticity material that classifies as a sandy, lean clay (CL) or a clayey
sand (SC) under the Unified Soil Classification System (U SCS) (ASTM D 2487) and
in addition have a plasticity index (PI) between 7 and 30 .
24
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for th e Propo sed Marion Pu gh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
• In addition , select fill soils should not contain an excessive amount of silt (i.e., >25
percent) in combination with a low PI (less than 10).
• Compaction of the structural fill should be to minimum densities corresponding to 95
percent of the maximum dry density determined by the Standard Proctor compaction
test, ASTM D 698 , at moisture contents in the range of the optimum moisture
content (OMC) to 3 percent above the OMC . Alternately, the City's spec ifications
can be followed and the soil compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum
density determined by Test Method Tex 113 -E as presented in the Texas State
Department of Highway and Public Transportation (SDHPT) Materials and Test
Division manual outlining testing methods and procedures. The soils should be
compacted in lifts not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness.
• Compaction characteristics of the fill should be ver ified by in-place density tests. At
a minimum, the tests should be performed on each 6-inch-thick lift of fill for every
300 linear feet of roadway .
6.3 PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
The pavement design recommendations presented in the previou s section of this report were
developed assuming that the various materials comprising the pavement system would meet or exceed the
material requirements and constructed procedures outlined in the following paragraphs. The
specifications include recommendations for chemical stabilization of the subgrade soils in the paved
areas. If the subgrade soils 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.
Subgrade Preparation
• If the pavement su bgrade soils consist of expansive soils (i.e., those soils with a
PI>20), such as were encountered over most of the roadway alignment, provisions
should be made to stabilize the soils with hydrated lime . Soluble s ulfate s are
sometimes present in subgrade soils and can interfere with the stabilization action
between the hydrated lime and the soils . Therefore, we recommend that laboratory
tests be performed on selected samples of the exposed subgrade soils to determine
the percentage soluble sulfates present. If the concentrations are less than the 1
percent value typically assumed to represent a problem percentage for lime
interaction, lime stabilization of the soils can be performed. The amount of Type A
hydrated lime to be added to the soils should be determined by specific laboratory
tests , sometime s called a lime series. The percentage of lime added to the soils
should be such as to reduce the plasticity index of the soils to 20 or less. In the
absence of such tests , we estimate that the amount of lime required to stabilize the
soils wi ll be approximately 6 percent as measured by dry weight of the subgrade soil
layer . For a s ubgrade soil layer of 6 inches in thickness, approximately 27 lb /yd2 of
hydrated lime should be used in the mixture. If the soils are relatively wet at the time
of construction , a sma ll percentage of fly ash may be added to expedite construction
and to increase the support capacity of the subgrade soils. If it is decided to utilize
fly ash , we recommend that approximately 2 percent of Class C fly ash be added .
25
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Exten sio n College Station , Texas
• Similarly, if the pavement subgrade consists of granular subgrade soils of low
plasticity (i.e., PI <7), these sands should be stabilized with Class C fly ash at a rate
of 10 percent as measured by dry weight of soil (36 lb /yd 2 for a lift of 6 inches
thickness). Alternately, Type I Portland cement at a ratio of 4 percent by dry soil
weight may be used. The estimated percentages of fly ash and cement should be
verified by laboratory tests prior to construction.
• If the pavement subgrade consists of soils of intermediate plasticity (7 <PI <20), such
as may be of the soils present within the intermediate zones across the proposed
project area, the soils should be stabilized with a mixture of hy drated lime and fly
ash in equal parts. We recommend that approximately 3 percent Class C hydrated
lime and 3 percent Class C fly ash be used . The percentages are measured with
respect to dry soil unit weight and should be verified by specific laboratory tests.
• A minimum depth of chemical treatment of 6 inches is recommended .
• Stabilization procedures should be in accordance with the SDHPT Standard
Specification For Construction of Highways , Str ee ts and Bridges , 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 this specification shoul d include a minimum of 48 hours
of tempering time before final mixing, a minimum of 60 % 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. The
extension should also help to minimize the formation of edge cracks in the pavement
system due to either a lack of boundary support under wheel load s or due to
shrinking of subgrade soils away from the outer edge of the pavement during dry
weather and subsequent loss of subgrade support.
• Compaction of the stabilized subgrade soils should be to a minimum of 95 percent of
the maximum dry density determined by the Standard Proctor compaction test,
ASTM D 698. Moisture content of the soils during compaction should be in the
range of the optimum moisture content (OMC) to 3 percent above OMC, inclusive.
Alternately, the City's specifications can be followed and the lime stabilized soil
compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density determined by Test Method
Tex 113-E as presented in the SDHPT manual outlining testing methods and
procedures .
• Compaction characteristics of the stabilized subgrade should be verified by in-place
density tests. At a minimum, the tests should be performed for every 200 linear feet
of the two-lane wide roadway.
26
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Exten s ion College Station , Texas
7.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendation s contained in this report are based, in part, on the project information
provided to CME. 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 should convey the correct or additional information to CME.
The field exploration, which provided information concerning subsurface conditions, was
considered to be in sufficient detail and scope to form a reasonable basi s for the conceptual planning of
the foundation system of the proposed structure. Recommendations contained in this report were
developed based upon a generalization of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations
across the site and the assumption that the generalized conditions are continuous throughout the areas
under consideration . However, regardless of the thoroughness of a subs urface 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 .
Consequently, it is recommended that experienc ed geotechnical personnel be employed to
observe construction operations and to document that conditions encountered during construction
conform to the assumed generalizations which formed the basis for the recommendations presented in
thi s report. In addition , the construction observers should document construction activities and field
testing practices employed during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project.
Questionable procedures and/or practices should be reported to the design team, along with timely
recommendations to solve these problem(s).
The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, 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.
27
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
APPENDIX A
Figures ,
Boring Logs, and
Key Sheet to Terms and Symbols Used on the Boring Logs
CME TESTl ~!"!EERING , INC . 'lY <Jj/
or:
American Campus Communities
VICINITY MAP OF PROJECT AREA
MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
APPR: MFC REV . DATE :
DRAWN BY : MOK SCALE : As Shown
DATE : 08/11/05 FIGURE NO .: 1
Photograph Source : 1995 Aerial Photo
from Brazos County Aerial Survey
CME TESTl~N5ERING , INC . <tY <:(JI
PLAN OF BORINGS AND AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPH OF PROJECT AREA
MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
or: PROJECT: Marion Pu h Drive
LOCATION : Colle e Station , Texas
American Campus Communities APPR: MFC REV. DATE :
DRAWN BY : MOK SCALE : As Shown
DATE : 08/11/05 FIGURE NO .: 2
or:
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF PROJECT AREA
MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
American Campus Communities 1-A_P_P_R_: M_F_c ______ _,_R_E_v_. _DA_T_E_: -------1•
DRAWN BY : MOK SCALE : As Shown
DATE: 08/11/05 FIGURE NO .: 3
CME TESTINGrl\FID:EflGINEERING , INC .
\lY "CV
PROPOSED MARION PUGH DRIVE
RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH
reps or:
EXISTING DRAINAGE
SWALE (SEE PROJECT
PHOTOGRAPHS)
2'T03'
PROJECT : Marion Pu h Drive
LOCATION : Colle e Station Texas SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF EXISTING DRAINAGEWAY WITHIN
PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PROJECT BORING
LOCATIONS
A · C C ·1· APPR: MFC REV . DATE : mencan ampus ommurn 1es ll-'0~RA~WN~B~v:""'M""D""'K,------+5~c~A-;..;LE~: '-'"N'°'ot"T""o"'Sca=ie---il
11/05 FIGURE NO .: 4
WG OF BORIN G NO. B-1
PROPOSED MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
HOLLEMAN DRIVE TO LUTHER STREET
COLL EGE STATI ON, TEXAS
TYPE : 4 • I& DIAMETER DRY AUGER DRILLER : VASQUEZ/ CCI LOCATION : See Plan of Borings
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
~~
18! --POCKET PENETROMETER
0 --UNCONFINED COMP RESSION TEST
6 --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST
-1 .. r-I.Dose , brown, silly, fine SAND, dry t 39.1 r. FiI es
r"'-"<"1~~u...--.1to~v=e=ry7=n~1111~,-aT-1ar~~r.-1D~ir~own=-,~s~an~1~~y~.~ra~1t,..---il---l>--l---+---+--+--+--+---l---l----4 == ., r......,~rr~......_v..w.;i~-'-----------------ll---1>--t---+--+--+--+--+-----:-+----l
Stiff lo very stiff, grayish-brown, sandy, fat 'ITT+
CLAY, with black ferrous stains, and a few , ==:: · !' small while calcareous nodules, dry lo .___ .___ t---+--+--+--+--+-----:-+----l
~ ~ \ sl.i2hUv moist J 'ITT+
- 5 -~ Very stiff l o hard, grayish-tan, fat CLAY, f+-.. ---------__: __ +
'I, with sand, with yellowish -orange ferrous 92.1 t---+--+--+-=8:=c3:..::.2'+--""~,.,Fir-'·'f'11"'e"'-s-+--+4it>--+;:.......;.i
_ ~' streaks, and with small pockets of while J RSI ;j .4:>
Iii. "Ill \calcareous nodules .
-~ Very stiff, dark tan, fat CLAY, with numerous
-ltiii...'11111111 seams and pockets of ligh t tan sand, with • -~ orangish-brown ferrous stains and with a
-slightly blocky structure, slightly moist
-10-,..~1-----------------~~-~1----11---+---+--+--+--+---l---l----4 -------
--15--------
-20 --------
-25-------
... 30 -
COMPLETION DEPTH : 10'
DATE : 05/04/05
DE PTH TO WATER IN BOR ING : No water i n borehole during
DATE : or i mmediately ofter drilling on 05/04/05
CME TESTING AN D EN GI NEERING, INC.
LOG OF BORING NO. B-2
PROPOSED MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
HOLLEMAN DRIVE TO LUTHER STREET
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
TYPE : 4• f DIAMETER DRY AUGER DRILLER : VASQUEZ/ CCI LOCATION : See Plan of Borings
181 --POCKET PENETROMETER
0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
:d /l. --TRIAJXIAL SHEAR TEST .., .
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL =::: u t: COHESION, TON/SQ . FT . • ".;:>' ... t-B D 0 .25 0.50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 <
b " ..
'O -a II. i:i-..... Plastic Waler Liquid
:5 .0 ~ 1i ~ Limit Content, " Limit I>. ! ! al -+--------·--------+ .. SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN Q ::> 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-j . Firm to stiff, dark brown, sandy, lean CLAY,
-f · with occasional fine gravel, dry -~ 1.5+ -~ Medium dense to dense, grayish-brown and I~
-~ tan, very clayey SAND, with orange ferrous • ----------+ -stains, and occasional fine uavel, drv 42.7 " Fil es -II Stiff to very stiff, grayish-tan, sandy, fat RSI -
- 5 -CLAY, with yellow ferrous stains, and with • -seams of tan sand, moist --Stiff to very stiff, dark tan, fat CLAY, with !!SI --§ orangish-brown ferrous stains, and with -numerous seams and pockets of light tan --sand, moist 181 -~ --with a slightly blocky structure below 8' +---· ----------+ --10----------
-15-----------20----------
-25---------
.... 30-
COMPLETION DEPTH : 10' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : No water in borehole during
DATE : 05/04/05 DATE : or imme diately after drilling on 05/04/05
I CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. I
LOG OF BORING NO. B-3
PROPOSED MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
HOLLEMAN DRIVE TO LUTHER STREET
COLLEGE STATI ON, TEXAS
TYPE : 4• f DIAMETER DRY AUGER DRILLER : VASQUEZ/ CCI LOCATION : See Plan of Borings
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL g
0 J :S .J:J Q, ~ ! ~ SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN == ~ ~~ i:>uu to very suu, brown, um, an<l dark
-.' • · brawn , sandy, lean CLAY, with occasional fine
-gravel, slightly moist (Possibly Fill) ::=: ·\.-' ........ Medium <tense to dense, grayish-tan, clayey
-~ SAND, with reddish-brown ferrous stains, and
-~ occasional thin seams of brown, sandy, lean
-'Jf· · ........ 'clav, sliohUv moist to moist J =-5'= _,.. Stiff to very stiff, dark tan, very sandy, lean
-:} CLAY, with orangish-brown ferrous stains,
-~.;,. and a pronounced, blocky, slightly cemented
~ \,tructure sllilhtlv moist J ::=: ~ Stiff to very stiff, dark tan, fat CLAY, with
-~ >-orangish-brown and orange ferrous stains,
-and with numerous seams and pockets of == l\i... '11111 light tan sand, slightly moist
-10-~ .... -with fewer sand seams and pockets
-1below 8 ' / ------
-
-15--------
-20--------
-25--------
-30-----
COMPLETION DEPTH : 10'
DATE : 05/04/05
:d
::: ~ t ~ ... t' ::>P ..
ll. u i::i-.....
~ =~ 0 :§ i'6
18! --POCKET PENETROMETER
0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
t,. --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST
COHESION, TON/SQ. FT.
0 .25 0 .50 0 . 75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1. 75 •
Plastic Water Liquid
Limit Content, " Limit +--------·--------+ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
• '~+
ltr]+ •
DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : No water i n borehole du ri ng
DATE: or immediately after drilling on 05/04/05
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
LOG OF BORING NO. B-4
PROPOSED MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENS ION
HOLLEMAN DRIVE TO LUTHER STREET
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
TYPE : 4• fl DIAMETER DRY AUGER DRILLER : VASQUEZ/ CCI LOCATION : See Pion of Borings
-
---
-15-----
----20----------
-25 --------->----
>-30 -
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
SURFACE ELEVATION : NOT KNOWN
.l"ILL· mie!'IlllXe<l loose, 11ght tan, smy MAU
IAn.! ,. __ _. ___ ft••• ,.,_,.\, mni..+
wose, dark gray, clayey SAND , with gravel,
drv (Possiblv Fill)
Stiff to very stiff, dark tan, fat CLAY, with
orange and brownish-orange ferrous streaks,
and with occasional small pockets of tan
sand, moist
-with a blocky structure below 4'
COMPLETION DEPTH : 10'
DATE : 05/04/05
'
...
.d
:: .!!' t ~ ... t' ::> 0 ..
II. i:I ~
~ ~ ~ ~
89.7
18! --POCKET PENETROMETER
0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
fl --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST
COHESION, TON/SQ. FT.
0 .25 0 .50 o. 75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1. 75 ,
Plastic Water Liquid
Limit Content, " Limit +--------·--------+ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
+-
• 0
18! -·------------+ 87.9 7. Fil es
1a •
DEPTH TO WATER IN BOR ING : No water i n borehole during I
DATE : or immediately ofter drilling on 05/04/05
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC . I
LOG OF BORING NO. B-5
PROPOSED MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
HOLLEMAN DRIVE TO LUTHER STREET
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
TYPE : 4• f DIAMETER DRY AUGER DRILLER : VASQUEZ/ CCI LOCATION : See Pion of Borings
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ..
11 SURFACE ELEVATION : NOT KNOWN
111----1~··
111---IWI!'
,.... 5 -
-------15----
---
-20-,___ ,___ ,___ ,___ ,___ ,___
,____
>-30-,___ ,____
FILL-Stiff to very stiff, brown and dark
brown, sandy, fat CLAY, with orangish-brown
.... ferrous stains, and fine gravel, slightly moist
-becoming grayish-brown, with broken
_ pieces of hot miI asphalt concrete below 2'
Stiff to very stiff, grayish-tan, very sandy,
lean CLAY, with orange ferrous stains,
,.... whtly moist
Stiff lo very stiff, dark tan, fat CLAY, with
orangish-brown ferrous stains and seams
,.... and pockets of tan ii:and, and with a slightly
blocky structure, moist
COMPLETION DEPTH : 1 O'
DATE : 05/04/05
.... .c:
:!
_, .
.: &:
s.. ~~b .,
p..
j ~~ i:l :::>
199.5
18! --POCKET PENETROMETER
0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
6. --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST
CO~ION, TON/SQ. FT.
0.25 0 .50 0 . 75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1. 75 •
Plastic Water Liquid
Limit Content, " Limit ~-------·--------+ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
• ,. ___ ---'-----i~
67.8 % Fines
18! •
18! + ~--0 -+ 54 .3 % Fit es
•
DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : No water in borehole during
DATE : ar immediotely after drilling on 05/04/05
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC .
I
KEY TO SYMBOLS AND SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487)
SAMPLE TYPES COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TESTS
AND LABORATORY TEST DATA
0 + 0 6
Thin-Wal
Tube
Rod< Core Cone Oisturi>ed
w /f estoble Penetrometer
Cuttings No Hand T OMJne Unconfined Compression U-U
RecoYelY Penetrometer Recovery T riax iof
Sample
Major Divisions Group Symbols Typical Names
{/) 8
_J N
o~
{/) c:
0
Cl~ w Ct:
z~ 4: Ct:
0:::: ~
0 .!!
I o w]
(/) 0
0:::: ::E
<( 0
0-0~
6
~
6 i~ ,. "i(]· ~~ ~ 5-;' GW ~~-:O~i Well-Graded Grovels, Grovel-Sand
Mixtures, Little or No Fines
(f) uf=., ., £ ··•.··:~
W
..-1 --0 o::W f}.
0
j -~-i._ GP ;·_tl:W ..•.. < POOf1y Graded Grovels, Grovel-Sand ~ v• :;: :~ Mixtures, Little or No F'ines
> 0 Ct: ~t----+----+":n-: '.,:,·~" rn-.::'it· --------------l
<(:i:::S.!! : .....
~~.!!~ ~~~
c:: ~ .g 0 f~ • ~
0 u ., o..~ ::E~ ]!j
0 ., 0 z "Oz :c 6'--'-0 (/) 0::
GM
GC
SW
... ·.·.·.·.·.·: .,._ .....
~ .. · .. · .. · ...
Silty Grovels, Grovel-Sand-Silt
Midures
aayey Grovels, Grovel-Sond-aoy
Mixtures
Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands,
Little or No fines
g~ c:., £
CJ)~ f5 ~ ~;; u... SP ::::::::: Poorty Graded Sands. Gravelly o 0 ..J <ll U ~ ::::::::: Sands, Little or No Fines
z E =-! ~ t-----t----1+:_,.,:.+·:"': +·:,...::-t---------------i
c;;~~~ ~.,: s :: :: :: 5.!!..,.. i;::ot M .... ..
.c ..2 -..... . ~ c ~ ~ 0 ~~ : ~c ~ 'O < ii
i._ ~~~
(/)
>-
<(
_I
0
-u c
0
(/)
1--
_J
(/)
2o
I{)
2 c
:::i a
i!:l'" f=
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
CH~
OH~
Silty Sands, Sand-Silt Mixtures
aoyey Sands, Sand-Cloy Mixtures
Inorganic Silts with Slight Plasticity
Inorganic Ooys of Low to Medium
Plasticity, Gravelly Ooys, Leon Ooys
Organic Silts and Organic Silty
aoys of Low Plasticity
Inorganic Sftts, Micoceous or
Diotornoceous Fine Sand or Silty
Soils, Elastic Silts
Inorganic Cloys of High Plasticity,
Fat Ooys
Organic aoys of Medium to High
Plasticity, Organic Silts
HARDNESS CLASSIFICATION OF INTACT ROCK
HARDNESS
APPROX . RANGE OF UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION STRENGTH
(P.S.I.)
EXTREMELY HARD
VERY HARD
HARD
SOFT
VERY SOFT
>13,900
6,940 -13,900
3 ,470 -6,940
1,740 -3,470
70 -1,740
30T. Finer -Percent Finer thon No . 200 Seive
Relative Density of Coarse Strained Soils
Penetration Resistance
N Value
(Blows/Ft•)
0-4
4-10
10-30
30-50
Over 50
Descriptive
Term
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
• Based on driving a split-barrel
sampler with a 14-0 lb weight
dropped 30 inches
Soil Modifiers
~ CLAYEY
SILTY
Consistency Terms of Fine-Groined Soils
Compressive
Strength, qu
(ton/sq ft)
O to 0 .25
0 .25 to 0 .50
0 .50 to 1.00
1.00 to 2.00
2 .00 to 4 .00
Over 4 .00
Descriptive
Term
Very Soft
Soft
firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hord
Groundwater Levels
\7 -STATIC WATER LEVEL
..... -HYDROSTATIC WATER LEVEL
Rock Classification
SHALE SILTSTONE
LIMESTONE CLAY'STONE
SANDSTONE COAL
----CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.----
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
APPENDIXB
Site Photographs
Photograph 1. View of Marion Pugh Drive R .O .W. looking south from near end of
existing Marion Pugh Drive (near intersection with Luther Street and Meadow Point
Apartments.) Note drainage swale on right side of photograph.
Photograph 2 . View of Marion Pugh Drive R.O .W . looking south from just south of
location described in Photograph 1. Note closer view of depression and vegetation in
drainage swale .
PROJECT: Marion Pugh Drive Extension
DATE OF PHOTO: August 7 , 2005
Photograph 3. View looking north along Marion Pugh Drive R.O.W. from near Holleman
Drive towards Callaway Villa Apts. Note depressed drainage swale on left side of
R.O .W .
PROJECT: Marion Pugh Drive Extension
DATE OF PHOTO: August 7 , 2005
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
APPENDIXC
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotech ni ca l Study for th e Proposed Marion Pug h Drive Exte nsio n Co ll ege Station , Texas
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension; Holleman Drive to Luther Street; College Station, Texas
Boring Sample Moisture Dry Liquid Plastic Plasticity Compression Lateral Type of Percent Fines
No. No. De pth Content Density Limit Limit Index S trength Strain Press ure Failure (-#200 Sieve) Comments
(ft) (%) (pct) (%) (%) (%) (tsf) (%) (psi) (%)
B -1 S-1 0-2 9.1 39.1 PP 1 =Not App licab le
(I 0 ft)
S-2 2-4 PP 1 = 4.5 + tsf
S-3 4-6 28.9 92.1 73 23 50 6 .9 2 .0% 0 Shear 83.2 PP 1 = 4 .5+ tsf
S-4 6-8 PP 1 = 3 .5 tsf
S-5 8-1 0 35 .3 PP 1 = 4.0 tsf
B-2 S-1 0-2 PP 1 =Not App li cab le
(I 0 ft)
S-2 2-4 14 .6 56 2 0 36 42 .7 PP 1 = 4.5 + tsf
S-3 4-6 32.1 PP 1 = 4.0 tsf
S-4 6 -8 PP 1 = 2.0 tsf
S-5 8-10 36.5 75 23 52 83.2 PP 1 =4.0 tsf
Notes :
I. PP = pocket penetrometer reading is tons per square foot (tst).
C-1
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Stud y for the Propo sed Marion Pugh Drive Exten sion College Station , Texa s
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension; Holl eman Drive to L u ther Street; Coll ege Station, Texas
Boring Sample Moisture Dry Liquid Plastic Plasticity Compression Lateral Type of Percent Fines
No. No. Depth Content Density Limit Limit Index Strength Strain Pressure Failure (-#200 Sieve) Comments
(ft) (%) (pct) (%) (%) (%) (tsf) (%) (psi) (%)
8-3 S-1 0-2 PP '= 4 .0 tsf
(I 0 ft)
S-2 2-4 26.2 44 18 26 46 .2 PP 1 =4 .0 tsf
S-3 4-6 PP 1 = 3 .0 tsf
S-4 6-8 33.4 PP '= 4.5 + ts f
S-5 8-10 37.1 PP' = 4.5 + tsf
8-4 S-1 0-2 PP ' =Not Applicable
(I 0 ft)
S-2 2-4 33 .9 89.7 1.9 2.6% 0 Sh ear PP' = 4.0 tsf
S-3 4-6 38 .5 78 2 3 55 87 .9 PP '= 4.0 ts f
S-4 6-8 35.3 PP'= 4 .5 tsf
S-5 8-10 PP'= 4.5 tsf
Notes :
I. PP = pock et penetrom eter readin g is to ns per squ are foot (tsf).
C-2
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for th e Propo sed Marion Pugh Drive Ex tension
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension; Holleman Drive to Luther Street; Coll ege Station, Texas
Boring Sample
No. No.
B-5 S-1
(I 0 ft)
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
Note s:
Depth
(ft)
0-2
2 -4
4-6
6-8
8-10
Moisture
Content
(%)
17 .5
22 .9
24.9
33 .0
Dry
Density
(pct)
99.5
Liquid
Lim it
(%)
59
44
Plastic P lasticity Compression
Limit I ndex Strength Strain
(%) (%) (tst) (%)
20 39
18 26 1.6 3.6%
I . PP = pocket penetrometer reading is ton s per square foot (tst).
C-3
Latera l
Pressure
(psi)
0
Type of
Failure
Bulge
Percent Fines
(-#200 Sieve)
(%)
67.8
54.3
Co ll ege Stat ion , Texas
Comments
PP 1 = 4 .5+ tsf
PP 1 =4.0 tsf
PP 1 = 3.5 tsf
PP 1 =4 .0 tsf
PP 1 = 4 .5+ tsf
September 2, 2005
Xavier Garcia
Director of Construction Management
American Campus Communities
805 Las Cirnas Parkway, Suite 400
Austin, TX 78746
Re: Transmittal of Report of Geotechnical Investigation for
Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension Between Holleman Drive and Luther Street
College Station, Texas
Dear Mr. Garcia:
CME Testing and Engineering, Inc. (CME) is pleased to transmit via this letter one (1) copy of the report
of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study for the proposed extension of Marion Pugh Drive
and the proposed utility infrastructure improvements associated with the roadway construction. The ·
proposed work effort is part of general project known as the Callaway Villa Apartment Complex in
CoJlege Station, Texas. The referenced report prepared by CME is entitled "Report of Subsurface
Exploration and Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension, Between Holleman
Drive and Luther Street; College Station, Texas."
The general location of the proposed roadway improvements is illustrated in Figure 1 of Appendix A of
the accompanying report. The site of the project is situated in the west-central portion of College Station,
Texas. More specifically, the site of the planned roadway extension is located between the existing
northern end of Marion Pugh Drive, which is near the intersection with Luther Street, and the proposed
southern end of the roadway at the intersection with Holleman Drive. The planned roadway will extend
over a total distance of approximately l , 100 linear feet and will have a relatively straight configuration.
The enclosed report presents our findings regarding the subsurface conditions in the area of the proposed
roadway extension project as determined by five soil borings . In general, the surface soils across the
major portion of the roadway alignment consisted of clays and sandy clays of high plasticity, although
there were some strata of clayey sands present within the upper portion of the stratigraphy. If these sands
are exposed as part of planned project grading operations for the roadway, they can be become very weak
and difficult to work with, particularly if they are in a wet condition at the time of construction. However,
we anticipate that the currently planned grade adjustments along the roadway alignment will involve
excavations of no more than 1 foot in depth , and that if sandy soils are encountered, they will have a
sufficiently high clay content to permit chemically stabilized with hydrated lime. The majority of the
subgrade soils for the proposed roadway extension are expected to consist of clays of high plasticity,
otherwise known as fat clays. If fat clays not chemically stabilized, the will provide poor subgrade
support when wet. Therefore, we recommend chemical stabilization the fat clays with hydrated lime to a
minimum depth of 6 inches to improve the strength and compressibility characteristics of the subgrade
soils.
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension
College Station, Texas
Page2
The accompanying report also presents our recommendations for the pavement system for the proposed
roadway extension. We have recommended that the pavement section consist of a rigid system comprised
of a 7.0-inch thick Portland cement concrete (PCC) surface course constructed over a 6.0-inch chemically
stabilized subgrade soil layer.
We would like to sincerely thank you for the opportunity to have worked with you on the project and look
forward to continuing our working relationship in the future. Please do not hesitate to contact us at (979)
764-8400 if you have any questions or need additional information concerning our study.
Kindest regards,
Paul L. Evans
Laboratory Manager
MFC:mf
Enclosure (One (1) report)
via U.S. Mail
cc: Rabon Metcalf Engineering
· 1411 Elkton Court
College Station, TX 77845
Enclosure (One (1) Report)
via: Hand Delivery
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL STUDY FOR THE
PROPOSED MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
HOLLEMAN DRIVE TO LUTHER STREET
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Prepared for
American Campus Communities
805 Las Cimas Parkway, Suite 400
Austin, Texas 78746
Prepared by
CME Testing & Engineering, Inc.
1806 Welsh Avenue, Suite C
College Station, Texas 77840
September 2, 2005
111.~..(b~~
M. Frederick Conlin, P .E.1 W. R Cullen, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer QA/QC Reviewer -Senior Engineer
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... I
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................... I
1.1.1 General Description of Proposed Improvements and Roadway Section................. 1
1.1.2 Traffic lnformation .................................................................................................. 2
1.1.3 Utilities ............. .. ..................................................................................................... 3
1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE EXPLORATION AND STUDY ............................ 3
1.3 REPORT FORMAT ............................................................................................................. 3
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM........................................................................................... 5
2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION STUDY........................................................................................ 5
2.2 DRILLING AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES................................................................... 5
2.3 BORING LOGS.................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 MONJTORING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS IN BOREHOLES ................................. 6
2.5 SAMPLE CUSTODY........................................................................................................... 7
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM...................................................................................... 8
3.1 CLASSIFICATION TESTS ................................................................................................. 8
3.2 STRENGTH TESTS............................................................................................................. 8
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 EXISTING SURF ACE CONDITIONS ALONG THE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ALIGNMENT ....................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 GENERAL SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY.................................................................. 9
4.2.1 Subsurface Soils Stratigraphy at Boring Locations................................................. 9
4.3 SUBSURFACE WATER CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 12
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................. 14
5.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PAVEMENT SYSTEMS ...................................... 14
5.1. l Pavement System Design Procedures...................................................................... 14
5.1.2 General Considerations of Subgrade Support for Pavement Systems..................... 15
5.1.3 Projected Traffic Volumes and Characteristics....................................................... 16
5.1.4 Pavement Thickness Requirements......................................................................... 19
5.2 PAVEMENT SYSTEM MAINTENANCE ......................................................................... 20
5.2.1 Pavement Drainage .................................................................................................. 20
5.2.2 Pavement Maintenance............................................................................................ 21
5.3 UTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 21
5.3.1 Bedding Soils for Utilities....................................................................................... 21
5.3.2 Backfill Soils for Utilities........................................................................................ 22
5.3.3 Utility Trench Stability Considerations................................................................... 22
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................... 24
6.1 GENERAL SITE PREPARATION ...................................................................................... 24
6.2 STRUCTURAL BACKFILL MATERIAL SELECTION AND COMPACTION .............. 24
6 .3 PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS........................................................................................ 25
7.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................. 27
II
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3
LIST OFT ABLES
Page
Summary of Design Traffic Conditions for Proposed Pavement Section............................ I 7
Summary of Vehicle Characterization Used to Determine Traffic Loading in ESALs
(Equivalent 18-kip Single-Axle Load Applications)............................................................ 18
Pavement Thickness Schedule for Portland Cement Concrete Section ............................... 19
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A -Figures, Boring Logs, and Key Sheet to Terms and Symbols Used on the Boring Logs
Figure 1. Vicinity Plan of Project Area
Figure 2. Plan of Borings and Aerial Photograph of Project Area
Figure 3. Project Topographic Map
Figure 4. Schematic Diagram of Existing Drainageway Within Proposed Right-of-Way
and Project Boring Locations
Boring Logs for B-I through B-5
Key Sheet to Terms and Symbols Used on the Boring Logs
Appendix B -Site Photographs
Appendix C -Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Ill
CME T ESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report documents the results of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study
of geologic conditions for the proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension Project in College Station, Texas.
The study was performed in accordance with CME Testing and Engineering, Inc.'s (CME's) verbal
proposal to Mr. Xavier Garcia of American Campus Communities as requested in an e-mail
communication of April 26, 2005 , from Mr. Garcia to Mr. Paul Evans of CME. Field activities for this
project were initiated on May 4, 2005 , and completed on that same date. The laboratory testing program
was completed on May 25, 2005. A summary of field and laboratory phases of the project and our
recommendations concerning the proposed pavement system and the planned utility line installation are
presented for your review and consideration.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1.1 General Description of Proposed Improvements and Roadway Section
Information concerning the project was provided by Mr. Rabon Metcalf, P.E., of Rabon Metcalf
Engineering (RME), the design engineers for the project.
The proposed project consists of the extension of an existing street or roadway known as Marion
Pugh Drive. Some utilities will also be constructed along with the planned street improvements. The
roadway and utilities are being constructed to improve access to the Callaway Villa Apartments, which
are currently under construction along the existing portion of Marion Pugh Drive immediately north of
the extension project area.
The site of the planned roadway extension project is located along the current straight alignment
of the existing Marion Pugh Drive right-of-way (ROW) between Luther Street and Holleman Drive in
College Station, Texas, as illustrated on Figure 1 -Vicinity Map of Project Area. All figures referenced
in this report are in Appendix A. The planned roadway will be extended over a total distance of
approximately 1,050 to I , 100 linear feet. The northern boundary of the project is at the southern end of
the existing Marion Pugh Drive adjacent to the Meadows Point Apartments and the southern boundary
will be at a "T-shaped" intersection with the existing Holleman Drive as illustrated on Figure 2 -Plan of
Borings and Aerial Photograph of Project Area and Figure 3 -Topographic Map of Project Area.
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Ext ension College Station, Texas
We anticipate that the proposed roadway will have a paved section width of approximately 48
feet as measured from back to back of curb to match the existing Marion Pugh Drive section. We believe
that the proposed roadway section will have a total of three (3) 11 to I 2 feet wide lanes that consist of
two (2) through lanes and one ( 1) turning lane, as well as two (2) 5 to 6 feet wide bicycle lanes. Also , 6-
ft-wide sidewalks are planned on either side of the proposed roadway. We anticipate that economic
considerations will dictate that the pavement section for the proposed roadway consist of a rigid
pavement system that is composed of a Portland cement concrete (PCC) surface course and a chemically
stabilized subgrade soil layer. PCC curb and gutters will be installed along the outside edges of the
pavement section.
It is our understanding that no major watercourse crossings are within the planned roadway
alignment such as those that would require a bridge or large dimension box culvert structure. In fact , we
do not even anticipate that there will be any small drainageway crossings. However, as subsequently
discussed , a shallow drainageway of approximately 2 to 3 feet depth lies within the existing street right-
of-way and parallels the proposed longitudinal alignment of the roadway extension. Final profiles or
grade changes for the proposed roadway extension are not known at the present time . However, except
for the previously indicated drainageway which will have to be filled during site development, most of
the grade changes are expected to consist of excavations or cuts in the range of 0.5 to I feet in depth ,
with maximum heights of fill in low-lying areas are expected to be in the order of 0 .5 to I feet with
respect to the existing surface grade along the proposed alignment.
1.1.2 Traffic Information
No specific traffic information , such as traffic volumes, patterns, and vehicle characteristics,
have been developed by the City of College Station (City) for the proposed roadway . Therefore, traffic
volumes were estimated from t he C ity 's categorization of the proposed street as being a major collector.
The listed Average Daily Traffi c (ADT) count for major collectors ranges from 5,000 to 10 ,000 vehicles
per day (VPD) (Table 1 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of College Station ; Revised through
January 2003). Therefore, an ave rage ADT of 5,000 VPD was used for pavement design along with a 20-
year design period. The stated ADT is assumed to have incorporated growth factors over the 20-year
design period.
By definition , the ADT represents two-way traffic per day. An average traffic directional split of
50 percent was assumed for the project. Therefore, the design traffic volume for each of the drive lanes
of the proposed roadway was assumed to be one-half of the referenced ADT, or approximately 2,500
VPD . The primary uses of the land along the roadway will be for apartment buildings with little or no
2
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
commercial or industrial uses planned. Therefore, we have assumed that there will a very low percentage
of heavy trucks utilizing the proposed roadway. Information concerning traffic volumes, patterns, and
vehicle characteristics (e.g., percentage of heavy truck traffic) is discussed in greater detail in Section 5.0
of this report.
1.1.3 Utilities
Utilities consisting of storm sewers and possibly water lines are assumed to be associated with
the proposed roadway extension. Specific details concerning planned utilities are not known at the
present time. However, the utilities are expected to be located within the right-of-way of the roadway
extension. Typical depths of the gravity storm sewers are expected to be in the range of approximately 4
to 6 feet below existing surface grade, with a maximum depth of approximately 8 to I 0 feet. Water line
depths are expected to be in the order of 4 feet.
1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE EXPLORATION AND STUDY
The specific objectives of the exploration and study were to:
• Secure information on the general subsurface conditions at the boring locations along the
length of the proposed roadway.
• Evaluate the subsurface information developed from the field exploration and laboratory
testing programs.
• Develop general recommendations (based upon an engineering analysis of the subsurface
information) to guide development of conceptual and final design plans for the proposed
roadway pavement section and the anticipated utility improvements.
It should be recognized that the exclusive purpose of this study was to develop general
recommendations for the proposed roadway. This study did not directly assess, or even attempt to
address, specific environmental conditions encountered along the route (i.e., the presence of pollutants or
other substances in the soil, rock, or groundwater; the presence of wetlands or "waters of the United
States"). In addition, this geotechnical study did not specifically address historical uses of the roadway
and the surrounding areas from an environmental perspective.
1.3 REPORT FORMAT
The following section of this report work (Section 2.0) presents descriptions of the field
exploration and drilling phase of the work, including the sampling procedures utilized to obtain the soil
samples at the boring locations. Section 3.0 offers a description of the test procedures used in the
laboratory study to determine the classification and strength characteristics of the soils. Following the
3
CME TESTING AN D ENGINEERING, I NC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for th e Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station , Texas
explanation of the procedures used and the results obtained in the field exploration and laboratory testing
phases of the work. the next section of the report (Section 4 .0) presents a general description of the
subsurface conditions encountered during the field study . The subsequent section of the report (Section
5.0) presents our analysis of the field and laboratory data and our recommendations for the proposed
pavement systems of the improved roadway, as well as utilities associated with the new construction.
Following the analysis and recommendation section is a general discussion of considerations that may
impact construction of the proposed roadway (Section 6.0). The final section (Section 7 .0) outlines the
basis of the recommendations presented in the report.
There are three (3) appendices (A, B and C) following the text of the report . Appendix A
contains the figures referenced in the report and includes the boring plan illustrating the location of the
exploratory borings. Also presented in Appendix A are the boring logs indicating the types of soils
encountered at each of the boring locations. Appendix B contains photographs taken during field visits to
the project area . Appendix Coffers the summary results of the laboratory testing program .
4
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for th e Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension Coll ege Station, Texas
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM
2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION STUDY
Subsurface conditions along the route of the proposed roadway project were explored by drilling
five (5) soil sample borings alon g the planned roadway realignment. The approximate locations of the
borings are illustrated on the accompanying Figure 2. The soil sample borings were labeled as B-1
through B-5.
As previously mentioned there is an existing drainage swale that is situated within the Marion
Pugh Drive ROW as can be seen in photographs taken of the project site (see Photographs I and 2 in
Appendix B). The base of the swale contained wet soils that limited the access of the truck-mounted drill
rig to the bottom of the swale. T herefore, for reasons of accessibility, all of the borings were drilled at the
top of the eastern "bank" of the swale as depicted on Figure 4 -Schematic Diagram of Existing
Drainageway Within Propo se d Rig ht-of-Way and Project Boring Locations. Consequently, the soils
present across the bottom of th e drainage swale may be somewhat wetter and weaker than the soils
sampled at the boring locations along the top of the bank.
2.2 DRILLING AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES
The five (5) borings drilled at the site were advanced to depths of approximately 10 feet below
the ground surface elevation existing at each boring location at the time of the field exploration. Boring
locations and depths were selected by CME in conjunction with information provided by RME . As
previously mentioned, the borings were located along the top banks of the existing drainage swale and
therefore were approximately 2 to 3 feet above the elevation of the bottom of the swale . Existing ground
surface elevations at each of the boring locations are not known at the present time, but we understand
that the elevations will be determined by a topographic survey conducted for the project. Since the
elevations at the boring locations were not known at the time of this report, it should be recognized that
subsequent discussions and recommendations presented in this report are referenced to the surface grade
existing at the time of the field study. If adjustments to the present surface elevations are made as part of
site grading operations prior to construction of the foundation system, some adjustment in the subsequent
discussions and recommendation s w ith respect to foundation depths may be necessary.
5
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station , Te xas
The borings were drilled with a truck-mounted rotary drill rig utilizing dry augering drilling
techniques. Representative soil samples were obtained continuously to a maximum depth of l 0 feet.
Cohesive soil samples were obtained by mechanically pushing a 3-inch-diameter, thin-wall sampler in
general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 1587. Purely cohesionless or purely
granular soils were not encountered at the boring locations along the proposed roadway alignment.
Cohesionless soils are typically obtained by driving a 2-inch, split-barrel sampler and conducting a
standard penetration test. In the standard penetration test (SPT), a 2-inch, O .D. standard, split-barrel
sampler is driven into the soil for three successive 6-inch increments with blows from a 140-lb hammer.
The vertical travel of the hammer is 30 inches in accordance with ASTM D 1586. The number of blows
required to drive the sampler over the depth interval from 6 to 18 inches is defined as the standard
penetration number (N). However, if a limiting blow count of 50 blows is reached during any 6-inch
interval , the test is terminated and an N-value of 50 is recorded along with the corresponding penetration
in inches. Test termination also occurs if a total of 100 blows has been applied or if the sampler has not
advanced after l 0 successive hammer blows . The N-values determined for the SPTs are typically
presented at appropriate depths on the boring logs.
2.3 BORING LOGS
A field geologist/engineer was present during the field exploration to describe the subsurface
stratigraphy and to note obvious anomalies in the subsurface stratigraphy that may have been present at
specific boring 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. The "Key to
Symbols and Soil Classification" sheet ex plaining the terms and symbols used on the logs is presented
immediately following the logs . The logs represent CME's interpretation of the subsurface conditions
based upon the field geologist/engineer's notes together with engineering observation and classification
of the materials in the laboratory . The lines designating the interfaces between various strata represent
approximate boundaries only, as transitions between materials may be gradual.
2.4 MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS IN BOREHOLES
As previously mentioned, all of the boreholes were drilled using dry rotary drilling techniques so
that groundwater could be monitored during and immediately following completion of drilling activities .
The results of the groundwater observations are presented in a subsequent section of this report.
Following completion of drilling or groundwater monitoring, the boreholes were all filled with soil
cuttings to limit moisture infiltration into surface formations and as a safety precaution for pedestrian
6
CME T ESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station , Texas
traffic within the proposed ROW or pedestrian traffic accessing private property immediately adjacent to
the existing ROW.
2.5 SAMPLE CUSTODY
Representative samples 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.
7
CM E TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
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 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 test results are presented in a summary tabular form in Appendix C
and some of the test results are also presented both numerically and symbolically on the boring logs in
Appendix A.
3.1 CLASSIFICATION TESTS
Tests were performed in order to classify the foundation soils in accordance with the Unified
Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487) and to determine the soil-moisture profile at the boring
locations. The Atterberg limit determinations were performed in general accordance with the procedures
outlined in ASTM D 4318.
In addition to the selected Atterberg limit tests, grain-size distribution tests were also performed.
The percent of soil particles passing the U.S. Standard sieve size No. 200 (ASTM D 1140) was
determined. The soil fractions passing the No. 200 sieve size are the silt-and clay-size particles and are
generally referred to as "fines." The unit dry weight of the samples was also determined in accordance
with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2166. The natural moisture content of individual samples was
determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2216.
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 of the
cohesive soils. The unconfined compression test (ASTM D 2166) was performed in the laboratory on
undisturbed samples of cohesive soils to determine the compressive strength characteristics. In addition ,
hand penetrometer tests were performed both in the field and in the laboratory on undisturbed soil
samples to develop an approximate indication of the undrained cohesive strength.
The unit dry weight of each strength specimen was also determined in accordance with the
procedures outlined in ASTM D 2166 . The natural moisture content of individual strength specimen was
determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2216.
8
C ME TESTI NG AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechn ical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station , Texas
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS
4.1 EXISTING SURF ACE CONDITIONS ALONG THE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ALIGNMENT
Three (3) photographs of the project area are presented in Appendix Band should be referenced
when reading the following description of the project site.
The ground surface along the proposed route of the roadway extension consists of undeveloped
land within the current street ROW. The ROW area is mostly covered with native grasses , although there
is some dense vegetation along the ROW boundaries (Figure 2 and Photographs 1, 2, and 3). As
discussed in the following paragraph , there is also an existing drainage swale that is situated in the
western portion of the existing ROW (Figures 3 and 4, and Photographs 1 and 2). The swale follows the
longitudinal axis of the proposed roadway alignment. Otherwise, there did not appear to be significant
surface features within the project area .
The general topography across the existing ROW is illustrated on the previously referenced
Figure 3. In general , the topography across the project area slopes is relatively flat but has a general
downward slope toward the east and northeast and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor. One exception to
the generally eastward drainage flow is the previously discussed drainage swale (Figure 3). The swale
appears to collect localized surface runoff from the apartment developments west of the project area and
routes the collected flows toward the south and Holleman Drive.
4.2 GENERAL SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY
4.2.1 Subsurface Soils Stratigraphy at Boring Locations
Soils Classification Svstem. The soils within the stratigraphy across the site were classified
under the criteria outlined under the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS , per ASTM D 2487). The
soils are initially classified based upon their percentage of fines. Fines are those soils within the silt-and
clay-size particle range that will pass through or are "finer" than the No. 200 U.S. Standard sieve size .
Thus, the percentage of a soil sample that is not fines represents the sand-and gravel-size particles. Soils
with a percentage of fines that are 50 percent or greater are classified under the USCS (ASTM D 698) as
silts or clays, and soils with a percentage of fines less than 50 are classified as sands or gravels. For
example, if the percentage of fines in a soil sample was measured to be approximately 34.4 percent, the
9
CME TESTING A ND ENGINEER I NG, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Propo sed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station , Te xas
sample would classify as a sand or a gravel since approximately 65.6 percent of the soil particles are in
the sand-and gravel-size particle range (100 percent -34.4 percent fines= 65 .6 percent sand-and gravel-
size particles). Soils are typically g iven a two-letter classification designation under the USCS. For
example, sandy soils with a high silt content are assigned an SM designation (S for sand and M for a
Latin word meaning silt) and sand s with a high clay content are given the designation SC (S for sand and
C for clayey).
The USCS also includes a determination of the clay characteristics of soil samples through
measurement of the liquid lim it (L L) and the plastic limit (PL) of the soils. The LL and the PL (along
with the shrinkage limit) are often collectively referred to as the Atterberg limits. These limits distinguish
the boundaries of the several con s istency states of plastic soils . The LL represents the moisture content at
which the soil is on the verge of be ing 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 (Pl) of soil is defined as the range of moisture contents at which the soil
behaves as a plastic material and is described as the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic
limit (LL -PL = Pl). Highly plastic clays are defined as clays with a liquid limit (LL) of equal to or
greater than 50 and are given a CH designation (C for clays and H for high plasticity) under the USCS.
Clays with LLs less than 50 are typically referred to as low plasticity or lean clays and given a CL
designation (C for clays and L fo r low plasticity). One variation on the current USCS designation was
originally proposed by Dr . Arthur Casagrande, who performed the original work on the soil classification
system. Dr. Casagrande proposed an intermediate plasticity classification for clays in which clays with an
LL between 30 and 49 were termed CM (M for moderate plasticity) soils, or clays of moderate plasticity .
Although not adopted by ASTM, th e CM designation is still sometimes used to describe in greater detail
the soils with plasticities between the low and high ranges.
The magnitude of the PI of a soil is typically considered to be an indication of the clay content
and the related 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). Soils
possessing high values of PI are said to be "highly plastic" or "fat'' and those with low values are
described as "slightly plastic " or "lean." Pure granular materials, such as sands or gravels , are typically
non-plastic and have a PI value of 0 .
General Description of Stratigraphy at the Boring Locations Across the Project Site. The
subsurface stratigraphy encountered at the boring locations along the length of the proposed roadway
extension is shown in detail on th e individual boring logs. In general , the soils throughout the 10-feet
depth of exploration across the project site were relatively similar but there were some differences
10
CME TESTING AN D ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for th e Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
horizontally between the boring locations and also vertically with respect to depth at any particular
boring location .
The soils throughout the major portion of the 10-feet depth of exploration typically consisted of
fat clays , i.e., clays of high plasticity, although there were some occasional strata of clayey sands of
relatively limited thickness present between the fat clay strata at some locations in the upper portion of
the stratigraphy.
The clays present within the depth of exploration generally exhibited high plasticities, i.e., LL
values of 50 and over, although there were some occasional strata of moderately plastic clays. The LL
values as determined from the laboratory study typically ranged from 56 to 78 with corresponding Pl
values of from 36 to 52. The clays contained varying percentages of sands as indicated by the percent
fines determined in the laboratory testing program. The percent fines ranged from 67.8 to 87.9 percent
which corresponds to percentages of sands ranging from approximately 12.1 to 32 .2 percent ( 100 percent
-87 .9 percent = 12 . I percent, and 100 percent -67 .8 percent = 32 .2 percent). The clays would likely
classify as CH to CM type soils under the original USCS. Jn general, the laboratory tests performed on
the clays indicated that the clays had relatively high strength and had low compressibility characteristics
with respect to the anticipated ve hicle loading. Jn general , the clay strata exhibited consistencies (i.e.,
strength categorizations) in the range of stiff to very stiff.
The percent fines as measured in the laboratory testing program for the sand strata present in the
upper portion of the stratigraphy at most of the boring locations ranged from 42 . 7 percent to 46.2 percent
and thereby indicated a high percentage of fines , i.e ., silts or clays, within the sands. Most of the fines are
believed to consist of clay as indicated by the high LL values ( 44 to 56) and Pl values (26 to 36) of the
sands determined in the laboratory testing program. The sands would classify as SC type soils under the
USCS. Although no specific Standard Penetration Tests were performed for the surficial soils in the
field , the relative density of thes e clayey sands is estimated to be in the medium dense to dense range ,
thereby indicating that the sand s possess moderate to high shear resistance properties. The sand was
generally slightly moist at the time of the field investigation. It should be noted that surficial sandy soils
with high percentages of fine s, such as the soils across portions of the project site, can be difficult to
compact if they are in a very moist to wet condition at the time of construction. Surficial silty sands that
are underlain by clay formation s have a tendency to trap rainwater and to "pump" when compacted.
Pumping refers to the condition when t he energy applied during the compaction of the soils is transferred
into the relatively incompressible water trapped within the silty sands and not to the soil structure. Thus,
the compaction energy is "absorbed " by the water within the void spaces of the soil structure and not by
the soil structure. As a resul t, the soil structure undergoes little or no densification under the applied
11
CME TESTING AND ENG INE ERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station , Texas
energy of compaction . Rather, the compaction energy is transferred laterally within the water mass to
produce a "wave " in the soils that re sembles a "water bed " effect. Pumping soils provide extremely poor
load support capacity for paving systems .
Potential Variation in Type o(Pavement Subgrade Soils. It should be recognized that the nature
of the surficial soils that will represent the subgrade layer for the proposed roadway pavement may vary
somewhat across the project and will be dependent upon the existing subsurface stratigraphy at a
particular boring location and the planned depth of excavation or cut that will be required to achieve final
roadway grades. Thus, if the subsurface stratigraphy at a particular location consists of a surficial layer of
clayey sands overlying thick deposits of fat clays, such as at the boring B-4 location where approximately
2.5 feet of surficial clayey sand s are present above the underlying clays, the subgrade soils for the
proposed pavement system will consist of sands if there is no excavation below existing grade, but will
consist of fat clays if there is 2.5 feet or more of excavation planned at the boring location. In general , we
anticipate that the subgrade soils along the roadway alignment will likely consist of fat clays. Similarly,
fill soils are expected to be required in the areas of the previously referenced drainageway crossings and
the type of pavement subgrade soils w ill depend upon the nature of the soils used as fill .
Limitations of Stratigrapliical Descriptions. It should be noted that the previously presented
generalized stratigraphical descriptions represent conceptual depictions of the subsurface conditions at
the boring locations along the proposed roadway alignment based upon the information obtained from the
specific borings. Variations from these generalizations may occur between boring locations . Subsequent
recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed pavement system and utilities were
developed assuming that these generalized conditions are continuous throughout the areas under
consideration. It is recommended that the nearest appropriate boring log (contained in Appendix A) be
consulted for information at a specific location. Should conditions during construction be found to vary
from the outlined generalization , CME should be notified in order to evaluate the potential effect of the
variation on the recommendations pre sented in this report.
4.3 SUBSURFACE WATER CONDITIONS
As previously stated , the borin gs were drilled using dry augering techniques in order to monitor
groundwater during and immediately following drilling operations. No groundwater was observed in any
of the boreholes either during or immediately following completion of drilling. However, some granular
formations were present within the upper portions of the stratigraphy at four (4) of the boring locations.
The granular strata are significant in that they can serve as aquifers for groundwater, especially shallow
perched groundwater after period s of heavy rainfall. These granular soils may trap stormwater runoff
12
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING , INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
after periods of heavy rainfall events and could cause problems during construction with excavations that
penetrate the granular strata.
In any event, it should be recognized that water table elevations at any site, particularly those
with granular soils in the stratigraphy, can fluctuate with time. Groundwater levels are dependent upon
the amount of seasonal precipitation and climatic conditions, as well as other factors such as infiltration ,
evapotranspiration, water levels in adjacent bodies of water, dewatering operations on adjacent sites , etc .
The groundwater levels or lack of the presence of groundwater at the time of the field investigation may
not be representative of the groundwater encountered either during the construction phase of the project
and during the design life of the proposed project. If the long-term variation of the groundwater level is
critical to some design aspect of the proposed development, an extended and comprehensive assessment
of groundwater conditions should be undertaken to better define the pertinent conditions that may
influence the design.
13
CM E T EST ING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections of the report present analysis and recommendations for foundation
support of the major elements of the project.
5.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PAVEMENT SYSTEMS
5.1.1 Pavement System Design Procedures
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design
procedure was used to compute pavement thickness requirements for the single type of pavement section
considered, i.e., the rigid pavement section consisting of a Portland cement concrete (PCC) surface
course over a chemically stabilized and compacted soil subgrade.
Vehicle traffic volume numbers and characteristics used as input into the pavement design
analysis were generally outlined in Section 1.0 of this report. The volume of traffic or number of vehicles
expected to use the planned roadway was determined using the City's assumed traffic volumes for
standard major collector roadways . As previously indicated , Marion Pugh Drive has been characterized
as a major collector. The specific axle and tire configurations and magnitudes of loading for typical
classes of vehicles using the roadway were estimated based upon the planned land use adjacent to the
roadway. We understand that the area along the roadway is planned for development as apartment
buildings and office complexes. In addition , the results of the laboratory testing program were used to
determine the load-carrying characteristics of the subgrade soils, and the subgrade soil support values
determined from the testing program and general information concerning chemical stabilization of the
soils were also used as input in the design procedure. Due to the potential weak character of the subgrade
clay soils when wet and due to the high shrink-swell potential of the clay support soils along essentially
all of the proposed roadway route , we have recommended that the subgrade soils be chemically stabilized
and compacted to a minimum depth of at least 6 inches. Stabilization will improve the support capacity
of the subgrade layer. Based upon the assumption that the soil subgrade layer will be chemically
stabilized and compacted, we have incorporated a relatively strong subgrade soil support value in the
design assumptions for the pavement section.
The previously described factors were used to determine required pavement layer thicknesses for
the previously discussed rigid pavement section. The following sections of this report present in greater
detail the given input values used in the analysis and the resulting pavement design recommendations.
14
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station , Texas
5.1.2 General Considerations of Subgrade Support for Pavement Systems
As previously described, the near-surface soils encountered at the boring locations along the
route of the planned roadway project consisted of fat clays although some clayey sands of moderate to
high plasticity may also be present along some sections of the roadway alignment. Although the fat clays
possessed relatively high strength properties at the time of the field study, the subgrade-support
properties can deteriorate when the clays are exposed to moisture, such as frequently happens in roadway
construction where stonnwater runoff is collected by the pavement system.
The subgrade support characteristics of the soils were established based on a correlation between
soil classification test indices and soil support values, such as resilient soil moduli (MR) and California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) values. MR and CBR support values are typically low for clays of high plasticity.
The MR and CBR values for the clays along the route of the planned roadway were detennined based
upon strength correlations with soil classification tests. The classification characteristics detennined in
the laboratory study conducted on the near surficial soils at the boring locations for this study were com-
pared to similar classified soils for which soil support values had been developed. For example, natural
SC type soils can be correlated with a CBR value of 10 and CH type soils with a CBR value of 2.
Chemical stabiliz.ation of the soils with fly ash, Portland cement, and/or hydrated lime and subsequent
compaction of the soils should increase the CBR value to the range of 15 and 6, respectively.
Current design of pavement systems is typically related to the MR and not the CBR value.
Research by the Corps of Engineers indicates that there is a correlation between the CBR and the MR of
subgrade soils and that'fhat relationship can be represented by the following equation:
MR= 1,500 x CBR value
However, independent research perfonned by state agencies as part of the AASHTO pavement
study indicates that a more representative strength relationship can be expressed by the following
equation:
MR= 800 x CBR value
The more conservative relationship developed by the state agencies was used to develop
anticipated strength characteristics for the subgrade soils. The lowest CBR value detennined from
previous studies of chemically stabilized and compacted natural soils was used in the equation. As
previously indicated, based upon the soil classification test results for the natural soils encountered at the
boring locations along the proposed roadway, it is likely that the subgrade soils for most of the proposed
15
'
CME TESTING A ND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
roadway will consist of fat clays of high plasticity. Therefore, a CBR value of 4 was chosen for design to
represent the chemically stabilized and compacted fat clay subgrade soils. The MR corresponding to the
CBR value of 6 for the natural soil s was determined to be approximately 4,800 psi.
5.1.3 Projected Traffic Volumes and Characteristics
Traffic volumes along the proposed roadway are expected to be of relatively significant
magnitude during the design life of the roadway . As previously indicated in Section 1.0, there is no
specific current and future traffic information available from the City of College Station for the proposed
roadway . Therefore, the traffic volume used in the design was based upon the City 's classification of the
proposed roadway as a major collector and the assumed projected traffic volumes that are associated with
that street classification which ranges from 5,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day. Since the proposed roadway
is not planned to extend south of Holleman Drive and therefore will limit through traffic in the area, we
have assumed that the daily traffic volume would be at the lower end of the previously indicated range ,
or approximately 5,000 vehicles per day. This estimate of traffic volume compares favorably with the
projected volume of 5,043 to 5,4 79 vehicles per day presented in the Callaway Tract Traffic Impa ct
Assessment report prepared by Jeff Milburn Engineering in May 2005. Consequently, a 24-hour daily
traffic volume (ADT) of 5,000 vehicles was used for the entire roadway for the assumed design period of
20 years. The annual traffic growth factor was assumed to be incorporated in the ADT numbers.
Other traffic characteristics not directly measured or reported in the City's guidance documents,
but which were assumed for the design of the subject roadway, are listed in Table I . A traffic split or
directional distribution factor of 50% in each direction was assumed for the planned roadway. Therefore,
the traffic volume for the design lane of pavement was assumed to be 50% of the ADT, or approximately
2,500 vehicles per day . The percentage of heavy truck traffic was assumed to be approximately I% of the
ADT as listed in Table I . The percentage of truck traffic was estimated based upon the assumption that
there would not be an extensive number of heavy trucks using the proposed roadway due to the planned
adjacent land use as apartments or office buildings. Heavy trucks are typically defined as three or more
axle and six-tired vehicles or larger and can have a pronounced impact on the design of pavement
systems . Moderate weight trucks are defined as two-axle and six-tired vehicles.
16
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Propo sed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
Table 1. Summary of Design Traffic Conditions for Proposed Pavement Section
Description of Traffic Factor
ADT
Percent Growth over Design Period
Directional distribution
Vehicle volume for design lane (one in each direction)
Percent Heavy Trucks
Value of Traffic Factor
5,000 vehicles
Already incorporated in ADT
50%/ 50%
50% of ADT or 2,500 vehicles per day
lo/oof ADT
Information provided in the Asphalt Institute's publication entitled Thickness Design , Asphalt
Pavements for Highways & Streets, Manual Series No. I [MS-1], February 1991) and the previously
referenced AASHTO pavement design guide were used to determine the distribution of different types of
trucks within the total volume of traffic expected to travel over the proposed Marion Pugh Drive
extension. More specifically, Table IV-1 "Distribution of Trucks on Different Classes of Highways -
United States" in the referenced manual was utilized to determine the different axle/wheel configurations
for the classes of trucks that would travel over collector streets in urban roadway systems. For example, a
vehicle that could be described as a 2-axle, 6-tire, single-unit truck may comprise 11% of the total traffic
volume whereas a 5-axle, multi-unit vehicle may comprise only 2% of the total traffic volume . Axle
loads for the different categories of trucks were determined from the previously referenced AASHTO
pavement guide. An illustration of the number, types, and loadings of the vehicles assumed to be
representative of the traffic that will use the planned roadway is presented in Table 2. The indicated
traffic loading conditions were used to determine the minimum pavement system layer thickness
requirements for the proposed roadway section.
17
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
Table 2. Summary of Vehicle Characterization Used to Determine Traffic Loading m ESALs
(Equivalent 18-kip Single-Axle Load Applications)
18
NQ. OF VEHICLE
TRIPS PER QAY(Q)
TYPE OF ~Q. QE IN PAVEMENT
VEHICLE Ml.E LQAD (KIPS) ML.ES DESIGN LANE
~ F -2.0 1 1,470 R -2 .0 1
6 F -2.0 1 980 R -5.0 1
w dJ F -10.0 1 ~ (f) 38 §g R -24.0 1 WO
Qt-
:I: a::: 0 .....
~
I dJ F -12.0 1
R -34.0 2 8
d:J F -12.0 1
M -16.0 1 4
R -34.0 2
dO J F -12.0 1
M -34.0 2 1
R -34.0 2
TOTAL VEHICLES PER DAY: 2,500
TOTAL RIGID E 18's: 1,180,000
Summary of Vehicle Characterization Used to
CME TESTl~NEERING 1 INC. Determine Traffic Loading in ESALs
qy '-OI (Equivalent 18-kip Single Axle Load Applications)
TABLE 2
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station , Texas
5.1.4 Pavement Thickness Requirements
The traffic loading was calculated using the previously discussed traffic conditions, the
previously described subgrade soil classifications, and assuming that the subgrade soils will be
chemically stabilized with lime or lime/fly ash mixture and compacted to a minimum depth of 6 inches in
accordance with the provisions of a subsequent section of this report. Various pavement material strength
properties, drainage characteristics, and load transfer provisions were also assumed.
The calculated traffic loading was expressed as a unit term, the equivalent 18-kip single-axle
load application , or ESAL. ESALs provide a means of expressing traffic loading from numerous types of
vehicles with various axle configurations and loadings in terms of 18-kip axle loads. Thus, every vehicle,
no matter what the axle loading, can be expressed as a number of 18-kip 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 ESALs for a rigid
pavement section were computed for a 20-year design period. The rigid pavement ESALs were
calculated to be approximately 1, 180 ,000.
Based upon the calculated traffic loading, the total required pavement thicknesses were
computed for a rigid pavement section with a Portland cement concrete (PCC) surface course. The results
of those computations are presented in Table 3. The table presents recommended minimum layer
thicknesses for each of the materials that comprise the various courses or layers of the pavement section.
As can be seen from a review of Table 3, the pavement section consists of a surface course of PCC
overlying a prepared subgrade consisting of chemically stabilized and compacted soils.
Table 3.
Notes :
Pavement Thickness Schedule for Portland Cement Concrete Section
Thickness (in)
7.0
6.0
13.0
Material Description
Reinforced concrete surface course 1
Compacted chemically-stabilized subgrade soils or limestone
screenin~s2
Total constructed pavement thickness
I. 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 of3,500 psi).
2. The requirements for compaction and chemical stabilization of the subgrade soils or limestone screenings are presented in the text.
19
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
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 fonn, and to aid in
transferring loads across joints. 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 joints placed a maximum distance of 15 feet each way. 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 100-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 pennanent structures (such as drainage inlets). All joints should
be sealed with Sonoborn Sonolastic SLl (or equivalent) to minimize infiltration of surface water to the
underlying subgrade soils.
The edges or periphery of pavement sections are a natural weak point due to the Jack 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 areas should be included in the current design plans. The most common means of edge support is a
Portland cement concrete curb and gutter. We recommend that the exterior boundary of the chemically-
stabilized subgrade layer extend at least 3 feet beyond the edge of the pavement surface layer. These
extensions will help to minimize the fonnation of edge cracks in the pavement system due to either a Jack
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.
5.2 PAVEMENT SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
5.2.1 Pavement Drainage
The control of surface and groundwater is a critical factor in the perfonnance of a pavement
system. Adequate surface and subsurface drainage provisions should be included in the pavement design
scheme. Drainage provisions may include, among other things, the following: a steeply graded pavement
surface to quickly transport stonnwater to collection or discharge points; an adequate number of
stonnwater catch basins or curb inlets in the paved areas to capture the stormwater; and adequately sized
stonnwater sewer piping to quickly transport the collected stormwater to discharge points in
drainageways away from the roadway. Finally, landscaping or "green" areas and other potential sources
for moisture infiltration within the limits of the parking area should be minimized, if at all possible.
20
CM E T ESTIN G AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
5.2.2 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 stormwater infiltration into the underlying pavement
system layers and subsequent degradation of performance. Sealants that can withstand exterior
exposures, such as Sonobom SL-1, 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 repair should
be anticipated over the expected life of the pavement system.
5.3 UTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
5.3.1 Bedding Soils for Utilities
We understand that it is a possibility that some domestic water lines and sanitary sewer lines may
be constructed as part of the proposed roadway improvements. We anticipate that these utility lines will
typically be founded in the depth range of approximately 5 to I 0 feet below the present surface grade .
Soils at the anticipated founding depths are expected to predominantly consist of stiff to very stiff, fat
clays which classify as CH type soils under the USCS (ASTM D 2487).
Flexible utility lines , such as those constructed with plastic PVC and HDPE piping, are more
sensitive to bedding and foundation performance than are rigid utility lines, such as those constructed
with ductile iron , steel , or reinforced concrete pipe. Material classifications for soils used in the
foundation, embedment, and backfill zones for plastic utility pipe are presented in Table I of ASTM D
2321-89 (Reapproved 1995), Standard Practice for Underground Installation of Thermoplastic Pipe for
Sewers and Other Gravity Flow Applications. The referenced standard indicates that CH type soils would
have a Class IV-B designation. According to Table 2 of the referenced standard, Class IV-B soils are not
considered suitable as bedding or embedment material and should only be used as general backfill when
permitted by project specifications. The standard also indicates that the SC and SM sandy soils would
have a Class m classification and would be considered suitable for use as bedding or embedment
material as well as general backfill , if permitted by the project specifications .
Analysis of load/deflection performance of the pipe can be performed based upon the modulus of
subgrade reaction , k, in units of pounds per square inch per inch (psi/inch) of the anticipated foundation
21
CM E TE STI NG AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
soils. A k value of 50 psi/inch is recommended for use with the CH type soils and a k value of 300
psi/inch is recommended for any SC and SM type soils encountered.
5.3.2 Backfill Soils for Utilities
All utilities located in the area planned for pavement or other structural features (e.g., sidewalks,
etc.) should be backfilled with cement-stabilized sands or compacted backfill soils. If cement-stabilized
sands are utilized, we recommend that a minimum of 1 Yi sacks of Portland cement be utilized per cubic
yard of backfill mixture. The cement-stabilized sand backfill should be tamped, vibrated, or compacted to
meet minimum compressive strength requirements.
Existing or imported soils may also be used to backfill utility trenches in paved areas or in areas
outside of the paved or structural areas. The backfill soils shall be free of deleterious material and
excessive amounts of silt (greater than 30% without a corresponding percentage of clay to "balance" the
silts). Native soils or imported select soils meeting structural fill requirements may be used for
backfilling of utility trenches unless otherwise prohibited by project plans and specifications.
In order to minimize future backfill settlement and resulting surface depressions, the soils used to
backfill utilities shall be compacted. We recommend that backfill in paved areas be compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent of the max imum density achievable in the Standard Proctor compaction test
(ASTM D 698) or to at least 95 percent of the maximum density determined by Test Method Tex 113-E
as presented in the Texas State Department of Highway and Public Transportation (SDHPT) Materials
and Test Division Manual outlining testing methods and procedures at moisture contents that are in the
range of plus or minus 2 percent of the optimum moisture content. Similarly, backfill in landscaped areas
should be compacted to at least 92% of the maximum dry density as determined by the Standard Proctor
compaction test, ASTM D 698 at moisture contents in the range of plus or minus 3% of the OMC.
Provisions should be made to discourage utility trenches serving as pathways for water to
migrate from outside to beneath the pavement structure. Sloping the bottom of the utility trench away
from the roadway and the use of anti-seep collars of clay soils should be considered.
5.3.3 Utility Trench Stability Considerations
Trench stability should also be a consideration in the installation of the utilities for the project.
No specific stability analysis was performed for trench excavation since trench locations and excavation
depths are not known at the t ime of report preparation. However, based upon the standard soil
classifications described in OSHA Standard 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart P regarding trench safety
22
CM E T ESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
requirements, and based upon the limited laboratory classification and strength test results, the very stiff
clays encountered at the majority of the boring locations across the site can probably be classified as
Type A or Type B soils. However, we recommend that the above information be reviewed once specific
trench locations and depths are determined.
23
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
6.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 GENERAL SITE PREPARATION
The topsoil and surface vegetation (including all major root systems) present along the proposed
roadway alignment should be excavated and removed from the site. Special attention should be directed
to removal of all ''muck" or soft soils present in the bottoms of any old channels, ponds, or other
drainageways present along the proposed roadway alignment. In addition , the existing drainageways that
are to be filled as part of the proposed roadway construction should have ledges or "benches" excavated
into the sidewalls of the channel side slopes prior to fill placement. The benches or ledges should be at
least 6 feet in width with one bench being placed vertically for every 2 feet of channel height. The
provision for horizontal benches will help to facilitate compaction of new fill soils and will also help to
"integrate" the new fill into the ex is t ing side slope soils within the potential development of a failure
plane at the interface between the existing subgrade and the new fill materials .
The subgrade soils ex posed after removal of existing soils should be proof-rolled with a I 0-ton
pneumatic roller or equivalent equipment and any soft or weak areas removed and replaced with
compacted fill. Any existing soils excavated from the site as part of the grading operations may be used
as fill in the proposed roadway if they meet the outlined requirements for select fill stated in this report.
Otherwise, the excavated soils should be disposed off-site. The existing topsoil excavated from the site
may be stockpiled and used for landscaping of the completed roadway corridor.
The surface of the reconstructed roadway should be crowned and graded to promote positive
drainage away from the paved areas to ex isting drainageways to the maximum extent possible. Water
should not be allowed to pond ne xt to the roadway.
6.2 STRUCTURAL BACKFILL MATERIAL SELECTION AND COMP ACTION
Structural fill is herein defined as fill soils placed within the limits of the proposed paved areas.
The following criteria should be observed during selection and compaction of all structural fill:
• Selected structural fill material should be used for replacing excavated material or
for raising the grade of the proposed roadway . Select fill should be defined as a low
to medium plasticity material that classifies as a sandy, lean clay (CL) or a clayey
sand (SC) under the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D 2487) and
in addition have a plasticity index (PI) between 7 and 30 .
24
CME TESTING A ND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for th e Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
• In addition, select fill soils should not contain an excessive amount of silt (i.e., >25
percent) in combination with a low PI (less than l 0).
• Compaction of the structural fill should be to minimum densities corresponding to 95
percent of the maximum dry density determined by the Standard Proctor compaction
test, ASTM D 698, at moisture contents in the range of the optimum moisture
content (OMC) to 3 percent above the OMC. Alternately, the City's specifications
can be followed and the soil compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum
density determined by Test Method Tex 113-E as presented in the Texas State
Department of Highway and Public Transportation (SDHPT) Materials and Test
Division manual outlining testing methods and procedures. The soils should be
compacted in lifts not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness.
• Compaction characteristics of the fill should be verified by in-place density tests. At
a minimum, the tests should be performed on each 6-inch-thick lift of fill for every
300 linear feet ofroadway.
6.3 PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
The pavement design recommendations presented in the previous section of this report were
developed assuming that the various materials comprising the pavement system would meet or exceed the
material requirements and constructed procedures outlined in the following paragraphs. The
specifications include recommendations for chemical stabilization of the subgrade soils in the paved
areas. If the subgrade soils 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.
Subgrade Preparation
• If the pavement subgrade soils consist of expansive soils (i.e., those soils with a
PI>20), such as were encountered over most of the roadway alignment, provisions
should be made to stabilize the soils with hydrated lime. Soluble sulfates are
sometimes present in subgrade soils and can interfere with the stabilization action
between the hydrated lime and the soils. Therefore, we recommend that laboratory
tests be performed on selected samples of the exposed subgrade soils to determine
the percentage soluble sulfates present. If the concentrations are less than the l
percent value typically assumed to represent a problem percentage for lime
interaction, lime stabilization of the soils can be performed. The amount of Type A
hydrated lime to be added to the soils should be determined by specific laboratory
tests, sometimes called a lime series. The percentage of lime added to the soils
should be such as to reduce the plasticity index of the soils to 20 or less. In the
absence of such tests, we estimate that the amount of lime required to stabilize the
soils will be approximately 6 percent as measured by dry weight of the subgrade soil
layer. For a subgrade soil layer of 6 inches in thickness, approximately 27 lb/yd2 of
hydrated lime should be used in the mixture. If the soils are relatively wet at the time
of construction, a small percentage of fly ash may be added to expedite construction
and to increase the support capacity of the subgrade soils . If it is decided to utilize
fly ash, we recommend that approximately 2 percent of Class C fly ash be added.
25
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Similarly, if the pavement subgrade consists of granular subgrade soils of low
plasticity (i.e., Pl<7), these sands should be stabilized with Class C fly ash at a rate
of 10 percent as measured by dry weight of soil (36 lb/yd 2 for a lift of 6 inches
thickness). Alternately, Type I Portland cement at a ratio of 4 percent by dry soil
weight may be used. The estimated percentages of fly ash and cement should be
verified by laboratory tests prior to construction.
If the pavement subgrade consists of soils of intermediate plasticity (7<PI<20), such
as may be of the soils present within the intermediate zones across the proposed
project area, the soils should be stabilized with a mixture of hydrated lime and fly
ash in equal parts. We recommend that approximately 3 percent Class C hydrated
lime and 3 percent Class C fly ash be used. The percentages are measured with
respect to dry soil unit weight and should be verified by specific laboratory tests.
A minimum depth of chemical treatment of 6 inches is recommended .
Stabilization procedures should be in accordance with the SDHPT Standard
Specification For Construction of Highways, Streets and Bridges, 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 this specification should include a minimum of 48 hours
of tempering time before final mixing, a minimum of 60% 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. The
extension should also help to minimize the formation of edge cracks in the pavement
system due to either a lack of boundary support under wheel loads or due to
shrinking of subgrade soils away from the outer edge of the pavement during dry
weather and subsequent loss of subgrade support.
Compaction of the stabilized subgrade soils should be to a minimum of95 percent of
the maximum dry density determined by the Standard Proctor compaction test,
ASTM D 698. Moisture content of the soils during compaction should be in the
range of the optimum moisture content (OMC) to 3 percent above OMC, inclusive.
Alternately, the City 's specifications can be followed and the lime stabilized soil
compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density determined by Test Method
Tex 113-E as presented in the SDHPT manual outlining testing methods and
procedures.
Compaction characteristics of the stabilized subgrade should be verified by in-place
density tests. At a minimum, the tests should be performed for every 200 linear feet
of the two-lane wide roadway.
26
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station, Texas
7.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations contained in this report are based, in part, on the project information
provided to CME. 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 should convey the correct or additional information to CME.
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 of
the foundation system of the proposed structure. Recommendations contained in this report were
developed based upon a generalization of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations
across the site and the assumption that the generalized conditions are continuous throughout the areas
under consideration . However, 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.
Consequently, it is recommended that experienced geotechnical personnel be employed to
observe construction 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. In addition, the construction observers should document construction activities and field
testing practices employed during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project.
Questionable procedures and/or practices should be reported to the design team, along with timely
recommendations to solve these problem(s).
The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, 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.
27
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
APPENDIX A
Figures,
Boring Logs, and
Key Sheet to Terms and Symbols Used on the Boring Logs
CME TESTIN~ERING, INC . v> '-0'
VICINITY MAP OF PROJECT AREA
MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
PROJECT: Marion P
LOCATION: Coll
American Campus Communities 11_A_P_P_R_:_M_F_c _______ +-R_E_v_._o_A_TE_: ______ _
DRAWN BY: MOK SCALE: As Shown
DATE: 08/11/05 FIGURE NO.: 1
Photograph Source: 1995 Aerial Pholo
from Brazos County Aerial Sll'Vey
CME TESTl~NeERING, INC . \JY <:(j/
RI
PHOTOGRAPH OF PROJECT AREA
MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
American Campus Communities 11-=-A.;,,,.PP:..,.:R,...:..;:"""M;.;.;,F,..,.;:c:,...-,=------+-R;_;,E=V.;..;.-=o;.:..A;;.;..TE=:;__ _____ __.
DRAWN BY: MOK SCALE: As Shown
DATE: 08/11/05 FIGURE NO .: 2
(
\ \
\\
(
/ \
\
)
or:
\ '"'-,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\"
\
\
\
( I
I }
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF PROJECT AREA
MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
American Campus Communities 1-'A...;;.P_;..P...;..R;;;...: ..;..;.M'-F..;;..c ______ ~...;.R=E;;_;;v..;_. =DA_;..TE,;;,.;;::.;.=---------1•
DRAWN BY : MOK SCALE: As Shown
DATE : 08/11/05 FIGURE NO .: 3
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1
PROPOSED MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
HOLLEMAN DRIVE TO LUTHER STREET
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
TYPE : 4• • OIAt.AETER ORY AUCER DRILLER : VASOUEZ/ CCI LOCATION : See Pion of Borin9s
181 --POCKET PENETROt.AETER
0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST ... 6 --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST .c ...
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ::: •t: COHESION, TON/SQ . FT. ,. -.. »:::) D 0 .25 0 .50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 ~
~ .. • 0. .. u Plastic Waler Liquid 0 • c-.....
.c .D Ci. • =~ Li mil Content. X Limit ... El El .. Q, ..2 i:: +--------·--------+ • » • SURFACE ELEVATION : NOT KNOWN :::::> Q tn tn ID 10 20 JO 40 50 60 70
J · Loose, brown, silly, fine SAND. dry • 39.l % Fi1 es ...
.. iill .. ~"I.ill lO very sun, dark brown, sanay, 1aL
N&V .a-
• Stiff lo very stiff, grayish-brown, sandy, fat !ITT+ • ..
.:' CLAY. with black ferrous stains. and a few,
small while calcareous nodules, dry lo
~ ~ sli11htlY moist J I "f.5+ ..... 5 -Very stiff lo bard. grayish -tan. fat CLAY, ~ .. ------,_ __ ---rt-
with sand, with yellowish-orange ferrous 92.l 83.2 % Fi nes 0-
~ streaks. and with small pockets or while I 181 ;j,4:>
\calcareous nodules.
Very stiff, dark lan, fal CLAY. with numerous ~ seams and pockets or light tan sand, with 181
~ orangish-brown ferrous stains and with a •
i-10 . .....: slightly blocky structure. slightly moist
...__ ...__ ...__ -0---
0---
..... 15-
-'---
'---
'---
'---
'---
i-20-
,___
i-25-...__ ...__
...__
'-30-
COMPLETION DEPTH : 10' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: No woler in borehole durinq I DATE : 05/04/05 DATE: or immediotely ofter drillin9 on 05/04/05
I CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC . I
LOG OF BORING NO. B-2
PROPOSED MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
HOLLEMAN DRIVE TO LUTHER STREET
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
TYPE : 4• • DIAMETER ORY AUGER DRILLER : VASQUEZ/ CCI LOCATION: See Pion of Borings
181 --POCKET PENETROUETER
0 --UNCONFINED COUPRESSION TEST .... A --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST .c ...
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL :! • t: COHESION. TON/SQ. FT. • ~ .. >..;;:;ti 0 .25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 ; .... • -• 0. .. u ~ 0 • Q' Plastic Water Liquid
.c .0 0. • .:!!i Limit Content. ll: Limit .... E E lit "' 0 c: +--------·--------+ .. >.. ~ SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN iii :> Q en 10 20 JO 40 50 60 70
....__ Firm lo stiff, dark brown. sandy, lean CLAY •
with occasional fine gravel. dry
1.5+ ....__
:::= ~~ Medium dense lo dense. grayish-brown and , ......
:::=~ tan, very clayey SAND, with orange ferrous •• ---,_ __ ----+
stains. and occasional fine navel. drv 42.7 x Fi es _. . Stiff lo very stiff. grayish-tan. sandy, fat 181
._ 5 -:;-.: CLAY. with yellow ferrous stains. and with • -~ seams of tan sand, moist
~ Stiff lo very stiff. dark tan, fat CLAY. with 181
-orangish-brown ferrous stains. and with
,___ ~ numerous seams and pockets of light tan 181 sand, moist
~ -with a slightly blocky structure below 8' +---· ._ __ -----.... + ,___ 83.2 x Fi •es >-10-,____
,___ .____
.____
,____ .____ ,___ -... 15-----------20-,__ ,__ ,__ ,___ ,___ ,___ -,____
,____
'-25---·· ,____ --,____
,____
,____ --30-----
COUPLETION DEPTH : 10· DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : No woter in borehole during
DATE : 05/04/05 DATE : or immediotely ofter drilling on 05/04/05
I CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, iNC. I
LOG OF BORING NO. B-3
PROPOSED MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
HOLLEMAN DRIVE TO LUTHER STREET
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
TYPE : 4• • DIAMETER DRY AUGER DRILLER: VASQUEZ/ CCI LOCATION: See Pion of Borings
181 --POCKET PENETROMETER
0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST ... t;. --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST J:
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL :! -it: COHESION, TON/SQ. FT. ii=
~ .. >.;:; 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 • ~ • .. 11. .. o Plestic Water Liquid 0 .. O'-..
J: .D 0. • :::!~ Li':t-- - - _ :~~--~-'-"--- - -~it ... E E • g, 0 i:: • >. ., SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN iii ~ Q rn rn 10 20 JO 40 50 60 70 -Stiff lo very stiff, brown, tan, and dark 181 --. brown, sandy. lean CLAY. with occasional fine
,____ :; gravel. slighUy moist (Possibly Fill)
,____ ~ Medium dense lo dense, grayish-tan, clayey 46.2 % Fi ties II!!
~-SAND. with reddish-brown ferrous stains. and ... -· ,_ __ + .____ occasional thin seams of brown. sandy, lean
.____ ~: \clay, sliahUv moist lo moist j I~
..... 5 -Stiff lo very stiff, dark tan, very sandy, lean .____ i CLAY, with orangish-brown ferrous stains. --~ and a pronounced, blocky, slightly cemented ,___ wtruclure. sli•hllv moist ' 'ITT+ .____ • Stiff lo very stiff. dark tan, fat CLAY, with -~ orangish-brown and orange ferrous stains. ,____ and with numerous seams and pockets of I~+ ,___ ,___ ~ light tan sand. slightly moist • ,_ 10--with fewer sand seams and pockets -below 8' j .____ .___ .___
.____
,___
,_ 15-------
-.....__
20-....__
....__
....__
....__
,____
,____
,____
,____
,____
.... 25-,____ -,____
,____ ---.....__
--30-----
COMPLETION DEPTH : 10' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: No water in borehole during
DATE : 05/04/05 DATE : or immediately ofter drilling on 05/04/05
I CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING. INC. I
LOG OF BOltING NO. B-4
PROPOSED MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
HOLLEMAN DRIVE TO LUTHER STREET
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
TYPE : 4• • OIAUETER ORY AUCER DRILLER : VASQUEZ/ CCI LOCATION: See Pion of Borings
181 --POCKET PENETROUETER
0 --UNCONFINED COUPR£SSION TEST .. I!. --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST .c
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ::! -it: COHESION, TON/SQ. Yr.
lit
~ .. t-80 0 .25 0.50 0 .75 1-00 1-25 1-50 1-75 • .. .. -• 0. ~ 0 • Cl ....... Plastic Waler liquid
.c .D Ci. • =~ Umil Content, X Umil .. e e • a. 0 i:: +--------·--------+ • .... "' SURFACE ELEVATION : NOT KNOWN iii ::> 10 20 JO 40 so 60 70 Cl Ill Ill -~ FllJ.-lnlerm1xed loose, hghl tan, silly ::>Al'fU --1---' -.. __ '"""" ~ft'•'
~ Loose, dark gray, clayey SAND, wilb gravel,
.___ drv (Possiblv Fill\
,___ Stiff to very stiff, dark tan, fal Cl.A Y, with • 181
.___ ~ orange and brownish-orange ferrous streaks, 89.'l 0 .___ and with occasional small pockets of tan .___ 181
... 5 -~ sand, moist +-------.... __ ------f .___ -with a blocky structure below 4' 87.9 X Fi1 es
~ 1a
>--• ~ ia
~
... 10-~
-
>--
... 15-
20-
>--
~
'-25-.___
1---.___ .___ .___ .___ .___ .__
-30-----
COUPLETION DEPTH : HY DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: No water in borehole during I
DATE : 05/04/05 DATE : or immediotely ofter drilling on 05/04/05 I
I CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC_ I
LOG OF BORING NO. B-5
PROPOSED MARION PUGH DRIVE EXTENSION
HOLLEMAN DRIVE TO LUTHER STREET
COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS
TYPE : 4• • DIAUETER ORY AUGER DRILLER : VASQUEZ/ CCI LOCATION : See Pion of Borings
181 --POCKET PENETROUETER
0 --UNCONnNED COMPRESSION T£ST ... A --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST .c
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ... .;i;: COHESION. TON/SQ. FT . -,,.
~ .. >.::i 0 0 .25 0 .50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2
~ .. • II. .. u Plastic Water Liquid 0 .. Cl""'-
.c .D ii. • =~ Limit Content. X Limit ... E E • D. 0 s: +--------·--------+ .. >. .. SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN iii ::> Cl 11) 11) 10 20 .JO 40 50 60 70
111~ FIU.-Stiff lo very stiff, brown and dark • ------~-----· brown. sandy, fat CLAY , with orangisb-brown 67.8 ~ Fi leS ferrous stains, end fine gravel, slightly moist 181
, ... ._,. -becoming grayish-brown. with broken • ·~ -· pieces of hot mix asphalt concrete below 2' ,, . Stiff lo very stiff. greyish-tan. very sandy, 181
.... 5 -~~-lean CLAY. wilb orange ferrous stains • ~9 .5 .... ---'---+ 54.3 ~ Fil es --sliahlly moist 0
' Stiff lo very stiff. dark tan. fel CLAY. with 181
~ orangish-brown ferrous stains and seams • ~ and pockets of tan sand. and with a slightly IITT+ blocky structure, moist
~ i-10-
>-15-
-20-
-25-
...____
'-30-...____ ,____
,____ -
COMPLETION DEPTH : 10' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: No woler in borehole during
DATE : 05/04/05 DATE: or immediately ofter drilling on 05/04/05
I CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. I
KEY TO SYMBOLS AND SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487)
SAMPLE TYPES COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TESTS
AND LABORATORY TEST DATA
® + 0 6
Thin-Wal Split-Baml Rock Core Cone Disturbed No Hand TONWVJ Unconfined Comptession U-U
Tube w/Testable Penetrometer Recovery PendromeW Recovery Trioxiol
~
Major Divisions Group S)1Tlbols Typical Names
o ..!! o ::-D ·:· ;~ !~: GW :~·Oi: Well-Graded Grovels, Grovel-Sand
Mixtures. Little or No rines
Cf> o ~ • 5 ~ ~ 1----+."f~:~· -~::,..,.;.. ,..;• '+--P-oorl_y_Gr_oded __ Cra_Yel_s._Cra __ vel ___ Son_d--1
ci~~Vi 52. GP -~~ .. :·.: .• :.: Mixtures, little or No Fines
> 0 a:: ~t-::--+----Hirrr'l.'1-.T-n--------------1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • 'i Slty Gravels. Cravel-Sond-Slt
0 !: .!! .,.. :€ ~ ~ GM Mixtures
! ~ • i.: l----ftl..!~Hi..!f--------------1
~ ~ l ~ ~ GC Clayey Grovels. Grovel-Sand-Cloy
/3 ~ Mixtures
0 z G6 Q~
0 • SP Poorly Croded Sands. Gravelly
Sands, Little or No Fines C.f>-15~ 0 o::f11>
Z~<~l---+----ter':i:T:T.T:cf----------------1
<{ 0~.!? (f)::E II)
~..!!....-
~~ OOu
~
~
<{
_J u
-0 c
0
(/)
~
_J
(/)
SM
ML
CL
OL
I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
S.1ty Sands. Sand-Sit Mixtures
Clayey Sands, Sand-Cloy Mixtures
Inorganic Sits with Slight Plasticity
Inorganic Cloys of low to Medium
Plosticlly, Gravelly Cloys, Leon Cloys
Organic Sits and Organic Slty
Cloys of low Plosticlty
2
0
Inorganic Sits. Mlcoceous or
_ in MH Diotomoceous Fine Sand or Slty
.E c Sols. Elastic Sits ~ g t----t1 .... ...-.1H---~----~----~ ~~
CH Inorganic Cloys of High Plasticity,
Fat Cloys
Organic Cloys of Medium to High
Plasticity, Organic Sits
HARDNESS CLASSIFICATION OF INTACT ROCK
APPROX . RANGE OF UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION STRENGTH
HARDNESS
EXTREMELY HARD
VERY HARO
HARD
SOFT
VERY SOFT
(P.S.I.)
>13,900
6,940 -13,900
3,470 -6,940
1,740 -3,470
70 -1,740
J0% f"rw -Percent f"iner lhan No. 200 Sei'le
Relative Density of Coorse Strained Soils
Penetration Resistance
N Value
{Blows~t•)
0-4
4--10
10-30
30-50
Over so
Oescriptiw
Tenn
V«y loose
loose
Medium Dense
Dense
V«y Dense
• Based on drilling a split-barrel
sompl« with a 140 lb we19ht
dropped JO inches
CLAYEY
SILTY
SANDY
Consistency Terms of Fine-Groined Soils
Compressive
Strength, qu
(loo/sq ft)
0 to 0.25
0.25 to 0.50
0.50 to 1.00
1.00 lo 2.00
2.00 to 4.00
Over 4 .00
Desci1>tlve
Tenn
Very Soft
Soft
rlf'ITI
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hord
Groundwater Levels
\7 -STATIC WATER LEVEL
.. -HYDROSTATIC WATER LEVEL
Rock Classification
SILTSTONE
LIMESTONE CLAYSTONE
SANDSTONE COAL
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.----
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
APPENDIXB
Site Photographs
Photograph I. View of Marion Pugh Drive R.O.W. looking south from near end of
existing Marion Pugh Drive (near intersection with Luther Street and Meadow Point
Apartments.) Note drainage swale on right side of photograph.
Photograph 2 . View ofMarion Pugh Drive R.O.W . looking south from just south of
location described in Photograph 1. Note closer view of depression and vegetation in
drainage swale .
PROJECT: Marion Pugh Drive Extension
DATE OF PHOTO: August 7, 2005
Photograph 3 . View looking north along Marion Pugh Drive RO.W . from near Holleman
Drive towards Callaway Villa Apts. Note depressed drainage swale on left side of
R.O.W.
PROJECT: Marion Pugh Drive Extension
DATE OF PHOTO: August 7, 2005
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, I NC.
APPENDIXC
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
•
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report ofGeotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station , Texas
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension; Holleman Drive to Luther Street; College Station, Texas
Boring Sample Moisture Dry Liquid Plastic Plasticity Compression Lateral Type of Percent Fines
No. No. Depth Content Density Limit Limit Index Strength Strain Pressure Failure (-#200 Sieve) Comments
(ft) (%) (pct) (%) (%) (%) (tsf) (%) (psi) (%)
B-1 S-1 0-2 9.1 39 .1 PP 1 =Not Applicabl e
(I 0 ft)
S-2 2-4 PP 1 = 4.5 + tsf
S-3 4-6 28 .9 92.I 73 23 50 6.9 2.0% 0 Shear 83 .2 PP 1 = 4.5 + tsf
S-4 6-8 PP 1 = 3.5 tsf
S-5 8-10 35 .3 PP 1 =4.0 tsf
B-2 S-1 0-2 PP 1 =Not Applicable
(I 0 ft)
S-2 2-4 14 .6 56 20 36 42.7 PP 1 =4.5 + tsf
S-3 4-6 32 .1 PP 1 =4.0 tsf
S-4 6-8 PP 1 =2.0 tsf
S-5 8-10 36 .5 75 23 52 83 .2 PP '= 4.0 tsf
Note s:
I. PP = poc ke t penetrometer readin g is tons pe r square foot (tst).
C-1
CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Report of Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension College Station , Texas
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Proposed Marion Pugh Drive Extension; Holleman Drive to Luther Street; College Station, Texas
Boring Sample Moisture Dry Liquid Plastic Plasticity Compression Lateral Type of Percent Fines
No. No . Depth Content Density Limit Limit Index Strength Strain Pressure Failure (-#200 Sieve) Comments
(ft) (%) (pct) (%) (%) (%) (tsf) (%) (psi) (%)
8-3 S-1 0-2 PP 1 =4.0 tsf
(I 0 ft)
S-2 2-4 2 6 .2 44 18 26 46 .2 PP 1 =4.0 tsf
S-3 4 -6 PP 1 =3.0 tsf
S-4 6-8 33.4 PP 1 = 4 .5+ tsf
S-5 8-10 37 .1 PP 1 = 4.5 + tsf
B-4 S-1 0-2 PP 1 =Not Applicable
(I 0 ft)
S-2 2-4 33.9 89.7 1.9 2 .6% 0 Shear PP 1 =4.0 tsf
S-3 4-6 38 .5 78 23 55 87.9 PP 1 =4.0 tsf
S-4 6-8 35.3 PP 1 =4.5 tsf
S-5 8-10 PP 1 =4.5 tsf
No tes:
1. PP = pocket pen etrom ete r reading is ton s per square foot (tst).
C-2