final geotechnical investigation airline … geotechnical investigation airline drive drainage and...

FINAL

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AIRLINE DRIVE DRAINAGE AND PAVING:

SUB-PROJECT 2 (CLARK ROAD) WBS NO. M-000284-0002-3

HOUSTON, TEXAS

SUBMITTED TO RPS KLOTZ ASSOCIATES

1160 DAIRY ASHFORD, SUITE 500 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77079

BY HVJ ASSOCIATES, INC.

HOUSTON, TEXAS OCTOBER 31, 2016

REPORT NO. HG0813623 KEY MAP NOS. 413X & 453B

October 31, 2016 Ms. Morena G. Arredondo, PE Project Manager RPS Klotz Associates 1160 Dairy Ashford, Suite 500 Houston, Texas 77079 Re: Geotechnical Investigation

Airline Drive Drainage and Paving: Sub-Project 2 (Clark Road) Owner: City of Houston WBS No.: M-000284-0002-3

HVJ Report No. HG0813623 Dear Ms. Arredondo: Submitted herein is the report of our geotechnical investigation for the above referenced project. The study was conducted in general accordance with our proposal number HG0813623 dated January 4, 2016 (revised on February 25, 2016) and is subject to the limitations presented in this report. We appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this project. Please read the entire report and notify us if there are questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, HVJ ASSOCIATES, INC. Texas Firm Registration No. F-000646 Anil K. Raavi, PE Sharmi P. Vedantam, PE Project Engineer Project Manager

10/31/2016 Copies submitted: 2 paper, 1 electronic The seal appearing on this document was authorized by Anil K. Raavi, PE 122152 on October 31, 2016. Alteration of

a sealed document without proper notification to the responsible engineer is an offense under the Texas Engineering

Practice Act.

The following lists the pages which complete this report:

Main Text – 20 pages Appendix A – 13 pages Appendix C – 3 pages Appendix E – 3 pages Plates – 9 pages Appendix B – 4 pages Appendix D – 2 pages

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... i

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

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

4 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................................... 3

5 SITE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................................. 3 5.1 General Geology ................................................................................................................................ 3 5.2 Geologic Faulting .............................................................................................................................. 4 5.3 Soil Stratigraphy ................................................................................................................................. 4 5.4 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................................. 5 5.5 Existing Pavement Thickness .......................................................................................................... 5

6 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 6 6.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 6 6.2 Traffic Data ........................................................................................................................................ 6 6.3 Design Criteria and Performance Constraints .............................................................................. 6

7 PREPARATION OF SUBGRADE ...................................................................................................... 9

8 STORM SEWER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 9 8.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 9 8.2 Geotechnical Parameters ................................................................................................................ 10 8.3 Box Design ....................................................................................................................................... 10 8.4 Lateral Pressures on Box Walls ..................................................................................................... 11 8.5 Open Cut Bedding and Backfill .................................................................................................... 11

9 UTILITY CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 11 9.1 General .............................................................................................................................................. 11 9.2 Open Cut Excavation Considerations .......................................................................................... 12 9.3 Spoil Disposal .................................................................................................................................. 13 9.4 Groundwater Control ..................................................................................................................... 13

10 MONITORING ...................................................................................................................................... 14 10.1 Excavation Safety ............................................................................................................................ 14

11 DESIGN REVIEW ................................................................................................................................ 14

12 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 14

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 3-1 – Borehole Survey Data/ Summary of Boring information ...................................................... 2

Table 4-1 – Type and Number of Laboratory Tests ................................................................................... 3

Table 5-1 – Generalized Soil Profile ............................................................................................................... 4

Table 5-2 – Groundwater Readings ............................................................................................................... 5

Table 5-3 – Existing Pavement Thicknesses ................................................................................................ 5

Table 6-1 – Estimated Subgrade Strength from PI Correlations .............................................................. 7

Table 6-2 – Rigid Pavement Design Inputs ................................................................................................... 8

Table 8-1 – Geotechnical Parameters for Precast Box Design ................................................................ 10

Table 8-2 – Lateral Earth Pressures .............................................................................................................. 11

Table 9-1 – OSHA Soil Classification ......................................................................................................... 12

PLATES

Plate

SITE VICINITY PLAN ................................................................................................................................... 1

PLAN OF BORINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 2

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

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

BRACED EXCAVATION LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAMS .................. 5A, 5B & 5C

RIGID PIPE LOADS ..................................................................................................................................... 6

APPENDICES

Appendix

BORING LOGS AND KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS ................................................................. A

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ................................................................................. B

PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION RECORDS ........................................................................................ C

SOIL PROFILE ............................................................................................................................................... D

DARWIN OUTPUT ....................................................................................................................................... E

i

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

HVJ Associates, Inc. was retained by RPS Klotz Associates to provide geotechnical services for the Airline Drive Drainage and Paving: Sub-Project 2 (Clark Road) in Houston, Texas. The existing 22 feet wide asphalt pavement section with open ditches on both sides will be reconstructed into a concrete pavement section with curb and gutter between Tidwell Road and Parker Road. It also involves replacement of existing storm sewers of varying diameter with 12 feet x 10 feet precast box sewer between the limits specified above. The project is approximately 5,280 feet (1 mile) in length. The purpose of this study is to provide recommendations for the proposed pavement reconstruction and storm sewer installation. We drilled 11 soil borings to a depth of 25 feet below the existing subgrade to determine soil stratigraphy. Based on the subsurface conditions revealed by the soil borings, the findings and recommendations of this report are summarized below:

1. Very soft to very stiff cohesive soils (CL-ML, CL and CH) with calcareous and ferrous nodules were generally encountered in the borings below the pavement to their termination depth of 25 feet. Cohesionless soils (SM, SC and ML) were observed in borings B-2, B-3 and B-9 from 14 to 25 feet, below the pavement to 14 feet and from 23 to 25 feet, respectively. Detailed description of the soils encountered during our investigation is presented in Section 5.3 of this report and on boring logs presented in Appendix A.

2. Based on our field investigation and piezometer data, groundwater seepage may be expected

in excavations made for storm sewer installation. In general, we anticipate that groundwater can be controlled using a pump and sump arrangement along most of the alignment. However, water bearing sands at Borings B-2 and B-3 may require wells, well points, or similar methods.

3. A literature review of surface faults near the project area revealed the presence of Eureka

heights Fault at about 1.25 miles southwest of the project site. We believe that faulting may not affect the project; however, it should be noted that unmapped faults that could impact the project may exist within the project area.

4. Our proposal and field investigation were performed based on the storm sewer invert depth

of 15 feet maximum below the existing grade. However, the actual invert depth varies between 15 feet and 18.5 feet according to the 60% Plan and Profile drawings (dated August, 2016). Hence, the borings performed does not meet the minimum required boring depth per Chapter 11 of City of Houston (COH) design manual. We recommend deepening the borings to satisfy COH guidelines.

5. Based on the information provided to us by RPS Klotz Associates and the roadway context

described in Chapter 10 of City of Houston design manual, Clark Road can be classified as “Minor Collector Street”. Based on our design, the minimum section required for the reconstruction of Clark Road is about 8 inches of reinforced concrete pavement over 8 inches of stabilized subgrade. However, the City of Houston Design Guidelines requires a minimum of 9 inches of concrete over 8 inches of stabilized subgrade for collector streets. Hence, we recommend 9 inches of concrete over 8 inches of stabilized subgrade as a pavement section for the Clark Road reconstruction.

ii

6. Recommendations for installation of storm sewer using open cut technique are presented in

Sections 7 and 8 of this report. Standard City of Houston specifications and details are adequate for the project.

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

1

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Project Description HVJ Associates, Inc. was retained by RPS Klotz Associates to provide geotechnical services for the Airline Drive Drainage and Paving: Sub-Project 2 (Clark Road) in Houston, Texas. The site vicinity

map is shown in Plate 1. The existing pavement section is a 22 feet wide asphaltic roadway with open ditches on both sides. The project involves reconstruction of existing roadway into a concrete pavement section with curb and gutter. It also involves replacement of existing storm sewers of varying diameter with 12 feet x 10 feet precast box sewer between the project limits. Based on the Plan and Profile drawings provided to us, the invert depth of the storm sewer varies between 15 feet and 18.5 feet below the existing grade. The purpose of this study was to provide recommendations for the proposed pavement reconstruction and storm sewer installation. This study was performed in accordance with the City of Houston Department of Public Works and Engineering Infrastructure Design Manual dated July, 2015. 2.2 Geotechnical Investigation Program The objectives of this study were to gather information on subsurface conditions along the alignment and to provide recommendations for the proposed work as stated above. The objectives were accomplished by:

Drilling and field testing 11 soil borings to a depth of 25 feet below the existing subgrade to determine soil stratigraphy and to obtain samples for laboratory testing;

Installing 2 piezometers at boring locations B-3 (PZ-1) and B-9 (PZ-2) to gain an understanding of the groundwater conditions at the site and to evaluate the potential need for dewatering during construction;

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

Performing engineering analyses to develop design guidelines and recommendations. Subsequent sections of this report contain descriptions of the field exploration, laboratory-testing program, general subsurface conditions, design recommendations, and construction considerations. 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION

3.1 Geotechnical Borings The field exploration program undertaken at the project site was performed between April 22 and 27, 2016. Subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling 11 soil borings to a depth of 25 feet below the existing grade. The pavement was augered through the asphalt and base layers prior to drilling at all the borehole locations with exception to Boring B-11. The pavement was cored at boring location B-11 and pavement thickness information was obtained. Borings B-3 and B-9 were converted into piezometers. All the borings with exception to borings converted into piezometers

2

were backfilled with non-shrink grout using tremie method and patched at the surface. Approximate boring locations are presented on Plan of Borings, Plate 2 of the report. 3.2 Survey Data The coordinates, elevation, station, and offset provided to us are summarized in the table below. Offset and Stationing presented below are along the Clark Road centerline.

Table 3-1 – Borehole Survey Data/ Summary of Boring information

Boring Northing,

Feet Easting,

Feet

Ground Surface

Elevation, Feet

Station, Feet

Offset, Feet

Boring Depth,

Feet

Invert Depth of 12'x10'

RCB*, Feet

B-1 13874669.67 3117527.53 65.21 1+86.84 12.97L 25 15

B-2 13875166.35 3117524.70 67.38 6+83.15 6.47R 25 16

B-3 (PZ-1) 13875641.02 3117492.25 67.53 11+58.80 4.65L 25 16

B-4 13876175.42 3117478.38 68.78 16+93.28 5.46R 25 17

B-5 13876590.13 3117458.21 69.20 21+08.48 3.91R 25 17

B-6 13877125.74 3117422.99 69.25 26+45.13 7.25L 25 17.5

B-7 13877572.16 3117402.40 69.50 30+92.02 7.79L 25 17.5

B-8 13878096.29 3117392.93 69.92 36+16.05 6.26R 25 18

B-9 (PZ-2) 13878573.38 3117376.74 70.19 40+93.39 11.48R 25 18

B-10 13879124.27 3117352.77 71.12 46+44.79 12.23R 25 18.5

B-11 13879543.31 3117308.84 69.95 50+65.39 12.85L 25 18.5

* Based on 60% Plan and Profile drawings dated August, 2016. Note that the drilling depths of Borings B-2 through B-11 does not meet the minimum required boring depths suggested in Chapter 11 of City of Houston Design Manual. 3.3 Sampling Methods Soil samples were obtained continuously to a depth of 20 feet, and then from 23 to 25 feet. Cohesive soil samples were obtained with a three-inch thin-walled (Shelby) tube sampler in general accordance with ASTM D 1587 standard. Each sample was removed from the sampler in the field, carefully examined and then classified. The shear strengths of the cohesive soils were estimated by dividing the field values of Pocket Penetrometer (PP) with 3 and are shown on boring logs. Cohesionless soils were sampled with the split spoon sampler in accordance with ASTM D 1586 standard. Suitable portions of each sample were sealed and packaged for transportation to our laboratory. Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered in the borings are given on the boring logs presented in Appendix A. A key to the soils classification and symbols used in the boring logs is also presented in Appendix A. 3.4 Water Level Measurements Groundwater readings were measured during the drilling operations. Two piezometers were installed at boring locations B-3 (PZ-1) and B-9 (PZ-2) to record long term water level readings. Groundwater was measured after 24 hours and 30 days of piezometer installation. Groundwater measurements are presented in Section 5.5. Piezometer installation records, groundwater level data, and plugging reports are provided in Appendix C.

3

4 LABORATORY TESTING

Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine applicable physical and engineering properties. All tests except pocket penetrometer were performed according to the relevant ASTM Standards. These tests consisted of moisture content measurements, percent passing No. 200 Sieve, Atterberg Limits, unconsolidated undrained compression and unit dry weight tests. The Atterberg limits and percent passing number 200 sieve tests were utilized to verify field classification by the ASTM version of the Unified Soils Classification System, and the unconsolidated undrained compression tests were performed to obtain the undrained shear strength of the soil. The type and number of tests performed for this investigation are summarized below:

Table 4-1 – Type and Number of Laboratory Tests

Type of Test Number of Tests

Moisture Content (ASTM D2216) 115

Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) 21

Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve (ASTM D1140) 24

Unconsolidated Undrained (ASTM D 2850) 21

The laboratory test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. A summary of laboratory test results are provided in Appendix B. 5 SITE CHARACTERIZATION

5.1 General Geology The project alignment is generally located in Lissie formation. A portion of alignment is located in Beaumont formation. A Geologic map showing the project alignment is presented on Plate 3. The upper Lissie formation is sometimes denoted as the Montgomery formation. The upper Lissie formation is heterogeneous, containing interbedded layers of clay, sand and silt. It was deposited in mid-Pleistocene times in shallow coastal river channels and flood plains. The clay present in the formation has been preconsolidated by a process of desiccation. Numerous wetting and drying cycles have produced a network of randomly oriented and closely spaced joints, which are sometimes slickensided, that is, have a shiny appearance when exposed. The joint pattern strongly influences the engineering behavior of the soil. The sand layers vary in compactness from loose to very dense, and in thickness from a fraction of an inch to many feet due to an irregular depositional environment. Sands are generally subrounded to subangular and vary from coarse to very fine, are poorly graded, and often contain significant amounts of silt-sized particles in the sand matrix. The Beaumont formation was deposited on land near sea level in flat river deltas and in inter-delta regions. Soil deposition occurred in fresh water streams and in flood plains (as backwater marsh and natural levees). The courses of major streams and deltaic tributaries changed frequently during the period of deposition, generating within the Beaumont clay a complex stratification of sand, silt and clay deposits. Frequently, stream courses were diverted significant distances from a given point in a backwater marsh, and the water overlying the soil would evaporate since it was cut off from a drainage path. Such water, which would be highly alkaline, would precipitate large nodules of calcium carbonate (calcareous nodules) throughout the surface of evaporation. With the coming of

4

the Second Wisconsin Ice Age, the nearby sea withdrew, leaving the formation several hundred feet above sea level and permitting the soil to desiccate. The process of desiccation compressed the clays in the formation such that they became significantly overconsolidated to a large depth. In addition to preconsolidating the soil, the process of desiccation, together with the later rewetting, produced a network of fissures and slickensides that are now closed but which represent potential planes of weakness in the soil. The clay present in the formation has been preconsolidated by a process of desiccation. Numerous wetting and drying cycles have produced a network of randomly oriented and closely-spaced joints, which are sometimes slickensided, that is, have a shiny appearance when exposed. The sand layers vary in compactness from loose to very dense, and in thickness from a fraction of an inch to many feet due to an irregular depositional environment. Sands are generally subrounded to subangular and vary from coarse to very fine, are poorly graded and often contain significant amounts of silt-sized particles in the sand matrix. 5.2 Geologic Faulting A literature review of surface faults near the project area revealed the presence of Eureka heights Fault at about 1.25 miles southwest of the project site. We believe that faulting may not affect the project; however, it should be noted that unmapped faults that could impact the project may exist within the project area. A detailed fault assessment is not within the scope of this study. A fault map with the project location is presented on Plate 4 of this report. 5.3 Soil Stratigraphy Our interpretation of soil and groundwater conditions at the project site is based on information obtained at the boring locations only. This information has been used as the basis for our conclusions and recommendations. Significant variations at areas not explored by the project boring may require reevaluation of our findings and conclusions. Very soft to very stiff cohesive soils with calcareous and ferrous nodules were generally encountered in the borings below the pavement to their termination depth. Cohesionless soils were observed at some locations. Soil stratigraphy encountered at different borings and at different depths is detailed below. Details of the subsurface stratigraphy encountered in the borings are shown on the boring logs presented in Appendix A. The soil profile is presented in Appendix D. The utilities will be appended on the soil profile once the plan and profile drawings are available.

Table 5-1 – Generalized Soil Profile

Boring Approximate Depth, Feet

Material From To

B-1, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-9*, B-10, B-11

Below the pavement

25 Very soft to very stiff cohesive soils

(CL, CL-ML, CH)

B-2

Below the Pavement

14 Soft to stiff cohesive soil (CL)

14 25 Loose to medium dense cohesionless soil (SM)

B-3

Below the Pavement

14 Loose to medium dense cohesionless soil (SC)

14 25 Stiff to very stiff cohesive soils (CL,

CH) * Silt was observed in boring B-9 between 23 and 25 feet.

5

5.4 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered in borings B-2, B-3 and B-5 during drilling operations. Two piezometers were installed at boring locations B-3 (PZ-1) and B-9 (PZ-2) to measure groundwater levels after 24 hours, and 30 days of installation. Table 5-2 shows a record of the groundwater readings taken during drilling, after 24 hours, and 30 days of piezometer installation.

Table 5-2 – Groundwater Readings

Boring Station, Feet Groundwater Depth, Feet

During Drilling 24-hours 30-days

B-1 1+86.84 dry -- -- B-2 6+83.15 14 -- --

B-3 (PZ-1) 11+58.80 22 13.8 11.8 B-4 16+93.28 dry -- -- B-5 21+08.48 18 -- -- B-6 26+45.13 dry -- -- B-7 30+92.02 dry -- -- B-8 36+16.05 24 -- --

B-9 (PZ-2) 40+93.39 dry dry 4.4 B-10 46+44.79 dry -- -- B-11 50+65.39 dry -- --

Note: An attempt was made to measure the groundwater levels after completion of drilling. Soil surrounding the bore caved-in at Borings B-6 and B-7 at a depth of 20 and 17 feet, respectively. It should be noted that groundwater levels determined during drilling may not accurately reflect the true groundwater conditions, and therefore should only be considered as approximate. Groundwater levels measured in open standpipe piezometers are, on the other hand are more accurate; however, these readings will fluctuate seasonally and in response to rainfall. Other factors that might impact piezometric groundwater levels include leakage from existing sewers and/or sanitary sewers. 5.5 Existing Pavement Thickness The pavement was augered through the asphalt and base layers prior to drilling at all the borehole locations with exception to Boring B-11. Pavement was cored at Boring B-11 due to concrete at the surface. Pavement thickness was measured from the boreholes at Borings B-1 thru B-10 and from the core at Boring B-11. The pavement thickness information is summarized in the table below.

Table 5-3 – Existing Pavement Thicknesses

Boring Station,

Feet Asphaltic Concrete Thickness, inches

Underlying Material

B-1 1+86.84 2 17” stabilized sand w/ gravel

B-2 6+83.15 2 9” stabilized sand w/ gravel

B-3 (PZ-1) 11+58.80 2 14” stabilized sand w/ gravel

B-4 16+93.28 6 15” stabilized sand



B-7 30+92.02 6 9” cement stabilized sand w/ gravel

6

Boring Station,

Feet Asphaltic Concrete Thickness, inches

Underlying Material

B-8 36+16.05 6 12” cement stabilized sand

B-9 (PZ-2) 40+93.39 6 6” cement stabilized sand w/ gravel

B-10 46+44.79 6 6” sand w/ gravel

B-11 50+65.39 9.5” concrete 3” sand w/ gravel

6 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General The project involves reconstruction of Clark Road between Tidwell Road and Parker Road with complete removal of the existing asphalt pavement. We understand that the existing 22 feet wide asphaltic roadway with open ditches will be converted into a concrete pavement with curb and gutter. Based on our review of available street classification records, no published information is available for Clark Road. Based on the information provided to us by RPS Klotz Associates and the roadway context described in Chapter 10 of City of Houston design manual, Clark Road can be classified as “Minor Collector Street”. Pavement thickness design was performed using DARWin program based on the AASHTO Design Procedure. The subgrade soils generally consist of low to medium plasticity clays and clayey sands. Lime/fly ash stabilized subgrade was considered for the subbase directly under concrete. As background for the consideration, the purpose of subgrade stabilization is to help alleviate the following potential problems: 1) When concrete pavement is placed directly on subgrade, there is a propensity of the subgrade fines to pump through the concrete joints, creating voids under the concrete and with loading result in corner cracks that can progress and cause premature failure in the concrete pavement; and 2) a moisture barrier to minimize moisture fluctuations in the subgrade that can cause shrinkage/swelling; and 3) helps bind the fines and delay potential pumping, however is still considered an erodible material. 6.2 Traffic Data The traffic parameters required for design include initial average daily traffic (ADT), growth rate, truck factor, and percent trucks in ADT. The traffic count data is obtained from the City of Houston GIS website (http://www.gims.houstontx.gov/gims) traffic layer displaying the traffic counts. The traffic count of 1,441 in 2014 was projected forward to 2016 using a growth factor of 4% to estimate 2016 ADT which results in 1,559. The design 18 kip Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) in one direction was then calculated based on an assumed 4% trucks and an estimated average truck factor of 2.36 for rigid pavement resulting in a 50-year design ESALs of 2,660,808. 6.3 Design Criteria and Performance Constraints Reliability Level and Overall Standard Deviation. A reliability (R) of 90 percent was selected for the pavement design performance (AASHTO Table 2.2). A mean value of the overall standard deviation (So) was selected to be 0.39 for Portland cement concrete pavement based on AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures and the case where the variance of projected future traffic is considered (Chapter 4, Section 4.3).

http://www.gims.houstontx.gov/gims

7

Serviceability. The serviceability of a pavement is defined as its ability to serve the type of traffic that uses the facility. The condition of the pavement after the performance period is characterized by a Terminal Serviceability Index (Pt), which is a function of the pavement structure. A Terminal Serviceability Index of 2.25 was selected for design. The time at which a given pavement structure reaches its terminal serviceability depends on traffic volume and the original or initial serviceability (Po), which was selected as 4.5. The design serviceability loss, the difference between the initial and terminal serviceability indices, is 2.25. Drainage. The treatment for the expected level of drainage for a rigid pavement is through the use of a drainage coefficient, Cd. As per AASHTO Table 2.5 with excellent quality of drainage from curb and gutter and adequate storm drain system, a Cd value of 1.2 was selected for design as suggested by the City of Houston in our past projects. According to the AASHTO design guide, excellent quality drainage is defined as water being removed from the roadway within 2 hours. Load Transfer. The load transfer coefficient, J, is a factor used in rigid pavement design to account for the ability of a concrete pavement structure to transfer load across discontinuities, such as joints. Based on the range of values developed by AASHTO, a mean value of the load transfer coefficient (J) of 2.8 was selected for the design of jointed tied PCC shoulders/ or curb and gutter and load transfer at transverse joints, as per AASHTO Guide. Loss of Support. This factor, LS, is included in the design of rigid pavement to account for the potential loss of support arising from subbase erosion and/or differential vertical soil movement. An LS value of 1.5 was selected for the stabilized subgrade. 6.4 Material Properties for Structural Design Concrete Elastic Modulus and Modulus of Rupture: Based on the City of Houston Standard Specification 02751, a value of 630 psi for Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture (S'c) is considered

appropriate for the design. A value of 3.6 x 106 psi was used for the modulus of elasticity of the concrete (Ec) using the correlation recommended by the American Concrete Institute.

Ec = 57,000(f’c)0.5

where, Ec = elastic modulus of concrete in psi and, f’c = compressive strength of concrete in psi; a value of 4,000 psi is used.

6.5 Subgrade Strength Based on field investigation, the subgrade soils at the locations of the borings consisted low to medium plasticity clays (CL and CL-ML)and clayey sands (SC). The subgrade soils exhibited maximum PI of 24. The subgrade modulus was estimated based on Texas Triaxial correlations to the plasticity index (PI). The correlated subgrade modulus values are summarized below.

Table 6-1 – Estimated Subgrade Strength from PI Correlations

Boring Classification

(USCS) PI Correlated TTC

Correlated Modulus, psi

B-1 CL 24 5.0 4,475

8

Based on the correlation, the subgrade modulus selected for design is of 4,475 psi. The composite K-value required for rigid pavement design was calculated to account for the underlying base or subgrade and the potential loss of support arising from subbase erosion. The effective modulus of subgrade reaction (k) was calculated to be 55 pci for stabilized subgrade. 6.6 Summary of Rigid Pavement Design Inputs The estimated and/or assumed values for the design parameters are summarized in the following table:

Table 6-2 – Rigid Pavement Design Inputs

Parameter Value

Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR 4,475 psi Stabilized Subgrade Elastic Modulus 20,000 psi Compressive Strength of Concrete f’c 4,000 psi

Loss of Support Factor, LS 1.5 Effective Modulus of subgrade reaction (k) 55

Concrete Elastic Modulus, Ec 3.6 x 106 psi Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture, S'c 630 psi

Load Transfer Coefficient, J 2.8 Drainage Coefficient, Cd 1.2

Design Serviceability Loss 2.25 Reliability, R 90%

Overall Standard Deviation, So 0.39 Design Traffic ESALs 2,660,808

6.7 Rigid Pavement Recommendations Based on the design inputs the minimum section required for the reconstruction of Clark Road is about 8 inches of reinforced concrete pavement over 8 inches of stabilized subgrade. The DARWin output is presented in Appendix E. However, the City of Houston Design Guidelines requires a minimum of 9 inches of concrete over 8 inches of stabilized subgrade for collector streets. Hence, we recommend 9 inches of concrete over 8 inches of stabilized subgrade as a pavement section for the Clark Road reconstruction. The stabilized subgrade layer should extend 2 feet past the edge of concrete pavement on either side, as per City of Houston Standard Detail 02751-01. Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement (JRCP), Lime/Fly ash or Cement Stabilized Subgrade shall be in accordance to City of Houston standard specifications 02751, 02337 and 02338 respectively. Reinforcing Steel Requirement: Longitudinal and transverse reinforcing steel is required to resist warping stresses in the pavement section and to hold pavement cracks that develop tightly closed. In addition, dowels for load transfer are required at pavement joints. Minimum reinforcing steel strength shall be 60,000 psi. Steel reinforcement for concrete pavement including the bar size and spacing should be in accordance to City of Houston standard drawing 02751-01.

9

7 PREPARATION OF SUBGRADE

The surficial soils mostly consists of low to medium plasticity clays and clayey sands. The City of Houston requires stabilizing the top eight inches of the subgrade soil beneath the proposed concrete pavement. Stabilization of the subgrade will increase the modulus of subgrade reaction and provide subgrade stability for construction during inclement weather. Based on the soils classifications and Plasticity Indices of these materials in the top few feet under the existing pavements, lime and fly ash are recommended as the stabilizing agents. Portland cement can be used as an alternative stabilizing agent in lieu of lime and fly ash. The following procedures for subgrade preparation are recommended.

1. Clear the proposed project area of existing pavement and subgrade to the grade required for the proposed pavement section.

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

3. Subgrade surfaces exposed after excavation should be proof-rolled in accordance with

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

4. Before stabilizing the subgrade, scarify the upper 8 inches of exposed material throughout

the width of pavement as required to provide loose material to facilitate distribution of lime/fly ash or cement. Mix with appropriate amount of stabilizing agent and compact it to 95 percent of standard proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698). Construction of lime/fly ash stabilized subgrade should conform to City of Houston Section 02337. If cement is used as a stabilizing agent, the construction should conform to City of Houston Section 02338.

Based on our experience with similar soils 2% lime and 8% fly ash may be required for subgrade stabilization. As an alternative, 6 to 8% Portland cement can be used to stabilize the subgrade. The actual amount of cement or lime and fly ash should be determined for subgrade soils by conducting laboratory tests on the exposed subgrade material during construction. 8 STORM SEWER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 General The project also involves replacement of existing storm sewers of varying diameter with 12 feet x 10 feet precast box sewer between Tidwell Road and Parker Road. Based on the Plan and Profile drawings provided to us, the invert depth of the storm sewer ranges between 15 feet and 18.5 feet below the existing grade. Design recommendations for the precast box sewer installed by open-cut techniques are discussed in the following sections.

10

8.2 Geotechnical Parameters Geotechnical design parameters for soils that may be encountered in the invert depth are presented in Table 8-1. Design parameters given in the table are based on field and laboratory test data obtained at boring locations at the approximate invert depth. It must be noted that because of the nature of the soil stratigraphy at the project site, parameters at locations away from the borings may vary substantially from values reported in the table.

Table 8-1 – Geotechnical Parameters for Precast Box Design

Boring No.

Approximate Invert

Depth, Feet

Soil Description at Invert

Depth

Total Unit Weight,

pcf

Undrained Shear

Strength, psf

Friction Angle,

degrees

Allowable Bearing

Capacity, psf

B-1 15 Very Stiff Clay 127 2,520 -- 4,300

B-2 16 Loose Sand 110 -- 28 3,700

B-3 16 Stiff Clay 124 1,620 -- 2,700

B-4 17 Very Stiff Clay 135 2,860 -- 4,900

B-5 17 Very Stiff Clay 121 2,660 -- 4,500

B-6 17.5 Very Stiff Clay 132 2,660 -- 4,500

B-7 17.5 Very Stiff Clay 135 2,340 -- 4,000

B-8 18 Very Stiff Clay 131 2,160 -- 3,700

B-9 18 Very Stiff Clay 132 3,000 -- 5,100

B-10 18.5 Very Stiff Clay 124 2,800 -- 4,700

B-11 18.5 Very Stiff Clay 132 2,840 -- 4,800

The values shown in the above table represent our interpretation of the soil properties based on the available laboratory and field test data. Use of the soil properties shown above may or may not be appropriate for a particular analysis, since choice of design parameters often depends on whether total or effective stress analysis is used, rate of loading, duration of loading, geometry of loaded area, and other factors. The total unit weight values shown above represent our interpretation of soil unit weight at natural moisture content. The undrained shear strength and allowable bearing capacity values represent our interpretation of the shear strength in clay soils based primarily on the results of unconsolidated undrained compression tests and hand penetrometer tests. The allowable bearing pressures include a factor of safety of three. 8.3 Box Design The loads imposed on the storm sewer box depend principally upon the method of installation, the weight of overburden soils, roadway traffic load, and loads due to existing surface structures. Overburden pressure can be determined using prism load condition in which overburden pressure is the weight of the column of soil directly over the box for the full height of backfill i.e., depth to the spring line of box from ground surface times unit weight of soil. The unit weight of soil may be taken as 125 pcf. Plate 6 illustrates the loads acting on the rigid box perimeter due to overburden and traffic (must be computed from AWWA Manual M9, 2008 – Concrete Pressure Pipe).

The traffic load design provisions should be taken in accordance with Chapter 5 on the AWWA Manual M9 (2008). For a height of cover of 4 feet, a wheel load of 32 kips should be spread through a load area of 99.2 sq. ft. for an applied load of 323 psf. Loads for other heights of cover can be calculated based on Table 5-4 of AWWA Manual M9, if needed.

11

8.4 Lateral Pressures on Box Walls The soil pressure exerted on the precast box walls is mainly a function of the type of backfill and its method of placement. Over-compaction of backfill behind walls and utilization of highly plastic expansive clay backfill are practices that generally produce the highest wall pressures and should be avoided. In these cases, horizontal earth pressures exceeding the vertical earth pressure can be expected. Design at-rest lateral pressures for walls may be calculated for each backfill type using the equivalent fluid densities for drained level backfill as stated in Table 8-2.

Table 8-2 – Lateral Earth Pressures

Fill Type At- Rest Equivalent Fluid Density, pcf

Above Water Table Below Water Table

In-Situ and Imported Clays with PI<25 65 95

The effects of traffic loads can be treated as an additional two feet of equivalent fluid extending above the top of the walls. This is adequate for the load cases mentioned in Section 8.3. 8.5 Open Cut Bedding and Backfill Bedding. The bedding material and material at sides of the box may consist of cement stabilized sand to the limits as specified in City of Houston Standard Drawing No. 02317-05 for dry stable trench. If wet soil is encountered at the bottom and dewatering is not required, the foundation system should consist of cement stabilized sand compacted over crushed concrete wrapped with filter fabric. The bedding and backfill details for wet stable trench are specified in City of Houston Standard Drawing No. 02317-06. Based on groundwater reading observed in our borings, groundwater is expected at invert depth at some locations during construction. If needed, we recommend groundwater control in accordance with Section 01578 of City of Houston Standard Specifications be implemented to achieve stable trench conditions and satisfactory foundation base. The excavations should be performed with equipment capable of providing a relatively clean bearing area. Stable soils are essential to provide a strong base during construction. In addition, stable soils enhance trench bottom stability, support for bedding compaction, and minimize possible pipe settlement. If soft foundation soils are encountered during trench excavation, we recommend over excavating at least 6 inches below the box and replacing with on-site soils compacted to at least 95% of maximum dry density in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches. Trench Backfill. Trench backfill (initial backfill to the pavement base or subgrade) should be in accordance with Section 02317 of the City of Houston Standard Specifications. The backfill material may consist of on-site soils excluding silty clays (CL-ML) and should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding eight inches, and should be compacted to 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698. 9 UTILITY CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 General This section is intended to address issues that might arise during construction. Our recommendations are intended for use as guidelines in dealing with particular soil conditions. The topics addressed in this section include trench excavation stability, groundwater control, and open-cut construction considerations.

12

The recommendations contained herein are not intended to dictate construction methods or sequences. Instead they are provided solely to assist designers in identifying potential construction problems related to excavation, based upon findings derived from sampling. Depending upon the final design chosen for the project, the recommendations may also be useful to personnel who observe construction activity. Prospective contractors for the project must evaluate potential construction problems on the basis of their review of the contract documents, their own knowledge of and experience in the local area, and on the basis of similar projects in other localities, taking into account their own proposed methods and procedures. 9.2 Open Cut Excavation Considerations Excavations should satisfy two requirements. First, the soils above final grade must be removed without disturbing the soil below, which will support constructed facilities. Second, the sides of the excavation must be stable to prevent damage to adjacent streets and facilities as a result of either vertical or lateral movements of the soil. In addition, a satisfactory excavation procedure must include an adequate construction dewatering system to lower and maintain the water level, if encountered at least five feet below the lowest excavation grade. Excavation Stability. Excavations shall be shored, laid back to a stable slope or some other equivalent means may be used to provide safety for workers and adjacent structures. Earth pressures for braced excavations are presented on Plates 5A, 5B and 5C. Assessment of the need for excavation sloping, use of trench boxes, or other measures required to provide a stable excavation, and the use of appropriate construction practices and/or equipment is the contractor’s responsibility. The following comments are intended to represent common solutions to stability problems encountered in similar soil conditions in the Houston area, and may not be construed as excavation system design recommendations. The excavation operations shall be performed in accordance with 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart P, as amended, including rules published in the Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 209, dated October 31, 1989, as a minimum. In addition, the provisions of legislation enacted by the Texas Legislature and City of Houston should be satisfied.

Table 9-1 – OSHA Soil Classification

Boring No.

OSHA Soil Type

Depth of Trench, Feet

0 – 5 5 – 10 10 – 15 15 – 20

B-1 C C C C

B-2 C C C C

B-3 C C C C

B-4 C C C C

B-5 B B B C

B-6 C C C C

B-7 B C C C

B-8 B B B B

B-9 C C C C

B-10 B B B B

B-11 C C C C

13

In general, it is our opinion that the pressure distribution (for braced walls) should be used for design of sheeting or trench boxes. To reduce the potential for ground movement adjacent to the top of the excavation, the bracing should be preloaded in stages as the excavation is deepened. The detailed earth pressure diagram is presented on Plates 5A, 5B and 5C. The contractors should be aware of potential excavation stability problems while working in the vicinity of old trenches and the excavation system should be designed to accommodate this weak material (trench backfill). The vertical walls of excavations should be located a safe distance from existing utilities in order to prevent movement in the soil mass behind the excavation that may adversely affect the utilities. We recommend that the horizontal distance of existing utilities should be greater than their vertical distance from the bottom of excavation. 9.3 Spoil Disposal Spoil from construction will be generated from the excavations. Soils that will be excavated from this project area will consist primarily of low to medium plasticity cohesive soils. However, we anticipate that silty clays (PI less than or equal to 7) which are unsuitable as backfill for storm sewers to be encountered at some locations. Hence, the excavated soils should be tested before using them as backfill material for storm sewers. The silty clays are not suitable for use in engineered fill. Lean clays with plasticity index ranging between 8 and 20 can be used for engineering fill. A significant portion of the clay encountered in the borings fit within these criteria as can be seen on the boring logs. 9.4 Groundwater Control Based on our field investigation and piezometer data, groundwater seepage may be expected in excavations made for storm sewer installation. Assessment of the need for groundwater control and installation of appropriate dewatering equipment is the contractor's responsibility. The following comments are intended to represent common solutions to groundwater control problems encountered in similar soil conditions in the Houston area, and may not be construed as dewatering system design recommendations. In general, we anticipate that groundwater can be controlled using a pump and sump arrangement along most of the alignment. However, water bearing sands at Borings B-2 and B-3 may require wells, well points, or similar methods. In any case, the groundwater control system used must provide a relatively dry, stable base for construction. Control of groundwater should be accomplished in a manner that will preserve the strength of the foundation soils; will not cause instability of the excavation; and will not result in damage to existing structures. Where necessary to this purpose, the water will be lowered at least 3 feet in advance of excavation by pump and sump arrangement, wells, well points, or similar methods. Open pumping should not be permitted if it results in boils, loss of fines, softening of the subgrade, or excavation instability. Discharge should be arranged to facilitate sampling by the owner's representative or engineer.

14

10 MONITORING

10.1 Excavation Safety As required under OSHA regulations, the contractor should provide a “competent person” to inspect trench excavations daily before the start of work, as needed during the shift, and after every rainstorm or other hazard increasing occurrence. When the competent person finds evidence of a hazardous condition, exposed workers should be removed from the hazardous area until the necessary precautions have been taken to ensure their safety. A competent person means one who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings or working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous or dangerous to workers, and who has authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them. 11 DESIGN REVIEW

HVJ recommends that the final design plans and specifications should be reviewed by a qualified geotechnical consultant. We also recommend materials testing verification and observation by an accredited testing laboratory to verify that construction is performed in conformance with project specifications. HVJ routinely provides materials testing verification and observation services and would be pleased to do so for this project. 12 LIMITATIONS

This investigation was performed for the exclusive use of RPS Klotz Associates and the City of Houston for the proposed Airline Drive Drainage and Paving: Sub-Project 2 (Clark Road) in Houston, Texas. HVJ Associates, Inc. has endeavored to comply with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice common in the local area. HVJ Associates, Inc. makes no warranty, express or implied. The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based on data obtained from subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, the project information provided to us and our experience with similar soils and site conditions. The methods used indicate subsurface conditions only at the specific locations where samples were obtained, only at the time they were obtained, and only to the depths penetrated. Samples cannot be relied on to accurately reflect the strata variations that usually exist between sampling locations. Should any subsurface conditions other than those described in our boring logs be encountered, HVJ Associates, Inc. should be immediately notified so that further investigation and supplemental recommendations can be provided.

PLATES

APPROVED BY:

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

PROJECT NO.:

PREPARED BY:

DRAWING NO.:

DATE: 7/26/2016 SV NK

HG0813623 PLATE 1

SITE VICINITY MAP AIRLINE DRIVE DRAINAGE AND PAVING: SUB- PROJECT 2

(CLARK ROAD) WBS No.: M-000284-0002-3

Project Alignment


DRAWING NO.:PROJECT NO.:

APPROVED BY: PREPARED BY:DATE: 07/26/2016

PLATE 2

NK SV

PLAN OF BORINGS AIRLINE DRIVE DRAINAGE AND PAVING: SUB- PROJECT 2


HG0813623

LEGEND:

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS

B-1B (PZ-1)

B-1

B-2

B-3 (PZ-1)

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9(PZ-2)

B-11

B-10

PROJECT NO.:

PREPARED BY:

DRAWING NO.:

APPROVED BY:


DATE: 7/26/2016

GEOLOGIC MAP AIRLINE DRIVE DRAINAGE AND PAVING: SUB- PROJECT 2


SV NK

HG0813623 PLATE 3

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

Qbs Qb

Project Alignment

Lissie Formation -- Upper part, clay, silt, sand, and very minor siliceous gravel of granule and small pebble size gravel more abundant northwestward, locally calcareous, concretions of calcium carbonate, iron oxide, and iron-manganese oxides common in zone of weathering; fluviatile; surface fairly flat and featureless except for numerous rounded shallow depressions and pimple mounds, bower part, clay, silt, sand, and minor amount of gravel; gravel slightly coarser than in upper part, noncalcareous, iron oxide concretions mare abundant than in upper part; fluviatile; very gently rolling; thickness ± 200 feet

PROJECT NO.:

PREPARED BY:

DRAWING NO.:

APPROVED BY:


DATE: 7/26/2016

FAULT MAP AIRLINE DRIVE DRAINAGE AND PAVING: SUB- PROJECT 2


SV NK

HG0813623 PLATE 4

LONG POINT FAULT

Project Alignment

EUREKA HEIGHTS FAULT

PECORE FAULT

PECORE WEST FAULT

PECORE EAST FAULT

araavi

Typewritten Text

WBS No.: M-000284-0002-3

araavi

Typewritten Text

HG0813623

araavi

Typewritten Text

5

araavi

Typewritten Text

A

araavi

Typewritten Text

HG0813623

araavi

Typewritten Text

araavi

Text Box

5B

araavi

Typewritten Text

WBS No.: M-000284-0002-3

araavi

Typewritten Text

WBS No.: M-000284-0002-3

araavi

Typewritten Text

HG0813623

araavi

Text Box

5C

6120 S. Dairy Ashford RoadHouston, Texas 77072-1010

281.933.7388 Ph281.933.7293 Fax

DRAWING NO.:PROJECT NO.:

APPROVED BY: PREPARED BY:

DATE: 8/8/2016

RIGID PIPE LOADS CLARK ROAD PAVING AND DRAINAGE

FROM TIDWELL RD. TO PARKER RD. WBS No.: M-000284-0002-3

PLATE 6 HG0813623

NK AR

W

Height

APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS AND KEYS TO TERMS & SYMBOLS

38

54

91.2

93.8

106

106

11

18

19

16

20

17

20

17

17

17

20

14

15

24

39

Pavement: 2'' Asphaltic Concrete, 17''Stabilized Sand w/ GravelFirm to very stiff, brown and gray, LEANCLAY (CL)-w/ ferrous stains 1.6'-12'

Very stiff, reddish brown, FAT CLAY(CH)

-w/ calcareous nodules 18'-20'

-w/ calcareous nodules 23'-25'

DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING:

SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-1

HAND PENETROMETER

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL COMPRESSION

TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,TSF

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F

SAMPLER: Shelby Tube/Split Spoon

DRY AUGER: 0

Logged By:

TO 25 FT

WET ROTARY:

OFFSET:DATE: 4/22/2016

SolTek NK PLATE A-1

LOCATION:PROJECT:

COMPLETION DEPTH: 25 FT

Airline Dr. Drainage & Paving: Sub-Project 2 (Clark Rd.)N: 13874669.667; E: 3117527.53 WBS NO.: M-000284-0002-3

N/A TO N/A FT

12.97' LT

FREE WATER DURING DRILLING: ---

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

HVJ Associates, Inc

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10

15

20

25

65

60

55

50

45

PROJECT NO.: HG0813623

STATION:

SURFACE ELEVATION: 65.21 FT

1+86.84

WATER DEPTH 24 HOURS AFTER DRILLING: ---

CO

H H

G-0

8-13

623.

GP

J

10/

24/1

6

3181.0

18.8

110

99

18

19

16

20

22

20

18

20

20

15

15 16

5

4

6

20

Pavement: 2'' Asphaltic Concrete, 9''Stabilized Sand w/ GravelSoft to stiff, brown and gray, LEANCLAY WITH SAND (CL)-possible fill 0.9'-8'-w/ gravel 4'-8'

Loose to medium dense, dark gray,SILTY SAND (SM)

-w/ gravel 23'-25'


SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-2

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER: 0

Logged By:

TO 25 FT

WET ROTARY:


SolTek NK PLATE A-2

LOCATION:PROJECT:



N/A TO N/A FT

6.47' RT

FREE WATER DURING DRILLING: 14.0 FT


DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

HVJ Associates, Inc

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10

15

20

25

65

60

55

50

45


STATION:


6+83.15


CO

H H

G-0

8-13

623.

GP

J

10/

24/1

6

45

76

48

89.2

98.8

102

13

18

16

13

14

20

22

17

18

28

15

27

30

49

Pavement: 2'' Asphaltic Concrete, 14''Stabilized Sand w/ GravelBrown and gray, CLAYEY SAND (SC)-w/ gravel 1.4'-14'-possible fill 1.4'-14'

Stiff to very stiff, brown and gray, LEANCLAY (CL)

Very stiff, brown and gray, FAT CLAY(CH)-w/ ferrous nodules 23'-25'


SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-3 (PZ-1)

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER: 0

Logged By:

TO 25 FT

WET ROTARY:


SolTek NK PLATE A-3

LOCATION:PROJECT:



N/A TO N/A FT

4.65' LT



DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

HVJ Associates, Inc

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10

15

20

25

65

60

55

50

45


STATION:


11+58.80

WATER DEPTH 24 HOURS AFTER DRILLING: 13.8 FT

CO

H H

G-0

8-13

623.

GP

J

10/

24/1

6

22

60

82.8

88.4

106

113

15

20

16

19

18

20

17

17

17

18

15

21

7

39

Pavement: 6'' Asphaltic Concrete, 15''Stabilized Sand

Firm to very stiff, brown and gray, SILTYCLAY WITH SAND (CL-ML)-w/ ferrous nodules 1.9'-12'

Stiff to very stiff, reddish brown, FATCLAY (CH)-w/ ferrous nodules 12'-25'


SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-4

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER: 0

Logged By:

TO 25 FT

WET ROTARY:


SolTek SAJ PLATE A-4

LOCATION:PROJECT:



N/A TO N/A FT

5.46' RT



DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

HVJ Associates, Inc

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10

15

20

25

65

60

55

50

45


STATION:


16+93.28


CO

H H

G-0

8-13

623.

GP

J

10/

24/1

6

33

41

72.4

93.2

109

102

15

16

18

16

19

17

18

18

18

28

14

17

19

24

5


Firm to very stiff, brown and gray, LEANCLAY (CL)-w/ sand 2.1'-14'-w/ ferrous nodules 2.1'-14'

-reddish brown below 14'


SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-5

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER: 0

Logged By:

TO 25 FT

WET ROTARY:



LOCATION:PROJECT:



N/A TO N/A FT

3.91' RT



DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

HVJ Associates, Inc

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10

15

20

25

65

60

55

50

45


STATION:


21+08.48


CO

H H

G-0

8-13

623.

GP

J

10/

24/1

6

23

43

30

70.3

89.7

91.7

109

113

16

14

16

17

18

17

17

16

18

28

15

17

16

8

26

1416


Soft to very stiff, brown, LEAN CLAY(CL)-w/ sand 2.1'-14'-w/ ferrous nodules 2.1'-14'

-reddish brown below 14'


SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-6

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER: 0

Logged By:

TO 20 FT

WET ROTARY:



LOCATION:PROJECT:



CAVE-IN DEPTH: 20 FT

20 TO 25 FT

7.25' LT



DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

HVJ Associates, Inc

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10

15

20

25

65

60

55

50

45


STATION:


26+45.13


CO

H H

G-0

8-13

623.

GP

J

10/

24/1

6

25

71.7

73.4

107

121

17

17

18

18

17

15

19

15

16

14

18

15 10

Pavement: 6'' Asphaltic Concrete, 9''Cement Stabilized Sand w/ GravelSoft to very stiff, brown and gray, LEANCLAY WITH SAND (CL)-w/ ferrous nodules 1.3'-25'

-w/ sand pockets 8'-14'


SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-7

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER: 0

Logged By:

TO 25 FT

WET ROTARY:



LOCATION:PROJECT:



CAVE-IN DEPTH: 17 FT

N/A TO N/A FT

7.79' LT



DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

HVJ Associates, Inc

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10

15

20

25

65

60

55

50

45


STATION:


30+92.02


CO

H H

G-0

8-13

623.

GP

J

10/

24/1

6

21

37

73.0

68.7

111

110

13

14

16

20

22

19

14

14

15

15

15

14

6

23

Pavement: 6'' Asphaltic Concrete, 12''Cement Stabilized SandStiff to very stiff, brown and gray, SILTYCLAY WITH SAND (CL-ML)-w/ ferrous nodules 1.5'-14'

Very stiff, brown and gray, SANDYLEAN CLAY (CL)-w/ ferrous nodules 14'-25'



SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-8

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER: 0

Logged By:

TO 25 FT

WET ROTARY:



LOCATION:PROJECT:



CAVE-IN DEPTH: 17.5 FT

N/A TO N/A FT

6.26' RT



DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

HVJ Associates, Inc

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10

15

20

25

65

60

55

50

45


STATION:


36+16.05


CO

H H

G-0

8-13

623.

GP

J

10/

24/1

6

21

39

24

80.1

81.0

94.1

118

112

11

15

20

17

17

18

15

15

16

17

25

14

17

22

7

22

2

Pavement: 6'' Asphaltic Concrete, 6''Cement Stabilized Sand w/ GravelVery soft to very stiff, brown and gray,SILTY CLAY WITH SAND (CL-ML)



Very stiff, reddish brown, LEAN CLAYWITH SAND (CL)-w/ ferrous nodules

Brown and gray, SILT (ML)


SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-9 (PZ-2)

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER: 0

Logged By:

TO 25 FT

WET ROTARY:



LOCATION:PROJECT:



N/A TO N/A FT

11.48' RT



DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

HVJ Associates, Inc

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10

15

20

25

70

65

60

55

50


STATION:


40+93.39


CO

H H

G-0

8-13

623.

GP

J

10/

31/1

6

2866.9

109

107

8

15

10

17

19

14

16

14

17

16

25

16 12

Pavement: 6'' Asphaltic Concrete, 6''Dark Brown Sand w/ GravelStiff to very stiff, brown and gray, SANDYLEAN CLAY (CL)-w/ ferrous and calcareous nodules1'-25'


SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-10

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER: 0

Logged By:

TO 25 FT

WET ROTARY:



LOCATION:PROJECT:



N/A TO N/A FT

12.23' RT



DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

HVJ Associates, Inc

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10

15

20

25

70

65

60

55

50


STATION:


46+44.79


CO

H H

G-0

8-13

623.

GP

J

10/

24/1

6

23

38

59.8

86.7

106

112

12

15

22

17

18

18

17

16

16

18

19

15

15

8

23

Pavement: 9.5'' Concrete, 3'' BrownSand w/ GravelVery soft to stiff, brown and gray,SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)-w/ ferrous and calcareous nodules1'-12'

Stiff to very stiff, reddish brown, LEANCLAY (CL)-w/ ferrous nodules 12'-25'-w/ sand pockets 12'-16'


SY

MB

OL

SA

MP

LES

LOG OF BORING B-11

HAND PENETROMETER



TORVANEST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

,B

LOW

S P

ER

FO

OT

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

GN

O. 2

00 S

IEV

E

PAGE 1 OF 1

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT, %

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

, %

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T,

PC

F


DRY AUGER: 0

Logged By:

TO 25 FT

WET ROTARY:



LOCATION:PROJECT:



N/A TO N/A FT

12.85' LT



DE

PT

H, F

T

Drilled By:

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

, %

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, %

HVJ Associates, Inc

ELE

VA

TIO

N, F

T

0

5

10

15

20

25

65

60

55

50

45


STATION:


50+65.39


CO

H H

G-0

8-13

623.

GP

J

10/

24/1

6

sselvaratnam

Typewritten Text

PLATE A-12

sselvaratnam

Typewritten Text

HG0813623

Nkanapathi

Typewritten Text

WBS No.: M-000284-0002-3

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Project: Airline Drive Drainage and Paving: Sub- Project 2 (Clark Road)Location: Houston, TexasNumber: HG0813623WBS No.: M-000284-0002-3

B-1 1 11 0.4B-1 3 38 14 24 91.2 18 0.3B-1 5 19 126 0.5 0.3B-1 7 16 1.5B-1 9 20 0.4B-1 11 17 1.4B-1 13 54 15 39 93.8 20 127 1.3 1.3B-1 15 17 1.5B-1 17 17B-1 19 17 1.5B-1 24 20B-2 3 31 15 16 81 18 0.6B-2 5 19 131 0.4 0.4B-2 7 16 0.3B-2 9 20 0.2B-2 11 22 121 0.5 0.2B-2 13 20 0.3B-2 15 18.8 18B-2 17 20B-2 19 20B-2 24 15B-3 3 13B-3 5 48 18B-3 7 16B-3 9 13B-3 11 14B-3 13 20B-3 15 45 15 30 89.2 22 124 0.8 1.5B-3 17 17 1.5B-3 19 18B-3 24 76 27 49 98.8 28 1.5B-4 3 22 15 7 82.8 15 0.7B-4 5 20 127 0.4 0.3B-4 7 16 1.2B-4 9 19 0.5B-4 11 18 0.9B-4 13 60 21 39 88.4 20 136 1.4 0.8B-4 15 17 1.5B-4 17 17 1.5B-4 19 17 1.5B-4 24 18 1.5B-5 3 33 14 19 72.4 15 125 0.8 0.7B-5 5 16 1.5B-5 7 18 0.5B-5 9 16 1B-5 11 19 121 0.7 0.4B-5 13 17 1.4B-5 15 41 17 24 93.2 18 1.3B-5 17 18 1.5B-5 19 18 1.5

Moisture Content (%)

Total Density (pcf)

Shear Strength (UU) (tsf)

Shear Strength (Pocket Pen) (tsf)Borehole Depth,

FeetLiquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

% Passing #200 Sieve

Appendix B-1



Total Density (pcf)



FeetLiquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index


B-5 24 28B-6 3 16 126 0.9 0.3B-6 5 23 15 8 70.3 14 0.8B-6 7 16 0.6B-6 9 17 0.2B-6 11 18 0.5B-6 13 17 132 0.4 0.5B-6 15 17 1.5B-6 17 43 17 26 89.7 16 1.5B-6 19 18 1.3B-6 24 30 16 14 91.7 28B-7 1 71.7 17 125 0.5 0.3B-7 3 17 0.4B-7 5 18 0.4B-7 7 18 0.4B-7 9 17 0.2B-7 11 15 139 0.5 0.2B-7 13 25 15 10 73.4 19 0.3B-7 15 15 1.5B-7 17 16 1.2B-7 19 14 1.5B-7 24 18 1.2B-8 3 13 1.3B-8 5 21 15 6 73 14 127 1.1 0.8B-8 7 16 0.7B-8 9 20 0.7B-8 11 22 0.5B-8 13 19 131 0.5 0.7B-8 15 37 14 23 68.7 14 1.5B-8 17 14 1.5B-8 19 15 1.5B-8 24 15 1.1B-9 1 11 1.3B-9 3 15 0.5B-9 5 21 14 7 80.1 20 142 0.1 0.3B-9 7 17 0.5B-9 9 17 0.3B-9 11 18 132 0.7 0.9B-9 13 15 1.5B-9 15 15 1.5B-9 17 39 17 22 81 16 15B-9 19 17 1.5B-9 24 24 22 2 94.1 25 0.3B-10 1.5 8 1.5B-10 3 28 16 12 66.9 15 1.5B-10 5 10 1.5B-10 7 17 128 0.6 0.6B-10 9 19 0.6B-10 11 14 1.1B-10 13 16 124 1.4 1.2

Appendix B-2



Total Density (pcf)



FeetLiquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index


B-10 15 14 1.5B-10 17 17 1.5B-10 19 16 1.5B-10 24 25 1.3B-11 1.5 23 15 8 59.8 12 0.8B-11 3 15 0.3B-11 5 22 129 0.4 0.2B-11 7 17 0.1B-11 9 18 0.8B-11 11 18 132 0.8 0.3B-11 13 38 15 23 86.7 17 1.5B-11 15 16 0.9B-11 17 16 1.4B-11 19 18 1.5B-11 24 19 1.5Total 21 21 21 24 115 21 21 100

Appendix B-3

APPENDIX C

PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION RECORDS

HVJ Associates, Inc. RPS Klotz Associates

4/23/2016

5/22/2016

STATE OF TEXAS WELL REPORT for Tracking #433959

No DataOwner Well #:

65-13-3Grid #:

29° 50' 54.51" NLatitude:

095° 22' 34.12" WLongitude:

No DataElevation:

HVJ Associates IncOwner:

6120 S Dairy Ashford RdHouston, TX 77072

Address:

Clark rdHouston, TX

Well Location:

HarrisWell County:

Type of Work: New Well Proposed Use: Monitor

Plugging Report Tracking #162803**This well has been plugged**

20/40 sand at 13 ft.Packers:

No DataWater Level:

No DataType of Pump:

No Test Data SpecifiedWell Tests:

No Data

Diameter (in.) Top Depth (ft.) Bottom Depth (ft.)

2 0 25

Mud (Hydraulic) Rotary

Screened

Drilling Method:

Borehole Completion:

Annular Seal Data:

Borehole:

Surface Sleeve InstalledSurface Completion: Surface Completion by Driller

PouredSeal Method:

DrillerSealed By:

No DataDistance to Property Line (ft.):

No DataDistance to Septic Field or other concentrated contamination (ft.):

No DataMethod of Verification:

No DataDistance to Septic Tank (ft.):

4/22/2016Drilling Start Date: 4/22/2016Drilling End Date:

10/17/2016 10:53:05 AM Well Report Tracking Number 433959 Page 1 of 2

http://www2.twdb.texas.gov/apps/waterdatainteractive//GetReports.aspx?Num=&Type=SDR-Well

http://www2.twdb.texas.gov/apps/waterdatainteractive//GetReports.aspx?Num=162803&Type=SDR-Plug

DIa (in.) Top (ft.) Bottom (ft.)

2 2 25

Top (ft.) Bottom (ft.) Description (number of sacks & material)

0 2 Cement 1 Bags/Sacks

2 25 Bentonite 1 Bags/Sacks

STATE OF TEXAS PLUGGING REPORT for Tracking #162803

B3(PZ-1)Owner Well #:

65-13-3Grid #:

29° 50' 54.51" NLatitude:

095° 22' 34.12" WLongitude:

No DataElevation:


6120 S Dairy Ashford RdHouston, TX 77072

Address:

Clark rdHouston, TX

Well Location:

HarrisWell County:

Well Type: Monitor

Borehole:

8/17/2016Date Plugged:

Pour in 3/8 bentonite chips when standing water in well is less than 100 feet depth, cement top 2 feet

Plug Method:

Plugger:

Plugging Information

Well Report Tracking #433959

4/22/2016Date Drilled:Soltek LLCCompany:

Brian K JohnsonDriller: 59632License Number:

Drilling Information

Company Information: Soltek LLC

297 County Rd 2292Cleveland, TX 77327

License Number: 59632Driller Name: Brian K Johnson

Comments: No Data

Plug(s) Placed in Well:Casing Left in Well:

Certification Data: The driller certified that the driller plugged this well (or the well was plugged under the driller's direct supervision) and that each and all of the statements herein are true and correct. The driller understood that failure to complete the required items will result in the reports(s) being returned for completion and resubmittal.


2 0 25

10/17/2016 11:00:09 AM Plugging Report Tracking Number 162803 Page 1 of 1

http://www2.twdb.texas.gov/apps/waterdatainteractive//GetReports.aspx?Num=433959&Type=SDR-Well

Chemical Analysis Made: No

Did the driller knowingly penetrate any strata which contained injurious constituents?: No

Water Quality:

Strata Depth (ft.) Water Type

No Data No Data




Comments: No Data

Lithology:DESCRIPTION & COLOR OF FORMATION MATERIAL

Casing:BLANK PIPE & WELL SCREEN DATA

IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR PERSONS HAVING WELLS DRILLED CONCERNING CONFIDENTIALITY

TEX. OCC. CODE Title 12, Chapter 1901.251, authorizes the owner (owner or the person for whom the well was drilled) to keep information in Well Reports confidential. The Department shall hold the contents of the well log

confidential and not a matter of public record if it receives, by certified mail, a written request to do so from the owner.

Please include the report's Tracking Number on your written request.

Texas Department of Licensing and RegulationP.O. Box 12157

Austin, TX 78711(512) 463-7880

Top (ft.) Bottom (ft.) Description

0 25 Sandy clay and clay

DIa (in.) Type Material Sch./Gage Top (ft.) Bottom

(ft.)

2 Riser New Plastic (PVC) 40 0 15

2 Screen New Plastic (PVC)

40 0.010 15 25

Certification Data: The driller certified that the driller drilled this well (or the well was drilled under the driller's direct supervision) and that each and all of the statements herein are true and correct. The driller understood that failure to complete the required items will result in the report(s) being returned for completion and resubmittal.


HVJ Associates, Inc. RPS Klotz Associates

4/28/2016

5/26/2016

STATE OF TEXAS WELL REPORT for Tracking #433961


65-13-3Grid #:

29° 51' 23.6" NLatitude:

095° 22' 34.66" WLongitude:

No DataElevation:


6120 S Dairy Ashford RdHouston , TX 77072

Address:

Clark RdHouston, TX

Well Location:

HarrisWell County:

Type of Work: New Well Proposed Use: Monitor

Plugging Report Tracking #162804**This well has been plugged**

20/40 sand at 13 ft.Packers:

No DataWater Level:

No DataType of Pump:

No Test Data SpecifiedWell Tests:

Top Depth (ft.) Bottom Depth (ft.) Description (number of sacks & material)



2 0 25

Mud (Hydraulic) Rotary

Screened

Drilling Method:

Borehole Completion:

Annular Seal Data:

Borehole:

Surface Sleeve InstalledSurface Completion: Surface Completion by Driller

PouredSeal Method:

DrillerSealed By:

No DataDistance to Property Line (ft.):

No DataDistance to Septic Field or other concentrated contamination (ft.):

No DataMethod of Verification:

No DataDistance to Septic Tank (ft.):

4/27/2016Drilling Start Date: 4/27/2016Drilling End Date:


http://www2.twdb.texas.gov/apps/waterdatainteractive//GetReports.aspx?Num=&Type=SDR-Well

http://www2.twdb.texas.gov/apps/waterdatainteractive//GetReports.aspx?Num=162804&Type=SDR-Plug

Chemical Analysis Made: No

Did the driller knowingly penetrate any strata which contained injurious constituents?: No

Water Quality:

Strata Depth (ft.) Water Type

No Data No Data




Comments: No Data

Lithology:DESCRIPTION & COLOR OF FORMATION MATERIAL

Casing:BLANK PIPE & WELL SCREEN DATA

IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR PERSONS HAVING WELLS DRILLED CONCERNING CONFIDENTIALITY

TEX. OCC. CODE Title 12, Chapter 1901.251, authorizes the owner (owner or the person for whom the well was drilled) to keep information in Well Reports confidential. The Department shall hold the contents of the well log

confidential and not a matter of public record if it receives, by certified mail, a written request to do so from the owner.

Please include the report's Tracking Number on your written request.

Texas Department of Licensing and RegulationP.O. Box 12157

Austin, TX 78711(512) 463-7880

Top (ft.) Bottom (ft.) Description

0 25 Sandy Clay

DIa (in.) Type Material Sch./Gage Top (ft.) Bottom

(ft.)

2 Riser New Plastic (PVC) 40 0 15

2 Screen New Plastic (PVC)

40 0.010 15 25

Certification Data: The driller certified that the driller drilled this well (or the well was drilled under the driller's direct supervision) and that each and all of the statements herein are true and correct. The driller understood that failure to complete the required items will result in the report(s) being returned for completion and resubmittal.


DIa (in.) Top (ft.) Bottom (ft.)

2 2 25

Top (ft.) Bottom (ft.) Description (number of sacks & material)

0 2 Cement 1 Bags/Sacks


STATE OF TEXAS PLUGGING REPORT for Tracking #162804


65-13-3Grid #:

29° 51' 23.6" NLatitude:

095° 22' 34.66" WLongitude:

No DataElevation:


6120 S Dairy Ashford RdHouston , TX 77072

Address:

Clark RdHouston, TX

Well Location:

HarrisWell County:

Well Type: Monitor

Borehole:

8/17/2016Date Plugged:

Pour in 3/8 bentonite chips when standing water in well is less than 100 feet depth, cement top 2 feet

Plug Method:

Plugger:

Plugging Information

Well Report Tracking #433961

4/27/2016Date Drilled:Soltek LLCCompany:

Brian K JohnsonDriller: 59632License Number:

Drilling Information




Comments: No Data

Plug(s) Placed in Well:Casing Left in Well:

Certification Data: The driller certified that the driller plugged this well (or the well was plugged under the driller's direct supervision) and that each and all of the statements herein are true and correct. The driller understood that failure to complete the required items will result in the reports(s) being returned for completion and resubmittal.


2 0 25

10/17/2016 11:00:28 AM Plugging Report Tracking Number 162804 Page 1 of 1

http://www2.twdb.texas.gov/apps/waterdatainteractive//GetReports.aspx?Num=433961&Type=SDR-Well

APPENDIX D

BORING LOG SOIL PROFILE

APPENDIX E

DARWIN OUTPUT

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWareComputer Software Product

Rigid Structural Design Module

Airline Drive Drainage and Paving, Sub-Project 2 (Clark Road)HG0813623, WBS No. M-000284-0002-3JRCP over Stabilized Subgrade - 50 years

Rigid Structural Design

Pavement Type JRCP 18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 2,660,808 Initial Serviceability 4.5 Terminal Serviceability 2.25 28-day Mean PCC Modulus of Rupture 630 psi28-day Mean Elastic Modulus of Slab 3,600,000 psiMean Effective k-value 55 psi/inReliability Level 90 %Overall Standard Deviation 0.39 Load Transfer Coefficient, J 2.8 Overall Drainage Coefficient, Cd 1.2

Calculated Design Thickness 7.24 in

Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

Period

Description

Roadbed SoilResilient

Modulus (psi)

Base ElasticModulus

(psi)1 - 4,475 20,000

Base Type Stabilized Subgrade Base Thickness 8 inDepth to Bedrock 100 ftProjected Slab Thickness 9 inLoss of Support Category 1.5

Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 55 psi/in

Simple ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 50 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 1,559 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 %Percent Trucks in Design Direction 50 %Percent Heavy Trucks (of ADT) FHWA Class 5 or Greater 4 %Average Initial Truck Factor (ESALs/truck) 2.36 Annual Truck Factor Growth Rate 0 %

Annual Truck Volume Growth Rate 4 %Growth Simple

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 2,660,808

final geotechnical investigation airline … geotechnical investigation airline drive drainage and...

Documents