HomeMy WebLinkAboutPR 20400: ACCEPTANCE OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR 60TH STREET FROM WEST PORT ARTHUR ROAD � .
City of _
tirort rtltu--
7ili1c
www.PortArthurTx.gov
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Date: Aug. 7, 2018
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Through: Harvey Robinson, Interim City Manager
From: Armando Gutierrez, Jr., P.E., Director of Public Works
RE: Acceptance of Preliminary Engineering Report for 60th Street from West Port
Arthur Road to Canal Street
Introduction:
Presentation of the Preliminary Engineering Report for 60th Street and possible action to have
the City Council's approval and acceptance of the Preliminary Engineering Report with the
recommendations as presented.
Background:
60th Street from West Port Arthur Road to Canal Street is part of the Year 1 Street Program
which was awarded to Arceneaux, Wilson and Cole, LLC for design per Resolution No. 18-
186. The Preliminary Engineering Report is the first step in the design efforts which completes
all the field work. The Preliminary Engineering Report contains the findings of the field work
and recommendations for the proper design for the street improvements.
Budget Impact:
There is no additional cost for this Preliminary Engineering Report. This is part of the design
fees already established by the award of the project design.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve and accept the Preliminary Engineering
Report with the recommendations as presented.
"Remember,we are here to serve the Citizens of Port Arthur"
444 4th Street* Port Arthur,Texas 77641-1089 * 409.983.8182 x FAX 409.983.8294
P.R. 20400
08/7/18 ace
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
REPORT FOR 60th STREET FROM WEST PORT ARTHUR ROAD TO
CANAL STREET BY ARCENEAUX, WILSON AND COLE, LLC OF
PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS WITH NO PROJECTED BUDGETARY
I M PACT.
WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 18-186, the City Council selected Arceneaux,
Wilson and Cole to perform professional engineering services described in the scope of
work for the Roadway Design of 60th Street from West Port Arthur Road to Canal
Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Engineering Report is the first phase of the
engineering services provided by Arceneaux, Wilson and Cole for 60th Street as attached
Exhibit "A"; and,
WHEREAS, a presentation of the Preliminary Engineering Report for 60th Street
and possible action to have the City Council's approval and acceptance of the
Preliminary Engineering Report with the recommendations as presented.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT
ARTHUR:
THAT, the facts and opinions in the preamble are true and correct; and,
THAT, the City Manager is authorized to accept the Preliminary Engineering
Report for 60th Street from West Port Arthur Road to Canal Street by Arceneaux, Wilson
and Cole, LLC, in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit"A".
THAT, a copy of the caption of this Resolution be spread upon the Minutes of
the City Council.
P. R. 20400
READ, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this the day of , A.D. 2018
at a meeting of the City of Port Arthur, Texas by the following vote:
Ayes: Mayor:
Councilmembers:
Noes:
Derrick Ford Freeman
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Secretary
Sherri Bellard
APPROVED TO FORM: APPROVED FOR ADMINISTRATION:
\raj D
Valecia Tizeno Harvey Robinson
City Attorney Interim City Manager
Armando Gutierrez, Jr., P.E.
Director of Public Works
V II9I HX3
00170Z '2i 'd
• .
,....,
. * , ,
.,, > ,
, , ,
....,,,
,,,„_.
,. ...„,..,.,
,.
, ,.
. .
n'C N A� (D 400
I ,, ® �Ivn O L0*41
'41)
- ,,,,i4law— ' ...: . ,,,l'.1411W...—-- sulmr
. 4 . Dnp ,^I —
CD D
e.+'' -1 T x'17 116141111111111'.41.11:- 1:11 :44H1..'"----'": 11111.1hill
a) m:�. tco.Z
rri
XI C �' CD
..,4‘.::;.-.)s,,,,,,,,
3 5
� m
$ � � 73
• } x'11 �;; •
1.
5C
MI
+i'.;y,:•{� �¢,9+a�7 "•',fir -''/• O .z.�-, ai• C
IMMEMMI
-13
5 CA
XI
(...) (r)--0
•
bs a + , Q
3 90
�,. �1+ ,tm
y. �� �' r n n
r 41
4iy+ 1 e � Y ,u+4t .•• i, 0 4• r
7-41
,- ,•'-',11pti. c'k'K'li'•'•:'I•,•i+,". , ... •'.,7. 1
t\,.,
# � � � � 1 ',•Fal` '� ,.<
Fq + ,d Lkb�1, 1 �% ifs
rt
-:q j Ni 1
, fi° m
i',•4. ' b i ,i, Yeti !II
I •
• • P, 4,Y•�4,k;..';,
/ 4� 1.+ i,i ,�.rri'Rei �., .�,` i/` �! x, (,)
+ z
MI
Y ,
� m
A t '':',;,'',-4 'a i.:
41
I)
,i n' -�. , .�1+'' 2! ...' 77 a,4 +*+Fly " .E ` -
.. ,71 ti v lr'. C �.- 1 + n n - -
rn
13
44ii
f. •,..,N , 4,.,,,...„.,,,, 444,:,',,,,,,,,,,„,,., •.:,':...\. ?:„.. ,.......,
,.
,,,
....
. .
0
•,1/4 . .„. \ . ..._,
, _.,..., .._,.., . ;it., 1.,w 4,
41440
''''' '',''''•• .„,._
1
,,N,
,..::„._
..,.., T,,,....,,,,,,.„.........,. , „„..,,, .
,,,,-. , ''..'4 91 i
a A' u•:' � • 24,'.
iF' ¢ w:: Ra i.
60TH STREET
FROM
WEST PORT ARTHUR ROAD TO CANAL STREET
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
for
CITY OF PORT ARTHUR
Port Arthur,Jefferson County,Texas
AUGUST 3, 2018
ARCENEAUX WILSON & COLE LLC
2901 Turtle Creek Drive, Suite 320
Port Arthur, Texas 77642
OFF: (409) 724-7888 FAX: (409) 724-1447
www.awceng.com
4xt cilia
wr
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION: 2
3.0 RESEARCH AND REVIEW: 2
4.0 FIELD INSPECTION: 3
5.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN: 4
6.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: 6
7.0 CONCLUSION: 27
VAL,
Executive Summary
A FAIL
•
.. ARCENEAUX WILSON &COLE
engineering I surveying I planning
*Ix emc
•411.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City of Port Arthur (CPA) Texas authorized Arceneaux Wilson and Cole
LLC (AWC) in Resolution No. 18-186 on May 8, 2018 to provide roadway
design services for 60t" Street from West Port Arthur Road to Canal Street.
AWC conducted a physical inspection of 60t" Street and the surrounding
area. During this inspection a significant amount of damage was observed.
The existing road is failing in multiple places where numerous depressions
have formed, and past repairs created an uneven driving surface that
contributed to the asphalt deterioration and surface cracking. All damage to
the street was recorded and documented with a digital camera attached to
an aerial drone. AWC employees used the drone to fly over the entire project
site and gather current aerial photographs of the selected area. AWC
conducted a topographic survey, reviewed utility maps, made "811" utility
locates, conducted geotechnical borings and analyzed the storm sewer
runoff to prepare three preliminary design options. Option 1 consists of a 6-
inch concrete roadway and open road side ditches for drainage, Option 2
includes an asphalt pavement roadway and open road side ditches for
drainage and Option 3 is an asphalt pavement roadway with curb and gutter
and an underground storm sewer system for drainage. As a result of our
analysis of the current condition of the road as well as the three different
pavement designs, it is our recommendation to utilize Option 1 (concrete
roadway with open ditches). We anticipate this option will provide the most
benefits considering construction cost and overall life expectancy of the
roadway. Our preliminary cost estimate for Option 1 is approximately
$658,565.60.
1
111
LVAIF
'Pr
Introduction
• cEAUXWLSON&coLE
engineering I surveying I planning
42,,ix awn
T.27,'
2.0 INTRODUCTION:
The project area and roadway of 60th Street is a small residential road
(approx. 1,450 L.F.) located in the Port Acres subdivision. The east end of 60th
Street intersects West Port Arthur Road (State Highway 93) while the west
side connects to Canal Street. AWC has completed a topographic survey and
traffic observation of 60th Street. The roadway is utilized mostly by
residential traffic and has minimal truck traffic near the commercial side at
West Port Arthur Road. A three-step approach was used to complete the
30% design phase of this project. The steps are defined as follows:
1. Research and Review
2. Field Inspection
3. Preliminary Design
3.0 RESEARCH AND REVIEW:
The research and review portion of this project consisted of gathering all
relevant information for the project location that was available. This involved
reviewing CPA maps to determine the extent of utility services in the project
vicinity. The City's water utilities map detailing the location of domestic
water lines shows that there are two water lines along 60th Street. The 2-inch
water line is located on the north edge of the pavement from West Port
Arthur Road and ties into another existing line along Canal Street. In
addition, we found a main 12-inch water line that runs north into 60th Street,
turns west parallel along the existing open ditch bottom then turns north
down a CPA utility easement. The smaller 2-inch line services all the
residential services, while the 12-inch has one fire hydrant located on 60th
Street inside the utility easement. However, the Water Utilities Department
2
AIM anivc
_'
VMM
verified that both lines have had several repairs and the 2-inch line needs to
be upgrades to a larger size. The City's sanitary sewer utilities map indicated
there is an 8-inch sanitary sewer line that is within the City's right-of-way
(ROW) and drains to West Port Arthur Road. CPA Water Utilities personnel
were contacted, and confirmed the maps provide an accurate description of
the current utilities located beneath and in the vicinity of 60th Street. AWC
contacted the Texas Department of Transportation and obtained the latest
hydraulic drainage analysis on West Port Arthur Road, where 60th Street's
drainage is designed to flow toward. The firm performed an "811" locate for
existing utilities during this phase of the project. To best understand the soil
composition in the project area a Geotechnical Report was provided by T&N
Laboratories and Engineering. This Geotechnical Report contained
recommendations for strengthening the soil as well as providing minimum
specifications on which to base the different pavement designs. The
Geotechnical Report is included in Appendix "A" of this report.
4.0 FIELD INSPECTION:
To collect as much physical information as possible, AWC conducted a
detailed field inspection of the project site on May 22, 2018. This inspection
involved walking through the entire project site and getting a firsthand
account of the current condition of the road. A large amount of damage was
documented during the walk through and is discussed in greater detail in the
design portion of this report. A drone was utilized to gather aerial
photographs of the project site. These photos provide a current overall view
of the whole street and the surrounding areas. Topographic survey and
boundary information was also collected for the entire site. The existing
condition of the asphalt roadway is in poor condition with many base failures.
3
Aw
�Mclinic
Including almost 75 percent coverage area of the roadway with depressions
and deterioration of the asphalt driving surface.
5.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN:
The design portion of this report will encompass the processes and
methodology used to create different design options. To mitigate the
existing physical damage to 60th Street,three different design scenarios
were evaluated. In each case the roadway section selected was 24-feet wide
per CPA standards. However, due to the physical constraints imposed by the
existing roadside ditches, a 24-foot wide road would require the ditches to
be relocated. In the event that the City would like to avoid the relocation of
the existing roadside ditches, AWC investigated what changes this would
warrant to the current design. The existing roadside ditches can remain in
their current location by using a 22-foot wide roadway. The 22-foot wide
roadway would require a variance from the City's design standards. The three
different roadway designs included two separate asphalt road options as
well as a concrete roadway option. One of the asphalt road designs includes
removing the existing open ditches running parallel to 60th Street and
replacing them with a storm sewer system. The three different design
scenarios were categorized as follows.
1. Option 1: Concrete pavement with open ditches
2. Option 2: Asphalt pavement with open ditches
3. Option 3: Asphalt pavement with concrete curb and gutter
The paving sections and cost estimates were based upon recommendations
in Geotechnical Report No. 18061 by T&N Laboratories and Engineering in
Appendix "A" of this report. The project storm runoff was analyzed for a 25-
year storm event in Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis program to size
4
Afix awn
_'
the underground storm sewer for Option 3. In addition, we had to meet
TxDOT's Pro-rata Share Method to find the allowable discharge for the
proposed 60th Street storm sewer system. During this analysis it was
determined that Option 3 is not a feasible alternative. The current elevation
of the proposed road in relation to the existing residential property will not
allow for enough cover for the storm sewer pipe to be installed. Though
reinforced concrete boxes could be an option to obtain the cover needed, it
would not be very cost effective and would increase the cost by over 25
percent. TxDOT's criteria put a restriction on any proposed storm sewer
upgrades and would not be cost effective for a 25-year storm event.
The remaining two roadway design options were analyzed for
constructability, cost and life expectancy. Each option includes upgrading
the existing 2-inch water line to a proposed 6-inch PVC material and would
tie-in the existing 12-inch line to loop the system. All existing storm sewer
culvert sizes were increased to a minimum size of 18-inches in diameter. For
constructability AWC researched all existing conditions and utilities to
mitigate any potential conflicts during design and construction. The
estimated cost of construction for each option is based upon a compilation
of average bid prices accumulated over the past 10 years from local roadway
projects. The life expectancy of the roadway is based upon the average life
of each roadway section design and the physical traffic observation.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, the average life
expectancy of a concrete roadway for city pavements is 30 years while the
asphalt pavement section is 15 years.
5
11111.
VAV.
FITV
Existing Conditions
A : 11T!
• •,
.•
•
ALM
•
4VAI P71
ARCENEAUX WILSON &COLE
Al
engineering I surveying I planning
AyA cruuc
•4111
6.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The existing condition of the asphalt roadway is in poor condition with many
base failures. The block cracking and old repair areas coupled with water
infiltration have lead to a weakened base layer that has drastically affected
the driving surface and made for poor ride quality. The majority of the base
failures are located near the intersection of West Port Arthur Road, but they
continue along the entire roadway and affect approximately 75% of the
roadway surface.
•
•
r
•
•
•
6
L
V
1.
YAD •
••i
\/4/
40/
.
:Co �. ..
6
,
,,
//??k
/ /-
z .+» .
^ - : . § \% - .
2 : Col , - _
a' j' < . . . . . . . - . .
\\ '?4 t ': ;� \ ^ \. .
z " 4yy
- . .\ \ . °
\ 4
\ z ; \�Z
t
,1,.
. & om\/ ;'+/
yet { &\ §3
^ . � \\ �
Arm
aivu. M
W��
440
ZZ
r -
A
__
El
•
•
r�.
211'41D ($174+
4
_w
. .
04•0
4,,: _ . ,.,r..
..
t i
•
4Øø
, ,1
•
it.
•
•
t 0" r .t
• • w
4:'.!';'''''''.::
3� € + '
1.
F. fi,♦
•
S. k f..
Olt
F f'
• '�1 y "
1 i.- ,� t
r�., ,,,,„-.,:.,„, ..,..n_
y4.'',,i;:'1,,,,,,4%..);
f`,, 1 rt�'' y . k
E
c
.. ••i
4040
, . .
..
.,,......,. 400
• _.,,
•
.. . .. .
. , ,. , •
. ,, ,
_ ,,,
, ,,
,... ,..
• .,
, „,,
... ,
..„.. .,. .
, . ,
, . .,....•
..,
. 1
.,. . . . ,,kit •
.a, 4!y.
.
a
•
•
IY • i _._— y si' ..
r
f-
tA
Q •
. .41'01 1
•
�( � fs
ic • n ,5�f
�q�ik'r y�
yraL. 4Av ' wf
r.
tI l!1
N l
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
,,,', of
C :J ►• v ,„
i �i •
t4 J
• ..,.....i.e.,,, '' til c ,t c,•
1P h.
9T
•
1214,
MMA
NAB 41V6'.11i.
1
aV y
__
r • ' Iiiii.j1,, '1 , ,- 0 00
. .,..,..,,,,, ,..... ,..,. .:
,.,.,,., ..., . , %So
,„.,_,_. ..„ ,., , .4,,,„„:0,. ,.„..,
,,,,... ..
, . ,4,,4 , .
JV
i ,
i z.
i
•
I
I.
'
•
9
}
likp
i'
••i
, , _ITT, ,' ..:.
... .._ ...
..
..,..
.. . ,.,....
., \
181
..,,"
, ,
..
..
, .
....
..„..
.... .
, .,
,,,. ,.
• ,, , ...
. 4„
t, ,,
. .. ,.,
,...,,, ,,,, . ... .,!„, . ,.,I
Lk
. „
.1.1;;42.,,,
r
n
4 ''..14;;;.itlit.'''.'' ..:
6
•
v1,1t s. 4t4",;
t .
f
•
wa
•;.-Six'' f•
- ' 41.:44..:1''
*i
• . :':-'",.:,.i• 40\0
,, ..,•::•., ••.. .,...,
c. .
. ..„ .
.., _ . . ....
. ..„.. .
.,..
, ,,„ . 4,0
, ,. ..,.... .. .
. .._ .., e,
. ,
, , , , _
_.... .
.„.•.,,,.,,,,..,...„,
, , . ... . „...,,..
,,• .•
. i 7.,,r, .
, _ .... ,.,,q:,-.,
. 9!
< : •
3 .
''' !.
s.r •
@.a
i
. 4Øø
1
i' .
15 _
3
. q
r
I
NJ ,, • I
- $,
..„.;',',..0.,,,-...,-i,4,-.....;.:,',-;'-:,}
}
• �`� F '
' x ,� r aY
n f ta• p.�6� .,t ..
" � .. .
Y'1:
f
y y, l
TZ
A.A.A
zgvui or.
MIL
r' lliii
WM
1.
Cost Estimates
1
11
1
..
,. ..
1 _ .
.. . .
r o::i ,
J/' ltd. V'rt_
+-' ,,...-,---- ,
I M ik
.......
.. ARCENEAUX WILSON&COLE
engineering I surveying I planning
ill"
N
NTS
r
J.
r
O
TR 19D 'SG
31 30 29 28 27 26 I 25 24 23 22 21-A 121-B REPEAT ^'
\-;:'S
,—.-------===--., :a•_&7, .. _ 9 ___
_ 60/h S 11r T
4 __ _ r��'"'? �__ ..0=r- - ��raQ'_"�Er'.�3 C •�_,
►T���T -LOT1 II 2 /13
1 TR 7�
E 1/2 LT 1 N 1/2 11
IIIII
TR 8
9 8
$ 6
TR 14
8 6
TR1 TR1&2
7 S 1/2 OF LOTS
12,13,14 I
EXHIBIT TO ACCOMPANY
m""mom PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PREPARED BY:
N uu.ith..0 .is. FOR Aim Enloe
• "moi- co
Nos=TEXAS;;;
� � M � ARC[Nl.AUX'JJIL.SON::COLE
60THSTREET
11 I-
Wel VI
PROJECT NO.-CPA-960
■niEllito,1.�r
��►S�}'�� PORT
,Nig r} ARTHUR BETWEEN CANAL STREET AND WEST PORT ARTHUR ROAD
Val PORT ARTHUR,JEFFERSON COUNTY,TEXAS
AUGUST 2018
60th Street
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT-OPTION 1
BY: CITY OF PORT ARTHUR,TEXAS PRELIMINARY QUANTITIES/COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT: CPA-950(PORT ACRES ADDN) REFERNCE TYPICAL SECTION-OPTION 1
DATE: 3 AUGUST 2018 PREPARED BY: AWC
ITEM ITEM TOTAL UNIT
NO DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 MOBILIZATION L.S. 1 _$ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00
2 REMOVE ASPH STREET PVMT&EXISTING BASE S.Y. 3,132 $ 10.00 $ 31,320.00
3 SAWCUT/REMOVE CONCRETE APPROACH AT S.Y. 175 $ 68.00 $ 11,900.00
60TH ST&W°PORT ARUTHUR RD INTERSECTION
4 DEMO EXISTING ASPH/ROCK DRIVEWAYS AND EA. I 25 I$ 800.00 1 $ 20,000.00
WALKS-REMOVE 1,330 LF OF 15"RCP CULVERT
5 SAWCUT/REMOVE SECTION OF CONC DRIVEWAY S.Y. I 140 I$ 68.00 I $ 9,520.00
&ASPHALT APPROACH(5 DRIVES)INCLUDING
REMOVAL OF RCP CULV(15"=325 LF)
6 DEMO EXISTING GRATE INLET/JBOX EA. I 1 1 $ 1,000.00 1 $ 1,000.00
AT W°PORT ARTHUR RD INTERSECTION
7 6"REINFORCED CONCRETE PVMT-(24'WIDTH TYP) S.Y. I 4,073 1 $ 45.00 I $ 183,285.00
INCL APPROACH/TIE-IN w/ASPHALT AT CANAL ST
AND W"PORT ARTHUR HWY
8 8"LIME SUBGRADE STABILIZATION(6%MIX) S.Y. 4,397 I $ 10.00 I $ 43,970.00
COMPACTED IN PLACE(60TH ST)
9 18"HDPE DRIVEWAY CULVERT REPLACEMENT L.F. 820 I $ 128.00 1 $ 104,960.00
DOUBLE RUN/BKFL w/CEM STBL SAND(2 SK/TN)
10 REPLACE 30 DRIVEWAYS AND WALKS WITH 5" S.Y. 825 I S 65.00 I $ 53,625.00
REINFORCED CONCRETE ON 6"FLEXIBLE BASE
11 REINFORCED CONCRETE JUNCTION BOX(5'X 5') EA. 1 S 4,800.00 I $ 4,800.00
WITH 36"GRATE INLET
12 INSTALL 15"HDPE PIPE RUN BTWN GRATE INLET L.F. 1 67 $ 58.00 1 $ 3,886.00
AND EXISTNG CATCH BASIN ON W°PT A ROAD
13 GRADE/RESHAPE EXISTING ROADSIDE DITCH L.F. I 2.005 1 $ 7.00 I $ 14,035.00
IN CONJUNCTION WITH CULVERT PLACEMENT
14 INSTALL 6"TAPPING TEE w/GATE VALVE ON CITY EA. 1 2 I $ 5,200.00 I $ 10,400.00
6"MAIN(ABANDON EXISTING 2"LINE)
15 REMOVE SECTION OF EXISTING 12"WATER LINE L.F. I 350 I $ 6.00 I $ 2,100.00
AND FITTINGS INCL BACKFILL
16 INSTALL.12"C900 CLASS 150 WATER LINE INCL L.F. 360 1 $ 35.00 1 $ 12,600.00
BACKFILL/TESTING
17 INSTALL 6"C900 CLASS 150 WATER LINE INCL L.F. I 1,085 1 $ 23.00 1 $ 24,955.00
BACKFILLJREQUIRED FITTINGS/TESTING
18 OPEN CUT CANAL ST(29')&STRIP OF 60TH ST TO L.F. I 55 1$ 140.00 1 $ 7,700.00
INSTALL SECTION OF C900 WATER LINE-BACKFILL
w/CEMENT STBL SAND(2 SK/TN)TO SUBGRADE
19 REPLACE OPEN CUT SECTIONS OF CANAL ST w/ S.Y. 16 1$ 125.00 1 $ 2,000.00
8"FLEX BASE&2"HMAC ON HATELIT GEOGRID
20 12"X 12"X 6"C.I.TEE w/CONC BLOCKING EA. 2 $ 850.00 $ 1,700.00
21 6"AWWA GATE VALVE w/ADJ CAST IRON VALVE EA. 2 $ 1,100.00 $ 2,200.00
BOX AND COVER
22 12"AWWA GATE VALVE w/ADJ CAST IRON VALVE EA. _1 2 1$ 1,700.00 I $ 3,400.00
BOX AND COVER
23 REMOVE/REPLACE CPA STANDARD FIRE HYD EA. 1 1 1 $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00
ASSEMBLY INCL GRADELOK/GATE VALVE/CI BOX
AND COVER/BLOCKING/SWIVEL TEE
24 1"NEAR/FAR SIDE SERVICE CONNECTIONS OFF 6" EA. 1 10 1 $ 1,000.00 I $ 10,000.00
INCL TIE-IN TO EXISTING METERS(6 NS/4 FS=10)
25 1"NEAR/FAR SIDE SERVICE CONNECTIONS OFF EA. 1 5 1$ 1,250.00 I $ 6,250.00
12"INCL TIE-IN TO EXISTING METERS(2 NS/3 FS=5)
26 REMOVE/REPLACE MAILBOXES(SINGLE POST) EA. 11 $ 150.00 $ 1,650.00
27 TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEM L.F. 360 $ 4.00 $ 1,440.00
28 TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION L.S. 1 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00
29 TPDES STORMWATER COMPLIANCE INCLUDING L.S. 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
SEEDING ALL DISTURBED AREAS
$ 598,696.00
10%CONTINGENCY $ 59.869.60
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $ 658,565.60
PREPARED BY:
AMIL
♦t/
aw�c
♦', ARCENEAUX WILSON&COLE
Q:\Engineering\Projects\CPA-950\CPA-950 60th Street Rehab-OPT 1.xls
50' R.O.W.
28'
26
24'
0 0
12' 6H-61 12'
NW-
6" REINFORCED PVMT
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
STRAIGHT PLANE
3/8" PER FT. 3/8" PER FT.
.1I
11= i
�
8" LIME STABILIZED BASE SCARIFY & RECOMPACT TOP
(6%) COMPACTED TO 95%
6" OF SUBGRADE TO 95Z
ROADSIDE DITCH STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY ROADSIDE DITCH
TYPICAL SECTION-OPTION 1
CONCRETE PAVEMENT WITH OPEN DITCH
EXHIBIT TO ACCOMPANY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
FOR STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO
PREPARED BY:
60TH STREET
Ato cow
CITY OF PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
'" ARCENEAUX WILSON&COLE NTS
AUGUST 2018
PROJECT NO.-CPA-950
60th Street
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT-OPTION 2
BY: CITY OF PORT ARTHUR,TEXAS PRELIMINARY QUANTITIES/COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT: CPA-950(PORT ACRES ADDN) REFERNCE TYPICAL SECTION-OPTION 2
DATE: 3 AUGUST 2018 PREPARED BY: AWC
ITEM ' ITEM TOTAL UNIT
NO DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 MOBILIZATION L.S. 1 $ 7,000.00' $ 7,000.00
2 REMOVE ASPH STREET PVMT&EXISTING BASE S.Y. 3,132 ' $ 10.00 $ 31,320.00
3 SAWCUT/REMOVE CONCRETE APPROACH AT S.Y. 175 $ 68.00 $ 11,900.00
60TH ST&W°PORT ARUTHUR RD INTERSECTION
4 DEMO EXISTING ASPH/ROCK DRIVEWAYS AND EA. I 25 I $ 800.00 I $ 20,000.00
WALKS-REMOVE 1,330 LF OF 15"RCP CULVERT
5 SAWCUT/REMOVE SECTION OF CONC DRIVEWAY S.Y. 140 1 $ 68.00 I $ 9,520.00
&ASPHALT APPROACH(5 DRIVES)INCLUDING
REMOVAL OF RCP CULV(15"=325 LF)
6 DEMO EXISTING GRATE INLET/JBOX EA. I 1 1 $ 1,000.00 I $ 1,000.00
AT W°PORT ARTHUR RD INTERSECTION
7 6"LIME SUBGRADE STABILIZATION(6%MIX) S.Y. I 4,720 I $ 10.00 I $ 47,200.00
COMPACTED IN PLACE
8 8"LIMESTONE/FLEXIBLE BASE MATERIAL TON 1 1,565 I $ 58.00 I $ 90,770.00
COMPACTED IN PLACE
9 2"HMAC ASPHALT MIX(24'TYP) TON 476 $ 220.00 $ 104,720.00
10 HATELIT C GEOGRID REINFOREMEN S.Y. 4,080 $ 10.00 $ 40,800.00
11 18"HDPE DRIVEWAY CULVERT REPLACEMENT L.F. 820 $ 128.00 $ 104,960.00
DOUBLE RUN/BKFL w/CEM STBL SAND(2 SKITN)
12 REPLACE 30 DRIVEWAYS AND WALKS WITH 5" S.Y. I 825 I $ 65.00 I $ 53,625.00
REINFORCED CONCRETE ON 6"FLEXIBLE BASE
13 REINFORCED CONCRETE JUNCTION BOX(5'X 5') EA. I 1 I $ 4,800.00 I $ 4,800.00
WITH 36"GRATE INLET
14 INSTALL 15"HDPE PIPE RUN BTWN GRATE INLET L.F. I 67 I $ 58.00 1 $ 3,886.00
AND EXISTNG CATCH BASIN ON W°PTA ROAD
15 GRADE/RESHAPE EXISTING ROADSIDE DITCH L.F. I 2,005 I $ 7.00 I $ 14,035.00
IN CONJUNCTION WITH CULVERT PLACEMENT
16 INSTALL 6"TAPPING TEE w/GATE VALVE ON CITY EA. I 2 I $ 5,200.00 I $ 10,400.00
6"MAIN(ABANDON EXISTING 2"LINE)
17 REMOVE SECTION OF EXISTING 12"WATER LINE L.F. I 350 I $ 6.00 I $ 2,100.00
AND FITTINGS INCL BACKFILL
18 INSTALL.12"C900 CLASS 150 WATER LINE INCL L.F. I 360 I $ 35.00 I $ 12,600.00
BACKFILL/TESTING
19 INSTALL 6"C900 CLASS 150 WATER LINE INCL L.F. I 1,085 I $ 23.00 I $ 24,955.00
BACKFILL/REQUIRED FITTINGS/TESTING
20 OPEN CUT CANAL ST(29')&STRIP OF 60TH ST TO L.F. I 55 1 $ 140.00 I $ 7,700.00
INSTALL SECTION OF C900 WATER LINE-BACKFILL
w/CEMENT STBL SAND(2 SK/TN)TO SUBGRADE
21 REPLACE OPEN CUT SECTIONS OF CANAL ST w/ S.Y. 16 I $ 125.00 1 $ 2,000.00
8"FLEX BASE&2"HMAC ON HATELIT GEOGRID
22 12"X 12"X 6"C.I.TEE w/CONC BLOCKING EA. 2 $ 850.00 $ 1,700.00
23 6"AWWA GATE VALVE w/ADJ CAST IRON VALVE EA. 2 $ 1,100.00 $ 2,200.00
BOX AND COVER
24 12"AWWA GATE VALVE w/ADJ CAST IRON VALVE _ EA. 1 2 1 $ 1,700.00 I $ 3,400.0.0
BOX AND COVER
25 REMOVE/REPLACE CPA STANDARD FIRE HYD EA. I 1 I $ 5,000.00 I $ 5,000.00
ASSEMBLY INCL GRADELOK/GATE VALVE/CI BOX
AND COVER/BLOCKING/SWIVEL TEE
26 1"NEAR/FAR SIDE SERVICE CONNECTIONS OFF 6" EA. I 10 I $ 1,000.00 1 $ 10,000.00
INCL TIE-IN TO EXISTING METERS(6 NS/4 FS=10)
27 1"NEAR/FAR SIDE SERVICE CONNECTIONS OFF 12" EA. 1 5 1 $ 1,250.00 1 $ 6,250.00
INCL TIE-IN TO EXISTING METERS(2 NS/3 FS=5)
28 REMOVE/REPLACE MAILBOXES(SINGLE POST) EA. 11 $ 150.00 $ 1,650.00
29 TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEM L.F. 360 $ 4.00 $ 1,440.00
30 TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION L.S. 1 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00
31 TPDES STORMWATER COMPLIANCE INCLUDING L.S. 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
SEEDING ALL DISTURBED AREAS
$ 654,931.00
10%CONTINGENCY $ 65,493.10
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $ 720,424.10
PREPARED BY:
.4.0.1, cnuc
41' ARCENEAUX WILSON&COLE
"n°xw"nm I°w.wMw I d°nm.
Q:\Engineering\Projects\CPA-950\CPA-950 60th Street Rehab-OPT 2.xls
50' R.O.W.
L. 28'
26'
24'
3 � 3
0 0
f 12' 12'
2" HMAC ON HATELIT C PVMT
REINFORCED GEOGRID
S=2.0% S=2.0%
II - AIAfiligarg4 7errlar v,•+�.Y-:!Y I rt:'iY-�!Y:d Agg _!Y ti={t-{�Yr .� ..-
m r _ I� I _
�IIy �TII�(�� X11 iona
_w-
8" LIMESTONE FLEXIBLE 6" LIME STABILIZED SUBGRADE
BASE COMPACTED TO 95% (6%) COMPACTED TO 95%
ROADSIDE DITCH STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY ROADSIDE DITCH
TYPICAL SECTION-OPTION 2
ASPHALT SECTION WITH OPEN DITCH
EXHIBIT TO ACCOMPANY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
FOR STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
TO
PREPARED BY:
60TH STREET
S CITY OF PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS N
M' ARCENEAUX WILSON&COLE TS
rn9beMinglSO' Iflgl6bnr+Ina AUGUST 2018
PROJECT NO.-CPA-950
rdir
Conclusion
Asik 111
,Á.,Ø
Al
+MI ARCENEAUX WILSON &COLE
engineering I surveying I planning
A.20% ca ic
,.1112 r
7.0 CONCLUSION:
We have organized the proposed designs in a progressing order of
recommended construction based upon our field observations of existing
conditions, traffic observation, proposed designs and preliminary
construction cost estimates. We recommend Option 1, $658,565.00, based on
a high projected durability and a relatively median construction cost. We
believe the city will experience a much longer life span over an asphalt
roadway without a tremendous additional cost and do not feel the large
additional cost of installing underground sewer improves the hydraulics of
the drainage enough to justify
27
NIL
r911k
1. Air
Appendix "A"
•
• cEAUXWLSON&coLE
Al
engineering I surveying I planning
Since Lind & Associates, Inc. dba
T & N Laboratories & Engineering
"Common Sense£ngweeTmg"
\
1983
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
WITH
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION & ENGINEERING STUDY
FOR
SUBGRADE & PAVING DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
AT
60th STREET RECONSTRUCTION
IN
PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS
Project No.: 18061
Job No.:. 80932
Submitted to:
ARCENEAUX, WILSON & COLE
do Mr. Derek Graffagnino
Port Arthur, Texas
5020 Jerry Ware Dr.(SET REGIONAL AIRPORT)BEAUMONT,TX 77705
PHONE:(409)727-6291 FAX:(409)722-6961
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Report #18061 —80932)
SECTION PAGE
INTRO DUCTION/SYNOPSIS 1
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 1
SCOPE OF STUDY 2
SITE EXPLORATION 2
SOIL SAMPLING 2
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 3
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4
ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION 4
SITE PREPARATION 4
PAVEMENT SUBGRADE 5
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN 5
STRUCTURAL AND SELECT FILL MATERIAL 5
DRAINAGE 6
QUALITY CONTROL 6
LIMITATIONS 7
ILLUSTRATIONS
BORING LOCATION PLAN
BORING LOGS #B-1 THROUGH B-3
KEY TO SOILS CLASSIFICATION & SYMBOLS
GENERAL NOTES
\ si,rcc Lind & Associates, Inc. dba
TN
& Laboratories & Engineering
5020 Jerry Ware Dr.,(SET REGIONAL AIRPORT)BEAUMONT,TX 77705
'•.1933 PHONE:(409)727-6291 FAX:722-6961
CLIENT: PROJECT/LOCATION:
Arceneaux, Wilson&Cole Geotechnical Investigation and Engineering
c/o Mr. Derek Graffagnino Study for Subgrade and Paving Design
2901 Turtle Creek Drive, Suite# 320 Recommendations for"60th Street
Port Arthur, Texas 77642 Reconstruction in Port Arthur, Texas".
Report Date: May 29, 2018 Project No.: 18061
Job No.: 80932
INTRODUCTION/SYNOPSIS:
Presented herein are the results of our geotechnical study with subgrade and paving design
recommendations for the above-referenced project. Our subsurface study was authorized by
Mr. Derek Graffagnino. The subsurface investigation was performed on May 18, 2018 in general
accordance with standard procedures for drilling, sampling and laboratory testing of subsurface soils
for roadway development.
Engineer of Record for this report is Jack C. Lind, P.E. - Texas Registration No. 79555.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT:
This project will involve reconstruction of"60th Street in Port Arthur, Texas". Engineering design
recommendations will be discussed in this report.
-1-
SCOPE OF STUDY:
The objective of our study was to explore surface materials and subsurface soils conditions in the
proposed reconstruction areas and formulate geotechnical design criteria for subgrade and paving
designs. Our subsurface study included the following:
1) Drill test borings in three (3) selected locations; explore groundwater&geological
conditions and collect soil samples for laboratory testing.
2) Perform a laboratory testing program on selected soil samples to
evaluate physical and engineering properties on the subsurface soils.
3) Prepare and promulgate engineering analysis to provide geotechnical
design and construction recommendations associated with:
a) subgrade preparation for pavement,
b) paving design criteria for flexible pavement
SITE EXPLORATION:
T&N was authorized to drill three (3) soil borings to depths of four ft. (4')below existing ground
surface at locations selected by the client. Our exploration was accomplished with a buggy-mounted
rotary drilling rig. Locations of the borings are stated on the "Boring Logs" included within the
"ILLUSTRATIONS" section of this report.
SOIL SAMPLING:
Soil samples were secured continuously from ground surface to the four ft. (4') depth. Cohesive
samples were obtained by hydraulically pushing a Shelby tube sampler a distance of about two ft.
(2'). Our field sampling procedure was conducted in general accordance with provisions outlined in
"Standard Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils— (ASTM D1587)".
-2-
Soil samples were collected in the field and visually classified by our geotechnician. The geo-
technician measured penetration resistance of recovered soil samples using a pocket penetrometer.
Measured penetration resistance is shown on the"Boring Logs" and was used to estimate soil
consistency. Representative portions,of each recovered soil sample,were sealed and placed into
containers; then transported to our laboratory for testing and engineering study.
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS:
Borings were drilled"dry" utilizing flight augers and soil samplers. Groundwater was not
encountered in the borings during drilling operations. Groundwater is likely to fluctuate in upper
strata during seasonal climatic changes. Water levels measured in open boreholes may not accurately
reflect true groundwater conditions and should be considered only as approximate indications for this
report.
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM:
Our Laboratory testing program was performed primarily for soil classification and evaluation. The
following tests procedures were utilized in laboratory:
Testing Performed Test Procedure
Atterberg Limits (LL&PI) ASTM—D4318
Natural Water Content (%) ASTM - D2216
Unconfined Compression Test (UCS) ASTM—D2166
Percent (%) Passing#200 Sieve ASTM—D1140
Shelby Tube Samplers ASTM- D1587
Soils Classification ASTM—D2487
Results of these tests are shown on the "Boring Logs".
-3-
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS:
The particular subsurface stratigraphy, as determined from our field and laboratory programs, is
shown in detail on the "Boring Logs". A review of these logs indicates.that surface course materials
consisted of six to seven in. (6"—7") of asphalt underlain with a shell base. Below the surface
course, the soils along this portion of roadway are typically"medium to high plastic clay"to four ft.
(4') depth. The soils exhibit a relatively uniform moisture content,with moisture contents ranging
from 14% to 24%with an average shear strength of about 2000 ps£.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
The following analysis is based on data obtained from our field and laboratory test programs,project
information provided to us and our experience with similar subsurface and site conditions. The
paving designs considered in this report include; (1)milling surface asphalt, and underlying shell
base to a depth of six to seven in. (6"- 7") and compacting. After initial subgrade preparation, the
proposed surface course can be placed, or(2)milling surface course as described above,removing
and stockpiling milled material, stabilizing subgrade with lime, then replacing milled material and
compacting. In lieu of using the milled material in Option 2, new limestone base could be placed and
compacted, and the existing surface course can be removed and discarded. Design recommendations
are based on typical CBR Values,related to normal vehicle traffic. Some areas of the roadway will
only receive an asphalt overlay.
SITE PREPARATION: •
The surface asphalt and shell base may be milled to about a six to seven in. (6"- 7")depth. For
Option 1,once this material has been thoroughly milled and mixed, it should be moisture conditioned
and compacted to at least 95%of the maximum density(ASTM D698) at the optimum moisture
content, plus or minus 3%. If Option 2 is selected,either the existing surface course can be milled
and stockpiled for later use, or it can be removed and discarded, and new limestone base can be used.
With either material, the subgrade should be stabilized with approximately 5% lime by weight to a
depth of six to eight in. (6"- 8"). After stabilization, the material should be moisture conditioned and
compacted to at least 95% of maximum density at the optimum moisture content, plus 3%of minus
2%.
-4-
PAVEMENT SUBGRADE:
Our laboratory data indicate the upper soils classify as "Active Clay(CL/CH)" by the Unified Soil
Classification System. This soil would have a subgrade modulus, k, on the order of 110 to 150 pci
and CBR Value on the order of 2 to 6.
Based on correlations of subgrade type and supporting capacity,the required pavement thickness as a
function of wheel loading for flexible paving,using conventional structural fill or base course
material, is discussed in the following sections in this report. These pavement sections will be
suitable for frequent applications of design wheel loading and infrequent loads of greater magnitude.
Adequate subgrade drainage is necessary to pavement performance in accordance with design
criteria.
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN:
If needed, overlay the prepared and compacted milled surface with suitable flexible base TXDOT
Item 247 Type-A, Grade 1, or equal; then place two inches (2") of Type"D" HMAC pavement
surface. Reference: TXDOT Item 340. The HMAC mix designs for job mix formulas should be
prepared and submitted by qualified testing laboratory experienced in TXDOT 340 Design Methods.
STRUCTURAL & SELECT FILL MATERIALS:
If needed, select fill should be homogeneous soil, free of organic matter and rocks larger than two
inches (2")in diameter. Select fill should have an "Atterberg Plasticity Index"between eight and
twenty (8—20), with a `Liquid Limit"of forty (40) or less. Delivered fill materials should have a
moisture content no greater than six percent(6%) above optimum.
-5-
DRAINAGE:
The importance of drainage to the proper operation and function of any pavement cannot be
overemphasized. The pavement and subgrade surface should be raised above adjacent grade, if
practical and properly sloped into drainage inlets or lateral ditches. Water should not be allowed to
stand on/or adjacent to the pavement whereby the subgrade may become saturated. If the pavement
sublayers do become saturated,the bearing capacity will be greatly reduced and the useful life of the
pavement will be decreased. Periodic inspections and repair of cracks in pavement sections should
be performed as a part of future facility maintenance. All grades must be adjusted to provide positive
drainage away from the structure. Where paving or flatwork abuts the structure, care should be taken
to insure joint is properly sealed.
QUALITY CONTROL_
Construction inspection with field quality control tests should be planned and performed to verify
materials and placement in accordance with the project requirements. In-place density tests, HMAC
production and concrete strength quality should be maintained during construction. T&N
Laboratories & Engineering will be pleased to provide these services and will assist with the
inspection,planning and scheduling for Quality Control Testing, etc. with documented reports for
permanent records. T&N Laboratories & Engineering maintains"state-of-the-art" lab and field
test equipment for these types of services.
-6-
LIMITATIONS:
The report writer warrants that findings, conclusions, specifications or professional advice
contained herein have been promulgated after being prepared in accordance with generally
accepted practice in the field of foundation engineering and material test evaluation. No other
warranties are implied or expressed. A review and evaluation of its contents by the undersigned
acknowledges this report as an engineering document in general accordance with stated limitations.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide our engineering services for this project. Please let
us know should you require additional data or information. Thanks for Your Support!
Respectfully submitted by,
LIND & ASSOCIATES,INC. dba
T&N LABORATORIES & ENGINEERING
���Z,p:OCiC:c�Seste
in cf' ',4,;(46
f0 `l`C
Pr. � I'
Jack C. end,P.E. JACK C. MID
Vice-President/Engineering i 990.g9a.gq.0.9...... .........
V.V.. 79555 4-4
Copies: 1 —Derek Graffagnino (Via Email)
I —Keeston Cole (Via Email)
1 -T&N File 418061
JC1/djb
-7-
ILLUSTRATIONS '
GEOTECHNICAL BORE LOCATIONS
Bore is Northing4
Easting
iii
110-
13907440.7138 3549147.3202
2 13907461.1947 3549508.8690
3 13907481.7177 3549871.1598
i
„i-q. g'Y '-4 h si:,�st3y.* `fie '�` � ''4'?" 'sem 2: :` �,�'' LL
,S'v t �, y mil-�i fi M _
s t t.i a^�sp� x �;,-'a*4 a3 �ilk ,�, `i
k ti-4 NORMA STREET _
'Q.. .� ',..r +sr'- -'`' -",--- c spa_,-`, -'� ti .h zr ,-'=,-�G �7 -,
-:ti-Py'3-m.• .- 3` -n_ T-i,ate, 'ts .',� .y -o``� �Q i -raS
ha ''fir.>. t + - '� : t
l .
1.1• ;_ —itO v1, � -- , 4,1 s'�,i tet'
; + - 1 93 4 'f' t+_.nr.\' ; 'gm ,r i^� �" 1 :c z a ..`` +,
- a� 4 v} 'cam -' i„
� 'lat- ._fi t'' - • �, s` -s: ,-+,a w+,��"-as, fRa" 4 1yr ,
— "xgt'. �`� c:. i' --j am 6 2 C-S�,t,+,• "4 ',B 3 -. - t i �
X1 c r-tci';3- '�`Y�F.y ,t 4 - 77 60TH STREET ..",.�,.
`--.z-��. mow rx t t,{
g: i,
}
'Z�-- T ANALSTREET, — .-,a,g '`
•
- off- a�4'j� .ate- C 7= 1r. •} '-z ire
i fir''."��J3 yS7. M`44g-`6� r ` }
'/. yam ,+g ,,�.�r { �•t,,{`__ a aA{r.� Ste' 3Y•_;' •tit4 t 4S 2
- S�1 `� '�; ?, a ¢�; t ,-. :a s A �-.
�-�%-:ate aE Itii4�
`3`, t�
Y:�'�'zsN; i4 �.i £y e ''t' ��'rzid ,G- ''kaCr*!•4�i 5 - :-
E
t
' Surveying P.-; •F
ai�varing
60TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS
�4194Rd9
r GEOTECHNICAL BORE LOCATIONS
i r
e
o Tom" CITY OF PORT ARTHUR
JEFFERSON COUNTY,TEXAS
: ARCENE-UX WILSON&COLE
erc cs sr,na•rJr.r,•n,7!t`onnr..
DATE: MAY 2018 SCALD NTS DRawtl: DBT
2 017u>tre Creek Olive,Suite 320 104.724.7606 PRO1.No.: CPA-950 DESIGN: DiG CHECKED: KXC
Fort Arthur.TX 77642 8°�r-�'w7�u*+
T&N LABORATORIES & ENGINEERING .
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1
FILE NO.: 18061-80932 - Arcencaux,Wilson&Cole
PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation for 60th Street in Port Arthur,Texas
DATE: 05/18/18 TYPE: 3" CORE LOCATION: Sec Boring Location Plan
FIELD DATA •
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Depth. Sample SPT/ MIC UM. -200 Liquid Plasticity P.P. U.C.
Ft. S1 nib. pig % Pcf. SieNT% Limit Index Tsf. Tsf. STRATUM DESCRIPTION
•• I"Ashpalt/6"Shell Base
Very Stiff Gray&Brim n Silty Clay(CL)
• ss/Sand&Some Shells
-2- ST - 18 108 35 16 3.50 2.01
very Stiff Tan,Gray&Brossn Clay(CH)
-3-
-4- ST - 24 94 62 37 2.50
-5 •
-6-
-7-
-9-
-10- •
LOG OF BORING NO. B-2
FIELD DATA LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Depth. Sample SPT/ MIC U.W. -200 Liquid Plasticity P.P.
Ft. Lunb. Pcf Siese% Limit Index Tsf. Tsf. STRATUM DESCRIPTION
-0-
Il/i"Ashpalt/5"Shell Base
-1- Very Stiff Black&Dark Gray Clay(CH)
-2- ST - 23 102 97 55 31 4.25 2.52
-Brown&Gray(M 2'-4'
-3- •
-4- ST - 23 57 33 2.75
-5-
-6-
-7-
-9-
-10-
-
T&N LABORATORIES & ENGINEERING
LOG OF BORING NO. B-3
FILE NO.: 18061 -80932 - Arceneaux,Wilson&Cole
PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation for 60th Street in Port Arthur,Texas
DATE: 05118/18 TYPE: 3" CORE LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan
FIELD DATA LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Depth. Sample SPT/ U.W. -260 Liquid Plasticity P.P. U.C.
Ft. Synth. % Pcf. Sieye% Limit Index Tsf. Tsf. STRATUM DESCRIPTION
-o-
11/2"AshpaIt 1 S'Shell Base
-1- Hard Black&Dark Gray Silty Clay(CL)
•
-2- ST - 14 113 - 37 18 4.5+ 3.52
Very Stiff Gray&Dark Brm,n Slightly Silty Clay(CL-CI-0
-3-
-4- ST - 21 - 97 47 25 3.50 -
-5-
-6-
•
-7-
•
-8-
-9-
-10-
EUufLLEN
T&N Laboratories
VIEFFERSON COURTY AIRPORT
KEY TO SOIL CL S (F(QA DQN AND SYMBOLS
SOIL TYPE SAMPLE TYPE
Sand Silt Cla
`o I 0
111Gravel Sandy Silty Clayey
Predominant type shown heavy Undisturbed Rock Core Split No
Spoon Recovery
SOIL GRAIN SIZE
U. S. Standard Sieve
3` 3/4" 4 10 40 200
Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt Clay
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
152 762 19.1 4.76 ZOO 0.420 0.074 0.002 (mm)
PLASTICITY CHART
6o
50
CH
40
Plasticity index 30
J<% off and MH
20
CL
10 CL-ML
N/7,'/ //, t L and,
0 CL
1 =
0 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100
Llquki Limit
RELATIVE DENSITY
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS OF CCHESIONLFSS SOILS
Penetration Penetration
Re&stence, Cohesion, Plasicity Degree of Res ence, Relative
Plows per foot Cpnzts-tency TSF Index PiesVc fy blows per foot Density
0 - 2 Very Soft 0 - 0.125 0 - 5 None 0 - 4 Very Loose
2 - 4 Soft 0.125 - 025 5 - 10 Low 4 - 10 Loose
4 - 8 Firm 025 - 0.5 10 - 20 Moderate 10.- 30 Medium Dense
8 - 15 Stiff 0.5 - 1.0 20 - 40 Plastic 30 - 50 Dense
15 - 30 Very Stiff 1.0 - 2.0 > 40 Nighty Plastic > - 50 Very Dense
> 30 Hard > 2.0
`r. 4t�F..�c�.v�'E ,
! 11
T & N Laboratories,Inc.
ii .;t ,liil
__ ;
V • GENERAL NOTI
SAMPLEE. IDENTIFICATION I
1
The Unified Soil Classification System is used to identify the soil unless .
otherwise noted.
SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS I
N: Standard"N"penetration:Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 1
I 30 inches on a 2 inch O.D.split-spoon. 1
1 j1
I I
11 Qu: Unconfined compressive strength.TSF
i Qp: Penetrometer value,unconfined compressive strength,TSF
{ Mc: Water content, % I{
I) LL: Liquid limit. % I
PI: Plasticity Index, % li
! 'f
b d: Natural dry density, PCF
# 1
I • Apparent groundwater level at time noted after completion.
�
I
DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS I.
i1
SS: Split-Spoon - 1 3;8" I.D., 2" 0.0., except where noted. ;f
IST: Shelby Tube - 3" O.D.. except where noted. ..
I AU: Auger Sample. {
DB: Diamond Bit. Il
CB: Carbide Bit.
I WS: Washed Sample.
i II
IRELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION 4,
1 TERM (NON-COHESIVE SOILS) STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE
I 1
Very Loose 0- 2
Loose 2 -4
1I Slightly Compact 4 -8
Medium Dense 8- 16
Dense 16-26
I' Very Dense Over 26
1
I TERM (COHESIVE SOILS) Qu-(TSF) •
Very Soft 0-0.25
Soft 0.25.0.50 I
IFirm (Medium) 0.50- 1.00
I Stiff 1.00- 2.00
Very Stiff 2.00- 4.00
Hard 4.00+
PARTICLE ICLE SIZE I
t Boulders 8 in. + Coarse Sand 5mm-0.6mm Sill 0.074mm-0.005mm J{1
Cobbles 8 in.-3 in. Medium Sand 0.5mm-0.2mm Clay -0.005mm
1 Gravel 3 in.-5mm Fine Sand 0.2mm-0.074mm `
1 • ��
II