HomeMy WebLinkAboutContract 35537 AMENDMENT NO. 2
THE STATE OF TEXAS § CITY SECRETARY CONTRACT N .
(No M&C Deeded)
COUNTY OF TARRAIT
WHEREAS, the City of Fort worth (City) and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.,
(Engineer) made and entered into City Secretary Contract N . 30444, (the Contract) which was
authorized by the City Council by M&C. 20237 on the 24 1h day of August, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Contract involves engineering services for the following project:
Eagle Mountain Raw water Transmission Pipeline
WHEREAS, It has become necessary to execute Amendment Igo. 2 to said Contract to
include are increased scope of work and revised maximum fee;
NOW THEREFORE, City and Engineer acting herein by and through their duly
authorized representatives, enter into the following agreement which amends the Contract:
1.
Article I of the Contract is amended to include the additional engineering services
specified in the proposal letter dated June 20, 2007, a copy of which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein. The cost for the additional professional services to be performed
by the Engineer is $24,400.00,
2.
Article 11 of the Contract is amended to provide for an increase in the maximum fee to be
paid the Engineer for all work and services under the Contract, as amended, so that the total fee
paid by the City for all work and services shall not exceed $824,255.00.
All other provisions of the Contract which are not expressly amended herein shall remain
in full force and effect.
ORIGINAL
f
EXECUTED on this� day of
2007, in Fort North, Tarrant Counter, Texas.
ATTEST.
'y
Matt Hendrix,, City Secretary E.NO M C R11"'Q I D
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: APPROV D:
Ile
. Frank Crumb, P.E* are A. Ott
Director, Water Department Assistant City Manager
Kimlev Flora and Associates
ENGINEER
R
By: -
Name: Glenn A. Gary, P.F.
Senior Vice President
APPROVED AS To FORM AND LEGALITY:
Assistant Cr. me
i
k iml -Horn
and Associates, Inc.
June 2 , 2007
Site 1025
831 Cherry Street,Unit 11
Fort Worth,Texas
Mr. Chris Harder, P.E. 78102
Engineering Manager
City of Fort Worth Water Department
1511 11"Ave
Fort Worth, TX 7 102
Re-. City of Fort Worth-Eagle Mountain Raw 'mater Transmission Pipeline
Project No. P164-060164052005/City Secretary Contract#30444
Amendment#2-Additional Services—Construction Phase Services
KHA No. 061018027
Dear Chris:
As we have discussed with}you, as part of this project, there have been a few
requests for I iml r-Morn to provide services for items that were not sp ci call y
part of the original scope of services for this contract. Those requests have been
related to construction phase services. The following is summary of the
additional services performed and the amount requested:
Evaluation of Horizontal Thrust Blocking on Existing 54-inch Pi lire
The construction contract required the contractor to field verify the existing
horizontal thrust blocking prior to construction of the proposed frame structures
to protect the existing -inch pipeline during construction. During the field
verification, it was determined that the existing thrust blocking contained
significantly icantl y less volume than was required in the original construction plans. A
a result, the originally proposed frame structure design could not be constructed
as planned and still maintain the preferred level of protection to the -Inch
pipeline. Therefore, per the City's request, various services were performed to
further evaluate and recommend are alternative design for protection of the
existing -inch pipeline during construction of the 72-inch pipeline, including:
• Witness of multiple core testing in the field at two locations
• Design ,meetings with Contractor and City to discuss alternatives
• Design services associated with the preparation of revised design plans
and specifications
The additional amount requestedfor these.services is S6,600.00.
M
TEL 617 335 8511
FAX 817 335 5070
Kiml y-Horn Mr Chris Harder,June 20,2007,Page
--- and Associates, Inc.
e i u of Connection to xistin -inch Pipeline
The construction contract also required the contractor to field verify the location
of proposed connection point to the existing -inch pipeline prior to ordering
materials. Although this was mentioned in multiple shop drawing review
comments, the contractor ordered the materials required for the connection prior
to verifying the exact connection point in the field. Once the field verification
was performed, it was determined that the proposed connection point was not in
the location shown on the construction plans. Therefore, per the Construction
Manager and City's request, various services were performed to evaluate and
recommend an alternative design connecting to the existing 5 4-inch pipeline
using the fabricated ductile iron special fitting that the contractor had already
ordered, including:
* Field Visit with Contractor and Construction Manager to discuss whether
it would be possible to utilize previously fabricated ductile iron special
fitting.
* Design services associated with the preparation of revised design plans
and specifications
The additional amount reque.s edfor these services is $2,500.00.
Cathodic Protection Design of Water Treatment Pla eline
During construction, it was determined that cathodic protection was not proposed
for the portion of the -inch water line from the end of l imle y-Horn line to its
connection into the headwork of the water treatment plant extension,
approximately 1,800 linear feet. This portion of line is part of the CDM design
contract. The f imle -Horn portion of the -inch pipeline is polyurethane coated
steel and will have cathodic protection and the CDM portion is prestressed
concrete cylinder pipe with no cathodic protection. To prevent a corrosion
reaction between the two dissimilar pipelines, the City requested that Kimley-
Horn and our cathodic protection suhconsultant design a cathodic protection
system for the CDM pipeline.
The additional amount requested for these.services is S8,000.
Gas Well and Distribution Lire Coordination
As the -inch water line was dieing constructed,fimley-Horn was requested to
coordinate and review various issues related to the location of gas wells and
proposed gas lines. This coordination involved attending meetings, site visits,
and reviewing proposed gas line locations for potential conflicts with the
proposed -inch and existing -inch raw water transmission pipelines. These
services were coordinated for gas lines located on the Grants, Edwards,and
Rosen properties. Gas well coordination was performed for the wells on the
Grants and Rosen properties.
The additional ino nt rec uested for these,services is $3,800.
iml -H rn Mr Chris Harder,June 20,2007,Page
and Associates, Inc.
Construction Stlinf the -inch water Line
To coordinate the location of the existing -inch water line so that an XT
Energy gas line could be constructed on the Brants' propert y, l iml y-Horn was
requested to have the location of the -inch water line staked. The 4-inch
water line was staked based upon the previous subsurface utility engineering
performed during design of the -inch water line along the Grants' property,.
The additional amount r qu st d or these services is $3,500.
fee summary of the services explained above is shown on the following table.
Also included is a 10% markup for the additional subconsultant services
performed by MJ, Inc., Corrpr , Inc., and SAM, Inc.. The fee table shows a
total request of $24,400, revising our total contract amount to be $ 16-4,255.
Additional Services Additional Fee
Evaluation of Horizontal Thrust
Blocking on Existing -inch 69600
Pipeline –Design of Connection to 2,500
Existing -inch Pipeline
Cathodic protection Design of 81000
Water Treatment Plant pi ep line
Gas well and Distribution Lire $3,800
Coordination
Construction Staling of the - $3,500
inch water Dine
Total lie uestcd $24,400
One of the above services is proposed to be performed by an M WB
subconsultant–SAM, Inc. This will revise our total contract M WBE
participation percentage to be 23.0%. Our I M wBE goal for this project is
22.0%.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to the City. Please
contact us if we need to provide any further information.
Very truly yours,
KfMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES., IT C.
Ienn A. Gary, P.E.
Senior Mice President
GAG/JILT:jrt
P M10l9 027.ppplAmend.1 AddSvcRequesG2_re�1 doc
S
LI*IQV Y'M�fY
rr.
* ! lilSxl�1$liJl Jef 'Orl 1 �`OkJ�I� �o�ua►�vM V+•M wq
�oasa� a�a u]}a3r�
.,o 9 "°',07S °" " :. e i r uqe unOYV ajSu3 -11 .1.3.0 'INV 01J. 3 w
MMMF +■�%AL K.r V a M�+w 14�on X11.0.,��"'+ a aj. 'glio M o f jo AID INVId 110HO Y aN S Y I ti7 �"r91ia� ► 1530
SAME wo -►vu
its
r jE
W w F
0
zz
' 6
dM
4
i
#d
21 `
cl go
up '16t
1y qt fig
{i
WW
m
� ■ F
}
* r * I
i � �VF �^a � it '•+
2i: "
fti
1ti O
,W
rn
MTF7
4
, $
SKI
i' +
G
' a M
CM 7636 Pebble Drive
ENGINEERING, INC. Fort Worth,Tcxm 7611
www.cmjcngr.com
Invoice To y F,, D Invoice Number
Ki to -Horn & Associates, Inc. AUG 0 3 2006 1882
801 Cherry Street, Suite 1025, Unit 11
Fort Worth, Texas 761 2
K11WLEY--H0RN Invoice Date
July 31, 2006
Attu: Mr. Glenn A. Garry, P.E.
PROJECT: 103-04-47
EAGLE U T IN RAW WATER PIPELINE
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
(Services for July, 2006)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
Observations of drilling on July 21, 2006; engineering calculations; communications with
Messrs, Glenn Gary, P.E. and Jenny Tatum, P.E.
uarnt. Unit Totarl
Senior Principal Engineer 27 110.00 20970.00
Staff Engineer 6 65.00 390.00
Administrative Assistant 3 40.00 120.00
Mileage 70 0.45 31.50
Subtotal Geotechnical Services $3,511.50
TOTAL INVOICE $3,511.50
a
OFFICE BILLS
Job/Task# 7L15
GL Acct Date
Approval
r
i
Please Remit To: cant t FOAL Bill Period (1-1 ) .,_ 1
MJ Engineering,Inc,
7636 Pebble Drive
UForl Worth,Texas 76-118
All accounts not paid within 30 days of the original invoice date will be charged an annual interest rate of 18%.
Phone(817)284-9400 Fax (817) 589-9993 Metro(817) 589-9992
r
CM ENGINEERING, INC. Fort W7636 Pebbic Drive
orth,Tcx s 76118
www.cmjengr.com
Invoice T :��'•�, '� e) ?006
Invoice Number
Kiml y-H rn & Associates, Inc. 1794
801 Cherry street, Suite 1 025, Unit 11 �F.
Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Invoice Date
May 11 2006
ttn: 1r_ Glenn A. Gary, P.E.
PROJECT: 103-04-47
EAGLE MOUNTAIN RAW MATER PIPELINE
I� 1
(Services for May -11, 2006)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
uant. Unit Total
Senior Principal Engineer 3 105.00 315.00
Subtotal Engineering Services 31 5.00
TOTAL INVOICE $315.00
OFFICE BILLS
Job/Task# A-2-o-zW2 '
GL Acct# Date Ilk)
Approval
Seat to RAL Bill Period 1- 2
r
(ease Remit To=
tJ Engineering,Inc.
76:36 Pebble Drive
fLprt W ath,Texts 7 6118 AL
All accounts not paid within 0 days of eri in i invoice date wall b charged an annual 4 interest rite of 1 .
Phone 817)284-9400 Fax 817) 589-9993 Mctro 17 589-9992
4:0CM 636 Pebble Drive
ENGINEERING9 INC, Fort Worth,Texas 76118
www.cmjengr.com
July 31, oo
Iirley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
801 Cherry Street, Suite 1025, Unit 11
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
At n: Mr. Glenn A. Gary, P.E.
ICE: INVESTIGATION o f EXISTING THRUST BLOCK CAPACITY
APPROXIMATE STATIONS 13+00 AND 2+00
EAGLE MOUNTAIN RAW WATER TRANSMISSION PIPELINE
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
Dear Mr. Marry:
INTRODUCTION
CIVIJ Engineering, Inc. is pleased to present herein the results of four exploration borings drilled
at the above referenced locations of the Eagle Mountain Raw it later Pipeline for the specific
purpose of studying subsurface soil or rook conditions adjacent to blocking material at the
existing -inch diameter pipeline. The need for these services were predicated on the
discovery that the actual blocking material was considerably smaller than the engineers on the
project estimated and concern exists that construction of the new pipeline may damage or
stress the existing pipeline at these specific locations.
The main focus of the study was at approximate Station 13+00 where the -inch pipeline
maces a right-hand tarn, causing loads exerted on the blocking material at this turn to be on the
order of 20 kips laterally. With the water pressure on or about 80 psi, any significant
movement of the blocking or soil thereby could cause a catastrophic failure of the line at this
point.
To study the soil conditions in the general area, 3 exploration borings were drilled to depths of
feet and observations of the soil and rock materials were made on a full-time basis by an
engineer with CIIJ Engineering, Inc. Borings C-1 and C-2 were drilled approximately 4 feet
northeast of the blocking, while Boring C-3 was drilled approximately 20 feet northeast of the
blocking. Elevations of these borings were obtained by Freese and l lichois, Inc. and provided
to the writer.
P hone(817) 2&4-9400 Fax(817) 589-9993 Metro(817) 589-9992
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Report Igo. 103-04-47
J my 312 2006
Page
Boring C-4 was drilled in the vicinity of Station 2+00 in a location where the lateral loading on
the blocking was considerably less than that shown in the vicinity of Borings C-1 through -3.
Boring C-4 was drilled to a depth of 15 feet using similar measures as the previous borings,
Plates C-1 through C-4 present the boring logs, detailed descriptions of the materials
encountered in the borings, and insitu testing for pocket penetrometer and Texas Highway
Department Cone Penetrometer values.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Borings C-1 through C-3 encountered 3 to feet of tan, brown, and/or gran clays existing in a
firm to stiff condition. Pocket penetrometer values in the clays varied from 1.5 to ver 4.5 tons
per square foot.
Tan, moderately hard to very hard limestone is present in the 3 borings at depths to 3 to feet,
which corresponds to Elevations 682.2 to 683.0. Relatively unweathered gray to light gray, hard
to very hard limestone was noted at depths of 7 Y2 to feet in these borings, which corresponds
to Elevation 677.7 to 679,0. The upper zone of the tan limestone may contain thin clay seams
as noted in Borings C-1 and C-2. The lover portion of tan limestone appeared relatively in tact
and free of such seams. Texas Highway Department core penetrometer values noted blow
courts varying from 100 blows for 0.5 to 1.0 inch. In many of these blow courts, the initial
blows may have resulted in movement ent f, say, 34 f are inch while the last 50 blows essentially
moored 0 inches.
Boring C-4 encountered 81/2 feet of light brown to brown silty clay with abundant limestone
fragments. This clay contained limestone seams between depths of 11/2 and 3 feet and
occasional limestone boulders to the 1� f t depth. Tan, hard limestone is present below 81/2
feet and continued to the boring termination depth of 15 feet. Teas Highway Department core
penetrometer test results in the upper silty clays with limestone resulted in values varying from
100 blows in 5.0 to 6.25 inches. Within the hard tan limestone, similar cone results were 100
blows varying from 0.75 to 1.75 inches.
All borings were drilled using continuous flight augers and were dry at completion of drilling.
Although no evidence of grater was noted in the b reh les, it is possible for perched water to
flow through the upper clays atop the tan limestone, particularly after periods of heavy or
extended rainfall.
4 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Report No. 103-04-47
July 31, 2006
Page
ENGI ErE II COMMENTS
TS
In each of the cases i.e. the pipe curare at station 13 and Station 2 , the -inch diameter pipe
presently in the ground has its blocking supported on the outside by approximately 1 to 1' feet
of soil, 1 to 11/2 feet of tan limestone with or without thin occasional clay seams, and 2 feet of
relatively intact hard tan limestone. The strength of the ten limestone far exceeds the
anticipated strength of the overlying soil or any assumed soil that may have been behind the
biockirtg prior to these explorations. The writer surmises that the rock itself is playing the most
important part to prevent the failure of the present thrust block.
Questions still arise regarding the safety factor of this existing blocking/soil/rock condition and
the potential effects of excavation and vibrations on the blocking of the existing pipe. The writer
performed a cursory passive pressure analysis which is normally done in soils only) and
established a potential safety factor of the blocking on the order of 1 to 1.3 or potentially on the
order of 3 to 4, depending on the intact nature of the block on the surrounding soils/rock and the
actual locations of fracture planes and clay seams within the rock itself. Since this line is
extremely important to remain intact without failure, it is our opinion that due care is essential in
maintaining the integrity of the present blocking system and prevention of a catastrophic failure.
Extensive vibrations set up by large equipment operating in this vicinity caused by excavation
into the rock could open up fractures within the tan limestone and/or aggravate the localized thin
clay seams within this limestone.
As a result, it is our opinion that the following potential action be considered:
• Perform the excavation for the proposed line after the existing -inch diameter
water line has been taken out of service; this will allow any construction
vibrations to occur without aggravating the existing system under high pressures
and loads
• Modify the proposed pier bracing system between the existing -inch diameter
pipeline and the proposed pipeline by installing piers approximately 15 to 20 feet
northeast of the existing blocking. This allows the piers to be installed away from
the existing blocking such that any pier drilling that may cause localized
fracturing will not impair the existing blocking for the -inch diameter pipe.
These piers should then be supported on the southwest side of the existing -
inch diameter pipeline to give additional support during the installation of the
proposed pipeline.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Report 1o. 103-04-47
Jul 31, 2006
Page
Should it be elected to Install the ne w pipe without either taping the existing pipe out of
commission temporarily and/or installing the piers causes a significant potential risk of thrust
block failure that C J Engineering, Inc. will not accept and does not recommend.
CLOSURE
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these engineering services. Please contact us should
questions arse on information contained herein. The following plates are attached and
complete this report.
Plates 0-1 through 0- — Logs of Borings
Plate G. - Unified Soil Classification System
Plate 0. — Key y to Classification an ols Nil
e OF 7.Respectfully submitted, � �.• -..1
CMIJENGINEER111,101 r
ARLES M. JACKSON
+ 46088
�� •... .•
L= N 0 !�6
..
& dw
Charles M. lacl son, P.E. 011 A L fc
Senior Engineering Consultant
copies submitted. 3 Mfr. Glenn A. Garry, P.E., Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project A 0. Boring No. Project Eagle Mountain Raw Water Transmission i n Pipeline cmi ENGINEERING f .
103-0"7 CA Fort Worth, Texas
Location Water Observations
See Plate A Dry during drilling; dry at completion
Completion Completion
Depth . ' Date - 1
Surface Elevation Type
685.9 Continuous/Auger
U- 0 a Q �=
cU-
0
>04 �LL - '
Stratum De Y3 �� � , r- d)d)`-�
CLAY,tarp,brown,and gray.stiff to very stiff 1.
.5
682.9 3.5
LIME tan,w/occasional thin clay learns,
moderately hard to hard 10011.014
* -wl no clay seams,4'+
100/0.751.
-J 678.4_ LIME T i gray to light gray.very hard
676,9 ��
D
a
rr /� ■ 5 4, u e 'I'
I 1
H yl X I iF
� 1
yN Y
0
LOG OF BORING 1 . C-1
� Y�..
Project Nb. Boring No. Project Eag I Mountaln Raw Water Transmission Pi pe Iine CMJ ENGNEERIN INC
103-04-47 C Fort Worth, Texas
Location Dater Observations
See Plate A Dry during drilling! airy at completion
Completion Completion
Depth . ' Date 7.21.06
Surface Elevation Type
686.7` Continuous/Auger
L CD
. i Cn U-
t o Stratum escri p i n � _� � � �
Vim:
c c ? � � c a 01
tan,brown, and gray,firm to stiff 2.0
-laminated, V- ' 2.014.5+
682.2 -w l Iime s tone seam-q '- . '
LIMES I tan,moderately hard to turd 10011.0"
5- J JP -w1 thin clay seams,3.5'- '
4 hard to very hard,0'+ 100/0.5„
670.7 LIME hJ gray and light gray,hard 10011.0"
ib
8
c�
c�
r
OD
0
0 PLATE
o LOG F BORING ING C-2 C.2
project Flo. Boring No. Project Eagle Mountain Raw later Transmission Pipeline�M 1VIhIFIId III
103-04-47 C-3 Fort Worth, Texas
Location later Observations
See Plate A dry during drilling; dry at completion
Completion Completion
Depth 9.o` Data 7.21.06
Surface Elevation Type
687.0 Continuous/Au r
z
" Stratum Description C:
a) D C n V 7�W Cy owl W v_' _ to Coo
686.0 CLAY,tan and gray,fill
tan,brown,and gray,stiff 3.0
3.0
883.0 3.0
LIME T tan,very hard 100/0.5
5
0010.7
679.0
678.0 LIME TONg gray,very hard 10010, R
I
4
0
rX
0
m
PLATE Cv3
LOG OF BORING NO. C-3
J
Prot To. Boring o, Project �� ENGINEERING INC
Eagle Mountain�n a r Water Transmission n Pipeline
103-04-47 C=4 Fort Worth,Texas
Location Water Observations
See Plate A Dry during drilling; dry at completion
Completion Completion
Ilepth 15.010 Dante
Surface Elevation Type
ntinuuslAuger
- o 0 o =
LL cn
Stratum Description a-.:)' ;r- ;E V)
-U J
o ,.; •°—
a E
°_� c
,_ t
4) c c C 00
ED CL a. a.-J Q B DUE
SILTY CLAY light brown and brown,w/abundant
limestone fragments,hard
w/limestone seams, 1.51-31 100/6.25
-grades brown and tarp, "+ �-y
1LJ1 +0"
1 0015,5H
75'
LIME tan,hard 01 .
10011.75'
10011.6"
10010.751
O
(J
CL
0
fir}i
O
r
z
it
0
C4 PLATE CMS
o 1 LOG F BORING .
Major Divisions Grp' Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria
Sym.
QD veil graded gravels,gravel- W D �D 2
Z C v sand mixtures, little or no I GU=__�_. greater than 4: ____.�'° . . between 1 and
fines 1U Cy.x D
a. 0
+r 0 c
. , , Poorly graded gravels, gravel �
GP sand mixtures,little or no °' U) 0 Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
QD E2 .a tines ' . 0 ca
f t
:3 Liquid and Plastic limits
GIVI Silty gravels,gravel-sand-self ,, � - Liquid and plastic limits
.i. mixtures . below" "line or P.I. lottin in hatched gone
N ca� � Co � � greater than � 9
C •� , between 4 and 7 are
C co ` to bordedine cases
• ' _ Liquid and Plastic lirnits
Clayey gravels, gravel sand above "A" line with P.I.. requiring use of dual
0 [9 CL GC CL clay mixtures symbols
Q greater than 7 Ze
SO C 93
' ,
ca.. ._
QD .0 Well-graded sands,gravelly � Deo (D �
C ______ neater than s: =__.._. .�_� between 1 and s
ca
E sands, little or no fines , D g =p, x
,o
0
0 CD W Poorly graded sands; ;
P gravelly sands, little or no Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
fines _ ,
co C _0 L . 0 CL CM
a
Liquid and Plastic limits
*� Silty sands, sand-slit C Co C q - .
;� o mixtures C '' c below line or P.I. less Liquid and plastic I�rnits
o ca ' � than plotting between and 9
C � are borderline cases
re u'rrin use of dual
-; • , Liquid and Plastic limits 9
lu , clayey sands,sand-clay above � "line with F'.I. symbols
U) CL mixtures greater than
❑ ❑
Inorganic silts and very fine
NIL sands, rock flour, silty or
clayey fine sands,or clayey
0 C13
silts with slight plasticity
0
Inorganic clays of low to
V medium plasticity,gravelly
C CL
clays, sandy clays, silty s
.= — clays, and lean clays
CH
Z Cr
ca L Organic silts and organic silty
Z
0-0 clays of low plasticity
s
�
Inorganic sifts, micaceous or 9:9
-"—' Iv1H diatomaceous fine sandy or off arid MH
Ch•` � silty soils, elastic silts
i.L
E L CL
a Inorganic clays f high
°_' plasticity, fat clays
4 IL aid DL
� Organic crags of medium to
OH
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
high plasticity, organic silts
Liquid Limit
c�
*ca . ' Peat and other highly organic Plasticity Chart
°� r Pt soils
PLATE C.5
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
SOIL, OR ROCK TYPES
4M
ow. GRAVEL LEAN CLAY LIMESTONE
%o
SAND SANDY SHALE
4@
SALT SILTY �. SANDSTONE
•
JJHIGHLYCLAYEY CONGLOMERATE h +b ,qurit hack done I
PLJAsTI CLAY Tube Spoon Core Pen Recovery
TERMS DESCRIBING CONSISTENCY, CONDITION, AND STRUCTURE OF SOIL
Fine d rained Soil (More than 5na Passing No.Zoo Sieve)
Descriptive Item Penetrometer Reading, tsf
Soft 0.0 to 1.0
Firm 1.0 to 1.5
Stiff 1.5 to 3.0
Very Stiff 3.0 to 4.5
Hard .5+
Coarse Grained Solt (More than 500/9 Retained on No.200 Sieve) of
Penetration Resistance Descriptive Item Relative Density
blowlf oot
o to 4 Very Loose 0 to 0°lam
to 10 Loose 20 to
10 to 30 Medium Dense 40 to 0%
o to 50 Dense o to O%
Over 50 Very r Dense 90 to 100%
Soil Structure
Calcareous Contains appreciable deposits of calcium carbonate; generally modular
Srjckervsided Having inclined planes of weakness that are slick and glossy in appearance
Laminated Composed of thin lagers of varying color or texture
Fissured Go rtainir cracks, sometimes f illed with f ine sand or silt
Interbedded Composed of aft rn to layers of different soil types, usually in approximately equal proportions
TERMS DESCRIBING PHYSICAL. PROPERTIES OF ROCK
Hardness and Degree of Cementation
Very Soft or Plastic Can be remolded in hand; corresponds in consistency up to very stiff in soils
Soft Can be scratched with fingernail
Moderately Hard Can be scratched easily with knife; cannot be scratched with f ingernail
Hard Ddficuit to scratch wth knife
Very Hard Cannot be scratched with knife
Poorly Cemented or Friable Easily crumbled
emerted Bound together by chemically precipitated material: Quartz, calcite, dolomite, side rite,
and iron oxide are common cementing materials.
Degree of Weathering
Unweathered Rock in its natural state before being exposed to atmospheric agemts
Sli htfy Weathered Noted predorninardly by color change with no disintegrated zones
Weathered Co rnplete color change with zones of slightly decomposed rock
Extremely Weathered Complete color change with consistency,texture, and general appearance approaching sail
KEY To CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS PLATE c.
ENO I
r + + + k
• '.
J v pop.
PEE
Y
■ it
i■!!i■■�!■ i■ ■!■■i■!■i■■i■■www
ww■ii■■iwwr�■■i�i■�ii�ww■■ ■■!■■■�■w■w
■■ l��i■w■■ww■�■��■■#■■w■ iwwww■w■ice#■■�
■�' �■�#■www■�■ww#w■�■i�■i�■�■■ice■�i�i�
■_ I■iiii��■!■■■■■aw■sN■www■ iww■i■■iii
■i �i■ice■��■wwwwww■■■�i■■ww■�■iiirA■■ice■
■■ li■■■ice■■■■■i■��■■wiiiiii��■■iii■■i■■
i■ I■i■iii■i■ii!■ i■�■i■■i■■■■■ililiii■
i■ liii■■■■■ice■ii��■i■ii■■■■!ii■�i i■■■
■� i■www■■iwwwiwwr �wwww■w■w■w■wwi■rwww
■�.�w ww■■■■i www i�■ri■■ww■w�rw■ww■ws�ww■■■■
■�i■ii#■■■�■iii■■Nii■■�i■■■ii■■ii■■■■■
■ iiii■s■iii ■■■i■ii■��i��wii�■� �■■■i■
{ - ■■i■■■■i■��i■iiiiw�ii��■■■■■1■■■■i!■ii�
■i■■■■ii■w�rw■i■ ■rwww■■i■#■i■■rii#■■ice
www■■■ii��■■■w■�risww■www■■i�wi■ii■iii■■
■iii�i�■�■w■■!ii■�iiii■w■■ww■Mi■ww■�■■■
iww■■■■w■www■■iww■■■■■■■■■wwwwww�wwww■
■!■■iii■�ir�■i■■■!■�■■iii■■w�wwwww■■■■■i
■i1■■ii■iN�■iwi■!i■iii ■■■■!■■■!■■i■■ii■
■■w■rwww■■swwwwwsw�w■ww■www■w■w■■■■Rom■
�, ■wi■■�7�i■iii■■■■■�■■i�i�■ ������!�! l�fr��!���
" � ■iii■i:��■iii■■■■■■■■■�■■■r��■■■��■ ■wG:"f�,
. �� ■■iwiw��wwww■■w■■■iwwwww■wwrsa■wwwww■■■■■
. � � a■ww�sswliwwwww�rwww■■www■�i�i■iwi■�l1�1t!�-
1. ■! i■liiiNii �■ m it ■w■■iw■ ACV
ra.- � '4�+ !Ei■■■liirii:
r
'tirCORRPRO
COMPANIES INC
Prtww vnd SuM rt C,bbolAswts&Infraouafft
September 1 , 2006
Nis. Jennifer Tatum
Iirnley-Horn & Associates
801 Cherry Street, Unit 11
Suite 1925
Fort Worth, Tx 76102
Reference: Eagle Mountain 72" Pipeline
Steel to Existing PP Transition
Dear Ms. Tatum:
This letter is to provide you with a proposal to conduct the required tests to ensure
effective corrosion protection is achieved on both the 2" diameter dielectrically coated
steel line and the 72" diameter prestressed concrete cylinder pipe A WWA C 3 0 1 .
The field activities necessary to determine if the proposed connection will be compatible
with the corrosion protection system include:
• Testing of the isolation flange at the plant end of the 1 800 foot section of PCCP.
• Measurements at the test station located at the approximate raid-point of the PP,
• Current demand testing for cathodic protection of the PCCP.
• Measurements at the new test stations along the 72" steel section of pipeline.
The lump surn price to provide these services is S 7,000.00.
From an analysis of this data, it may be possible to reconfigure the cathodic protection
system to accommodate electrical continuity with the PCP.
Please consider the above and call me if you have any questions or wish to discuss in
greater detail.
Very Truly Yours,
Currpro Companies Inc.
me 7/_~_--1/60�_4!*ffee�V
Rafael E. Rodriguez, MSE
Project Manager
ar
•
vu
INC.
SURYEYINQ-AERIAL HAPPIMG•€NGINEER1NG
Surveying And Mapping, Inc.
5508 blest Highway 290, Bldg. B
Austin, TX 78735
512-447-0575
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc Invoice number 18844
Unit 11 Date 312712007
801 Cherry St. Suite 1 025
Ft. Worth, TX 76102-6803
Glenn A. Gary, P.E.
Contract: 100424266D Customer ID: K012
" Water Main Staking
Scope of Work:
Professional Services: February 18, 2007 through March 17,2007
020008 Design Surveys
Total fee 3,240.00
Percent complete 108.00
Total fee billed 33240.00
Fee previously billed 0.00
Current fee billing 31240.08
Invoice total 31240.00
JFFICE BILLS
J btT k#
/L Acct# Date
to
Approval
Sent t A�� .. Period
PAYMENT IS DUE UPON RECEIPT EIPT F INVOICE, THANK YOU.
Reviewed by: _