CITY OF LAREDO...ADDENDUM No.1 Page 1 of 46 lARED , T Xp.$ 1755 CITY OF LAREDO ENGINEERING...

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

lARED�, T�Xp.$ 1755

CITY OF LAREDO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

ADDENDUM No.1 November 30, 2017 PROJECT: Riverbank Drive Extension

All contractors, holders of plans and specifications, plan rooms and all interested parties on the above identified project are hereby notified of the following revisions taking precedence over all previous declarations and notes made on this project. This addendum is to clarify comments brought up during the pre-bid meeting held on November 29, 2017.

1. Street Lights (2) are by others. A $12,500.00 "Street Lights System" allowance was added through Item 42 in attached Bid Schedule ( 4 pages) which shall be submitted with the bid documents properly signed and showing the total base bid amount written with numbers and words. 2. Attached is the Geotechnical Report and its Addendum #1 (32 and 7 pages respectively). 3. There is a $750,000.00 total budget for this project. 4. Regarding the availability of Type "A" HMAC, if this material cannot be found, the Contractor may submit an alternate similar material for approval. 5. About "Partial Monthly Payments" please read section C-9.06 for information on this subject and the retainage. 6. Pavement striping and markings by others.

This addendum is being submitted to all contractors, holders of plans and/or specifications, plan rooms, and all interested parties to the project and acknowledgement of same is required by inserting its number and date in the proposal form. --''o''''' City of La edo Engineering D art.m��1J .... f..tf-t''•t

,,, .. * •.:,.,,. ' , * .. • •.v· I ,, *.. \,.. l , .... : ... ····· � * 1. t .. JA/Me·to·A·�····· .. ····I , . ......•...• nCIA ii

··.. 9 2 0 ·a· ·g· .•••• ·.= •••• , +u-=

-J-._;:_---r-----r--t-b�I>.,,_E=------+.,�� . ·� 6' a1me . a crn, . i. f °-<-.·· •• f,cc sf.0 .... !(,�

Proj� anagt: / / "7 ',tssjo··-�····i��.t' rz I ,,, 1'AL E --

11 1 0 HOUSTON ST. P.O. BOX 5 79 LAREDO, TEXAS 78040-05 79 Ph.(956) 791-7 46 FAX (956) 79,�,"5-

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

CITY OF LAREDO ENGINEERIKG DEPARTMENT

BID SCHEDULE

PROJECT· ruvcrbank Drive Extension Item Estimated Description of item with No. Qty. Unit Unit Price Written in Words

GENERAL ITEMS

I I L.S. �10BILIZATION, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

-

2 7 ACRE SITE CLEARJNG, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

3 5, 100 S.1'. REMOVE/DISPOSE or

EXlS'llNG CONCRETE PILOT CHANNEL, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

STREET CONSTRUCTION � -- -- ---

6,500 C.Y. STREET EXCAVATION, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

�--

5 2,000 C.Y. STREET EMBANKMENT, COMPLETE AND IN Pl .ACE

6 8,000 C.Y. EMBANKMENT (LOSE ONSITE), COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

7 l,060 L.F. CURB AND GUITER (TYPE A) COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

8 6,385 S.F. 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

9 2,180 S.Y. 2" TYPE C ORD H.M.A.C, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

10 2,180 S.Y. 4" TYPE A H.M.A.C, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

�-

11 2,180 S.Y. 14.5" FLEX BASE, TYPE B, GRADE 2, COMPLETE AND

IN PLACE 12 355 S,Y, 7" FLEX BASE, TYPE B,

GRADE 2, UNDER CURB, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

13 2,535 S.Y. -·----

6" MOISTURE CONDITIONED SUB GRADE, COMPLETE AND lN PLACE -

14 2,S35 S.Y. PRIME COAT (SPEC. 516), COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

16

Unil Price (in numbers words)

- - - -----

& Amount

-

- -- -�

·-- ---

-- - -

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

------

15 7.,535 I S.Y. !

--...

I Unit Item Estimated

No. Qty,

STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS

16 360 I

: 17 3,535

18 35

19 1,655

, 20 1,590

21 182

22 HO

-----23 I

L___ _______

24 76

25 7,475

26 252

TRAFFIC SIGNS

27 I

------- . 28 2

STORM WATER CONTROLS

29 2,550

30 l

S.Y

CY

---CY.

S.Y.

S.F

CY.

--CY.

EA

L.F.

S.F

L.F.

EA.

EA

-- - --L.F.

EA.

TACK COAT (SPEC 518), COMPLETE AND IN PLACE Description of item with Unit Price \Vrittcn in \Vords

EROSION CONTROL BLANKET. COMPLETE AND IN PLACE CHAl'iNEL EXCAVATION, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE CHANNEL EMBANKMENT, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE HYDROMULCH/SEED!NG, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 6" CONCRETE PILOT CHANNEL, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE (3)7'x4' MULTIPLE BOX CULVERT, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE CONCRETE HEADWALLS, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 20' CURil INLET, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 30" REINFORCED CONCRETE PlPE, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 5" CONCRETE RIP-RAP, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE SIDEWALK llRIDGE RAILING, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE -

-

STOP SIGN WITH POLE, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

--

STIU:ET SIGN, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

SILT FENCE, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

·.7

Unit Price

(in numbers words)

-------·

- ..

------

& -�

Amount

'---··--·--

--·-

--·--

--

�

--··

- -

i ,

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Item Estimated Unit Description of item with Unit Price Amount No. Qty. Unit Price Written in Words (in numbers &

words) 31 I EA. CONCRETE WASHOUT PIT,

COMPLETE AND JN PLACE 32 25 L.F. INLET PROTECTION.

COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 33 40 L.F. ROCK BERM, COMPLETE ,

ANDlNPLACE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

34 505 L.F. 12" PVC C-900 PIPE (DR-14), COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

35 l EA. 2" SINGLE SERVICE W/ METER BOX (SHORT), COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

36 I EA. HYDROSTATIC TEST & CHLORINATION, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

37 505 LI'. TRENCH EXCAVATION PROTECTION

38 I EA. 1" AIR RELEASE VAL VE, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

39 2 EA. WATER LINE TIE-IN TO EXISTING LANES, )

COMPLETE AND IN PLACE 40 40 L.I'. 24" STEEL CASING WITH

SPACERS, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

41 l EA. STANDARD FIRE HYDRANT, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE

• .

STREET LIGHTS SYSTEM

STREET LIGHTS SYSTEM 42 1 L.S. ALLOWANCE $12,500.00 $12,500.00

TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _

TOTAL BASE BID WRITrEN!N WORDS: _ _ ____ _ ___ _ ____ _ _ _ __ ____ _

Contractor

Signature Title

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

NOTE:

Address Cily/Siatc Zip Cede

Telephone Nurnbcr:LJ __

Fax Nuniber:c___L_ __ _ _ __ _______ ____ ____ _

Date:

ALL BID ITEMS WILL BE PAID FOR WHEN COMPLEIT IN PLACE, TESTED, AND ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER.

19

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

BLANK

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PAVEMENT DESIGN

ROADWAY AT VILLAS SAN AGUSTIN SUBDIVISION - UNIT 11

SOUTH OF VILLAS SAN AGUSTIN SUBDIVISION, UNIT 5 & NORTH OF DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION, PHASE 2

LAREDO, WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS

Prepared for:

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. 833 Milo Rd.

Laredo, TX 78045

Attn.: Benjamin /1.. Puig, PE, SIT, LI

Submitted By:

HOW:-• ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING CO.

www.howlandcompanies.com 7615 N. Bartlett Avenue P.O. Box 451128 (78045) Laredo, TX 78041 P. 956.722.4411 . F. 956.722.5414

TBPE Firm Registration No. F-4097 TBPLS Firm Registration No. 100464-00

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

HOW ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING CO. Report Ne,: ,1 1 48(1 J uly l l , 20 1 6 Fas1'cn Oil and Ranch. Ltd. 8333 M ilo Rd. Laredo. TX 780cl5 Attn : Benjamin A. Puig PE. S IT . LI !vlanager Se111 \li11 E-Mail lo /i.f!J}i �1'/orl.cm11

Subject:

Dear M r. Puig: (;cokchniral Report - Pm·r111e11I Design Recn111111r11datio11 Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1 Laredo, Wehb County, Texas

llowland Engineering and Surveying Co .. Inc. (lfowland) is pleased lo submit the enclosed gcotcchnical engineering study for the above referenced project lo be locatccl in Laredo. Texas. This report addresses the field exploration and laboratory testing procedmes and results along \\'ith our recommendations for site preparat ion and pavement recommendations for Vi l l as San Agustin Subdivision, Unit l l . This report was conducted in accordance with an email by Mr. Arturo Camacho with CamachoHernandez and Associates. LLC dated May l 9, 20 1 6 . We appreciate the opportunity to be or service to you in this phase nl the project. Please call us if' you have any questions or i f we may he of further service. S incerely, Howland Engineering Hl!,,-d.�jng Co., Inc. TBPE Firm Rcgistratii;ir,-»,�J9-.�.�/\1 .:' �"-.... *''·,:f.. '•1

�/• ,/ !',\ • I '7 . .. i.. . . <., . . . ,. , , . .. :,.� . . �

0 I · . �l\!� . . . . . E.'.,.J.�.j ' ,� 0 : , R M:ut ineJ• �-.p ,, /�; � •,, <-E Sf- , .. /,; ..-p J _ 1cer ,, �-

8·, . .. � .. . . __ ,� -

• C ''° IONAL f. ... � ..:-,,,,, ....... --Copies Suhmitted: 1 (ohme)

07,\\.\lo

www.howlandcompanies.com 761 5 N. (kirtlett Avenue P O Box 451178 (78045)

TBPE Firm Registration No. F,4097

Laredo, TX 78041 P. 956.722.44 1 1

TBPLS Firm Registration No. 100464-00

F. 956.722.5414

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

CONTE'\TS

INTRODUCTIO'\ .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 4

PURPOSE Al\:D SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 4

FIELD INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ...... 4

LABO RA TORY TESTl'.'\G . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ...... . . . 5

GENERAL SITE AND SUBSVRFACE CONDITIONS ... . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . ........ . . . 5 Site Physiography ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . 5 Site Geology . . . ........ . . . . . . ... . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . ......... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Subsurface Stratigraphy ... . . . . . .... . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ....... ....... ...... . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Groundwater . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

PAVEMENT Rli'.COMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 General ........... . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Clearing and Grubbing ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Preparation of Natural Finish Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 7 Utilization of Natural In-Situ Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 8 Bulking or Shrinkage Factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . . . . .. . . . . . .... . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 8 Pavement Sections ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . ....... ...... . . . .. . . .... . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Flexible Pavement Design .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Rigid Pavement Design ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ..... ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 4

Drainage Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5

PRELIMINARY UTILITY TRENCIHNG AND BACKFILL CONSIDERATIONS . . ....... I 5 General.. ........ . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . 1 5 Trench Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 Trench Safety Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 1 6 Utility Trench Backfill Methods ......... . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6

LIMITATIONS .... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ....... . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . ... . . . . ... .... . . . . . . . . ........ 1 7

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

• Soil Boring Location Plan

• Boring Logs

• Photographs

APPEl\:D ICES

• Symbols and Terms used on Boring Logs

• Field and Laboratory Testing Procedures

• Recommended Specifications for Placement of Compacted Select Fi l l

• Pavement Design Options - Computer Program Outputs

• Relevant Information About Your Geotechnieal Engineering Report

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

FCJsken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. Geotechnical Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1 Page ./ of 1 7

11\TRODCCTION

Howland Engineering and Surveying Co. , Inc July 11, 2016

On June 28, 201 6, Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. (Howland) conducted a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Cnit 1 1 . The following is a summary of the proposed roadway: Roadwa e Riverbank Drive Ma· or Collector

Type �( Roadway as per City of Laredo Long Range Thoroughfare Plan (COLLRTP)

The planned roadway is an extension of the existing Riverbank Drive located south of Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 5 and north of Deerfield Subdivision, Phase 2 end. The planned subdivision lies on a 6.49 AC tract of land within the 1 00-year floodplain and will propose one ( I ) Major Collector roadway. The planned construction for the new roadway construction will consist of hot mix asphaltic concrete (HMAC) pavement with concrete curb and gutters, valley gutters, sidewalks and accessible ramps. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this exploration was to determine the stratification and engineering properties of the soil and to develop recommendations for site preparation and provide pavement recommendations with compaction requirements for the proposed roadway improvements of the above referenced project. Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) are based on the type of road use as classified by the City of Laredo. Please note a traffic engineering study was beyond this scope of work. The scope of this exploration includes the following: I ) a field investigation phase for determining the surface conditions (slope & drainage) and subsurface conditions obtaining representative soil samples for classification and testing, 2) a laboratory testing program designed to establish pertinent engineering properties of subsurface soils encountered, and 3) a compilation and evaluation of field and laboratory data in order to develop preliminary pavement recommendations. FIELD 11\-VESTIGATION

The site was explored by drilling a total of two (2) 1 O' depth bores along the approximate centerline of the proposed roadways at fluctuating intervals. The boring locations were predetermined by Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. on a site map provided by Camacho-Hernandez & Associates, LLC.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Geotechnicaf Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1

Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc July 1 1 , 2016

Pag_e_5 "f_l_7 __________ - --------� - -------� ---- ----

The borings were drilled at the approximate locations that are shown on the Boring Location Plan in the appendix, The borings were advanced using a mobile B-53 drilling rig utilizing continuous flight solid stem augers, Samples of the materials encountered were obtained by split barrel sampling in conjunction with automatic standard penetration testing. The test boring logs are presented in the appendix along with descriptions of the test methods. The fie ld sampling and testing were performed in substantial compliance with applicable ASTM standards D - 1 586.

LABOl{A TORY TESTING

The soil samples were examined and visually classified by our senior laboratory technician and samples representative of the various soil strata encountered were selected for laboratory testing. Six (6) sets of Atterberg limits, moisture content and percent fines tests were performed to assist in classifying the soils and to provide indicators of soil behavior. The lest results arc presented on the boring logs and the test procedures arc described in the appendix.

GENERAL SITE AND SUBSURFAC" CONDITIONS

Site Physiography

The proposed Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1 is a residential development within a tract of vacant land with one planned roadway. The planned subdivision is located at the south of the existing Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 5 and south of Deerfield Subdivision, Phase 2 .

At the time of our field activities, the project exhibited high native vegetation with isolated stands of brush and trees. The topography is of irregular grades with high and low areas throughout the property with approximate elevations from 438' to 4 I 9' sloping from north to south down a natural creek. Please note high traffic trails, eroded and minor marshy areas were observed throughout the site.

Site Geology Bureau of Economic Geology The University of Texas at Austin

The "Geologic Atlas of Texas", Laredo Sheet, indicates the Laredo Formation, El underlie the site with adjacent Fluvial Terrace Deposits, Qt.

The Laredo Formation, El, typically consists of clays interbedded with scams and/or layers of sandstones and clay with thick sandstone members in upper and lower part, very fine to fine grained, in part glauconitic, micaceous, fcrruginous, cross bedded. The Laredo Formation is about 620 feet thick with some fossiliferous, marine megafossils abundant.

Fluvial Terrace Deposits, Qt, are streambed deposits typically consisting of clay, sands, silts and gravels. Such deposits are associated with point bars, cutbanks, oxbows, and abandoned fluvial associated with slreambed activity. As a result, soil profiles in terrace deposits areas may vary considerably within a given area.

A cursory review of available geologic maps of this area indicates that several faults are located in the general area of the site; however, faults in the area of Laredo are considered inactive. Therefore, seismic risk should be noted as low.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Geotechnical Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1 Page 6 of 1 7

Subsurface Stratigraphy

Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. July I / , 2016

The subsurface Stratigraphy at this site encountered various conditions that can be described by one ( I ) generalized strata described below. The stratum has been identified by grouping soils that possess similar physical and engineering characteristics following the guidelines, presented in the ASTM D-2487 (Unified Soil Classification System). The lines designating the interfaces between strata on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries. • Sandy Lean Clay - Firm to hard, brown to yellowish brown, brown to yellowish brown to dark brown sandy lean clay soils were encountered from the surface to bore termination (-10') at all bores.

The soil samples tested from these stratums had liquid limits ranging from 24 to 27, plasticity index ranging from 9 to 1 1 with fines fractions ranging from 52% to 68%. These soils are classified as medium plasticity, CL, clays under the Unified Soil Classification System. The consistency of these stratums is firm to hard (strongly cemented) based on automatic standard penetration resistance test values of 5 blows per foot of penetration to 10 blows per 0" of penetration.

The above descriptions are generalized to highlight the major subsurface stratification. The boring logs should be consulted for specific information at each boring location. Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered during the drilling operations. The recovered soil samples contained generally dry soil moisture conditions during our subsurface investigation. It should be noted that groundwater levels usually will fluctuate with seasonal variations in rainfall, during the construction process and surface water run-off. The short-term field observations are not a complete evaluation of the subsurface water levels at this location. The Contractor should check the subsurface water conditions prior to excavation activities. Potential Vertical Rise (PVR)

Potential vertical soil movements have been estimated using the Texas Department of Transportation test method TEX- 1 24-E, Potential Vertical Rise. This method utilizes the soils in-situ moisture conditions and plasticity characteristics within the active zone. It is estimated that depth of the active zone in this area is approximately fifteen feet. The potential vertical rise is expressed in inches and hence is the latent or potential ability of a soil material to swell, at a given density, moisture, and loading condition.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

fasken Oil and Ranch, ltd Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. Geotechnica/ Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit I l Page 7 of 1 7

July I / , 2016

When the soil material is exposed lo capillary or surface waler an increase in elevation (heave) of the upper surface along with anything resting on it is plausible. The sandy lean clay and clayey sand with gravel soils which represent the majority of the soils encountered at the site exhibit a low shrink / swell potential. Estimated PVR value is calculated at a range as follows: PVR Range (in)

Low · High I 0.00" 0.07" Please note the analysis is based on approximate depth of bores

Please note that the ahovc reported values represent total vertical in-situ movements and does not take into account movements by uncontrolled water sources such as poor drainage, migration of subsurface water from off-site locations and utility line leaks. PAVEMENT RECOMMEND A TIO NS

General

The following recommendations are based the American Association of Stale Highway and Transportation Officials (AAS! ITO) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures and the soil test results and our experience with pavements in areas with similar subsoil conditions. The minimum pavement-sections we recommend are discussed in the following paragraphs. Clearing and Grubbing

Site preparation for the roadway areas should consist initially of clearing and grubbing. This work shall consist of cutting, removing from the ground and properly disposing trees, stumps, brush, roots, weeds and construction debris, if any, and other materials that will interfere with the work or are considered objectionable. Removal of trees and shrubs shall include the removal of stumps and roots greater than 3 " in diameter. Grubbing shall include removal of slumps and 3 " roots to 2' below finished grade elevations. Burning is not permitted on the subject property and all waste material and unsuitable materials should be disposed of legally. Preparation of Natural Finish Ground

As per our understanding, the roadway profiles should minor fill areas and major cut areas of -1 O' in depth. In regard to soil consistency, our borings did encounter strongly cemented layers of sandy lean clay soils at bore P-1. Due to the long distance spacing between boreholes, possible isolated cemented soils may be encountered while excavating between our borings. This may result in construction constraints during pavement construction. The Contractor should be equipped with special power equipment for its removal, if required.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Geotechnica! Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit I I Page 8 of 1 7

Howland Engineering and Surveying Co . . Inc July I I, 2016

After clearing and grubbing operations, exposed subgrades should be thoroughly proofro1led in order to locate and dcnsify any weak, compressible zones, A minimum of 5 passes o f a fu11yloaded dump truck or a similar heavily-loaded piece of construction equipment should be used for planning purposes. Proofrolling operations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative to document subgrade condition and preparation. Weak or soft areas identified during proofro1 1ing should be removed and replaced with suitable, compacted on-site soils, free of organics, oversized materials, and degradable or deleterious materials. Upon completion of the proofro11ing operations and just prior to fill placement, the preparation of natural finish ground in areas to be fi11ed should consist of reworking the surface to the 6" depth by watering and re-compacting the soils to a minimum of 95% of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) or TxDOT Method TEX 1 1 4-E ± 2% of optimum moisture in 6" lifts or less. Upon completion of the proofrolling operations, the preparation of natural finish ground in areas cut should consist should initially consist of reworking the exposed surface to the 6" depth by watering and re-compacting the soils to a minimum of 95% of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) or TxDOT Method TEX 1 1 4-E ± 2% of optimum moisture 6" lifts or less. Utilization of l'\atural In-Situ Soils

The utilization of natural in-situ soils are considered in our pavement design. The following are recommendations for the use of these materials. In general, the natural soils to be cut and utilized as fill material should be watered and compacted in lifts not to exceed 6" to 95 % of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) ± 2 % of optimum moisture. All lifts not meeting the required compaction must be reworked and compacted until the specified density is achieved. Ilowland recommends to stock-pile the cut soils to visually inspect and sample for the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) or TxDOT Method TEX I I 4-E. Several Proctors may be required to establish a Density Control Plan. Bulking or Shrinkage Factor

Excavation increases the volume of material. To determine the volume of material that will be created by excavation the bulking factor is defined as: Bulking Factor � Volume after Excavation / Volume before Excavation Similarly a shrinkage factor is defined for the compaction of a soil at its final destination. Shrinkage Factor � Volume after Compaction / Volume before Excavation Typical values for the site soils can be found in Table 1 below.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. Geotechnical Reporl - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1 Page 9 of 1 7

Table 1 - Soil Properties

, . Bulk Density Material ' , ' , · Mt!lm'

Clay (Low PI) I .GS Clay (High Pl) 2 . 10

Clay and G� 180 Sand 2.00

Sand and Gravel 1 .95 Sandstone (Porous) 2.50

Pavement Sections

. · , '

Bulking Factor . . . ' .

!JO 1 .40 135 I .OS LI S 1 .60

Shrinkage Factor -

0.90 -

0.89 --

July 11, 2016

. -,_ - . . ' Diggability

vledium 7 "Medium to Hard

Medium to 1 Jard

Easy Easy

Medium

for the proposed roadways design purpose, we arc following the AASIITO guide for Design of Pavement Structures with consideration to the modulus of subgrade reaction (k) and our field Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results which we correlated an approximate CBR and the pavement specification revisions set forth by the City of Laredo, Flexible Pavement Design

The 1993 AASHTO pavement design method is typically used in this location. The AASHTO design parameters include the following: ·, . ' '· ·- _ ,,_ ,

, . . . '

_,' ': '; . ·: AASJITO Desie.n Paranieters Index . _ _, :

' ' ' " ' 18-kip Equivalent S ingle Axle Loads (ESAL) Wis Reliability R Standard Deviation So Environmental Effects i'.PSIENv�i'.PSlsw + i'.PSirn Loss in Serviceability Index Due to Swelling Soils i'.PSisw Loss in Serviceability Index Due to Frost Heave i'.PSirn Initial Serviceability Index Po Minimum Terminal Serviceability Index Pt Total Change in Serviceability Index Ms1�Po - P, Effective Road Bed Soil Resilient Modulus Mr

The proposed roadway is classified as a Major Collector under the City of Laredo Long Range Thoroughfare Plan (COLLRTP). Values for these parameters except for Environmental Effects and Subgrade Resilient Modulus are include in the COLLRTP and are presented below, Recommendations for the Environmental Effects and Subgrade Resilient Modulus along with other pertinent information are presented in the following paragraphs.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Geotechnical Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit J 1

Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc July I I, 2016

Page JO of 1 7 -� - � -------------------------------------

, AASIITO.Desilin Parameters ',

. COLLRTP Major / Minor Major Collector Arterials l ,ocal Collector Local Street Industrial Collector Industrial Street

Wis 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 I 00,000 R 95 % 90 % 70 % 70 % So flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible Rigid Flexible i Rigid 0.45 0.35 0.45 0.35 0.45 0.35 0.45 i 0.35 Po 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.2 ' 4.5 I P, 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 i 2.0 f;ps1 1 .7 2.0 1 .7 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.5

··-T 20 20 20 20 SN

Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. I Max. 3.80 5.76 2.92 5.08 2.58 4.20 1 .98 I 3.18 Source. City of Laredo Long Range Thoroughfare Plan (COLLRTP)

The actual traffic volumes and wheel loads for these various pavements were unavailable at the time of the preparation of this report. I f the specific traffic data relative to the design becomes available, we may review the information and make any necessary changes to our pavement recommendations. Please advise us if the available traffic data is different from our assumptions, so we can revise our design traffic calculations and thereby revise our pavement design. The value of L;PSlsw is the pottion of design serviceability loss caused by the environmental (t.PSIE:sv) factors of swelling soils. Since frost heave is not a concern in Laredo, the impact due to frost heave (L;PSirn) is not considered. Therefore, the environmental impacts (L;PS!El\V) are reduced to the impact of expansive (swelling) soils only. The environmental factors reduce the maximum possible performance period of the pavement before an overlay is required to meet the expected service life. Based on the AASHTO design procedure and the subsurface soil properties, the value for the loss in Serviceability Index due to swelling soils (L;PSlsw) is presented in the following table:

0 0

5 0.50 1 0 0.78 1 5 0.95 20 1.04

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Howland Engineering and Surveying Co . . Inc. Geotechnical Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision. Unit 1 1 Page II of 17

Modulus of Subgradc Reaction /k)

July II , 2016

The modulus of subgrade reaction (k) is determined by performing plate load bearing tests, Due to time and expense of perfonning lest, researchers have developed correlations between k and CBR values, Based on these published correlations, an estimated k value of 200 per cubic inch (pci) for the subgrade may be used for this site.

Resilient Modulus Value /M,) The resilianl modulus value, M, is based on the most common subgrade soil conditions encountered in our soil test borings. Based on AASHTO recommendations, the following empirical strength values can be converted to a Modulus for use in pavement thickness calculations. We recommend that a CBR value of 1 2 percent to be used in the pavement design analysis for the soils at the site for Riverbank Drive. This design CBR value assumes that the subgrade soils will be prepared in accordance with the recommendations stated in the Preparation of Natural Finish Ground subsection of the Pavement Recommendations section of this report,

:vie = 2550 (CBR)0 64 psi

Therefore, for this project we recommend the following M, values:

M, = 2550 ( 1 2)0 64 1 2,509 psi

The next step in the AASI-ITO method is the determination of the Structural Number (SN), which can either be calculated using formulas in the AASI ITO Guide or by using a nomograph contained in the guide. The SN is used to determine the required pavement sections.

The total required pavement thickness i s then based on the following equation:

Where: an = structural coefficient of material "n"

Dn = thickness of material "n", inches

mn = drainage coefficient for material "n"

Generally, the most cost effective pavement section can be obtained by max1m1zmg the thicknesses of the materials with the lowest structural coefficient where applicable or where the pavement materials are locally available.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Geotechnical Report · l'illas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1

flow/and Engineering and Surveying Co. , Inc July I /, 2016

f'_a/!,e 12 o"-,f_I_7 _______ _

The drainage coefficient, m, is dependent on the quality of drainage in the untreated base and sub-base material layers of the flexible pavement section, Good drainage (i,e, Drainage Coefficient, m = I ) corresponds to water being removed from each layer in one ( I ) day; and, that the percent of time the pavement structure is exposed to moisture levels approaching saturation ranges from five (5) to twenty-five (25), If improper materials are used or standing water can develop due to construction or design deficiencies, the quality of drainage would be fair to very poor and reduce the drainage coefficient, m, and ultimately the structural capacity of the pavement, The AAS! ff() design procedure provides more guidance and discussion regarding this issue, Recommended structural coefficient and drainage coefficients are as follows:

Type C or D HMAC Surface Asphalt Stabilized Base Flexible Base (Type A, Grade I - 2) Flexible Base (Type B, Grade 1 - 2) Resulting pavement sections arc as follows :

0,44 I .00 0.34 I .00 0.14 1.00 0.1 I 1.00

, J!'lex\ble ne�ig�,Se,ctlon (>>,?:)h·.- ,- ,> r r r- tn � �,; , �-,� .' ·

Type C or D HMAC Surface 2.5" 2.5" 2.5" Type A or B HMAC Base Flexible Base (Type A, Grade I - 2) I 5.5" 9.5" Flexible Base (Type B, Grade I - 2) I 9.5" Tensar® TriAX® TX5 Geogrid No Yes No Moisture Conditioning Subbase 6" 6" 6" Structural Number (SN) Design 3.20 3.20 3.20 Structural Number (SN) Actual 3.27 3.25 3.25 Estimated Calculated ESAL's 2,268,000 2,173,000 2, I 65,000

2.5"

13.5" Yes 6" 3.20 3.23 2,117,000

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Howland Ji.ngineering and Surveying Co. , Inc. Geotechnica! Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit I 1 Page 13 of/ 7

Black Base: . · , ,

.. < ' · •· .

July 11, 2016

, Flexible De$ign S�ction , · ·. ,_ · ·

· . . . <in) ., , · { .,:'.: - .. ' '

Con1porient .--;:- �

'.'

,, .',. , --- _

_ - : _ -

,' ,. ; _ . . ,-.- :- ... ::

, , Crushed J,imestone > ·., i'l(P.1111 (Cal/ch;) ,, •'. ,

·,·· Type C or D HMAC Surface Type A or B HMAC Base Flexible Base (Type A, Grade 1 - 2) Flexible Base (Type B, Grade 1 - 2) Tensar® TriAX® TX5 Geogrid Moisture Conditioning Subbase Structural Number (SN) Design Structural Number (SN) Actual Estimated Calculated ESAL's

', , ' .

. Opti<>n5 . . 2" 4" 8" ---

No 6" 3.20 3.36 2,674,000

Option 6 2" 4" 8" ---

Yes 6" 3.20 4. 1 4 9,860,000

' ' ' . . · . ' . .

·, . Optio,n? .· Option s 2" 2" 4" 4" --- ---

9" 8" No Yes 6" 6" 3.20 3. 1 8 3.23 3.74 2,1 05,000 5 , 1 27,000 Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement: The I lot Mix Asphaltic Concrete (HMAC) shall meet the requirements set forth by the Texas Department of Highways (TxDOT) Specifications, Item 340, using Type "C" or "D" mix. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 1 .5% below the optimum density of the laboratory density as determined using TxDOT, Tex 206-F test method or ASTM D- 1 560 (Hvecm or Marshall Method). Hot Mix Asphaltie Concrete Pavement (Black Base): The Ilot Mix Asphaltic Concrete (HMAC) shall meet the requirements set forth by the Texas Department of Highways (TxDOT) Specifications, Item 340, using Type "A" or "13" mix. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 1 .5% below the optimum density of the laboratory density as determined using TxDOT, Tex 206-F test method or AST\1 D- 1 560 (Hveem or Marshall Method). Flexible Base Material (Crushed Limestone): The base should meet the requirements of the TXDOT specifications for Item 247, Type A, Grade 1 - 2. The base should be compacted to at least 98% of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor (ASTM D- 1 557) or TxDOT Method TEX 1 1 3-E, al ± 2% of optimum moisture content. Flexible Base \1aterial (Calichc): The base should meet the requirements of the TXDOT specifications for Item 247, Type B, Grade I - 2. The base should be compacted to at least 98% of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1 557) or TxDOT Method TEX 1 1 3-E, at ± 2% of optimum moisture content.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Geotechnical Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, ()nit I 1 Page 14 of 1 7 .

Howland Engineering and Surveying Co. , Inc. July I /, 2016

Mechanically Stabilized Layer (MSL): The gcogrid can increase the effective strength of a pavement structure or an unpaved working surface through the composite of a high performance geogrid and granular fill to form a mechanically stabilized layer (MSL). The gcogrid is placed directly below the granular fill for reinforcement in an effort to increase the bearing strength of the subbase soils. Based on the soil information above, we recommend the Tensar® TriAx® TX5. Moisture Conditioned Subbase: The subbase beneath the crushed or uncrushed gravel subgrade should be moisture conditioned by reworking the surface to the 6" depth by watering and recompacting the soils to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698 (Standard Proctor) or TxDOT Method TEX 1 1 4-E, at ± 2% of the optimum moisture content at 6" lifts. Rigid Pavement Design

The Rigid Structural Design is used for both the analysis and design of rigid (Portland cement concrete) pavements. For design, ESALs are an input and the slab thickness required for the specified traffic is calculated. All calculations arc based on the AASHTO rigid pavement design procedure.

Standard Modulus of Soil Reaction "k" Load Transfer Coefficient Overall Draina e Coefficient, Cd Calculated Desi n Thickness 7.79

4,000 si 474 3,604,997 250 ci 2.6 /·"'s'e· · ,;. , . . ' , .. lf;_ ' .

Portland Cement Concrete: The concrete should have a maximum slump of 4 ½" ± 1 ". The concrete should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi. Moisture Conditioned Subgrade: The subgradc should be moisture conditioned by reworking the surface to the 6" depth by watering and re-compacting the soils to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698 (Standard Proctor) or TxDOT Method TEX 114-E, at ± 2% of optimum moisture content at 6" lifts. The design assumes doweled or keyed joints, temperature and flexural reinforcing steel of #5 @ 12" o.c.c.w for heavy duty traffic (major collector) and adequate control, expansion and construction joints. All joints should be sealed as per manufacture recommendations. A control joint spacing of no more than 1 5' is recommended. Since rainfall is light, no special provisions for drainage, such as permeable base course is necessary.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Fasken Oil and Ranch. Ltd. Geotechnica! Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1 Page 15 of_l _7 ________________ �

Drainage Considerations

Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. July 1 1, 2016

Proper perimeter drainage is extremely impmtant and should be provided so infiltration of surface water from unpaved areas surrounding the pavement is minimized, Improper drainage which al lows saturation of the pavement subgrade will greatly reduce the performance and service l i fe of the pavement systems, even when the system is constructed using either typical pavement sections or design recommendations based on site-specific soils testing.

Surface and subsurface drainage considerations crucial to the performance of pavements al this site include, but are not limited, to the fo11owing:

• Any man-made subsurface or known natural groundwater seepage at the s ite as to influence moisture contents within the subgrade should be intercepted by drainage ditches or below grade French drains.

• Final site grading should eliminate isolated depressions adjacent to curbs which may a1low surface water to pond and infiltrate into the underlying soils.

• Pavement surfaces should be maintained to minimize surface ponding and to provide proper sealing of any developing cracks. These measures will help reduce infiltration of surface water downward through the pavement section.

• Drainage channels adjacent to roadway should have adequate transverse slopes for proper drainage away from the roadway so that ponding or stagnant water does not accumulate and infiltrate below the roadway thus weakening the sub-pavement section.

Poor drainage features provide an avenue for water to enter into the pavement section and underlying soil subgradc and can result in weakening of the subgradc soils. These conditions could result in degradation of pavement sections with time as vehicular traffic traverses the affected areas.

PRELIMI'.\'ARY UTILITY TRENCHING AND BACKFILL CONSIDERATIONS

General

In general, the exploration and testing of the soil samples indicated a consistency of soil conditions with low plasticity, firm to hard (strongly cemented) sandy lean clay soils.

This report may not reflect the exact variations of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. The nature and extent of variations across the site may not become evidence until construction commences. If variations then appear evident, it may be essential to reevaluate our recommendations after performing on-site observations and test to establish the engineering significance of such variations.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46Fasken Oil and Ranch. Ltd Geotechnical Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit I I Page 16 of 1 7

Trench Excavations

Howland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. July I I, 2016

In regard to soil consistency, our borings did encounter strongly cemented layers of clayey sand and sandy lean clay soils al bore P- 1 at the 7' and 8½' depths. Due lo the long distance spacing between boreholes, possible isolated cemented soils may be encountered while trenching between our borings. This may result in construction constraints during utility line trenching. The Contractor should be equipped with special power equipment for its removal, if required. In regard to groundwater conditions, no groundwater was encountered during our drilling operations. Due to the long distance spacing between boreholes, the extent of subsurface groundwater depth and locations between our borings is not certain. However the Contractor should provide and maintain adequate dewatering equipment to remove and dispose of all surface and ground water. Each excavation should be kept dry during the preparation of the subgrade until the installation of the utility lines is completed. The utility trenching, safety and backfill considerations for the proposed roadways arc included in the following section. Trench Safety Guidelines

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSI IA) Safety and Health Standards contained in the Section 1 926.652 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR) require that all trenches in excess of five (5) feet deep be shored or appropriately sloped or benched unless the trench sidewalls arc comprised of solid rock. Based on the our laboratory results, the soils encountered at the boring locations should be considered primarily a Type A soils which means cohesive soils i.e. silty clay, sandy clay, clay loam, and in some cases silty loam and sandy clay loam. I f during the construction process dissimilar soils are encountered, then the following soil types should be considered. Cemented soils i.e. caliche and hardpan are also considered Type A according to OSHA soil classification guidelines. If soils are granular cohesion-less similar to crushed rock or fissured then Type B is the appropriate classification and if groundwater or water seepage is present in these strata then Type C is the appropriate classification. Please note that the Contractor is responsible for development of the excavation plan which will meet all State and Federal requirements with regard to trench safety. Utility Trench Backfill Methods

Please see the latest City of Laredo " Utility Trench Backfill Methods" in the City's web site (www.eityonaredo.co111). The design team is to verify the latest specifications of the City of Laredo at date of design insurance.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. !lowland Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc. Geotechnica! Report - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1 July I 1, 2016 Page_n of 11 _____________ _

LI:\JJTATIONS The evaluation and recommendations submitted in this report are based, in part, upon the information obtained from the two (2) soil test borings. The nature and extent of variations in soil conditions between or beyond the borings may not become evident until actual construction. It is also noted that the transition lines shown on the boring logs arc approximate and the actual transitions may be gradual . Also, this report docs not consider environmental opinions. If changes in the nature or design of the project are planned, the conclusions and recommendations in this report should be reviewed by the soils engineer and, if necessary, modified. Soil samples recovered for laboratory testing will be retained for a period of 30 days and then, unless we arc directed otherwise, wi l l be discarded. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. and the design team for specific application to the proposed roadways at V i llas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1 in Laredo, Texas in general accordance with the American Association of Stale I I ighway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Additional information regarding the l imitations and use of geotechnical engineering reports is included in the appendix.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

< .... r r > r:,i

r:,i > z

> � C"l d < r:,i

§ .., .... z > r:,i z d � I;::, e e � .... < < .... i:"I r:,i .... ,-.. '-' �z d z .... .., .... ....

'\J r.> .

'

,. n_

t c,

I t V) "l

t � �

I \ 0

0

q � . \ . .t • • F S; T o

¼ " \ \ 10 ·� 9 1 I I ' ' ·" I ·" "' \ ; o&

I i \; ,•.\

\\ \ I \ ', -l\·

-";�'.)-;,;· I I _...-------:""'0 \ \ -�ci'·:q

PT 6+24.56

.) r i� / \ ! !\

! U<)l·.,

' '

\ \ I , 71

11 I " I ' I I +!� : ;1 V

.. APPROXIMATE TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN I

::::::�v,1::,:::

A

::�bs�:

d

u�:,'-�-:-:-�s_'_' --==7

, REPORT NCMBER 4!486

!

} I I

1 1 i l

\. I

,, 0 0

t t q �

� g !· iI ! � ::tl o, I "' o o u1 � � 0

N t --.J � ui 0

� � � � O>_ q �.

i<\�8 , r 0 0 rri ..,�

g ... ill -, o A • , ;;l ·F.�2 N

t &l a .

j: gg � � r , f � � "'

:-g Q t'i'r; � £ oi:. :g '.:1-'r B�-;p ��;-

� :

r

HOW ENGINl,ERING AND SURVEYING CO.

7c, I) \, ll.H1lcu .\, �rn.,·

I' ,,,,_, 7:� -1 1 1 1 F '!'(, ::: 5� 1-1

fBPF Ftrrn l{�,;,;t,.t1:c,n ,,, f - :(r•::' 1 131'1 S F,i in R,·c1!<1r:Hhl� \,"0 t -'; �,,-1 !'·•,

\, ._, -., 1,_,._, l .rnJc·,,,T';,.u,ie, c, ·m

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

PROJECT:

CLIENT:

PROJECT LOCATIO!\:

BORING LOCATIO:\;

DRILLER:

DRILLl='' G METHOD:

LOG OF BORlNG Nlll\1BER 1'-1

\'illas San .\gu�lin Suhdh·ision. l"nit 1 1

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. \'illas San :\gu�tin Subdl\ hion, l'nit 1 1

A!. Per Plan

lingo Rrndon

Straight Flight .-\ugl·r·

DEPTH TO WATER INITIAL: .\ E

:i 0 Description of Stratum e . . E 0 0 � C. -;; "' E f- ;, ·a; Depth " '- i "' "' "'

(Feet)

- 5 ; V ii I ; i, P l 4 - ;'.'.

Stiff to llard,

'., 'X Brown to Yellowish Bro,,n -

3 ,, to Dark Brown Sand�· Lean Clay

4 2 P-2 3 -

5 5 s

l llli!1li!ill ll Ccmrnlrd at 7'

6 -

Slrnngl�· Crmrntl·d at 8½'

7 18 1m:mmm1!l P-3 :i0/3" -

8 200

9 1 0/0" P-4

-

IO 600 (CL) BORING TERMINATED

--

I I

-

12

-

13

-

1 4 -

15 -

16

-

17

-

18

-

1 9 -

20

SPT = Standard Penetration Resistance 0.5 FT Intervals NE "° Not Encountered

NR = Not Required N = Total Blows Final IFT within Sample Depth ( BL/FT ) Qp = Pocket Penetrometer Test ( TSF )

qu = Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

ST = Shelby Tube Sample HOW•

l C C N . 0 =

�

55

59

64

ENGINEERING ANO SURVEYING CO.

REPORT NO.,

DATE:

ELE\'ATIO;'I,:

WEATHER:

LOGGED BY, AFTER 24 HOURS:

41486 ,lune 28, 201(1

\A

Hot and Clear

.I. Reyes

\R

Atterberg Limits (%)

l '§ ;; 0

e ·� u . � " -.'! .,, 0 .� ·; 0 ,? " :; - ..

LL P. L

1 4 2(, II,

15 27 1 1,

15 24 15

NA = Not Applicable

N D = l\ot Determined

f-:< � .,, " "' G:' Q

� Vo - ;.. " -0 i: O" ::,

P. I.

I I

9

PAGE 1 OF I

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

PROJECT: CLIE!"i'T: PROJECT LOCATIOl\: BORI.\G LOCATIO�: DRILLER: DRILLING I\1ETHOD:

LOG OF BORING NUMBER P-2 \'illas San Ag_ustin Subdh i�ion. l nit 1 1 Fasken Oil and Ranrh. Ltd. \ 'illas San :\gu,tin Subdh h,iun, l'nit 1 1 A� Prr Plan Hugo lll'ndon Straight Flight :\uger

DEPTH TO WATER l\'ITIAL: \ E

Depth (Feet)

-

-

-

3

4 -

5

--

7

-

8

9

Pl

P-2

1'-3

"' 2

2

I 2 4

4 4 5

" , • :: z

5

9

E � ·; "'

V i:'/ 0

?<: ""' 'N

Ci

Description of Stratum

Finn to Stiff to I lanl, llrnwn to Yellowish Bro,,n

Sandy l.elln Cllly

REPORT l\0.: 4 1 486 DATE: .lune 28, 20Hi

£LEVATl0:'I.: .\A WEATHER: Hot and Clear LOGGED BY, .J. lll'y('S AFTER 24 HOURS: .\I{

Atterberg Limits (%) G:'

'§ !:,, c � " C

0 u s ] � ,. 0 " � .!a G:' "

� � 0

-� en t: C ·; ·; ' a' • • , z ;: ::i 0: 0: a' C,

LL. P. L. P. I.

53 13 25 16 9

52 16 25 16 9

l'-4 -

JO

15 211 30 50 fu=' +· - -========�----"(('--''lc,,)+-__:6:cH'--f--.!.1 5c._+--'2"'6'--f--.!.1 6,:_> --+_ ICcO'--f--- --+ -- ---J

BORli\G TERMINATED --

I I -

1 2 -

13

-

1 4

-

1 5

�--1 6

-

17

-

18

-19

-

20

SPT = Standard Penetralion Resistance 0.5 FT Intervals N = Total Blows Final 1 FT within Sample Depth ( BL/FT ) Qp = Pocket Penetrometer Test ( TSF ) qu = Unconfined Compressi\!e Strength Test ST= Shelby Tube Sample

N E = Not Encountered NR = Not Required

ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING CO.

NA = Not Applicable N D = Not Determined

PAGE 1 OF I

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1 Report '\o.: 4 1 486

View north toward bore P2

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46HOW

ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING CO.

SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BORING LOGS

GRAVELS

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

�

�:""."' · . .-.� GW

GP

Well graded gravels or sand and gravel mixture. little or no fines.

Poorly graded gravels or sand and gravel mixture, little or no fines. More than half of coarse fraction - - - -- - -- -- --

larger than No. 4 sieve size �ml.l!I� GM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixture

�S,,"-1 GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures.

W0"A SW Well graded sand or gravelly sands, little or no fines.

SANDS r-�� - :\.;_;_ :.•1 SP Poorly graded sand or gravelly sands, little or no fines.

More than half of coarse fraction smaller than No. 4 sieve size l'.Jl:l:1-lHHII SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixtures

l>·t'. :'_ . '.- ;] SC Clayey sands. poorly graded sand-clay mixtures.

SIL TS AND CLAYS 111111111111 ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands of low to medium plasticity. --·

More than half of coarse fraction �� smaller than l\o. 4 sieve size CL lnorganic clays of low to medium plasticity.

. . I OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity . . .

111111111111 MH Inorganic silts and very fine sands of low to medium plasticity.

SIL TS Al\D CLAYS �� CH Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity.

Liquid Limit more than 50%

!: : : ::: :::.:\•:•:::.::: . ::•:• :] OH Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity.

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS E- - - -� Pl Peats and other higly organic soils.

TYPE OF TEST OR SA.t'v:1PLE

A - Auger Sample. C - Rotary Coring Sample. S - Thin wall Tube (Shelby Tube) Sample.

P - Split Barrel Sample with Standard Penetration Test. T - THO Cone Penetrometer Test.

CONSISTENCY OF SOILS

Sand Clay

Descriptive Tenn "N" Value (BL/LF) Descriptive Tenn "N" Value (BL/LF)

Very Loose 0 - 4 Very Soft Less than 2 Loose 4 - 10 Soft 2 - 4

Medium Dense 10 - 30 Finn 4 - 8 Dense 30 - 50 Stiff 8 - 15

Very Dense Greater than 50 Very stiff 15 - 30

Hard Greater than 30

Form Last Revised: October 29, 2014

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES (TEST PROCEDCRES ARE PRESE'-:TED FOR l'-:FORMATIOC'JAL PCRPOSES)

FIELD TESTI:-.G

A. Boring Procedure between Samples

The borehole is extended downward, between samples. by continuous flight. hollow or solid stem augers or by rotary drilling techniques using bentonite drilling fluid or water.

Il. Prnetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (ASTi\1 D-1586)

This sampling method consists of driving a 2 inch outside diameter split barrel sampler using a 140 pound hammer freely falling through a distance of 30 inches. The sampler is first seated 6 inches into the material to be sampled and then driven an additional 1 2 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 1 2 inches is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance. Recovered samples are first classified as to color and texture by the driller. Later, in the laboratory, the driller's field classification is reviewed by the soils engineer who examines each sample.

C. Thin-walled Tube Geotechnical Sampling of Soils (ASTM D-1587)

This method consists of pushing thin walled steel tubes, usually 3 inches in diameter, into the soils to be sampled using hydraulic or other means. Cohesive soils are usually sampled in this manner and relatively undisturbed samples are recovered.

D. Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings (ASTM D-1452)

This method consists if augering a hole and removing representative soil samples from the auger flight or bit at 5 foot intervals or with each change in the substrata. Disturbed samples are obtained and this method is, therefore, limited to situations where it is satisfactory to determine the approximate subsurface profile.

E. Diamond Core Drilling for Site Investigation (ASTM D-2 I 13)

This method consists of advancing a hole into hard strata by rotating a single or double tube core barrel equipped with a cutting bit. Diamond. tungsten carbide, or other cutting agents may be used for the bit. Wash water is used to remove the cuttings and to cool the bit. >l"ormally, a 2 inch outside diameter by 1 -3/8 inch inside diameter (1\'X) coring bit is used unless otherwise noted. The rock or hard material recovered within core barrel is examined in the field and in the laboratory and the core samples are stored in partitioned boxes. The core recovery is the length of material recovered and is expressed as a percentage of the total distance penetrated.

LABORATORY TESTING

A. Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils (ASTM D-4318, TEX 104-E, 105-E and 106-E)

Atterberg Limits determine the soil's plasticity characteristics. The soil's Plasticity Index (Pl) is representative of this characteristic and is the difference between the Liquid Limit (LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL). The LL is the moisture content at which the soil will flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The PL is the moisture content at which the soil begins to lose its plasticity. The test results are presented on the boring logs adjacent to the appropriate sampling information.

B. Particle Size Analysis of Soils (l\1inus 200) (ASTM D-422 and TEX 1 1 0-E)

Grain size analysis tests are performed to determine the particle size and distribution of the samples tested. The grain size distribution of the soils coarser than the Standard :\umber 200 sieve was determined by passing the sample through a standard set of nested sieves. The test results are presented on the boring logs.

C. Laboratory Detc-rmination of Water (Moisture) Content or Soil and Rock (ASTM D-2216 and TEX 103-E)

The moisture content of soil is defined as the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the weight of water in a given soil mass to the weight of solid particles. It is determined by measuring the wet and oven dry ,veights of a soil sample. The test results are presented on the boring logs.

D. Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil (ASTi\1 D-2166)

The unconfined compressive strength of soil is determined by placing a section of an undisturbed sample into a loading frame and applying an axial load until the sample fails in shear. The test results are presented on the boring logs adjacent to the appropriate sampling information.

E. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) or Lab Compacted Soils (ASTI\1 D-1883)

The CBR test is performed by compacting soil in a six inch diameter mold at the desired density, soaking the sample for four days under a surcharge load approximating the pavement weight and then testing the soil in punching shear. A two inch diameter piston is forced into the soil to determine the resistance to penetration. The CBR is the ratio of the actual load required to produce 0. 1 inches of penetration to that producing the same penetration in a standard crushed stone.

F. Swell Test (ASTM D-4546)

The Swell Test is performed by compacting soil in a steel mold at varying moisture contents. Layers are compacted using a hammer weight and number of blows per layer which vary with the different test procedures. ASTM D-698, D-1557, TEX- 1 13-E and 1 1 4 E. The data is plotted and the maximum unit weight and optimum moisture content determined. The test results are given in the appendix with a notation of the test method used.

G. Compaction Tests (ASTM D-698, D-1557, TEX 1 13E or 1 1 4-E)

The compaction test is perfonned by compacting soil in a steel mold at varying moisture contents. Layers are compacted using a hammer weight and number of blows per layer which vary with the different test procedures, ASTM D-698, D-1557, TEX-1 1 3-E and 1 14-E. The data is plotted and the maximum unit weight and optimum moisture content determined. The test results are given in the appendix with a notation of the test method used.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

1 . General

RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED SELECT FILL

The soils engineer shall be the owners' representative to control the placement of compacted fill. The soils engineer shall approve the subgrade preparation, the fill materials, the method of placement and compaction; and shall give written approval of the completed fill.

2. Preparation of Existing Ground

All topsoil, plants and other organic material shall be removed. The exposed surface shall be scarified, moistened if necessary, and compacted in the manner specified for subsequent layers of fill.

3. Select Fill Material

Pill shall have a liquid limit of 40 or less and a Plasticity Index between 7 and 1 8. The fill shall contain no organic or other perishable material, and no stones larger than two (2) inches. The soils engineer shall approve select fill material.

4. Placing Fill

Pil l materials shall be placed in horizontal layers not exceeding six (6) inches thickness after compaction. Successive loads of material shall be dumped so as to secure even distribution avoiding the formation of layers or lenses of dissimilar materials. The contractor shall route his hauling equipment to distribute travel evenly over the fill area.

5. Compaction of Fill

a. Moisture Control:

b. Compaction:

The moisture content of the fill material shall be distributed uniformly throughout each layer of the material. The allowable range of moisture content during compaction shall be within plus two (·<2) and minus two (-2) percentage points of the optimum moisture content. The contractor may be directed lo add necessary moisture to the material either in the borrow area or upon the fill surface or to dry the material, as directed by the soils engineer. The drying of cohesive soils between lifts to moisture contents less than seventy percent (70 %) of optimum before the placement of subsequent lifts shall be avoided or the fill reworked at the proper moisture content.

The material in each layer shall be compacted to obtain proper densities. Compaction by the hauling equipment alone wil l not be considered sufficient. Structural fills, including pavement subgrade, sub base and base, shall be compacted to densities equivalent to the percentages of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) or the Modified Proctor (J\STM D-1 557) maximum dry density listed in Table I. The Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation Method TEX- 1 1 3-E compaction test, which varies the compactive effort with soil type, may be substituted for the Standard or Modified Proctor methods and the percentages listed in table I used.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Recommended Specifications for Placement of Compacted Select Fill (Cont'd)

TABLE I

AREA PERCEl\'T COMPACTION fine Grained Soils ASTM Coarse Grained Soils ASTM D-698 Standard Proctor D-1 557 Modified Proctor Within five (5) feet of building lines, under footings 95 95 + floor slabs, slab-on-grade foundations and structures attached to buildings (i.e. walls, patios, steps) More than five (5) feet beyond building lines, under 90 90 walks, and fill areas to be landscaped Pavement subgrade and subbase, including lime 95 95 + treated soils Flexible Base NIA 98 Soils classified as coarse grained soils are those with more than fifty (50) percent, by weight, retained on the No. 200 Standard Sieve and with plasticity index of less than 4 . 6. Compaction Testing A qualified testing laboratory in accordance with recognized procedures for making such tests shall perform field density tests for the determination of the compaction of the fill . A representative number of tests shall be made in each compacted l ift at locations selected by the soils engineer or his representative. For general structural and paving fills, we suggest one test per 3,000 square feet per l ift with a minimum of four (4) tests per lift.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

8

Tensar. SpectraPave4 PRO™

Pavement Optimization Design Analysis

Design Parameters for AASHTO (1993) Equation

Rel1ab1lity (%) = 90 Initial Serv1ceab1l1!y = 4 2

Aggregate fill shall conform to following requirement:

050 <= 27mm (Base course) Standard Normal Deviate = -1 282

Standard Dev1at1on = 0 45

Terminal Serv1ceab1l1ty = 2 5

Change in Serv1ceab1l1ty = 1 7

Unstabil ized Section Material Properties Stabilized Section Material Properties

Layer Description Cost Layer Drainage


($/ton) coefficient factor (Slton) coefficient factor

ACC1 Asphalt Wearing

70 0 440 Course

ABC Aggregate Base

20 0 140 Course

U nstabilized Pavement

ACC1 2 50 (in)

ABC

Subgrade Modulus = 12 ,509 (psi) Structural Number = 3.270

N/A

1 0


70 0 440 Course

MSL Mechanically

20 0 226 S!ab1l1zed Base Gour

Stabilized Pavement

ACC1 2 50 (1n)

MSL 9 50 (in)

Tensar TX5 (Overlap=1 . 0ft)


N/A

1 0

Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 2,268,000 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 2 , 173,000

LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual in nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design

°'>-_ __ re_c_o_m_m_e_nd_a_t_io_n_s_c_a�nrb_e_pr_o_v_id_e_d_a_s_t_h_e_p_r�oj_e_c_t d_e_v_e_lo_p_s_. __________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __, Project Name Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1

Company Name Designer

Howland Engineering and Surveying Co . . Inc. SG Date 07-1 1 - 1 6

This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PROm Software Version 4.6.1 Developed by Tensar International Corporation

Copyright 1998 - 2016, All Rights Reserved

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Tensar� SpectraPave4 PRO™


Design Parameters for AASHTO (1993) Equation Aggregate fill shall conform to following requirement:

Rehab1hty (%) = 90

Standard Normal Deviate = -1 282

Standard Deviation = 0 45

ln1t1al Serv1ceab1hty

Terminal Serv1ceab1hty

Change 1n Serviceability

Unstabilized Section Material Properties

= 4 2

= 2 5

= 1 7

D50 <= 27mm (Base course)

Stabilized Section Material Properties



(S/ton) coefficient factor ($/ton) coefficient factor

8 _:; 1 ·c ::,

� "' C .,, � < :a "' �

"' .., 6 C V

� "' 0 � u z UJ

"' 0


70 Course

ABC Aggregate Base

20 Course

SBC Aggregate Base

1 6 Course

Unstabilized Pavement

ACC1

SBC

0 440

0 1 1 0

0 1 1 0

2 s o (in)

15 50 (1n)

4.00 (1n)

Subgrade Modulus = 1 2,509 (psi) Structural Number = 3.245

N/A

1 0

1 0

ACC1

MSL

None

Asphalt Wearing 70 0 440 Course

Mechanically 20 0 158 Stabilized Base Cour

Subbase Course 1 6 0.080

Stabilized Pavement

ACC1 2 .50 (1n)

13 50 (in)

Tensar TX5 (Overlap=1 .0ft)


N/A

1 0

1 0

Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 2 , 165,000 � � Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 2 , 1 1 7,000 "' UJ UJ z 5 z

6 z 5 @ LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT i The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual in .,, nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design �1-----re_c_o_m_m_en_d_a_t_io_n_s_c_an

..,_b_e_p_ro_v_id_e_d_as_th_e---'p_r_oJ---'·e_c_t _de_v_e_lo_p_s_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ----i �1---__ P_ro_:_j_e_ct_N_a_m_e_ ---<,__ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ V_i_lla_s_S_a_n_A.....:g'-u_s_ti_n_S_u_b_d_iv_is_i_o_n_, U_n_it_1_1 ________ --j C 0 Company Name Howland Engineering and Surveying Co. , Inc. ]1-- - - '----------'- -- - --¼-- - - - - -- -------,----C=---------=-----------'----.-=------------------l " Designer SG Date 07-1 1 - 1 6 °"'--- - - ----'--- - - - ----'----------------'-----------�----------- - ---'

This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRO'M Software Version 4.6.1 Developed by Tensar International Corporation

Copyright 1998 - 2016, All Rights Reserved.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46




Rel1ab1l1ty (%) = 90

Standard Normal Deviate = "1 282


Initial Serviceability

Terminal Serviceab1l1ty

= 4 2

= 2 5

Change m Serviceab1l1ty = 1 7

050 <= 27mm (Base course)

Unstabil ized Section Material Properties Stabilized Section Material Properties

Layer Description Cost Layer Drainage Layer Description

Cost Layer Drainage (Slton) coefficient factor (Slton) coefficient factor


70 0 440 Course

ACC2 Dense-graded

70 0 340 Asphalt Course

ABC Aggregate Base

20 0 140 Course


2 00 (in)

4 00 (m)

ABC 8 00 (in)


N/A

NIA

1 0


70 0 440 Course

ACC2 Dense-graded


MSL Mechanically 20 0 238

Stab1l1zed Base Cour

Stabilized Pavement

2 00 (in)

4 00 (in)

MSL 8 00 (1n)

Tensar TX5 (Overlap= 1 .0ft)

Subgrade Modulus = 12 ,509 (psi) Structural Number = 4 . 144

N/A

N/A

1 0

Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 2,674,000 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 9 ,860,000

LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The designs, 1llustrat1ons, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual in nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design

Nl-_ __ re_c_o_rn_rn_e_n_da_t_io_n_s_c_a_nrb_e�p_ro_v_id_e_d_a_s_t_h_e �p_r�o1�e_c_t _de_v_e_l �op� s_. __________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _, �

l---=-P_ro�J_ec_t_N...,a-,-m_e _ ___,,1- -- - - - - -,-,-- -V-,-i_lla_s�S_a_n�A� g� u...,s_ti_n_S_u...,

b...,d�iv_is_i_o...,

n_, U�n�it_1_1� ----- - ----I 5 Company Name Howland Engineering and Surveying Co. , Inc. ]t-- - - - - - - - - -t- -- -----------�- - - - - - - - - -� -- - - - - - - - - - - - --i &� __ D_es_i�g_ne_r __ � �-- - -- S_G _ _ _ _ _ � _ _ _ _ D_a_te _ _ _ � _ _ _ __ 0_7_-1_1_-_1_6 _ __ �

This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRQTM Software Version 4.6 1 Developed by Tensar International Corporation


ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

J



Design Parameters for AASHTO (1993) Equation Aggregate fill shall conform to following requ i rement:

Reliability (%) = 90


Standard Dev1at,on = 0 45

Initial Serv1ceab1l1ty

Terminal Serv1ceab1l1ty

= 4 2

= 2 5

Change in Serv1ceab1l1ty = 1 7


Unstabitized Section Material Properties Stabilized Section Material Properties


layer Description Cost Layer Drainage

($/ton) coefficient factor {$!ton) coefficient factor


70 0 440 Course

ACC2 Dense-graded


ABC Aggregate Base

20 0 1 10 Course

Unstabil ized Pavement

2 00 (1n)

4 00 (in)

ABC 9 00 (in)


NIA

NIA

1 0


70 0 440 Course

ACC2 Dense-graded


MSL Mechanically

20 0 187 Stab1l1zed Base Gour

Stabilized Pavement

2 00 (1n)

4 00 (in)

MSL B 00 (in)

Tensar TXS (Overlap= 1 .0ft)


NIA

NIA

1 0

Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 2 , 1 05,000 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 5,127,000

LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual in nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design recommendations can be provided as the project develops.

ProJect Name Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1 Company Name

Designer Howland Engineering and Surveying Co , Inc

SG Date 07-1 1 -1 6 This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRQTM Software Version 4.6.1

Developed by Tensar International Corporation Copyright 1998 - 2016, All Rights Reserved

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Important Information about Your

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the sp,0cilic needs ol their clients A geoteclinical engineering study conducted !or a civi l engineer may not lullill t11e 11e2ds ol a co11struclio11 contractor or even a11Jtlier civil engineer Bec/iuse each geotechnical engineering study is unique, e3ch geotechni;al engmeenng rep:ir1 is unique prepared solelyior the client fl:i 011e except you should rely on your geotechnical engi<ieer;,1g report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it kid no one -not even you -should apply !i1e re;iorl !or a1iy purpose or project except t11e one originally contemplaled

Read the Full Report Serious problems l1ave occurred lmwuse !hose relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read ii all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Oo not read selected elements ony

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of urnque. project-specific factors when establishing Ille scope of a study. Typical factors include the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences: the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration. tr,c lo;ation of the structure on llie site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geoteclmicat engineer who conducted the study specifically indirJtes otherwise. do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared !or you, • not prepared for your proiect. • not prepared for the specilic site explored. or • completed before important project changes were made

Typical changes that can mode t11e reliability o' an existing geotecl1nical engineering report include those that affect • the function ol the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a

parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant lo a refrigerated warehouse,

• elevatio11, cc11!iguratio11, location. rnientation, or weiyl1! o'. the proposed st111ct11re,

• composition of tire design team. or • pro1cct ownership.

As a genecal rule, always inform y,Jllr genlechnical engineer ol pro1ect changes----even minor ooes-and request an assessment of their impact Geo/echnica! engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems Iha/ occur because the;r reports do no/ consider developments of w!uch they were no! informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geJtechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed al the time the study was pertormcd Do not rely on a geotechnical engmacr ing report whose adequacy may have heen affected by: the passage ol lime: by man-made events. such as construction on or ad1acent to the site; or by natural events, sucl1 as lloods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geoteclmi;al engineer before ap1lying the report to determine ii it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnlcal Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurtace conditions only at those points wl1ere subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geoteclmical engineers review field and laboratory ctata and lhen apply ll1eir professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurtace conditions may diller-somet,mes significantlyfrom those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is t11e most elfective method ol managing the risks associated witt, unanticipated conditions.

A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not fmal. because geotechnical engineeis develop them principally from judgment and opinion Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

I

subsurfa:.e corid1tions revealtd during construs!1on The georechmcai eng1!1eer who developed yo:Jr repmt cannot assume responsibility or liahilt!y l1Y thr re{lorf's mc::n:mendations if that engineet does not perform cunstrutf1D11 o/Jservati:111

have led to drsappointrnenls, claims. and disputes. To neip reduce tt1e risk 1

1 ol sucl1 outcomes. geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety ol explanatory provisions i1 their reports So·nctin1es labeled " l rrnitatio11s"

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation OIiier design learn rrrernllers· rrrisinlerpretal1on of gcotechc1ical engincer:ng reports l1as resulted ,n costly problems Lower tliat risk liy li,ving your grntcclmic;il engineer confer with appropriate rrrerrrbers of the design team after sulimilling the rerorl. Also retain your geole:::!nical engineer to reviev,i pe·ti-1 1e11t elements ol !he design 1mm s plans ;111d speci1ica!lons. Con!rnctors can also misinterpret a geotectmic:al engineering report. Reduce lllat risk b) having your geotechnic;it eng:ncer participate in prcbid and preconstruction con!e:cnccs. and by providing construc\ion obsc1vc1!ior:

Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final t1oring and testing logs based upo1 t11eir interpretation al field togs and lauoratory data. To prevent errors or om1ss1ons, t11e logs included in a geotecl1oica: engineering report sl1outu never be red1awn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or erectro111c reproduction is acceptallle. but recogmze !hat separating fogs from t//e report cao elevate risk

Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can 111ake contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface condrtions by limiting what tliey provide lor Did preparJtion. To tielp prevent costly problems. give contractors tlie complete geotechnical engineering report. bu/preface it with a clearly written letter of transrnrttal Irr that letter. advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of brd development and that t11e report's accuracy is limited: encourage tt1ern to confer with the geotechnicat engineer who prepared t11e report (a modest fee rrray be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific lypes of inlorrnation they need or prefer A preb1d conference c;in also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study Only then might you lie in a posilion to give contractors the lies! inlormalion available to you. while requiring them to at least share some ol tl1e financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations t11at

rnany o! !hesP provisions indicate \\hP-re geDtectinical er1g111er.rs' responsibilities beg,n and end. to he:p ott1ers recogn,ze their ow.1 responsibilities and risks. Read these pro'lisions closely Ask questions. Yo,rr geotechnical engineer should respond full, and !rankly.

Geoenvironrnental Concerns Are Not Covered The equ,prnent, teclrn,ques. and personnel used to perform a geoenv,ronmen/al study diller signilicanl'y from tt•ose used to perlorn1 a geoteDhm1al siudy For t11at reason. a geolechnicat enqineerirr!I report does not usually relate a17Y aeoerwironmental l1ndmgs, conclusions. or recommendations e.(t., about the t1kelihood ol rncountcring underground storage tanks or rl\JU!1tcd cun!amim.flls Unar:tio/iated cnvironmcn!al p!Ob!cms have led to 111,merous /HO/CCI failures. !I you have not yet obtained your own gecenv1ronrnental information. ask your geoteclinicat consultant for risk rnarragenient guirJance. Do not rely on an enwonmenta! report prepared tor smneone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation. and rrrai!llenance to prevent signilicant amounts ol mold frorn growing on indoor surlaces. To be ellective, a'I such s'rategies should be devised for the express purposeoi mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with d ligent oversigtit by a professional rnotd preventiorr consultant Because just a sirnll amount ol water or rnois'ure can lead to the development ol severe mold iritestatio11s. a number cl mold prevention strategies locus on keeping building surfaces dry Wliile groundwater. water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geoteclmicat engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnica/ engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report w/11 not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or or, the structure involved.

Rely, on Your ASFE-Mernber Geotechncial Engineer tor Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be ol genuine benefit for everyone involved with a corrstruclion project. Cooler with you ASFE-rnember geotechnical engineer for more inlorrnation

i j/

ASFE T I I l f l t P I D P I I ON U R J I

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G 106, Silver Spring MD 20910 Telephone 301/565-2733 Facsimile 301/589-2017

C·mail: in!o@asfe org www asle org

Copyrig/1/ 2004 by ASFE, Inc Oup/;cation, reproducrion, or rnpymg ol rtns document in whole 01 in {Jilrf. b1-wy mea'ls wha1soever, 15 strictly prohitifted, etcep: with ASFF's specific written perm1ss1on. Excerpting, quotma. or otherwise e:"11actmg WNding from !/11s document Is pemJl/fed only with /he 8\'Pf8S5 wntlen pe:misswn of ASFE. and only /or

purposes of scholarly 1esea1ch or book 1eview. Only members of ASFE may use this docuruent as J compleme/11 to 01 as an element of a geotechnic,1/ e11Q1naeIing report. Any other firm, md1vIdua/, or other ontI/y that so uses this document wi!hoal be;no ;in ASFE member coofd be comm,tmg negligent or intentwnal {fraudulent) misrepresentation.

IIGtF\060?'., OMRP

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

BLANK

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

HOW ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING CO.

To: From: Project: Subject: Date:

ADDENDUM NO. 1 ...... -,,

-- "E. OF T '\ Benjamin A. Puig PE. SIT. LJ �?.'At;;r·wl�,ltj10, PE rasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. Camacho-Hen)#i1.cjtz an . sochfi�si,LLC R b M . � ' * : · . .. , o erlo P. artmez, Jr., PE , ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . 1 Howland Engineering and Surveying Co . . Inc . t��.�:.9 .. � . . �-��T:�g,_J_�J Vi l l as San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1 t1 ,;;-.., 8 7 0 ,..:� f ! Pavement Design - Aclclilional Option 1 ···.!it !.). ··�itc.._ Octohcr 22, 20 1 6 �,it L ...... -Li', l O , 1 ly.\ l9 -------

Mr. Puig: As per an email with Mr. Arturo Camacho with Camacho-Hernandez and Associates, LLC dated October 2 1 , 20 1 6, a roadway was inadvertently misidentified in our geolechnical report elated July 1 1 , 20 1 6 (Report No. 4 1 486). Rivcrhank Drive was incorrectly labeled as a Major Collec1or Industrial Street and should be identified as a Majo,/Minor Arterials Industrial Collector as classified under the City of Laredo Long Range '/110roughfc1re Plan (COlLRTP) clue lo the 90' Right-or-Way (R.O.W.).

W18 R So Po p, ----·- -

LJ.ps1 T SN

AASHTO Desiim Parameters

Major / Minor Arterials Industrial Collector 3,000,000 95 % Flexible Rigid 0.45 0.35 4.2 4.5 2.5 2.5 1 .7 2.0 20 Min. Max. 3.80 5.76

COLLRTP Major Collector I Industrial Street 2 ,000,000 90 'k Flexible Rigid 0.45 0 .35 4 � 4.5 2.5 ! 2.5 1 .7 2.0 20 Min. Max. 2.92 5.08

Local Collector 1 ,000,000 70 'le Flexible 0.45 4 .2 2.5 1 .7

Min. 2.58 20

- .

Rigid 0.35 4.5 2 .5 2.0 Max. 4.20

:

Source: City of Laredo Long Range T!wro11�/(fare Plan (COLL!?JP)

www.howlandcompanies.com

.

Local Street ' 1 00.000 ' 70 '7c ' Flexible Rigid 0.45 0.35

4.2 4.5 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.5 20 Min. I Max. 1.98 I 3 . 1 8

7615 N. Bartlett Avenue P.O. Box 451128 (78045) Laredo, TX 78041 P. 956.722.4411 F. 956.722.5414

4902 Sinclair Road San Antonio, TX 78222 P. 210.648.1600 F. 210.648.1605 TBPE Firm Registration No, F-4097 TBPLS Firm Registration No. 100464-00

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd Howland Engineering and Surveying Co. , Inc. Addendum lv'o. I - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit I I - Pavement Design October 22, 2016 Page 2 of3

Resulting pavement sections are as follows for a Majorllvfinor Arterials Industrial Collector:

Type C or D HMAC Surface

-- > Flexible Design Sticfion . - - · . . ' ,, . - Ill

Crushed Limestone Pit Run (Ca/ic/1e)

Option I Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

2.5" 2.5" 2.5" 2.5" f-----------------+-- -·----------1---- --+------+--- --__,

Type A or B HMAC Base

Flexible Base (Type A, Grade 1 - 2) 1 9.5" 1 3.5"

Flexible Base (Type B, Grade 1 - 2) 25!! 1 1 11;g1 1*

Tensar® TriAX® TX5 Gcogrid No Yes ;\lo Yes

Moisture Conditioning Subbase 6" 6 " 6!1 6"

Structural Number (SN) Design 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64

Structural Number (SN) Actual 3.83 3.81 3.85 3.94

Estimated Calculated ESAL's 4 , 1 07,000 3,998,000 4,243,000 4, 1 68,000 * - Denotes thickness of material separated by Geogrid; the minimum thickness of flexible base as noted on the right side of the slash is placed with the Ceogrid laid over and the remaining minimum thickness of flexible base as noted on the left side of the slash.

Black Base:

Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Option 8

Type C or D HMAC Surface 2" 2" 2" 2"

Type A or B HMAC Base 4" 4" 4" 4"

Flexible Base (Type A, Grade 1 - 2) 1 1 .5 " 8"

Flexible Base (Type B, Grade 1 - 2) 1 4.5" 8.5"

Tensar® TriAX® TX5 Geogrid No Yes No Yes

Moisture Conditioning Subbase 6" 6" 6" 6"

Structural Number (SN) Design 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64

Structural Number (SN) Actual 3.85 4 . 1 4 3.84 3.80

Estimated Calculated ESAL's 4,243,000 6,767,000 4, 1 4 1 ,000 3,936,000

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

Fasken Oil and Ranch, ltd !lowland Engineering and Surveying Co. , Inc. Addendum No. I - Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit I I - Pavement Design October 22. 2016 Page 3 o/3

Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement: The Ilot Mix Asphaltic Concrete (HMAC) shall meet the requirements set forth by the Texas Department of Highways (TxDOT) Specifications, Item 340, using Type "C" or "D" mix. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 1 .5% below the optimum density of the laboratory density as determined using TxDOT, Tex 206-F test method or ASTM D-1 560 (Hvccm or \1arshall Method). Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Black Base): The Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete (HMAC) shall meet the requirements set forth by the Texas Department of Highways (TxDOT) Specifications, Item 340, using Type "A" or "13" mix. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 1 .5% below the optimum density of the laboratory density as determined using TxDOT, Tex 206-F test method or ASTM D- 1 560 (Hveem or Marshall Method). Flexible Base Material (Crushed Limestone): The base should meet the requirements of the TXDOT specifications for Item 247, Type A, Grade 1 - 2. The base should be compacted to at least 98% of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1 557) or TxDOT Method TEX 1 1 3-E, at ± 2% of optimum moisture content at 6" lifts. Flexible Base Material (Caliche): The base should meet the requirements of the TXDOT specifications for Item 247, Type B, Grade l - 2. The base should be compacted to at least 98% of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor (ASTM D- 1 557) or TxDOT Method TEX 1 1 3-E, at ± 2% of optimum moisture content at 6" lifts. Mechanically Stabilized Layer (MSL ): The gcogrid can increase the effective strength of a pavement structure or an unpaved working surface through the composite of a high performance geogrid and granular fil l to form a mechanically stabilized layer (MSL). The gcogrid is placed directly below the granular fill for reinforcement in an effort to increase the bearing strength of the subbase soils. Based on the soil information above, we recommend the Tcnsar® TriAx® TX5. Moisture Conditioned Subbase: The subbase beneath the crushed or uncrushed gravel subgrade should be moisture conditioned by reworking the surface to the 6" depth by watering and re-compacting the soils to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698 (Standard Proctor) or TxDOT Method TEX 1 1 4-E, at ± 2% of the optimum moisture content at 6" l ifts. Please not recommendations of Preparation of Natural Finish Ground and Utilization of Natural In-Situ Soils can be found in our original geotcchnical report. Please find attached the output supporting these options. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 956-722-44 1 1 . Thank you.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

6




Rel1ab1l1ty (%) = 95 ln1t1al Serv1ceab1l1ty

Terminal Serv1ceab11ity

= 4 2

= 2 5

Aggregate fill shall conform to following requirement:

050 <= 27mm (Base course) Standard Normal Deviate = -1 645

Standard Dev1at1on = 0 45 Change in Serviceability = 1 7

Unstabilized Section Material Properties Stabilized Section Material Properties



($/ton) coefficient factor ($/ton) coefficient factor


70 0 440 Course

ABC Aggregate Base

20 0 140 Course

SBC Aggregate Base

16 0 140 Course


ACC1 2 50 (in)

ABC 13.50 (1n)

SBC 6 00 (1n)


NIA

1 0

1 0


70 0 440 Course

MSL Mechanically


None Aggregate Base

16 0 140 Course

Stabilized Pavement

ACC1 2 50 (in)

MSL 13 50 (1n)



NIA

1 0

1 0

Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 4 , 1 07,000 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 3,998,000

LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual in nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design recommendations can be provided as the project develops


Designer Howland Engineering & Surveying Co . . Inc.

SG Date 1 0-22- 16 This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRQH' Software Version 4 6.1


ADDENDUM No.1 of 46




Rel1ab1lity (%) = 95


Standard Dev1at1on = 45

Initial Serv1ceab1l1ty = 4 2

Terminal Serv1ceab1lity = 2 5

Change 1n Serv1ceab1l1ty = 1 7



Layer Description Cost Layer Drainage Layer Description

Cost Layer Drainage

($/ton) coefficient factor (S/ton) coefficient factor


70 0 440 Course

ABC Aggregate Base

20 0 1 1 0 Course

SBC Aggregate Base

16 0 1 1 0 Course

Unstabilized Pavement ACC1 2 50 (in)

ABC 18 00 (1n)

SBC 7 00 (1n)


N/A

1 0

1 0


70 0 440 Course

MSL Mechanically


SBC Aggregate Base

16 0 1 1 0 Course

Stabilized Pavement ACC1 2 50 (in)

MSL 11 00 (1n)

Tensar TX5 (Overlap=I.0ft)

SBC 8 00 (in)


N/A

1 0

1 0

Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 4,243,000 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 4 , 168,000

LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual in nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design

" f----re_c_o_m_m_en_d_a_t_io_n_s_c_a7n_b_e�p_r_o_v_id_e_d_a_s_t_h_e

_c.p_ro�j_e_ct_d_e_v_e_lo�p_s_. ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _____ __ _ __ __ __ _,

� Project Name Villas San Agustin Subdivision, Unit 1 1 "e-- - �� -- - - --<- --------- -- - - - - -� -- -------- - - - - - - - - - - - -s § Company Name Howland Engineering & Surveying Co , Inc.

SG Date 1 0-22-16 J Designer �- - -�---�-- - - - - - - - -- � - ----- - -�- - - -- -- -- - - � This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRO 1M Software Version 4.6.1


ADDENDUM No.1 of 46

e

j

0




Rel1ab1lity (%} = 95




Terminal Serv1ceab1lily

= 4 2

= 2 5

Change 1n Serv1ceab1l1ty = 1 7





{$/ton) coefficient factor ($/ton) coefficient factor

ACC1 Asphalt Weanng

70 0 440 Course

ACC2 Dense-graded


ABC Aggregate Base

20 0 140 Course


2 DO (1n)

4 00 (1n)

ABC 1 1 50 (1n)


N/A

N/A

1 0


70 0 440 Course

ACC2 Dense-graded


MSL Mechanically

20 0 238 Stab1l1zed Base Cour

Stabilized Pavement

2 00 (in)

4.00 (in)

MSL 8 oo (1n)


Subgrade Modulus = 12 ,509 (psi) Structural Number = 4 . 144

N/A

N/A

1 0

Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 4,243,000 Calculated Traffic (ESALs) = 6,767,000

LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual m nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design recommendations can be provided as the project develops


Designer Howland Engineering & Surveying Co , Inc

SG Date 1 0-22-16 This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRQ1fl Software Version 4.6.1

Developed by Tensar International Corporation Copyright 1998 - 2016, All Rights Reserved.

ADDENDUM No.1 of 46




Rel1ab1l1ty (%) = 95



Terminal Serv1ceab1ilty

= 4 2

= 2 5

Aggregate fi l l shall conform to following requirement:


Standard Dev1at1on = 4 5 Change i n Serv1ceab1l1ty = 1 7


Layer Description Cost Layer Drainage Layer Description Cost layer Drainage (Slton) coefficient factor {Sfton) coefficient factor

ACC1

ACC2

ABC

Asphalt Wearing 70

Course

Dense-graded 70 Asphalt Course

Aggregate Base 20 Course

Unstabilized Pavement ACC1

�� L• { ! "'�:, :�·:

; .. , 'ACC2 ".i.'i �', ' ,, ', ': � y \' � · ' '..,.':·.1

ABC

0 440

0 340

0 1 1 0

2 0 0 (1n)

4 00 (1n)

14 50 (1n)

Subgrade Modul us = 12 ,509 (ps i) Structura l Number = 3.835

N/A

N/A

1 0


70 0 440 Course

ACC2 Dense-graded


MSL Mechanically


Stabilized Pavement ACC1 2 00 (in)

4.00 (m) �

\:� �1

' '

�;

; ,, ACC2 �- . . . � ],,, � . ,.,' ,. - -'

MSL 8 50 (1n)

Tensar TX5 (Overlap=1 .0f1)

Subgrade Modu lus = 1 2,509 (psi) Structural Number = 3.804

NIA

NIA

1 0

Ca lcu lated Traffic (ESALs) = 4 , 141 ,000 Ca lcu lated Traffic (ESALs) = 3,936,000

LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The designs, illustrations, information and other content included in this report are necessarily general and conceptual In nature, and do not constitute engineering advice or any design intended for actual construction. Specific design

� recommendations can be provided as the project develops �f----=P-ro-,j-e-ct-c Ncca-m-e

- -r-�- - -��- -...,V-,i�l la-s-,,S_a_n_A� g

_u_s-ti-n-, S� u-, b-d� iv"" i

-si-o-n-, �U-n-

it_1_1----- ------I

a Company Name SG

Howland Eng ineering & Surveying Co . . Inc. Date 1 0-22-1 6 J Designer � -- - - - - - -� -- --------� �- -- - - - -�- - - - - - - - - - -�

This document was prepared using SpectraPave4 PRQTM Software Version 4.6 1 Developed by Tensar International Corporation


CITY OF LAREDO...ADDENDUM No.1 Page 1 of 46 lARED , T Xp.$ 1755 CITY OF LAREDO ENGINEERING...

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF LAREDO...ADDENDUM No.1 Page 1 of 46 lARED , T Xp.$ 1755 CITY OF LAREDO ENGINEERING...