Geotechnical Engineering Report - Jacksonville,...

Geotechnical Engineering ReportEast Nassau Site - Roadway and Ponds

Nassau County, FloridaMarch 13, 2015

Terracon Project No. EQ145078

Prepared for:TerraPointe Services Inc.

Fernandina Beach, Florida

Prepared by:Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Jacksonville, Florida

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

3.1 U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle Map ...............................................................33.2 USDA – NRCS Soil Survey ..................................................................................43.3 Potentiometric Surface Maps ...............................................................................5

4.1 Site Geology ........................................................................................................54.2 Typical Subsurface Profile ...................................................................................64.3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................6

5.1 Basis of Evaluation and Recommendations .........................................................75.2 Roadway Construction .........................................................................................75.3 Roadway Bearing Area Site Preparation ..............................................................85.4 Erosion Control ....................................................................................................95.5 Storm Water Management Ponds ........................................................................9

APPENDIXExhibit A-1A Topographic Vicinity MapExhibit A-1B Field Exploration PlanExhibit A-2 U.S.D.A. Soils MapExhibit A-3 Roadway Soil Survey SheetExhibits A-4 through A-7 Report of SPT and Auger Borings for RoadwayExhibit A-8 Report of SPT Borings for PondsExhibit A-9 Summary of Laboratory Testing ResultsExhibit A-10 Summary of Corrosion Property TestingExhibit A-11 Summary of Laboratory Hydraulic Conductivity TestingExhibit A-12 Field ExplorationExhibit A-13 Laboratory TestingExhibit A-14 AASHTO Soil Classification System

Geotechnical Engineering ReportEast Nassau Site – Roadway and Ponds ■ Nassau County, FloridaMarch 13, 2015 ■ Terracon Project No. EQ145078

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYA geotechnical exploration has been performed for a proposed access roadway. The road will beapproximately one mile in length. Terracon’s geotechnical scope of work for the proposed roadwayincluded drilling 13 soil test borings to a depth of approximately 20 feet each at approximately 500-foot centers and 50 auger borings to a depth of approximately 5 feet each at approximately 100-foot centers along the proposed roadway alignment. Three proposed storm water managementpond areas were explored with a total of 14 soil test borings drilled to a depth of approximately 20feet. A total of seven bulk samples were obtained along the proposed rural section of the roadwayfor laboratory hydraulic conductivity testing.

The site area includes undeveloped land typically covered with planted pines and palmetto andscrub undergrowth. Large portions of the roadway alignment and pond areas have been cleared oftimber. Some topographically low wet areas with standing surface water are also present alongportions of the roadway alignment.

The subsurface conditions encountered typically include a surficial topsoil layer that was typicallyless than 12 inches in thickness at the boring locations. The topsoil was underlain by interbeddedlayers of loose to medium dense fine sand (AASHTO Classification of A-3), fine sand with silt (A-3to A-2-4), silty fine sand with clay (A-2-4), clayey fine sand (A-2-6 to A-2-7), and medium stiff to stiffhigh plasticity sandy clay (A-6 to A-7-6) to the deepest boring termination depth of 20 feet.Groundwater was typically encountered within the upper approximately 3 feet of the existingground surface with standing surface water evident at many boring locations.

The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the site and proposed developmentinclude 1) the presence of standing surface water and shallow groundwater conditions overportions of the roadway alignment, and 2) potential borrow soils from pond areas containingrelatively high fines (silt or clay) content, making them more moisture sensitive than cleaner sandyborrow soils.

Design of site grading should take into account the shallow groundwater level and a separation ofat least 24 inches between the highest anticipated groundwater level and the bottom of thepavement base elevation should be maintained in roadway areas.

Plastic clayey sand (A-2-6/A-2-7) and highly plastic sandy clay (A-6 to A-7-6), typicallyencountered below a depth of approximately 15 feet in the boring locations, should not be usedfor embankment fill due to a higher degree of moisture sensitivity.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It shouldbe recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report mustbe read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. Thesection titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the reportlimitations.

1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORTEAST NASSAU SITE – ROADWAY AND PONDS

NASSAU COUNTY, FLORIDATerracon Project No. EQ145078

March 13, 2015

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for a plannedaccess roadway to the proposed 27-acre elementary school site in Nassau County, Florida. Thepurpose of this geotechnical engineering exploration was to obtain information about thesubsurface conditions along the project alignment and provide geotechnical engineeringrecommendations for design and construction of the new roadway and associated projectcomponents. The geotechnical exploration included the following:

n Reviewing the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle Map (shown asExhibit A-1 in the Appendix) for the site proximity and United States Department ofAgriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey Map (shown as ExhibitA-2 in the Appendix) to determine likely near surface soil and groundwater conditions inthe vicinity of the proposed roadway improvements. Exhibits A-1 and A-2 have beenannotated to show the approximate project limits.

n Mobilizing drill rigs and crews to the project site and drilling 13 soil test borings to a depthof approximately 20 feet each at approximately 500-foot centers and 50 auger borings to adepth of approximately 5 feet each at approximately 100-foot centers along the proposedroadway alignment. Three proposed storm water management pond areas were exploredwith a total of 14 soil test borings drilled to a depth of approximately 20 feet. Approximateboring locations are shown on the Field Exploration Plan (Exhibit A-1BA) in theAppendix. Boring locations (stations and offsets) and stratification, presented in generalaccordance with FDOT guidelines, are presented on the Report of SPT and AugerBorings for Roadway sheets (Exhibits A-4 through A-7) and the Report of SPTBorings for Ponds sheet (Exhibit A-8) in the Appendix. A description of the FieldExploration program and procedures is presented on Exhibit A-12 in the Appendix.

n Visually classifying the recovered soil samples in the field by a Geotechnical Technicianand in the laboratory by a Geotechnical Engineer in accordance with the AASHTOClassification system (see Exhibit A-14 in the Appendix.

n Laboratory classification and index property testing, including gradation tests, Atterberglimits (plasticity), organic content, and natural moisture content, were assigned andperformed in the laboratory to aid in classifying soils and assessing engineeringcharacteristics. The test results are included on the Roadway Soil Survey sheet(Exhibit A-3) in the Appendix. Laboratory classification test results have also been


2

tabulated on the Summary of Laboratory Testing table (Exhibit A-9) in the Appendix.Bulk samples of soil near the expected bedding level of drainage pipes were alsoobtained and returned to our laboratory for corrosion/electro-chemical property testing,which is summarized on the Summary of Corrosion Property Testing table (ExhibitA-10) in the Appendix. Seven bulk samples of soil from expected roadside swale areaswere obtained and returned to our laboratory for hydraulic conductivity testing, which issummarized on the Summary of Laboratory Hydraulic Conductivity Testing table(Exhibit A-11) in the Appendix. A description of the Laboratory Testing program andprocedures is presented on Exhibit A-13 in the Appendix.

n Preparation of this report which documents the field and laboratory data and ourevaluation of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions to form the basis for therecommendations made in Section 5.0 of this report.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project information was provided by you and other members of the design team during theperiod from November 7 to 19, 2014 via electronic mail and telephone correspondence. Wehave been provided with a plan showing the alignment of the proposed access roadway andlocations of three storm water management ponds.

The following paragraphs present our understanding of the project.

Site Location SummaryITEM DESCRIPTION

Location

The proposed roadway is generally located in the northeastquadrant of the intersection of State Road No. 200 and InterstateHighway I-95 in Nassau County Florida. The planned roadway willextend to the north of SR 200 and will be located approximately ¾of a mile east of I-95.

Current ground coverPlanted pines and various underbrush vegetation. Large areas ofthe alignment and ponds have been recently cleared of pine treevegetation.

Existing topographyApproximately level based on a review of available USGSquadrangle map of the area with a few isolated topographicallylower wet areas.

The site location is depicted on the following aerial photograph.


3

General Site Location

The 27-acre site indicated in the figure above will be developed with an elementary schoolfacility. Access to the school site will be provided with a new northerly roadway extension ofWilliam Burgess Boulevard which will be approximately 1 mile in length. Runoff from the pavedsurfaces will be collected and diverted to three storm water management ponds along the lengthof the new roadway. The southernmost approximately 2000 feet of the roadway alignment willinclude a two-lane urban section with curb and gutters to convey storm water runoff. Theremaining northern portion of the roadway will include a two-lane rural section with roadsideswales for drainage conveyance. We assume that roadway construction could include up tothree feet of grading fill and no earthwork cut. Typical sections and roadway cross sections werenot available at the time of this report.

REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA

3.1 U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle MapBased on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) “Gross Florida” and “Italia Florida”topographic quadrangle maps, the natural ground surface in the area of the roadwayimprovements appears to range from approximately +20 to +25 feet, NGVD. An excerpt of theUSGS Quadrangle Maps of the project area is shown as Exhibit A-1 in the Appendix.


4

3.2 USDA – NRCS Soil SurveyThe Web Soil Survey (WSS) map of the project area was reviewed and a map encompassingthe project area is included as Exhibit A-2 in Appendix A. The WSS presents shallow(typically upper 80 inches) soil stratification information produced and compiled by the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).Exhibit A-2 identifies the soil map units documented by the NRCS in the project area as well astypical stratification, typical values/ranges of saturated hydraulic conductivity, and estimatedseasonal high groundwater levels for the map units, which is repeated in the following table.

SUMMARY OF SOILS IN PROJECT VICINITY

Map Unit No.And Name

StratificationEstimated SeasonalHigh Groundwater

Level (Feet)DepthRange

(Inches)Unified Soil

Classification

SaturatedHydraulic

Conductivity(Feet/Day)

9Leon Fine Sand

0 – 77 – 18

18 – 3131 – 3737 - 80

SP, SP-SMSP, SP-SM

SM, SP, SP-SMSP, SP-SM

SM, SP, SP-SM

12 – 4012 – 401.2 – 1212 – 401.2 - 12

0.5 – 1.5May – August

11Chaires Fine

Sand

0 – 77 – 18

18 – 2727 - 3131 - 80

SP, SP-SMSP, SP-SMSM, SP-SMSP, SP-SM

SC

12 – 4012 – 401.2 – 412 – 40

0.12 – 0.4


13Goldhead Fine

Sand

0 – 88 – 33

33 – 6969 - 80

SP, SP-SMSP, SP-SM

SC, SC-SM, SMSM, SP, SP-SM

12 – 4012 - 401.2 - 412 - 40


22Sapelo-Leon Fine

Sand

0 – 66 – 21

21 – 2727 – 4343 – 7070 - 80

SP-SM, SM, SPSP, SM, SP-SM

SM, SP-SMSM, SP, SP-SMSC, SC-SM, SMSP-SM, SM, SP

12 – 4012 – 401.2 – 412 – 400.4 – 412 – 40


33Goldhead-

MeadowbrookFine Sand,

Depressional

0 – 88 – 19

19 – 80

SP, SP-SMSP, SP-SM

SC, SC-SM, SM

12 – 4012 – 400.4 - 4

+2.0 - 0.0January - September


5

It should be noted that the NRCS Soil Survey is not intended as a substitute for site-specificgeotechnical exploration; rather it is a useful tool in planning a project scope in that it providesinformation relative to the soil types likely to be encountered. Boundaries between adjacent soiltypes on the NRSC Soil Survey maps are approximate. In general, the shallow subsurfaceconditions identified in the borings conducted for this project agree with the NRCS Soil Survey.

3.3 Potentiometric Surface MapsA review of the map entitled “Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in Florida andParts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama, May-June 2010” indicated a potentiometricsurface elevation between contours of +30 and +40 feet NGVD in the project area. Artesiangroundwater conditions were not evident in the borings.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Site GeologyThe site area lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province, which in northeastFlorida encompasses a series of ancient marine terraces. These terraces mark the oceanbottom during the Pleistocene Epoch when the sea, having transgressed beyond the presentshoreline, remained stationary for long periods of time punctuated by episodic regressions. Asthe sea regressed to a lower level, the sea floor became exposed as a flat plain with a low scarpand sand dune ridge along the landward edge marking the abandoned shoreline. The flat plainsand abandoned shorelines have, since their deposition been dissected and eroded by streams,wind and rainfall, leaving only remnants of their original structure.

The shallowest consolidated rock formations underlying the site occur at approximately 400 feetbelow ground surface where the Ocala Group limestone formations begin. The Ocala Group iscomprised of the Crystal River Formation, Williston Formation and the Inglis Formation andrepresents the uppermost host rock for the Floridan aquifer. Underneath the project area, thesedeposits are approximately 350 feet thick and are composed primarily of light colored, granular,massive fossiliferous marine limestone. Between the Floridan aquifer system and the shallowaquifer system is the Hawthorn Group, an aquiclude unit comprised of gray to green, silty tosandy, phosphatic clay deposits. This unit occurs at depths between about 45 to 380 feet belowthe project area. The Hawthorn Group has thin discontinuous interbedded lenses of black, fineto pebbly, phosphatic sand, phosphatic sandy limestone, and gray, hard dolomite. Thelimestone and dolomite lenses are more predominant near the base of the formation. TheHawthorne Formation acts as an aquitard between the surficial aquifer system and the Floridanaquifer.

The Hawthorn Group is unconformably overlain by Pleistocene to recent deposits of sand, silt,clayey sand and shelly, clayey sand in the upper portions, and interbedded sandy clay, clay andsoft limestone in the lower portion. The sands, silts and clays are associated with recent marine


6

and estuarine deposits. The limestone, together with a coarse phosphatic sand and gravel bedthat marks the contact with the Hawthorn Group, are the host rock for the most laterallyextensive aquifer in the shallow aquifer system. These deposits vary in thickness andcomposition across northeast Florida; however, they occur from the ground surface toapproximately 45 to 65 feet below the ground surface in the project area.

Hydraulic pressure from the artesian conditions in the Floridan aquifer percolates water slowlyupward through the Hawthorne Formation into the surficial aquifer; however, the majority ofwater in the surficial aquifer is recharged by rainwater infiltration. The shallow aquifer unit iswidely used for private domestic water supply and irrigation purposes.

4.2 Typical Subsurface ProfileThe roadway soil survey encountered five generalized soil strata within the survey limits to themaximum depths explored in the borings as tabulated in the following table:

STRATUMDESIGNATION DESCRIPTION AASHTO

CLASSIFICATION

1 DARK BROWN TO BROWN SILTY SAND WITH ORGANICS A-8

2 DARK BROWN TO BROWN TO REDDISH BROWN AND GRAY TOLIGHT GRAY FINE SAND WITH SILT A-3

3 BROWN TO GRAY SAND WITH SILT TO SILTY SAND, TRACE TO FEWCLAY A-2-4

4 BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN TO GRAY SANDY CLAY A-7-6, A-6

5 BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN TO ORANGE CLAYEY SAND A-2-6, A-2-7

The locations of the borings (stations and offsets) are indicated on the Report of SPT andAuger Borings for Roadway sheets, shown on Exhibits A-4 to A-7, and the Report of SPTBorings for Ponds sheet, shown on Exhibit A-8 in the Appendix. Samples of the encounteredsoils were placed in glass jars that were sealed and transported to the laboratory for review by aGeotechnical Engineer. The soil descriptions presented in the Legend of these sheets is basedon a visual classification procedure in accordance with AASHTO standards as well as laboratoryclassification test data when available.

4.3 GroundwaterThe groundwater level was measured, when encountered, in the roadway area borings at thetime of the exploration. The borings were generally drilled during the period from December toJanuary 2015. The groundwater level at the site generally ranged from a few inches above theexisting ground surface to a depth of approximately 3 feet below the existing ground surface.


7

The groundwater level was encountered at a depth of 1 foot or less below the existing groundsurface in the majority the borings. The groundwater level in the project area will fluctuate due toseasonal climatic variations, previous rainfall, construction operations, surroundingdevelopment, and other interrelated factors.

EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Basis of Evaluation and RecommendationsThe following evaluation and recommendations are based on the project characteristicspreviously described, the data obtained during our field exploration for the site, and ourexperience with similar subsurface conditions, proposed developments, and constructionmethods.

5.2 Roadway ConstructionThe subsurface conditions within proposed roadway improvement areas are shown on theReport of Borings for Roadway sheets, shown on Exhibits A-4 through A-19 in theAppendix.

The following include recommendations for the different roadway soil strata encountered duringthe exploration. The recommendations make reference to FDOT Standard Indices 500 and 505which we understand will govern roadway construction. These recommendations are includedon the Roadway and Pond Soil Survey sheet (Exhibit A-3) in the Appendix which should beincluded in the plans and precede the roadway cross sections created for this project. Boringprofiles with groundwater levels and soil stratification as shown on Exhibits A-4 through A-8should be included on the cross sections in accordance with FDOT guidelines.

n The material from stratum number 1 shall be treated as Muck (M) and shall be removedfrom beneath the roadway in accordance with FDOT Standard Index No. 500. It shallnot be used in the embankment.

n The material from stratum number 2 is Select (S) material and may be used forembankment construction in accordance with FDOT Standard Index No. 505.

n The material from stratum number 3 is Select (S) material and may be used forembankment construction in accordance with FDOT Standard Index No. 505; however,this material is likely to retain excess moisture and be difficult to dry and compact. Itshould only be used in the embankment above the water level existing at the time ofconstruction.


8

n The material from stratum number 4 is High Plastic (H) material and shall be removedfrom beneath the roadway in accordance with FDOT Standard Index 500. It may beused in the embankment within the project limits outside the 1:2 control line, only whenexcavated within the project limits and is not to be used in the embankment whenobtained from outside the project limits.

n The material from stratum number 5 is Plastic (P) material and shall be removed frombeneath the roadway in accordance with FDOT Standard Index 500. It may be used inthe embankment above the existing water level at the time of construction to within 4feet of the proposed pavement base. It should be placed and compacted uniformly inthe lower portion of the embankment for some distance along the project rather than fulldepth for shorter distances in accordance with FDOT Standard Index No. 505. SubsoilExcavation

Regardless of FDOT Standard Index and specification requirements, use of any soil other thanthe relatively free draining stratum number 2 (AASHTO A-3) soils encountered along the projectalignment and in proposed pond areas could result in placement and compaction difficulties andassociated project delays.

Plastic soil may also be encountered in deeper excavations for drainage pipes. If plasticmaterial can be placed and compacted in accordance with FDOT Standard Indices andconstruction specifications, it may be used as backfill in the pipe excavations. Practicallyspeaking, this material is highly moisture sensitive and will be difficult to dry and compactacceptably. Project earthwork estimates should take the potential presence of this material inthe proposed drainage pipe locations and additional select fill material may be required for pipebackfill where the plastic material will be unsuitable for trench backfill.

5.3 Roadway Bearing Area Site PreparationThe proposed roadway and embankment areas should be prepared and constructed inaccordance with the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction which willdictate embankment fill placement and compaction criteria for this project and other aspects ofthe construction.

We note that standing surface water was evident in a topographically lower area of the roadwayalignment occurring from approximately Station 30+00 to 34+00. Our rubber tired drillingequipment also experienced trafficability difficulties within this are of the site during theexploration activities. In planning for roadway construction in this area of the project, and otherareas of the alignment where standing surface water may be present, we recommendconsideration of the following:


9

n Use of low ground pressure tracked equipment to conduct initial clearing andgrubbing and fill placement operations. This will help reduce potential forexcessive disturbance and rutting of the exposed saturated soils.

n Establishment of positive groundwater control measures, such as excavation oftemporary gravity draining (or pumped) ditches, to maintain appropriateseparation of groundwater from newly placed and compacted fill.

n Placement of geosynthetic material (such as biaxial geogrid or wovenstabilization fabric) as a construction expedient may be necessary in areas of thesite where the surface soils will not support construction traffic – such as the areanoted above. The geosynthetic stabilization material should be placed over softor very loose wet surface soils in advance of embankment fill placement andcompaction activities to help provide additional support of constructionequipment.

5.4 Erosion ControlPositive erosion control measures will be required on any newly constructed embankmentslopes. The select fine sandy soils which will be used for construction of the embankments areparticularly susceptible to surface erosion as a result of intense rainstorms. Considerationshould be given to sodding the slopes or establishing other temporary erosion control measures(such as the use of various geosynthetic or natural fiber meshes or the application of mulch)until a natural vegetative cover can become established.

5.5 Storm Water Management PondsThe subsurface conditions within proposed storm water management pond areas are shown onthe Report of SPT Borings for Ponds sheet, shown on Exhibits A-8 through A-7 in the Appendix.Please refer to Table 2 in the Appendix for permeability test results at each test depth within theproposed ponds.

In general, the recovery of retention or detention facilities depends upon several factorsincluding thickness of permeable layers, pond configuration, and the bottom elevation of thepond and its proximity to the groundwater table. The proximity and extent of confining layers,pond loading rate and frequency, and the head of water level above the bottom of the pond areadditional factors which influence pond performance.

It is recommended that the hydraulic conductivity values presented in Exhibit A-11 be used withcaution. Specifically, the above factors must be considered when selecting design values to beimplemented in recovery or drawdown calculations. In addition, an appropriate factor of safetyshould be considered to account for increasing soil density due to hydraulic loading, siltation,etc.


10

The recommendations in Section 5.2 of this report regarding use of the various soil strata areapplicable to the soils which will be excavated from the ponds.

REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

This report has been performed for the exclusive use of our client for specific informationapplicable to the subject project. Our conclusions and recommendations have been preparedusing generally accepted standards of geotechnical engineering practice in the area. No otherwarranty is expressed or implied. Terracon is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, orrecommendations of others based on these data.

The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessments or investigations forthe possible presence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater or surface waterwithin or in the general vicinity of the site studied. Any statements made in this report or shownon the Exhibits regarding unusual subsurface conditions and / or subsurface materials arestrictly for the information of our client and may not be indicative of an environmental problem.

Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the design information furnished to us;data obtained from previously described subsurface exploration and our past experience. Theydo not reflect variations in the subsurface conditions that are likely to exist away from ourborings and in unexplored areas of the site. These variations result from the inherent variabilityof the subsurface conditions in this geologic region. If such variations become apparent duringconstruction, it will be necessary for us to reevaluate our conclusions and recommendationsbased on an on-site observation of the conditions.

If the overall design or if the proposed site layout is changed, the recommendations contained inthis report must not be considered valid unless our firm reviews the changes and ourrecommendations are modified or verified in writing. When the design is finalized, we should beretained to review the plans and applicable portions of the project specifications. This reviewwould allow us to check whether these documents are consistent with the intent of ourrecommendations.

APPENDIX AFIELD EXPLORATION

A-1A

0’ 150’ 300’

GRAPHIC SCALE

A-1B

EXHIBITProject Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

TES

TES

JBK

JBK

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

EQ145078

AS SHOWN

EQ145078FEP.PPTX

2/10/2014

FIELD EXPLORATION PLANEAST NASSAU SITE

PROPOSED ACCESS ROADWAY AND PONDSNASSAU COUNTY, FLORIDA

9655 W. FLORIDA MINING BOULEVARD – SUITE 509JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32257

PH. (904) 900-6494 FAX. (904) 268-5255

LEGEND

B-1

B-2B-3

A-1A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6A-7A-8

A-9A-10

A-11B-4 PB-5

PB-2PB-3

PB-4

PB-1

A-12

A-13A-14

A-15B-5

A-16A-17

A-18

PROPOSED ROADWAY ALIGNMENT

B-6

A-20

A-21A-22

A-23B-7

A-24A-25

A-26A-27

B-8A-28

A-29A-30

A-31

A-32B-9

A-33

A-34A-35

A-36

PB-9

PB-10

PB-7

PB-8

PB-6

B-10

A-37

A-38

A-39

A-40

B-11

A-41

A-42

A-43

A-44

B-12A-45 PB-11

PB-12

PB-13PB-14

A-46A-47

A-48B-13

A-49

A-50

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ROADWAY AUGER BORINGAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ROADWAY SPT BORINGAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF POND SPT BORING

PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE POND 3 AREA

POND 14 AREA

POND 13 AREA

A-2

EXHIBITProject Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

TES

TES

JBK

JBK

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

EQ145078

AS SHOWN

EQ145078SCS.PPTX

3/1/2015

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE MAP

9655 W. FLORIDA MINING BOULEVARD – SUITE 509JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32257

PH. (904) 900-6494 FAX. (904) 268-5255

SUMMARY OF SOILS IN PROJECT VICINITY

Map Unit No.And Name

StratificationEstimated SeasonalHigh Groundwater

Level (Feet)Depth Range(Inches)

AASHTO SoilClassification

Saturated HydraulicConductivity

(Feet/Day)

9Leon Fine Sand

0 – 77 – 18

18 – 3131 – 3737 - 80

A-2-4, A-3A-2-4, A-3A-2-4, A-3A-2-4, A-3A-2-4, A-3

12 – 4012 – 401.2 – 1212 – 401.2 - 12


11Chaires Fine Sand

0 – 77 – 18

18 – 2727 - 3131 - 80

A-2-4, A-3A-2-4, A-3A-2-4, A-3A-2-4, A-3

A-2-7, A-6, A-2-6

12 – 4012 – 401.2 – 412 – 40

0.12 – 0.4


13Goldhead Fine Sand

0 – 88 – 33

33 – 6969 - 80

A-3A-3

A-2-4, A-2-6, A-6A-2-4, A-3

12 – 4012 - 401.2 - 412 - 40


22Sapelo-Leon Fine Sand

0 – 66 – 21

21 – 2727 – 4343 – 7070 - 80

A-3, A-2-4A-3, A-2-4A-3, A-2-4A-3, A-2-4A-3, A-2-4A-3, A-2-4

12 – 4012 – 401.2 – 412 – 400.4 – 412 – 40


33Goldhead-Meadowbrook Fine

Sand, Depressional

0 – 88 – 19

19 – 80

A-3A-3

A-2-4, A-2-6

12 – 4012 – 400.4 - 4

+2.0 - 0.0January - September

0’ 800’ 1600’

GRAPHIC SCALE

EAST NASSAU SITE - ROADWAY AND PONDSNASSAU COUNTY, FLORIDA

PROPOSEDACCESS

ROADWAYALIGNMENT

27-ACRE SITE

Pond 14

Pond 13

#4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 LL PI

A-35 56+00 20' LT 0.0-0.7 1 35 9.6 99.8 98.8 96.9 94.9 92.0 60.9 17.9 — — A-8

A-50 75+00 20' RT 0.0-1.5 1 58 11.0 100.0 98.8 96.2 93.9 91.3 67.9 22.4 — — A-8

A-40 62+00 20' RT 2.4-4.0 2 23 0.8 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.7 99.1 77.7 9.5 — — A-3

A-8 19+00 20' RT 2.8-4.1 2 21 0.5 100.0 99.8 99.7 99.3 97.2 67.6 5.9 — — A-3

PB-1 25+07 497' LT 4.0-6.0 2 22 — 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.4 78.3 9.8 — — A-3

PB-11 69+23 76' RT 2.0-5.0 2 22 — — — — — — — 9.6 — — A-3

PB-12 69+72 246' RT 2.0-4.0 2 25 — 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 98.7 74.9 9.7 — — A-3

PB-12 69+72 246' RT 10.0-12.0 2 25 — — — — — — — 6.8 — — A-3

PB-13 71+00 295' RT 10.0-12.0 2 25 — — — — — — — 6.4 — — A-3

PB-14 71+73 139' RT 8.0-16.0 2 26 — — — — — — — 9.1 — — A-3

PB-2 24+95 264' LT 3.0-5.0 2 23 — — — — — — — 7.3 — — A-3

PB-3 23+22 388' LT 9.0-11.0 2 26 — 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 90.8 9.4 — — A-3

PB-4 20+25 472' LT 9.5-11.0 2 26 — — — — — — — 9.4 — — A-3

PB-5 21+78 222' LT 7.5-10 2 24 — — — — — — — 8.1 — — A-3

PB-6 56+45 478' LT 8.0-10.0 2 28 — — — — — — — 8.7 — — A-3

A-10 22+00 20' RT 3.4-5.0 3 27 — 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.0 83.2 15.4 — — A-2-4

A-13 26+00 20' LT 0.0-1.6 3 36 2.8 100.0 99.8 99.2 97.9 94.2 56.9 10.6 — — A-2-4

A-19 33+00 20' LT 3.6-4.2 3 26 1.6 100.0 99.7 99.5 98.9 94.7 59.8 21.0 — — A-2-4

A-26 42+00 20' RT 1.5-2.5 3 17 — 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.2 97.3 71.4 22.1 NP NP A-2-4

A-28 45+00 20' RT 0.0-0.5 3 6 — 88.2 85.9 83.5 81.6 79.0 56.5 10.8 — — A-2-4

A-32 52+00 20' RT 0.0-1.0 3 24 4.4 100.0 99.6 98.4 97.4 95.7 65.8 19.3 — — A-2-4

A-43 66+00 20' LT 3.2-3.8 3 24 2.4 99.7 99.6 99.5 99.3 98.8 80.9 25.2 27 6 A-2-4

A-6 17+00 20' RT 0.0-1.6 3 36 4.0 100.0 99.9 99.5 98.9 96.8 59.9 15.5 — — A-2-4

A-7 18+00 20' LT 3.3-5.0 3 25 0.9 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.6 97.9 77.2 15.7 — — A-2-4

B-11 63+00 C.L. 18.0-20.0 3 23 1.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.0 84.3 22.1 — — A-2-4

B-13 73+00 C.L. 3.0-4.5 3 22 — — — — — — — 16.4 — — A-2-4

MoistureContent2

(%)

EXHIBIT A-9SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING

EAST NASSAU SITE - PROPOSED ACCESS ROADWAY AND PONDSNASSAU COUNTY, FLORIDA

TERRACON PROJECT NO. EQ145078

BoringNumber Station Offset (ft) Depth (ft) Stratum

Number

OrganicContent3

(%)

Percent Passing Sieve Number (%)1 AtterbergLmiits 4 AASHTO Soil

Classification

9655 W. Florida Mining Boulevard , Suite 509 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 • Telephone (904) 900-6494 • Fax (904) 268-5255

#4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 LL PI

MoistureContent2

(%)





Number

OrganicContent3

(%)


Classification

B-2 15+00 C.L. 6.0-8.0 3 21 — 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.5 97.3 72.3 16.1 NP NP A-2-4

B-3 20+00 C.L. 5.5-6.5 3 20 — — — — — — — 17.2 — — A-2-4

B-3 20+00 C.L. 13.0-14.5 3 33 — — — — — — — 24.4 — — A-2-4

B-5 29+00 C.L. 2.5-4.5 3 30 — — — — — — — 22.3 — — A-2-4

PB-10 57+56 80' LT 4.5-6.5 3 23 — 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.5 79.7 12.9 — — A-2-4

PB-12 69+72 246' RT 16.0-18.0 3 25 — 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.6 98.5 86.8 33.6 — — A-2-4

PB-13 71+00 259' RT 2.2-4.5 3 20 — 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 98.9 77.2 13.2 — — A-2-4

PB-13 71+00 259' RT 14.5-16.5 3 37 — — — — — — — 23.9 — — A-2-4

PB-14 71+73 139' RT 4.5-8.0 3 20 — — — — — — — 14.5 — — A-2-4

PB-2 24+95 264' LT 12.0-14.0 3 25 — — — — — — — 18.5 — — A-2-4

PB-2 24+95 264' LT 14.0-16.0 3 26 — 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.5 79.3 22.4 — — A-2-4

PB-3 23+22 388' LT 15.5-16.5 3 28 — 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.4 79.2 27.3 NP NP A-2-4

PB-4 20+25 472' LT 4.5-6.0 3 20 — 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 85.9 13.9 — — A-2-4

PB-5 21+78 222' LT 2.5-4.5 3 21 — 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 98.1 74.7 11.7 — — A-2-4

PB-6 56+45 478' LT 3.3-4.7 3 26 — 99.9 99.8 99.7 99.4 98.3 76.7 24.1 — — A-2-4

PB-6 56+45 478' LT 15.0-18.0 3 21 — 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.6 91.4 27.9 — — A-2-4

PB-7 55+18 277' LT 2.8-5.2 3 22 — — — — — — — 10.5 — — A-2-4

PB-7 55+18 277' LT 9.5-11.0 3 28 — 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 90.8 10.1 — — A-2-4

PB-8 56+78 253' LT 7.5-9.0 3 23 — — — — — — — 12.6 — — A-2-4

A-18 32+00 20' RT 3.9-5.0 4 36 — 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.4 97.4 78.1 42.1 54 34 A-7-6

A-25 41+00 20' LT 1.5-5.0 4 28 — 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.7 99.2 89.9 44.2 46 25 A-7-6

B-11 63+00 C.L. 6.0-8.0 4 27 — 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.4 98.7 84.2 37.8 38 21 A-6

B-2 15+00 C.L. 18.0-20.0 4 35 — 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.2 95.6 71.7 53 36 A-7-6

B-5 29+00 C.L. 13.5-15.5 4 38 — — — — — — — 78.6 — — A-7-6

B-8 44+00 C.L. 3.5-6.5 4 22 — — — — — — — 36.8 — — A-6

PB-1 25+07 497' LT 15.0-17.0 4 48 — 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.5 91.4 66.5 63 47 A-7-6


#4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 LL PI

MoistureContent2

(%)





Number

OrganicContent3

(%)


Classification

PB-10 57+56 80' LT 15.0-18.0 4 36 — — — — — — — 58.8 — — A-6

PB-11 69+23 76' RT 15.2-17.0 4 43 — 100.0 99.8 98.8 98.1 97.4 90.8 59.3 — — A-7-6

PB-4 20+25 472' LT 15.5-18.5 4 57 — 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 98.8 86.4 89 65 A-7-6

PB-5 21+78 222' LT 13.0-14.0 4 49 — 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 97.8 88.8 90 69 A-7-6

PB-7 55+18 277' LT 17.0-18.0 4 53 — 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 98.1 84.5 — — A-7-6

PB-8 56+78 253' LT 15.0-17.0 4 34 — — — — — — — 70.1 — — A-7-6

PB-9 55+64 70' LT 2.0-4.5 4 26 — 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.4 89.4 46.3 50 29 A-7-6

PB-9 55+64 70' LT 16.5-20.0 4 37 — 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 96.1 57.1 40 20 A-6

A-28 45+00 20' RT 3.5-5.0 5 21 — 99.5 99.0 98.5 98.2 97.3 82.5 34.1 42 22 A-2-7

A-36 57+00 20' RT 4.5-5.0 5 25 1.8 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.4 98.3 78.4 29.1 47 29 A-2-7

A-9 21+00 20' LT 3.8-5.0 5 27 2.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 97.7 76.7 30.1 32 14 A-2-6

B-10 58+00 C.L. 3.5-5.0 5 32 — — — — — — — 33.8 — — A-2-6

B-6 34+00 C.L. 3.0-4.5 5 26 — — — — — — — 30.5 — — A-2-6

B-9 53+00 C.L. 3.0-6.0 5 29 — — — — — — — 32.6 — — A-2-6

PB-1 25+07 497' LT 17.0-19.0 5 31 — 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.3 77.6 31.4 43 24 A-2-7

PB-11 69+23 76' RT 5.0-6.7 5 21 — 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.2 80.5 26.7 40 19 A-2-6

PB-8 56+78 253' LT 3.5-5.3 5 29 — 100.0 99.8 99.7 99.5 98.2 52.9 29.8 — — A-2-6

PB-8 56+78 253' LT 17.0-19.0 5 22 — 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.3 82.6 33.0 — — A-2-6

1. Grain size distribution testing performed in general accordance with AASHTO T 0882. Moisture content testing performed in general accordance with AASHTO T 2653. Organic content testing performed in general accordance with AASHTO T 2674. Atterberg Limits testing performed in general accordance with AASHTO T 89 and T 90


Steel Concrete

B-10 58+00 C.L. 5.0-8.2 2 4.8 1020 56 26,000 E2 E3

PB-14 71+73 139' RT 4.5-8.0 3 4.5 660 5 25,000 E2 E3

PB-11 69+23 76' RT 0.0-2.0 3 3.8 60 30 20,000 E2 E3

B-6 34+00 C.L. 4.5-8.3 3 4.4 120 10 13,000 E2 E3

1. S = Slightly Aggressive M = Moderately Aggressive E= Extremely Aggressive2. pH < 6.03. pH < 5.0

ElectricalResistivity(ohm-cm)

Substructure EnvironmentalClassification1

pH

EXHIBIT A-10SUMMARY OF CORROSION PROPERTY TESTING




Number

ChlorideContent(ppm)

SulfateContent(ppm)


FP-1 35+00 21' LT 1.0-2.0 3 11 1.7 x 10-5 : 0.05 A-2-4

FP-2 40+00 18' LT 1.0-2.0 2 8 1.0 x 10-3 : 2.9 A-3

FP-3 45+00 23' LT 1.0-2.0 3 13 1.5 x 10-3 : 4.2 A-2-4

FP-4 55+00 31' LT 1.0-2.0 3 18 6.6 x 10-5 : 0.19 A-2-4

FP-5 60+00 33' LT 1.0-2.0 3 13 9.7 x 10-5 : 0.28 A-2-4

FP-6 65+00 27' LT 1.0-2.0 3 14 1.1 x 10-5 : 0.03 A-2-4

FP-7 71+00 28' RT 1.0-2.0 2 10 1.0 x 10-4 : 0.30 A-3

1. Fines content testing performed in general accordance with AASHTO T 0882. Laboratory hydraulic conductivity testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2434

% Passing No.200 Mesh Sieve1

EXHIBIT A-11SUMMARY OF LABORATORY HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING



SampleNumber Station Offset (ft) Depth

Range (ft) Stratum NumberHydraulic

Conductivity2

(cm/sec : ft/day)

AASHTO SoilClassification



Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-12

Field Exploration

GeneralThe subsurface exploration consisted of drilling 13 soil test borings to a depth of approximately 20feet each at approximately 500-foot centers and 50 auger borings to a depth of approximately 5feet each at approximately 100-foot centers along the proposed roadway alignment. Threeproposed storm water management pond areas were explored with a total of 14 soil test boringsdrilled to a depth of approximately 20 feet. The boring locations were laid out by the fieldpersonnel using either taped measurements from the staked centerline of the roadwayalignment or using hand held Global Positioning System (GPS) devices.

During drilling operations, portions of the samples from the borings were sealed in glass jars toreduce moisture loss, and then the jars were taken to our laboratory for further observation andclassification. Upon obtaining stabilized groundwater levels, the boreholes were backfilled withnative soil cuttings.

Field logs of each boring were prepared by the drill crew. These logs included visual classificationsof the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurfaceconditions between samples. The boring logs included with this report represent an interpretationof the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observation of the samples. Thefollowing paragraphs present brief descriptions of the field testing procedures.

SPT BoringsThe SPT borings were drilled using an ATV-mounted drill rig with a manually operated catheadand rope system SPT safety hammer. The boreholes were advanced using continuous flightaugers until the water table was encountered. Below the water table, a mud rotary drillingtechnique was used and drilling fluid was circulated in the boreholes to stabilize the borehole wallsand flush soil cuttings to the surface. Soil samples were obtained by the split spoon samplingprocedure in general accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedure. In the splitspoon sampling procedure, the number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last12 inches of an 18-inch penetration or the middle 12 inches of a 24-inch penetration using a140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches, is the standard penetration resistance value (N).This value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistencyof cohesive soils. The sampling depths and standard penetration resistance values are shown onthe Report of SPT and Auger Borings for Roadway sheets and Report of SPT Borings for Pondssheet in the Appendix.

Auger BoringThe auger borings were advanced manually using a bucket-type hand auger. The soilsencountered were identified, in the field, from cuttings brought to the surface by the augeringprocess.



Laboratory Testing

GeneralDuring the field exploration, a portion of each recovered sample was sealed in glass jars and transported to ourlaboratory for further visual observation and laboratory testing. Selected samples were retrieved from the boringsand tested to determine moisture content, organic content, gradation, and plasticity characteristics. Bulk soilsamples were also tested to determine electro-chemical (corrosion) properties and hydraulic conductivity. Thelaboratory classification and index property testing included the following:

n 70 moisture content testsn 13 organic content testsn 24 fines content (percent finer than the No. 200 mesh sieve) testsn 46 grain size distribution testsn 18 Atterberg limits (plasticity) determinationsn 4 electro-chemical (corrosion) property determinationsn 7 laboratory hydraulic conductivity tests

Laboratory classification and index property testing results, including gradation analysis, Atterberg limits(plasticity), organic content, and natural moisture content, are summarized on the following Exhibits in theAppendix:

n Roadway Soil Survey sheet (Exhibit A-3)n Summary of Laboratory Testing table (Exhibit A-9)

Electro-chemical (corrosion) property testing consisting of pH, electrical resistivity, chloride content and sulfatecontent were conducted on four bulk samples obtained from borings drilled along the roadway alignment. Theresults of this testing, including an assessment of the Environmental Classification in accordance with FDOTguidelines, are presented on the Summary of Corrosion Property Testing table (Exhibit A-10) in theAppendix.

Seven bulk samples of soil from expected roadside swale areas were obtained and returned to our laboratoryfor hydraulic conductivity testing, which is summarized on the Summary of Laboratory HydraulicConductivity Testing table (Exhibit A-11) in the Appendix.The visual-manual soil classifications were modified as appropriate based upon the laboratory testing results. Abrief description of the AASHTO Soil Classification System is included on Exhibit A-14.

The following paragraphs present brief descriptions of the laboratory testing procedures.

Moisture ContentIn order to determine the moisture content of the selected soil sample, the test specimen was dried in an ovento constant mass in general accordance with AASHTO T 265. The water content was then calculated using the



mass of the water and the mass of the dry specimen. The water content is used to express the phaserelationship of air, water, and solid in a given volume of material.

Organic Content (Organic Loss on Ignition)To determine the amount of organic material in a sample, the sample is first dried and weighed, and then ignitedand reweighed. The amount of organic material is determined by subtracting the post-ignition weight from thepre-ignition weight and the organic content is expressed as a percentage. This test was conducted in generalaccordance with AASHTO T 267.

Grain Size DistributionTo conduct this test, a sample is dried and then shaken over various standard sieve sizes. The weight of soilretained on each sieve is measured and cumulative percentage by weight passing each sieve is calculated. Thistest was conducted in general accordance with AASHTO T 088.

Atterberg LimitsFine-grained soils containing clay minerals can be remolded without crumbling in the presence of somemoisture. Adsorbed water surrounding the clay particles causes this cohesive behavior. At very low moisturecontent, clay soils behave more like a solid. Consequently, when moisture content is very high, clay soilsbehave more like a liquid. Depending on the moisture content, the behavior clay soils can be characterized intofour distinct states – solid, semisolid, plastic, and liquid. The moisture content at which the transition fromsemisolid to plastic state occurs is the plastic limit (PL). Similarly, the transition from plastic to liquid state isthe liquid limit (LL).

The plasticity index (PI) is the difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit and is important in theclassification of fine grained soils. The liquid and plastic limit tests performed on fine grained samples wereperformed in general accordance with AASHTO T 089 and T090.

pHThe pH is an expression of the concentration of the dissociated hydrogen ions present in aqueous solution. ThepH values range from 1 to 14 with values below 7 indicating acidic conditions and values above 7 indicatingalkaline conditions. This test is performed using a calibrated electronic pH meter with a sensing probe. The meteris calibrated by immersing the probe in a solution with a known pH. The soil pH is determined by mixing equalweights of soil and distilled water and testing the supernatant solution with the pH probe. The testing wasconducted in general accordance with FM 5-550.

Electrical ResistivityResistivity is a measure of the resistance to flow of electrical current through the soil. Resistivity, the inverse ofconductivity, is measured in units of ohm-centimeters. This measurement was performed with a soil box and asoil resistance meter. The testing was conducted in general accordance with FM 5-551.



Chloride ContentThe chloride content of the sample was determined by titration with mercuric nitrate. The soil was rinsed with anamount of distilled water equal in weight to the dry soil. The soil was then removed from the water (whichconsisted of distilled water and natural soil moisture) and the silver nitrate titration was performed on the water.The testing was conducted in general accordance with FM 5-552.

Sulfate ContentThe sulfate content of the sample was determined turbidimetrically. The soil was rinsed with an amount of distilledwater equal in weight to the dry soil. The soil was then removed from the water (which consisted of distilled waterand natural soil moisture) and the turbidity of the water was determined using a photometer. The turbidity gives anindirect indication of the sulfate content. The testing was conducted in general accordance with FM 5-553.

Constant-Head PermeabilityThe coefficient of permeability (hydraulic conductivity) of bulk soil samples was obtained by constant head permeabilitytesting. The test samples were placed and compacted in a fixed-wall permeameter device and then saturated. Duringthe permeability testing, a constant water head was applied and allowed to flow through the samples to achieveapproximate laminar flow. After performing the test for a sufficient time period, the coefficient of permeability wascalculated as follows:

k = QL/Athwhere:

k = coefficient of permeability,Q = quantity of water discharged,L = test sample length,A = cross-sectional area of specimen,t = total time of discharge,h = water head differential between sample ends.

This testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Designation D-2434.

Exhibit A-14

AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Group SubgroupPercent Passing U.S. Sieve No. Character of Fraction

Passing No. 40 Sieve Group IndexNo.310 40 200 Liquid

Limit (LL)PlasticityIndex (PI)

A-1

50 Max.

50 Max. 25 Max. - 6 Max. 0

A-1-a 30 Max. 15 Max. - 6 Max. 0

A-1-b 50 Max. 25 Max. - 6 Max. 0A-21 35 Max. 0 to 4

A-2-4 35 Max. 40 Max. 10 Max. 0

A-2-5 35 Max. 41 Min. 10 Max. 0

A-2-6 35 Max. 40 Max. 11 Min. 4 Max.

A-2-7 35 Max. 41 Min. 11 Min. 4 Max.

A-3 - 51 Min. 10 Max. - Non-Plastic 0

A-4 - - - 36 Min. 40 Max. 10 Max. 8 Max.

A-5 - - - 36 Min. 41 Min. 10 Max. 12 Max.

A-6 - - - 36 Min. 40 Max. 11 Min. 16 Max.A-72 36 Min. 41 Min. 11 Min. 20 Max.

A-7-5 36 Min. 41 Min. 11 Min. 20 Max.

A-7-6 36 Min. 41 Min. 11 Min. 20 Max.

A-8 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL (Qualifying Minimum Organic Content Varies by Region – Typically > 5% by Weight)1. Group A-2 includes all soils having 35% or less passing the #200 sieve that cannot be classified as A-1 or A-32. PI of A-7-5 subgroup is equal to or less than LL – 30. PI of A-7-6 subgroup is greater than LL - 303. Group Index GI = (F – 35)[0.2 + 0.005(LL – 40)] + 0.01 (F – 15)(PI – 10) where F = % passing #200 sieve.

A-7A-5

A-4

0 1080

20

A-7-560

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT(L

L)

30 40

40

50

A-630

70

20

PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)

LIQUID LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEXRANGES FOR THE A-4, A-5, A-6 AND A-7

SUBGRADE GROUPS10

A-7-650

Date post:	10-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Geotechnical Engineering Report - Jacksonville,...

Documents