project no. 1852 - houston no. 1852 table of contents ... material finer than no.200 sieve astm d...

Project No. 1852

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ I

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM ............................................................................................................. 1

2 FIELD INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS .................................................................................................................................... 2

2.3 SAMPLING METHODS ......................................................................................................................................... 3

2.4 SURVEY DATA ................................................................................................................................................... 3

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

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................ 4

4.1 GENERAL GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................... 4

4.2 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................... 5

4.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................................. 6

5 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 6

5.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

5.2 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 6

5.2.1 Floor Slab ................................................................................................................................................. 9

5.2.2 Grade Beams and Void Boxes .................................................................................................................. 9

5.2.3 Groundwater Control ............................................................................................................................. 10

5.3 DETENTION POND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES ...................................................................................................... 10

5.3.1 Slope Stability Analysis Design Factor of Safety ..................................................................................... 11

5.3.2 Results of Slope Stability Analysis .......................................................................................................... 12

5.3.3 Erosion Control Recommendations for the Slope ................................................................................... 12

6 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 14

6.1 SUBGRADE STABILIZATION ................................................................................................................................ 14

6.2 PAVEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 14

7 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................. 15

7.1 EARTHWORK AND FILL COMPACTION .................................................................................................................. 15

7.2 FOUNDATION EXCAVATION AND CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................... 16

7.3 SITE DRAINAGE ............................................................................................................................................... 16

7.4 VEGETATION CONTROL..................................................................................................................................... 17

7.5 DESIGN REVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 17

8 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 17

9 ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 18

SITE VICINITY PLAN ....................................................................................................................................................... 18

PLAN OF BORINGS ........................................................................................................................................................ 18

BORING LOGS .............................................................................................................................................................. 18

SYMBOLS AND TERMINOLOGY USED IN BORING LOGS .......................................................................................................... 18

Project No. 1852

PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 18

RESULTS OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 18

LABORATORY TEST DATA SUMMARY SHEET ....................................................................................................................... 18

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TEST REPORT ........................................................................................................................ 18

Project № 1852 Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Kenall was retained by Huitt-Zollars to provide geotechnical services for the proposed buildings

improvements on Ardmore Street in Houston, Texas. The project consists of construction of new

buildings, associated pavement and detention pond. The project area is located at 7027

Ardmore Street in Houston, Texas.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions and to provide

design and construction recommendations for the buildings foundation and associated

pavement and detention pond. This study was performed in general accordance with Chapter

11 of the latest City of Houston's Public Works & Engineering Infrastructure Design Manual.

Based on the subsurface conditions revealed by the soil borings, the findings and

recommendations of this report are summarized below:

1. Subsurface soils at the site generally comprise of stiff to hard cohesive fat clays, lean

clays and clayey sand.

2. Groundwater was encountered at different depths for different boring locations.

3. Recommendations for foundation design.

4. Pavement design should generally be in accordance with the latest City of Houston

Standard Specification.

5. Recommendations detention pond should generally be in accordance with the latest

Harris County Flood Control District Standard Specification.

6. Proposed detention pond with a 4 horizontal to 1 vertical (4H:1V) slope is expected to be

stable for short term, long term and rapid drawdown conditions.

7. All excavation operations should be carried out in accordance with the latest City of

Houston Standard Specifications.

Please note that this executive summary does not fully relate our findings and opinions, which

are only presented through our full report.

Project No. 1852 Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description

Kenall was retained by Huitt-Zollars to provide geotechnical services for the proposed buildings


buildings, associated pavement, and detention pond. The project area is located at 7027

Ardmore Street in Houston, Texas. A site vicinity map showing the approximate project location

is presented in illustration, Plate No.1 of this report.

The purpose of this study was to provide design and construction recommendations for the

proposed new buildings, associated parking, access driveway and detention pond. This study

was performed in general accordance with modified in Chapter 11 of the latest City of Houston's

Public Works & Engineering Infrastructure Design Manual.

1.2 Geotechnical Investigation Program

The primary objectives of this study were to gather information on subsurface conditions at the

site and to provide recommendations for the proposed buildings and the detention pond. The

objectives were accomplished by:

1. Drilling twenty-five (25) soil borings up to a depth of 35 feet below the existing subgrade

to determine soil stratigraphy and to obtain samples for laboratory testing;

2. Performing laboratory tests in accordance with ASTM methods to determine physical

and engineering characteristics of the soils;

3. Performing engineering analyses in accordance with the latest City of Houston Design

Manual-July 2015, to develop design guidelines and recommendations; and

4. Providing a geotechnical report that includes all the field data, laboratory data, and

geotechnical recommendations.

Subsequent sections of this report contain descriptions of the field exploration, laboratory testing

program, general subsurface conditions, design recommendations, and construction

considerations.


2 FIELD INVESTIGATION

2.1 General

After obtaining clearance for the proposed boring in the field, borings were drilled to the

explored depths using a buggy rig. All drilling and sampling were performed in accordance with

appropriate ASTM procedures.

2.2 Geotechnical Borings

The field exploration program undertaken at the project site was performed in the months of

May 2014 and August 2014. B-1 through B-16 were drilled in the month of May 2014. B-17

through B-25 were drilled in the month of August of 2014. Subsurface conditions were

investigated by drilling twenty-five (25) soil borings (designated as B-1 through B-25) up to a

depth of 35 feet below the existing grade. Borings B-1 through B-6 were drilled to a depth of 35

feet. The test data from borings B-1 through B-6, were not considered for design purpose as the

borings were located outside the proposed building area. Borings B-7 through B-13 were drilled

to a depth of 5 feet; borings B-14 through B-19, B-24 and B-25 were drilled to a depth of 20 feet;

borings B-20 through B-23 were drilled to a depth of 30 feet. The approximate boring locations

are shown in Plate No. 2. Each sample in the field was removed from the sampler, examined

carefully, and then logged by an experienced soils technician. Portions of each sample were

sealed, packaged, and transported to our Kenall facility. Boreholes then backfilled with cement

bentonite grout using tremie method in accordance with latest City guidelines and patched at

the surface where applicable. Borings associated with each structure are shown in the below

Table 1.

Table 1: Boreholes location, proposed depth, proposed structure

Boring No. Boring Depth (ft) Proposed Structure

B-7 through B-13 5 Parking Lot, Driveway

B-14, B-15 and B-25 20 Detention Pond

B-16 20 Fueling Station

B-17 through B-19 20 Building 1

B-20 30 Building 1

B-21 through B-23 30 Building 2

B-24 20 Building 2

Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered in the borings are given in the boring logs

presented in Plate Nos.3 through 27. A key to the soils classification and symbols used in the

boring logs is also shown in Plate No.28.


2.3 Sampling Methods

Soil samples were continuously obtained to the termination depth of the borings. Cohesive soil

samples were obtained with a three-inch thin-walled (Shelby) tube sampler in general

accordance with the ASTM D1587 standard. Cohesionless soil samples were obtained with a

Split Spoon Sampler. Each sample was removed from the sampler in the field, carefully

examined, and then classified. The shear strength of the cohesive soils was estimated by a

hand penetrometer in the field. Suitable portions of each sample were sealed and packaged for

transportation to our laboratory. Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered in the borings are

given in the boring logs presented in Plate Nos.3 through 27. A key to the soils classification and

symbols used in the boring logs is also shown in Plate No.28.

2.4 Survey Data

Based on the approximate survey information obtained from the google maps the location,

northing, easting, and termination depth for all the borings are presented as follows:

Table 1: Survey Data for all the Borings

Boring Number Northing (ft) Easting (ft)

Proposed Boring Depth (ft)

B-1 13818301.736 3118326.362 35

B-2 13818291.059 3118369.255 35

B-3 13818280.573 3118171.695 35

B-4 13818264.641 3118209.352 35

B-5 13818187.174 3118127.897 35

B-6 13818197.410 3118176.495 35

B-7 13818426.631 3118118.573 5

B-8 13818767.367 3118184.249 5

B-9 13818369.936 3118284.862 5

B-10 13818328.940 3118088.884 5

B-11 13818275.829 3118194.712 5

B-12 13818164.167 3118054.601 5

B-13 13818152.930 3118102.912 5

B-14 13818263.664 3118400.914 20

B-15 13818119.960 3118342.158 20

B-16 13818007.361 3118077.881 20

B-17 13818347.437 3118087.040 20

B-18 13818367.673 3118106.106 20

B-19 13818206.347 3118042.177 20

B-20 13818197.310 3118067.550 30

B-21 13818328.087 3118167.047 30

B-22 13818220.445 3118121.467 30

B-23 13818172.223 3118103.267 30

B-24 13818201.389 3118163.984 20


B-25 13817989.676 3118340.795 20

3 LABORATORY TESTING

Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine applicable physical and

engineering properties. All tests except pocket penetrometer were performed according to the

relevant ASTM Standards. These tests consisted of Moisture Content, Material Finer than

No.200 Sieve, Liquid Limits and Plastic Limits, and Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial

Compression Test and Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test. The Atterberg Limits and percent

passing number 200 sieve tests were used to verify field classification by the ASTM version of the

Unified Soils Classification System. The unconsolidated undrained compression tests were

performed to obtain the undrained shear strength of the soil and consolidated undrained triaxial

tests were performed to obtain the cohesion and friction angle of the soil. The type and number

of tests performed for this investigation are summarized below:

Table 2: Laboratory Tests Performed

Test Name Test Method Number of Tests

Hand Penetrometer Not applicable

Moisture Content ASTM D 2216 285

Liquid Limits and Plastic Limits ASTM D 4318 49

Material Finer than No.200 Sieve ASTM D 1140 49

Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test ASTM D 2850 26

Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test ASTM D 4767 1

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 General Geology

Two major surface geological formations that exist in the Houston area are the Beaumont

Formation and the Lissie Formation. The project area lies in the Beaumont Formation.

The Beaumont Formation dips southeastward and extends beneath beach sand and waters of the

Gulf of Mexico as far as the continental shelf. The courses of major streams and deltaic tributaries

changed frequently during the period of deposition, generating a complex stratification of sand,

silt, and clay deposits within the Beaumont clay. The Beaumont Formation was deposited on land

near sea level in flat river deltas and in inter-delta regions. Soil deposition occurred in fresh water

streams and in flood plains (as backwater marsh and natural levees). The clays and sands of the

Beaumont Formation are over-consolidated as a result of desiccation from frequent rising and

lowering of the sea level and the groundwater table. The clays of this formation have moderate to

high shear strength and relatively low compressibility. The sands of this formation are typically

very fine and often silty.


4.2 Soil Stratigraphy

Our interpretation of soil and groundwater conditions at the project site is based on information

obtained at the boring locations only. This information has been used as the basis for our

conclusions and recommendations. Significant variations at areas not explored by the project

borings may require reevaluation of our findings and conclusions.

Boring No. & Depth Classification Description

STRATUM I

B-1, B-2, B-4, B-6, B-13, B-16, B-19 through B-24 (0-4 ft)

B-7 through B-12, B-14, B-15, B-17, B-18, B-25 (0-2 ft)

B-3 (0-8 ft), B-5 (0-6 ft)

FILL Dark gray, gray, brown and tan, sandy fat clay and sandy lean clay with shell and gravel- FILL

STRATUM II

B-1 and B-2 (4-18 ft)

B-3 (8-25 ft)

B-4, B-6, B-16, B-19, B-20, B-24 (4-20 ft)

B-5 (6-20 ft)

B-7 through B-12 (2-5 ft)

B-13 (4-5 ft)

B-14, B-15, B-17, B-18, B-25, (2-20 ft)

B-20 (4-23 ft)

B-21, B-22 (4-25 ft)

B-23 (4 - 30 ft)

CH Dark gray, light

gray, gray, reddish

brown, yellowish

brown and tan, stiff

to hard Fat Clay

(CH)

Stratum III

B-1 and B-2 (18-30 ft)

B-3 (25-35 ft)

B-4, B-5, B-6 (20-35 ft)

B-20 (23-30 ft)

B-21, B-22 (25-30 ft)

CL Light gray, gray,

reddish brown and

tan, stiff to hard

Sandy Lean Clay

and Lean Clay with

Sand (CL)


Stratum IV

B-1, B-2 (30-35 ft)

SILTY SAND

CLAYEY

SAND

Light gray and

brown, dense Silty

Sand (SM) and

Clayey Sand (SC)

4.3 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was encountered at different depths in the borings drilled for this study. The

groundwater depths are mentioned in Table 3. The groundwater level at this site should be

expected fluctuate with seasonal variation in the amount of rain fall (climatic changes) and

subsurface drainage characteristics. More accurate groundwater levels can be obtained by

installing and long-term monitoring of piezometers or monitoring wells. Long term monitoring of

groundwater levels was beyond the scope of this study. Since groundwater level variations are

anticipated, design drawings and specifications should incorporate such possibilities and

provide for dewatering, as required, during construction.

Table 3: Boreholes Groundwater Depths

Boring No. Groundwater

During Drilling (ft)

Groundwater

after 15 Minutes

(ft)

B-1 28 26’ 2”

B-2 28 22’ 3”

B-3 26 25’ 2”

B-4 25 23’ 3”

B-5 26 22’ 6”

B-6 24 21’ 5”

B-21 25 22’ 6”

B-22 28 25’ 6”

B-23 23 21’ 8”

5 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General

Kenall was retained by Huitt-Zollars to provide geotechnical services for the proposed building


buildings, associated pavement, and detention pond. The project area is located at 7027

Ardmore Street in Houston, Texas.

5.2 Foundation Recommendations


Based on soil conditions encountered in soil boring and our experience with the general area soils

we recommend supporting proposed building on drilled and underreamed piers.

A grading plan was not available during writing this report. For the purpose of writing this report

we have assumed nominal cuts and fills are required to achieve the final grades. The following

design recommendations were developed assuming the existing grade was within 2 ft of final

grade.

Building 1 (Borings B-17 through B-20) and Building 2 (Borings B-21 through B-24)

Drilled and Underreamed Piers

Based on soil conditions encountered in the borings the proposed building could be

supported on drilled and underreamed piers bearing at a depth of at least twenty feet (20)

below existing grade or final grade, whichever is deep. Based on our experience with

general area soils, granular soils and groundwater seepage could be encountered during

construction of underreamed piers. Some adjustments in depth of piers may be required in

some areas of the site to bear the bottom of the underream above any granular soils and/or

groundwater seepage. Kenall should observe the adjustments in pier depths in field.

Piers bearing at above depths may be sized for a net allowable bearing pressure of 3,500

psf for dead load plus sustained live load and 4,500 psf for total load conditions, whichever

governs. These allowable bearing pressures contain factors of safety of about 3 and 2,

respectively.

The minimum clear spacing between edges of adjacent piers should be at least one (1)

underream diameter. Based on experience with the general area soils underreams can be

successfully installed with a bell to shaft ratio of at least 2 and not exceeding 3. Piers

designed using the recommended allowable bearing capacity will experience small

settlements (less than 1 inch) that will be well within the tolerable limits for the proposed

structure. Differential settlements should be on the order of one-half the total settlement.

The portion of the shaft in expansive soils within the depth of moisture change

(approximately 8 ft below ground surface) could be subjected to uplift forces (soil-to-pier

adhesion) caused by potential soil swell. In addition, the piers could be subjected to other

uplift forces (tensile forces) due to the super structure. The pier shaft should be reinforced

with sufficient tension steel over its entire length to resist these potential uplift forces

(tensile forces) caused by swelling soils and superstructures. The uplift forces due to

swelling soils should be resisted by the underreamed portion of the pier that acts as an

anchor. Underreamed piers should be reinforced with sufficient tension steel over its entire

length to resist potential uplift forces (tensile forces). Foundation reinforcement design will

be the responsibility of Project Structural Engineer.

Caving of shaft may occur during construction of the drilled piers due to calcareous nodules

and ferrous nodules and groundwater seepage that could be encountered at bearing depth

during construction. In order to minimize the possibility of shaft caving during drilled pier

construction, the construction contractor should be prepared to use slurry method of drilling


or to use cased piers or straight sided shaft foundations. We recommend that the drilling be

performed under the supervision of a licensed Professional Engineer.

For Fueling Station (Boring B-16)

Drilled and Underreamed Piers

Based on soil conditions encountered in the borings the proposed building could be

supported on drilled and underreamed piers bearing at a depth of at least twelve (12) feet

below existing grade or final grade, whichever is deep. Based on our experience with

general area soils, granular soils and groundwater seepage could be encountered during

construction of underreamed piers. Some adjustments in depth of piers may be required in

some areas of the site to bear the bottom of the underream above any granular soils and/or

groundwater seepage. Kenall should observe the adjustments in pier depths in field.

Piers bearing at above depths may be sized for a net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000

psf for dead load plus sustained live load and 4,500 psf for total load conditions, whichever

governs. These allowable bearing pressures contain factors of safety of about 3 and 2,

respectively.

The minimum clear spacing between edges of adjacent piers should be at least one (1)

underream diameter. Based on experience with the general area soils underreams can be

successfully installed with a bell to shaft ratio of at least 2 and not exceeding 3. Piers

designed using the recommended allowable bearing capacity will experience small

settlements (less than 1 inch) that will be well within the tolerable limits for the proposed

structure. Differential settlements should be on the order of one-half the total settlement.

The portion of the shaft in expansive soils within the depth of moisture change

(approximately 8 ft below ground surface) could be subjected to uplift forces (soil-to-pier

adhesion) caused by potential soil swell. In addition, the piers could be subjected to other

uplift forces (tensile forces) due to the super structure. The pier shaft should be reinforced

with sufficient tension steel over its entire length to resist these potential uplift forces

(tensile forces) caused by swelling soils and superstructures. The uplift forces due to

swelling soils should be resisted by the underreamed portion of the pier that acts as an

anchor. Underreamed piers should be reinforced with sufficient tension steel over its entire

length to resist potential uplift forces (tensile forces). Foundation reinforcement design will

be the responsibility of Project Structural Engineer.

Caving of shaft may occur during construction of the drilled piers due to calcareous nodules

and ferrous nodules and groundwater seepage that could be encountered at bearing depth

during construction. In order to minimize the possibility of shaft caving during drilled pier

construction, the construction contractor should be prepared to use slurry method of drilling

or to use cased piers or straight sided shaft foundations. We recommend that the drilling be

performed under the supervision of a licensed Professional Engineer.


5.2.1 Floor Slab

As discussed in Section 4.2 of this report, the onsite soils consist of fat clay material

within the depth of seasonal moisture change. The fat clay soils encountered within the

depth of moisture change can shrink-swell with seasonal variation in moisture changes.

Any Grade-supported floor slabs placed on these soils will incur risk associated with

distress.

Potential Vertical Slab Movements: Based on the information obtained during this

investigation, a slab constructed on-grade will be subjected to potential vertical slab

movements of about 4.96 inches. The PVR values were estimated for this site using the

Texas Department of Transportation method (Test Procedure TEX-124-E). One (1) inch

of PVR is generally accepted as the maximum allowable value for design and

construction in the geographical area.

Subgrade Treatment: The extent of subgrade treatment depends on the allowable PVR

as determined by the structural engineer. The table below provides the details of

allowable PVR and respective thickness of select fill required.

Allowable PVR (inches) Thickness of Select Fill Required (inches)

3.26 48

0.95 96

In areas where less than the above specified thickness of fill (based on the allowable

PVR) is required to bring the building pad to grade, we recommend that the existing soils

be excavated to the recommended depth of subgrade treatment below the top of the

finished building pad subgrade and replaced with select fill. Subgrade treatment should

extend at least 4-feet horizontally beyond the perimeter of the building.

In view of above discussion, we recommend to replace the existing fill material with non-

expansive material (structural fill). The structural fill material should be installed below

the bottom of floor slabs and top of surface of underlying soil. The select material

(structural fill) should extend at least 4 ft beyond the exterior walls. Requirements for

select, non-expansive material (structural fill) are discussed in Section 6.1 of this report

5.2.2 Grade Beams and Void Boxes

The excavations for the grade beams should be clean and free of any loose materials

prior to concrete placement. A void space of six (6) inches should be provided beneath

the bottom of grade beams. This void space allows for movement of the expansive soils

below the grade beams without distressing the structural system. Structural cardboard

void forms are often used to provide this void space.


Void Boxes are typically placed under the grade beams to provide the void space, and

act as a barrier separating the grade beams from the underlying soils. The void boxes

collapse when the underlying soils swell, thus minimizing the uplift loads caused by the

expansive soils on grade beams. However, in some cases these voids may act as a

channel for water to travel under a foundation system with poor area drainage. If this

condition exists, it may result in higher seasonal movements than predicted in this report

and may cause distress to floor slab. Close attention should be exercised during

construction of these voids.

It is our opinion that the determination whether or not to provide voids under the grade

beams be made after both the positive and negative aspects are evaluated. Kenall from

our experience with these voids, as well as the experiences of other experts, brings us to

the conclusion that even though they may be effective in reducing swell pressures on the

grade beams, they may provide free water which would be available for absorption by

slab support soils.

5.2.3 Groundwater Control

Groundwater was encountered on drilling tools during drilling operations. Based on our

experience seasonal groundwater seepage could be encountered during excavation for

foundations and utility conduits. In cohesive soils groundwater may be collected in the

excavated bottom sumps for pump disposal. In semi cohesion less soils or granular soils

dewatering will be required. In such cases groundwater typically controlled by installation

of vacuum well points for excavation generally shallower than 15 feet or deep wells with

submersible pumps for excavation deeper than 15 feet. The groundwater level in these

soils should be lowered and maintained at least 5 feet below the level of excavation.

It is recommended that the actual groundwater conditions be verified by the

contractor at the time of construction and that groundwater control be performed in

general accordance with the latest City of Houston Standard Specifications.

5.3 Detention Pond Slope Stability Analyses

The detention pond is proposed to be about 5 feet deep, and will have grass-lined side slopes

with inclination of 4 horizontal to 1 vertical (4H:1V). Borings B-14, B-15 and B-25 were drilled at

the detention pond location. We conducted slope stability analyses using information from the

borings and assuming some parameters based on similar soil conditions to evaluate the slope

stability of the earth slopes using Morgenstern-price Method. The computer program SLOPE/W

version 8.14.2.11317 developed by GEO-SLOPE International. The SLOPE/W version

8.14.2.11317 computer program searches for the critical slope failure plane and computes

the minimum factor of safety for the given slope geometry and subsurface soil conditions.

For the slope stability analysis, three conditions were analyzed. The three different conditions

are:


Short Term or Undrained Condition – This condition occurs when the pore pressures within

the soil mass are not dissipated. Typically, this condition corresponds to the state of the soils,

which exist immediately after performing any cut/fill during the construction of any slope. For

this condition slopes were analyzed using undrained soil parameters obtained from our

laboratory testing program.

Long Term or Drained Condition - This condition occurs when the pore pressures within the

soil mass are dissipated. Typically, this condition corresponds to the state of the soils a few

months or years after the construction are completed. For this condition, slopes were analyzed

using drained or effective stress soil parameters obtained from results of laboratory testing. In

the long term condition, the slope analyzed consisted of consolidated and drained condition and

effective shear strength parameters prevail. Due to the expansive soil conditions within the

active zone, the mobilized shear strength parameters were used.

Rapid Drawdown Condition - This condition occurs when the water level in the ponds rises

during a flood saturating the slope and then drains rapidly or suddenly lowers after the flood

recedes. The state of stress within the soils of the slope after a flood event depends largely on

the permeability and drainage characteristics of the slope. When the water levels are lowered

rapidly or suddenly, against a clay slope, excess pore pressures may not have enough time to

dissipate and an undrained strength analysis is required. For this condition, slopes were

analyzed using total stress soil parameters obtained from results of laboratory testing.

Expansive soil conditions were encountered at the site. Due to the expansive soil conditions

within the active zone, the mobilized shear strength parameters were used.

5.3.1 Slope Stability Analysis Design Factor of Safety

Minimum acceptable factors of safety against slope stability failures used in this

reports are provided in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Minimum Acceptable Factor of Safety for Slope Stability Analyses

Condition Minimum Acceptable Factor of Safety

Short term condition 1.30

Long term condition 1.50

Rapid drawdown condition 1.25

The above factor of safety either meets or exceeds the minimums recommended by the

Harris County Flood Control District Guidelines. A safety factor of 1.0 indicates

impending failure. The larger the safety factor above 1.0, the lower the risk that the

slope will fail. As a practical matter, and in consideration of the variables and unknowns

involved, the risk cannot be reduced to zero. The goal is to reduce the risk of slope

failure to a reasonable and acceptable level, with due consideration of the

consequences of failure.


5.3.2 Results of Slope Stability Analysis

The shear strengths of soils were conservatively estimated based on results of

laboratory tests performed during the past study. Shear strength parameters used in the

stability analyses are tabulated below:

Table 5: Soil Strength Parameters used in Slope Stability Analyses

Depth (ft)

Material Unit Weight (pcf)

Short-Term Long-Term (assumed)

Rapid Drawdown (assumed)

C, psf Φ’, deg C’, psf Φ’, deg C’, psf Φ’, deg

0-20 Fat Clay (CH)

125 1000 0 300 12 500 8

Slope stability analyses were performed on the 1V:4H slope. Slope stability analyses

were performed using the soil profile defined by soil borings B-14, B-15, and B-25.

These analyses were performed in order to determine the factors of safety of the existing

slope of the bank against slope stability failure. The results of our slope stability

analysis are shown in Plate No 30 through 32 and the factors of safety are provided in

Table 6 below.

Table 6: Results of Slope Stability Analysis for the proposed Slope

Condition

Minimum Factor of Safety Against Slope Stability Failure

Short term

conditions

Long term

condition

Rapid drawdown

condition

Plate Nos.

Proposed Slope

3.807 1.500 2.065 30, 31, 32

Based on results from our slope stability analysis the pond slopes have adequate safety

factor against stability failure. 4H:1V earth slopes for the proposed 10 feet deep

Detention Pond, constructed in Borings B-14, B-15 and B-25 soil stratigraphy, will

posses adequate factor of safety against slope instability in terms of short and long term

and the rapid drawdown loading conditions.

5.3.3 Erosion Control Recommendations for the Slope

If any sandy or loose soils are encountered, these soils may trigger slope failures due to

erosion. Therefore, we recommended that proper erosion control measures be provided.

The following recommendations should be used for erosion control of exposed

sandy, dispersive or loose soils on the slopes.

Erosion Control Recommendations- Using Clay liner and Vegetation

The high erosion potential that could result due to the exposure of the slope may

be controlled by using clay liner and vegetation. It is recommended that the


following procedures be performed in order to control the erosion of exposed

soils and minimize the potential for slope stability failure of the proposed

detention pond.

Prepare the subgrade in accordance with Section 6.1

Over-excavate any exposed sands and as well as for a width of at least 20

feet from the top-of-slopes and replace with at least 2 feet of the lean clays

(PI > 20) and fat clays (measured perpendicular to the exposed surface),

placed under controlled conditions (i.e., in 6-inch compacted lifts at a

minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density of the soil in accordance with

standard compaction procedures (ASTM D 698) within ± 2% of optimum

moisture content).

Place at least 3 inches of topsoil over the bottom, side slopes, and for a width

of 20 feet from the top of the slopes.

Provide erosion control measures by immediately initiating vegetative growth.

Erosion Control Recommendations- Using Rip–Rap

Riprap may be used for erosion control of the exposed slope. If used, it is

recommended that the following procedures be performed for erosion control.

Provide riprap consisting of broken concrete or stone. Provide riprap that is

dense, durable and hard material free from cracks, seams and other defects

which would increase deterioration from handling and natural causes.

Provide riprap in cubic form.

Place the riprap on the slopes, to establish a well graded mass of riprap with

minimal voids.

Erosion control Recommendations- Using Geosynthetics

Geosynthetics can also be used for erosion control of the exposed sands and

minimize the potential for slope stability failure of the slope. If used, it is

recommended that the following procedures be performed for erosion control.

Prepare the subgrade in accordance with Section 6.1 and as necessary to

allow placement of a geosynthetic lining system

Place the geosynthetic lining such as the Enkamat 7910, or equivalent,

should be placed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended

installation guidelines.

Place at least 6 inches of topsoil over the geosynthetic lining.

Once the geosynthetic lining system is installed, vegetative growth should be initiated by hydro mulching or hydro seeding.


6 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

As discussed previously the pavement for the project could consist of either asphalt concrete or

Portland cement concrete. Detailed pavement recommendations are provided in sections below.

6.1 Subgrade Stabilization

Paving areas should be proof-rolled to check for any soft or weak areas. Any soft or weak areas

observed during the proof-rolling process should be removed and replaced with engineered fill

or structural fill as discussed in Section 6.1 of this report.

After proof-rolling the exposed surface of pavement areas should be stabilized using lime. The

upper 8 inches of exposed final subgrade should be stabilized by the addition of 7.0% lime. This

would require about 42 pounds of lime per square yard, based on subgrade thickness of 8 inches

and a soil dry unit weight of 100 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The actual percentage of lime

should be confirmed by laboratory tests.

The lime stabilization of clay subgrade should be performed in accordance with latest City of

Houston Standard Specifications for "lime stabilized subgrade".

6.2 Pavement

The assumptions utilized in our pavement thickness analysis are summarized on Plate No. 29.

The following pavement thicknesses are based on these assumptions and procedures

published by the Portland Cement Association and the National Crushed Stone Association.

Recommendations for material properties for the paving layers are provided on Plate No. 29. It

is estimated that the service life for a properly constructed and maintained pavement will be in

order of 50 years. Proper civil design features such as joint design, quantity shoulder support

should be incorporated into the plans and specifications.

Parking Lots - Automobile Only

(DI-1)

Flexible Base Rigid Pavement

1.5" Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete 5.0" Reinforced Concrete

6.0" Crushed Limestone* 8.0" Stabilized Compacted Subgrade

8.0" Stabilized Compacted Subgrade

Parking Lots & Light Duty Access Lanes

(DI-2)






Medium Duty Access Drives

(DI-3)





Plant mix, hot laid asphalt base (black base) can be substituted on a ratio of one (1)

inch of black base equal to 1.5 inches of crushed limestone.

In area where front-end loaded dumpster truck be used, a rigid pavement section

of 7” reinforced concrete is recommended.

7 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Earthwork and Fill Compaction

The site should be stripped to suitable depths to remove any top soil and miscellaneous fill

material. The exposed subgrade should then be proof-rolled with a 20-ton pneumatic roller or

loaded dump truck to locate weak and soft areas. Any soft or loose material exposed should be

removed and replaced with well-compacted material. The proof-rolling should be performed

under the supervision of a licensed Professional Geotechnical Engineer.

Samples of the subgrade soil should be obtained prior to compaction operations for laboratory

moisture/density testing (Proctor Tests). The tests will provide a basis for evaluating the in-place

density requirements during compaction operations. A qualified soil technician should perform

sufficient in-place density tests during the filling operations to verify that proper levels of

compaction are being attained.

Prior to placing any new fill the natural subgrade should be scarified to a minimum depth of six

(6) inches. The scarified soils should then be recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the

standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-698) and within the range of 1 percentage

point below to 3 percentage points above the material’s optimum.

Any select, non-expansive fill (structural fill) used at the site should have a Liquid Limit less than

40 and a Plasticity Index between 8 and 20. The select fill material should be placed in

maximum of eight (8) inch loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the

maximum dry density as per ASTM D-698. The moisture content should be within 1 percentage

point below to 3 percentage points above material’s optimum.

Clay soils with plasticity index greater than or equal to 25 used as fill should be compacted to a

dry density between 95 to 98 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-698)

and within the range of 2 to 6 percentage points above the material’s optimum.


Sandy clay soils with a plasticity index less than 25 used a fill should be compacted to at least

95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-698) and within the range of 1

percentage point below to 3 percentage points above the material’s optimum.

7.2 Foundation Excavation and Construction

The foundation excavations should be inspected under the supervision of a licensed

Professional Geotechnical Engineer to confirm that the bearing soils are similar to those

encountered in our field exploration and that the foundation areas have been properly prepared.

The geotechnical engineer should be immediately notified should any subsoil conditions be

uncovered that will alter the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. Further

investigation and supplemental recommendations may be required if such a condition is

encountered.

For drilled piers, the concrete should be placed in a timely manner after drilling to minimize the

potential for caving of the foundation soils. Piers should not be poured without the prior

approval of a licensed Professional Geotechnical Engineer. Prior to placement of concrete, the

foundations excavations should be inspected to verify that:

1. The foundations bear in the proper bearing strata. 2. The drilled shaft is to the proper dimensions and reinforcing steel is placed as shown

on the structural drawings. 3. The shaft has been drilled plumb within specified tolerances. 4. Excessive cutting, buildup of cutting, and any other soft compressible materials have

been removed from the bottom of the excavations. 5. Any groundwater seepage observed in the pier excavations and sloughing of soils

has been handled properly.

Based on experience with the general area soils underreams can be successfully installed with

a bell to shaft ratio of at least 2 and not exceeding 3. If the underreams are unstable or

marginally stable with 3:1 bell to shaft ratio, the bell to shaft ration can be changed by increasing

the shaft diameter. If the soil conditions warrant the changing of the shaft diameter, the

Structural Engineer of record should be informed about any changes because they may require

a change in reinforcing steel or bell diameter.

Excavations adjacent to existing buildings could cause ground displacement and movement of

an adjacent structure. Also, new construction can cause damage to adjacent building due to

vibrations caused by the construction traffic or equipment. A monitoring program should be

established during the construction phase of phase of the project.

7.3 Site Drainage

It is recommended that site drainage be well developed. Drainage is important from the

standpoint of soil stability. Surface water should be directed away from the foundation soils (use

a minimum slope of 5% within 10 feet of foundation). No ponding of surface water should be

allowed near the structure. Good drainage should be provided not only under the structure, but

the general area should be well drained.


7.4 Vegetation Control

We recommend trees not to be closer than half the canopy diameter of mature trees from the

structure, typically a minimum of 20 feet. This will minimize possible foundation settlement

caused by the tree root systems.

7.5 Design Review

Review of the design and construction plans as well as the specifications should be performed

by Kenall before release. The review is aimed at determining if the geotechnical design

recommendations and construction criteria presented in this report have been properly

interpreted. Design review is not within the scope of work authorized in this study. Should you

elect to retain Kenall to perform a design review, additional fees would be applicable.

8 LIMITATIONS

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Huitt-Zollars, Inc. and City of

Houston, for specific application to the construction of the referenced project at the

aforementioned location in Houston, Texas. Our report was prepared in accordance with

generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice common to the local area. No other

warranty, express or implied, is made.

The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based on the data obtained

from the referenced subsurface exploration. The boring indicates subsurface conditions only at

the specific locations and times, and only to the depths penetrated. The boring does not

necessarily reflect strata variations that may exist in subsurface conditions within the site. The

validity of the recommendations is based in part on assumptions about the stratigraphy made by

the Geotechnical Engineer. Such assumptions may be confirmed only during earthwork and

construction. If subsurface conditions different from those described are noted during

construction, recommendations in this report must be reevaluated.

If any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project are planned, the conclusions and

recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless the changes

are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing by Kenall. Kenall is

not responsible for any claims, damages, or liability associated with interpretation of subsurface

data, reuse of the subsurface data, or engineering analyses without expressed written

authorization of Kenall.


9 ILLUSTRATIONS

Description: Plate No.

Site Vicinity Plan 1

Plan of Borings 2

Boring Logs 3 through 27

Symbols and Terminology used in Boring Logs 28

Pavement Recommendations 29

Results of Slope Stability Analysis 30 through 32

Laboratory Test Data Summary Sheet 33 through 38

Consolidated Undrained Test Report 39

Scale: Not to Scale

Approved By: KP

Prepared By: RT

Approved By: KP PROJECT AREA LOCATION MAP

7027 Ardmore Street, Houston, TX (http://www.gims.houstontx.gov/PortalWS/R.aspx?M.aspx&app=GIMS)

Project No.: 1852

Plate No. 1 WBS No.:

S-001000-0049-4

Project Area

http://www.gims.houstontx.gov/PortalWS/R.aspx?M.aspx&app=GIMS

E;...��

1.1

N

\ Scale: Approved By: Not to Scale KP

PLAN OF BORINGS 7027 Ardmore Street Houston, Texas

WBS No. S-001000-0049-4 Project No.:

1852

\ I \ \ I \

\

Prepared By: RT

Plate No. 2

26

24

15

63

50

31

95

93

85

1.1

1.72

34

30

27

35

32

30

31

32

22

22

14

15

17

P=1.75

P=3.5

P=4.25

P=1.0

P=2.25

P=3.5

P=3.25

P=2.75

P=3.0

P=2.5

P=3.75

P=4.5

N=32

91

110

89

74

46

Dark gray and brown, stiff fat clay with shell (FILL)

Dark gray, gray and tan, stiff to very stiff FAT CLAY (CH) withferrous nodules

Light gray, brown and tan, very stiff to hard LEAN CLAY (CL) withcalcareous and ferrous nodules

Light gray and brown, dense SILTY SAND (SM)

4.0

18.0

30.0

35.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)

N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCET - TORVANEP - POCKET PENETROMETER RESISTANCER - PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERYRQD - ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION

5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 3

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI

BORING NO.PROJECT NO.

DATESURFACE ELEVATION

NORTHEAST

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION:

B- 11852

5-15-14Not Applicable

13818301.7360003118326.362000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM

Groundwater encountered at a depth of 28 feet on drilling tools during drilling

N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

1852-G-Geotechnical for Ardmore Maintenance Facility7027 Ardmore Street (WBS No. S-001000-0049-4)Houston, Texas

Huitt-Zollars, Inc.Houston, TX

FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

Continuous Flight Auger (CFA)

LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

29

19

14

59

50

25

95

93

73 0.65

38

34

31

30

32

27

30

30

24

22

13

15

21

P=1.75

P=2.0

P=3.0

P=3.5

P=3.5

P=3.25

P=3.0

P=3.0

P=2.75

P=2.5

P=4.5

P=4.5

N=22

104

88

69

39

Dark gray and brown, stiff fat clay with shell (FILL)

Dark gray, gray and tan, very stiff FAT CLAY (CH) with ferrous andcalcareous nodules

Light gray, brown and tan, very stiff to hard LEAN CLAY WITHSAND (CL) with calcareous and ferrous nodules

Light gray and brown, medium dense SILTY SAND (SM)

4.0

18.0

30.0

35.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 4

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B- 21852


13818291.0590003118369.255000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

28

27

14

69

54

25

95

97

84

0.35

0.9

19

22

37

17

43

39

39

37

32

30

26

17

14

P=2.5

P=2.0

P=2.0

P=2.5

P=1.25

P=1.25

P=1.5

P=1.75

P=2.75

P=2.5

P=3.0

P=3.0

P=4.5

86

114

97

81

39

Dark gray and brown, very stiff fat clay with shell (FILL)

Dark gray, gray and tan, stiff to very stiff FAT CLAY (CH) withferrous and calcareous nodules

Light gray, brown and tan, very stiff to hard LEAN CLAY WITHSAND (CL) with calcareous and ferrous nodules

8.0

25.0

35.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 5

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B- 31852


13818280.5730003118171.695000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

28

23

68

50

95

79 0.46

25

19

35

33

36

29

30

34

27

28

17

13

15

P=4.5

P=4.5

P=2.25

P=2.25

P=2.25

P=1.75

P=3.0

P=2.0

P=3.0

P=3.0

P=1.5

P=4.5

P=4.0

76

96

73

Dark gray and brown, hard fat clay with shell (FILL)


Light gray, brown and tan, very stiff FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)with calcareous and ferrous nodules

Light gray, tan and brown, stiff to hard LEAN CLAY WITH SAND(CL)

4.0

16.0

20.0

35.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 6

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B- 41852


13818264.6410003118209.352000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

21

23

16

38

52

11

68

93

36

0.69

1.9

23

23

26

41

40

38

26

30

29

32

16

13

14

P=2.0

P=1.5

P=1.5

P=1.25

P=1.25

P=1.5

P=2.5

P=2.75

P=2.5

P=2.5

P=3.5

P=4.5

P=3.0

92

110

59

75

27

Dark gray and brown, stiff sandy fat clay with shell (FILL)

Dark gray, light gray, brown and tan, hard FAT CLAY (CH) withcalcareous and ferrous nodules

Light gray, tan and brown, very stiff to hard LEAN CLAY WITHSAND (CL)

6.0

20.0

35.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 7

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B- 51852


13818187.1740003118127.897000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

22 46

12

98 0.91

24

13

38

40

36

38

25

30

32

23

16

14

16

P=1.5

P=1.75

P=1.25

P=1.5

P=1.75

P=3.5

P=2.5

P=2.75

P=3.5

P=2.25

P=4.5

P=3.5

101 68

Dark gray and brown, stiff fat clay with base material and shell(FILL)


Light gray, tan and brown, very stiff to hard LEAN CLAY WITHSAND (CL)

4.0

20.0

35.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 8

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B- 61852


13818197.4100003118176.495000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

31 53 9645

41

36

P=1.25

P=1.5

P=1.5

84

8 inches of Concrete

Dark gray, gray, and brown, stiff fat clay- FILL

Dark gray, gray, and brown, stiff FAT CLAY (CH) with calcareousnodules

0.7

2.0

5.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 9

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B- 71852


13818426.6310003118118.573000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:


No Groundwater encountered

N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

28 71 94

44

45

41

P=4.5

P=1.0

P=1.25

99


Dark gray, gray, and brown, hard fat clay- FILL

Dark gray, gray, and brown, stiff FAT CLAY (CH) with calcareousnodules

0.7

2.0

5.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 10

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B- 81852


13818767.3670003118184.249000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

27 56 96

45

37

36

P=1.5

P=1.5

P=1.5 83


Dark gray, gray, and brown, stiff fat clay- FILL

Dark gray, and gray, stiff FAT CLAY (CH) with calcareous nodules

0.8

2.0

5.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 11

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B- 91852


13818369.9360003118284.862000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

20 35 6319

31

30

P=1.5

P=3.5

P=3.0

55Dark gray, gray and brown, stiff fat clay- FILL

Dark gray, and gray, very stiff FAT CLAY (CH) with calcareousnodules

2.0

5.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 12

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-101852


13818328.9400003118088.884000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

25 63 96

35

37

36

P=1.25

P=1.5

P=2.0

88

Dark gray, stiff fat clay- FILL

Dark gray, and gray, stiff FAT CLAY (CH) with calcareous nodules2.0

5.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 13

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-111852


13818275.8290003118194.712000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

22 51 7721

31

33

P=2.25

P=3.5

P=3.0

73Dark gray, very stiff fat clay- FILL

Dark gray, and gray, very stiff FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) withcalcareous nodules

2.0

5.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 14

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-121852


13818164.1670003118054.601000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

23

22

27

P=2.5

P=4.5

Dark gray and brown, very stiff fat clay with base material

Dark gray and brown, hard FAT CLAY4.0

5.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 15

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-131852


13818152.9300003118102.912000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

25

24

67

49

92

93 0.74

37

38

21

30

27

29

30

33

25

26

P=1.75

P=1.75

P=4.5

P=4.5

P=4.5

P=3.75

P=3.5

P=2.75

P=3.75

P=3.75

92

92

73

Dark gray and brown, stiff fat clay- FILL

Dark gray, gray and tan, stiff to hard FAT CLAY (CH) with ferroudand calcareous nodules

2.0

20.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 16

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-141852


13818263.6640003118400.914000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

29 69 95

0.9

11

31

30

30

29

29

30

31

19

21

P=4.5

P=3.75

P=4.5

P=3.75

P=3.75

P=3.75

P=3.25

P=2.75

P=3.0

P=3.75

105

98

Dark gray and brown, hard fat clay with shell and gravel- FILL

Dark gray, gray and tan, very stiff to hard FAT CLAY (CH) withferroud and calcareous nodules

2.0

20.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 17

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-151852


13818119.9600003118342.158000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

29

23

60

46

96

96 0.63

29

19

34

31

33

32

32

36

22

24

P=1.5

P=2.75

P=3.5

P=3.75

P=3.75

P=2.25

P=3.0

P=2.5

P=4.5

P=3.75

91

89

69

Dark gray and brown, stiff to hard fat clay with shell and gravel-FILL

Dark gray, gray and tan, very stiff to hard FAT CLAY (CH) withferrous and calcareous nodules

4.0

20.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 18

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-161852


13818007.3610003118077.881000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

26

21

74

47

97

96 0.49

32

40

23

30

30

27

31

20

34

24

P=3.5

P=1.75

P=2.5

P=3.0

P=1.75

P=2.5

P=2.5

P=2.25

P=1.75

P=1.25

96

100

68

Dark gray, gray and brown, very stiff fat clay with shells- FILL

Dark gray, light gray, reddish brown and tan, stiff to very stiff FATCLAY (CH) with ferrous and calcareous nodules

2.0

20.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 19

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-171852


13818347.4370003118087.040000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

25

24

72

65

96

99 0.77

32

40

23

30

30

27

31

20

34

24

P=4.5

P=3.5

P=2.0

P=3.0

P=3.0

P=2.25

P=3.0

P=2.75

P=2.5

P=3.0

97

97

89

Dark gray, gray and brown, hard fat clay with shells- FILL

Dark gray, light gray, reddish brown and tan, very stiff FAT CLAY(CH) with ferrous and calcareous nodules

2.0

20.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 20

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-181852


13818367.6730003118106.106000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

22

25

51

68

83

96 0.55

22

33

40

35

29

37

31

32

34

29

P=4.5

P=3.5

P=1.5

P=3.0

P=2.75

P=2.75

P=3.0

P=3.0

P=2.75

P=3.0 95

73

93

Dark gray, gray and brown, very stiff to hard fat clay with sand withshells- FILL


4.0

20.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 21

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-191852


13818206.3470003118042.177000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

26

23

66

57

96

97 0.52

25

21

28

42

36

38

38

40

32

30

17

17

P=2.5

P=1.5

P=2.25

P=1.25

P=1.75

P=1.25

P=1.5

P=1.5

P=2.5

P=2.75

P=2.75

P=2.75

87

92

80

Dark gray, gray and brown, stiff to very stiff fat clay with shells- FILL


Light gray, brown and tan, very stiff LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL)with ferrous and calcareous nodules

4.0

23.0

30.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 22

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-201852


13818197.3100003118067.550000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

21

22

51

53

58

92 0.56

7

21

27

28

37

37

29

37

30

32

28

18

P=4.5

P=4.5

P=2.5

P=2.5

P=2.5

P=2.25

P=2.5

P=2.25

P=2.5

P=3.25

P=1.0

P=1.25

97

72

75

Light brown, brown and reddish brown, hard sandy lean clay andsandy fat clay with shell and gravel-FILL


Light gray, brown and tan, stiff LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) withferrous and calcareous nodules

4.0

25.0

30.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 23

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-211852


13818328.0870003118167.047000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

22

22

60

45

92

100 0.98

21

29

33

31

34

36

36

38

32

31

24

19

P=4.5

P=3.75

P=2.5

P=1.5

P=2.25

P=1.5

P=1.25

P=1.75

P=2.75

P=2.25

P=2.75

P=1.0

106

82

67

Light brown, brown and reddish brown, very stiff to hard sandy leanclay and fat clay with shell and gravel-FILL


Light gray, brown and tan, stiff LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) withferrous and calcareous nodules

4.0

25.0

30.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 24

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-221852


13818220.4450003118121.467000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

25

20

70

45

96

97 0.70

15

17

37

34

29

29

32

35

23

32

25

22

P=4.5

P=4.5

P=2.0

P=3.25

P=4.5

P=4.25

P=2.25

P=2.25

P=3.0

P=3.0

P=3.0

P=1.0

110

95

65

Light brown, brown and reddish brown, hard fat clay with shell andgravel-FILL

Dark gray, light gray, reddish brown and tan, stiff to hard FAT CLAY(CH) with ferrous and calcareous nodules

4.0

30.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 25

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-231852


13818172.2230003118103.267000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

22

21

45

52

58

100 0.72

17

20

24

33

37

38

31

36

34

31

P=4.5

P=4.5

P=2.0

P=3.5

P=2.0

P=2.0

P=3.0

P=2.25

P=2.5

P=2.75

99

67

73

Light brown, brown and reddish brown, hard sandy fat clay withshell and gravel-FILL

Dark gray, light gray, reddish brown and tan, very stiff FAT CLAY(CH) with ferrous and calcareous nodules

4.0

20.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 26

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-241852


13818201.3890003118163.984000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

24

22

71

57

97

96

33

33

31

33

35

26

31

25

26

19

P=2.0

P=1.0

P=1.5

P=1.75

P=1.5

P=1.75

P=3.0

P=3.0

P=2.75

P=4.0

95

79

8 inches of concrete

Dark gray and brown, very stiff fat clay with shells and gravel-FILL

Dark brown, light gray and reddish brown, stiff to very stiff FATCLAY (CH) with ferrous and calcareous nodules

0.7

2.0

20.0

Min

us #

200 (

%)

ATTERBERGLIMITS (%)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Shear

Str

ength

(T

SF

)

LABORATORY DATA

PLATE NO. - 27

DRILLING METHOD(S):

PL PI



NORTHEAST


B-251852


13817989.6760003118340.795000

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y

PO

UN

DS

/CU

.FT

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

CLIENT:

PROJECT:



N: B

LO

WS

/FT

T: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TP

: T

ON

S/S

Q F

TR

: P

ER

CE

NT

RQ

D: P

ER

CE

NT

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT



FIELD DATA

SA

MP

LE

S

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)


LL

LOG OF BORING

PLA

ST

IC L

IMIT

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

LO

G O

F B

OR

ING

1

85

2-N

EW

AR

DM

OR

E-

HU

ITT

ZO

LL

AR

S (

1)

(1).

GP

J

KE

NA

LL

.GD

T

3/2

3/1

6

Penetration Resistance Blow per Foot

0

0.25 to 0.50

Very Dense

30

40

50

0-15

15-35

35-65

65-85

No Recovery

0.50 to 1.00Loose

Dense

60

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTYCLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES

4

0.002

Coarse

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT

GRAVELAND

GRAVELLYSOILS

0

>50

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

MHOL OH

CLASSIFICATION OF GRANULAR SOILS

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -CLAY MIXTURES

15-30

Soft

Firm

80

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINESCLEAN SANDS

3"

SILTSAND

CLAYS

Very Stiff

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS ORDIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTYSOILS

20 40

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGHPLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

2-4

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITHHIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS

Water level after 24 hours

MAJOR DIVISIONS

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NOFINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -SILT MIXTURES

ML

20

CLEANGRAVELS

GROUNDWATER

PLASTICITY CHART

>30

Less than 0.25

Description

CL

RELATIVE DENSITY-GRANULAR SOILS

MORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL ISSMALLER THANNO. 200 SIEVE

SIZE

Water level after drilling operations

60

Grab Sample

CH

Clay

CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS

Auger Sample

MORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTION

PASSING ON NO. 4SIEVE

LETTERGRAPH

Cobbles Silt or Clay

Shelby Tube Split Spoon

0-4

4-10

10-30

30-50

TERMS CHARACTERIZING SOIL STRUCTURE

PLASTICITY

INDEX

Description

10

3/4"

100

CL-ML

Water level encountered during drilling operations

Approved By: KP

KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOLS

Prepared By: IG

Project No.

1852 Plate No. 28

Very Loose

U.S. Standard Sieve Size (s)

- having inclined planes of weakness that are slick and glossy in appearance- containing shrinkage cracks, frequently filled with fine sand or silt; usually more or less vertical- composed of thin layers of varying colors and texture- composed of alternate layers of different soil types- containing appreciable quantities of calcium carbonate- containing appreciable quantities of ferrous materials- having wide range in grain sizes and substantial amounts of all intermediate particle size- predominantly of one grain size, or having a range of sizes with some intermediate size missing

Boulders

COARSEGRAINED

SOILS

TYPICALDESCRIPTIONS

Gravel

6"

4-8

8-15

GRAVELS WITHFINES

0.074

MORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTION

RETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNTOF FINES)

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGHPLASTICITY

Grain Size in mm

Coarse

Sand

Medium Dense

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINESANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY ORCLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEYSILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TOMEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYCLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS

SANDAND

SANDYSOILS

SILTSAND

CLAYS

or or

1.00 to 2.00

2.00 to 4.00

Hard 4.00 & Higher

0-2

0.42

Medium Fine4.7619.1

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNTOF FINES)

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

FINEGRAINED

SOILS

SYMBOLS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SANDS WITHFINES

LIQUID LIMITLESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMITGREATER THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT

Unconfined Compressive Strength-TSF

MORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN NO.200 SIEVE SIZE

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAYMIXTURES

Fine76.2152

10 40

Relative Density-%

85-100

Very Soft

SAMPLE TYPES

Stiff

Blows Per Foot

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART-ASTM 2487

2.0

200

ABBREVATIONS USED FOR CONSISTENCYCOHESIVE SOILS COHESIONLESS SOILSV/So: Very Soft V/Lo: Very LooseSo: Soft Lo: LooseFm: Firm M/De: Medium DenseSt: Stiff De: DenseV/St: Very Stiff V/De: Very DenseHd: Hard

SlickensidedFissuredLaminatedInterbeddedCalcareous NodulesFerrous NodulesWell Graded

Poorly Graded

ASSUMPTIONS FOR PAVEMENT ANALYSIS

1. Traffic Conditions - (National Crushed Stone Assoc.) 1.1.1. Parking Lots (DI-1)

Light traffic - Few vehicles heavier than cars. No regular use by trucks Daily EAL = 5 or less

1.1.1. Parking Lots & Light duty Access Lanes (DI-2) & Light duty Access Lanes (DI-2) Daily EAL = 6 to 20

1.1.2. Medium Duty Access Drives (DI-3) Medium traffic - Maximum of 3000 vehicles per day, including not more than 10 percent two axle trucks or 1 percent heavy trucks with three or more axles. Daily EAL = 21 to 75

2. Flexible Base Pavement 2.1.1. Saturated CBR of natural clay subgrade: 3 2.1.2. CBR of imported clay subgrade: 6

3. Rigid Pavement 3.1.1. Modulus of subgrade reaction 100pci (imported clay subgrade) 3.1.2. Modulus of rupture: 630 psi at 28 days(concrete)

PAVEMENT MATERIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Limestone Base - Base material shall be composed of crushed limestone

meeting the requirements of grade 1 in the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) 1993 Standard Specifications Item 247. The limestone shall be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by the Modified moisture/density relation (ASTM D1557).

2. Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Surface Course (Class "A") - The asphalt surface

course should be plant mixed, hot laid Type "D": (Fine Graded Surface Course) and meet the requirements specified in TxDOT Item 340.

3. Asphalt Stabilized Base - Plant Mix - The asphaltic base should be plant mixed,

hot laid and meet the requirements specified in the TxDOT 1993 Standard Specifications Item 345.

4. Concrete - The materials and properties of concrete shall meet the applicable

requirements in the ACI Manual of Concrete Practice. The concrete shall have a minimum modulus of rupture of 630 psi at 28 days as per ASTM C 293. It is our experience that concrete with a compressive strength of 3000 psi should meet these criteria. The mixture shall contain 3 to 5 percent entrained air.

Approved By:

KP

Prepared By:

RT

PAVEMENT ANALYSIS & PAVEMENT MATERIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Project No. 1852 Plate No.29

Mobilized Shear Strength Parameters 150.0 7.0 - - -

Mobilized Shear Strength Parameters 250.0 6.0 - - -

Boring

No

Depth

(ft)

Length

(ft)Type

N

Value

Pocket

Pen

(tsf)

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Shear

Strength

(tsf)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Minus

200

B- 1 0 2 SH 1.75 34

2 2 SH 3.5 30 89 26 95

4 2 SH 4.25 27

6 2 SH 1.0 35

8 2 SH 2.25 32

10 2 SH 3.5 30

12 2 SH 3.25 31 91 1.1 74 24 93

14 2 SH 2.75 32

16 2 SH 3.0 22

18 2 SH 2.5 22

23 2 SH 3.75 14 110 1.72 46 15 85

28 2 SH 4.5 15

33.5 1.5 SS 32 17

B- 2 0 2 SH 1.75 38 88 29 95

2 2 SH 2.0 34

4 2 SH 3.0 31

6 2 SH 3.5 30

8 2 SH 3.5 32

10 2 SH 3.25 27 69 19 93

12 2 SH 3.0 30

14 2 SH 3.0 30

16 2 SH 2.75 24

18 2 SH 2.5 22 104 0.65 39 14 73

23 2 SH 4.5 13

28 2 SH 4.5 15

33.5 1.5 SS 22 21

B- 3 0 2 SH 2.5 19

2 2 SH 2.0 22

4 2 SH 2.0 37 97 28 95

6 2 SH 2.5 17

8 2 SH 1.25 43

10 2 SH 1.25 39

12 2 SH 1.5 39

14 2 SH 1.75 37 86 0.35 81 27 97

16 2 SH 2.75 32

18 2 SH 2.5 30

23 2 SH 3.0 26

28 2 SH 3.0 17 114 0.9 39 14 84

33 2 SH 4.5 14

B- 4 0 2 SH 4.5 25

2 2 SH 4.5 19

4 2 SH 2.25 35

6 2 SH 2.25 33 96 28 95

Laboratory Test Data Summary Sheet

Plate No. : 33

Boring

No

Depth

(ft)

Length

(ft)Type

N

Value

Pocket

Pen

(tsf)

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Shear

Strength

(tsf)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Minus

200


8 2 SH 2.25 36

10 2 SH 1.75 29

12 2 SH 3.0 30

14 2 SH 2.0 34

16 2 SH 3.0 27 76 0.46 73 23 79

18 2 SH 3.0 28

23 2 SH 1.5 17

28 2 SH 4.5 13

33 2 SH 4.0 15

B- 5 0 2 SH 2.0 23 59 21 68

2 2 SH 1.5 23

4 2 SH 1.5 26

6 2 SH 1.25 41

8 2 SH 1.25 40

10 2 SH 1.5 38

12 2 SH 2.5 26

14 2 SH 2.75 30 92 0.69 75 23 93

16 2 SH 2.5 29

18 2 SH 2.5 32

23 2 SH 3.5 16

28 2 SH 4.5 13

33 2 SH 3.0 14 110 1.9 27 16 36

B- 6 0 2 SH 1.5 24

2 2 SH 13 12

4 2 SH 1.75 38

6 2 SH 1.25 40

8 2 SH 1.5 36

10 2 SH 1.75 38

12 2 SH 3.5 25

14 2 SH 2.5 30

16 2 SH 2.75 32

18 2 SH 3.5 23 101 0.91 68 22 98

23 2 SH 2.25 16

28 2 SH 4.5 14

33 2 SH 3.5 16

B- 7 0.66 2 SH 1.25 45 84 31 96

2 2 SH 1.5 41

4 1 SH 1.5 36

B- 8 0.67 2 SH 4.5 44

2 2 SH 1.0 45 99 28 94

4 1 SH 1.25 41

B- 9 0.75 2 SH 1.5 45

2 2 SH 1.5 37

Plate No.: 34

Boring

No

Depth

(ft)

Length

(ft)Type

N

Value

Pocket

Pen

(tsf)

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Shear

Strength

(tsf)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Minus

200


4 1 SH 1.5 36 83 27 96

B-10 0 2 SH 1.5 19 55 20 63

2 2 SH 3.5 31

4 1 SH 3.0 30

B-11 0 2 SH 1.25 35

2 2 SH 1.5 37 88 25 96

4 1 SH 2.0 36

B-12 0 2 SH 2.25 21 73 22 77

2 2 SH 3.5 31

4 1 SH 3.0 33

B-13 0 2 SH 2.5 23

2 2 SH 22

4 1 SH 4.5 27

B-14 0 2 SH 1.75 37

2 2 SH 1.75 38 92 25 92

4 2 SH 4.5 21

6 2 SH 4.5 30

8 2 SH 4.5 27

10 2 SH 3.75 29

12 2 SH 3.5 30 92 0.74 73 24 93

14 2 SH 2.75 33

16 2 SH 3.75 25

18 2 SH 3.75 26

B-15 0 2 SH 4.5 11

2 2 SH 3.75 31

4 2 SH 4.5 30 98 29 95

6 2 SH 3.75 30

8 2 SH 3.75 29

10 2 SH 3.75 29

12 2 SH 3.25 30

14 2 SH 2.75 31

16 2 SH 3.0 19 105 0.9

18 2 SH 3.75 21

B-16 0 2 SH 1.5 29

2 2 SH 2.75 19 89 29 96

4 2 SH 3.5 34

6 2 SH 3.75 31

8 2 SH 3.75 33

10 2 SH 2.25 32

12 2 SH 3.0 32 91 0.63 69 23 96

14 2 SH 2.5 36

16 2 SH 4.5 22

18 2 SH 3.75 24

Plate No. : 35

Boring

No

Depth

(ft)

Length

(ft)Type

N

Value

Pocket

Pen

(tsf)

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Shear

Strength

(tsf)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Minus

200


B-17 0 2 SH 3.5 32

2 2 SH 1.75 40 100 26 97

4 2 SH 2.5 23

6 2 SH 3.0 30

8 2 SH 1.75 30

10 2 SH 2.5 27

12 2 SH 2.5 31 96 0.49 68 21 96

14 2 SH 2.25 20

16 2 SH 1.75 34

18 2 SH 1.25 24

B-18 0 2 SH 4.5 32

2 2 SH 3.5 40

4 2 SH 2.0 23 97 25 96

6 2 SH 3.0 30

8 2 SH 3.0 30

10 2 SH 2.25 27 97 0.77 89 24 99

12 2 SH 3.0 31

14 2 SH 2.75 20

16 2 SH 2.5 34

18 2 SH 3.0 24

B-19 0 2 SH 4.5 22 73 22 83

2 2 SH 3.5 33

4 2 SH 1.5 40

6 2 SH 3.0 35

8 2 SH 2.75 29

10 2 SH 2.75 37

12 2 SH 3.0 31

14 2 SH 3.0 32

16 2 SH 2.75 34

18 2 SH 3.0 29 95 0.55 93 25 96

B-20 0 2 SH 2.5 25

2 2 SH 1.5 21

4 2 SH 2.25 28

6 2 SH 1.25 42 92 26 96

8 2 SH 1.75 36

10 2 SH 1.25 38

12 2 SH 1.5 38

14 2 SH 1.5 40 87 0.52 80 23 97

16 2 SH 2.5 32

18 2 SH 2.75 30

23 2 SH 2.75 17

28 2 SH 2.75 17

B-21 0 2 SH 4.5 7

Plate No.: 36

Boring

No

Depth

(ft)

Length

(ft)Type

N

Value

Pocket

Pen

(tsf)

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Shear

Strength

(tsf)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Minus

200


2 2 SH 4.5 21 72 21 58

4 2 SH 2.5 27

6 2 SH 2.5 28

8 2 SH 2.5 37

10 2 SH 2.25 37

12 2 SH 2.5 29

14 2 SH 2.25 37

16 2 SH 2.5 30

18 2 SH 3.25 32 97 0.56 75 22 92

23 2 SH 1.0 28

28 2 SH 1.25 18

B-22 0 2 SH 4.5 21

2 2 SH 3.75 29

4 2 SH 2.5 33

6 2 SH 1.5 31

8 2 SH 2.25 34 82 22 92

10 2 SH 1.5 36

12 2 SH 1.25 36

14 2 SH 1.75 38

16 2 SH 2.75 32

18 2 SH 2.25 31

23 2 SH 2.75 24 106 0.98 67 22 100

28 2 SH 1.0 19

B-23 0 2 SH 4.5 15

2 2 SH 4.5 17

4 2 SH 2.0 37 95 25 96

6 2 SH 3.25 34

8 2 SH 4.5 29

10 2 SH 4.25 29

12 2 SH 2.25 32

14 2 SH 2.25 35

16 2 SH 3.0 23 110 0.70 65 20 97

18 2 SH 3.0 32

23 2 SH 3.0 25

28 2 SH 1.0 22

B-24 0 2 SH 4.5 17 67 22 58

2 2 SH 4.5 20

4 2 SH 2.0 24

6 2 SH 3.5 33

8 2 SH 2.0 37

10 2 SH 2.0 38

12 2 SH 3.0 31 99 0.72 73 21 100

14 2 SH 2.25 36

Plate No. : 37

Boring

No

Depth

(ft)

Length

(ft)Type

N

Value

Pocket

Pen

(tsf)

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Shear

Strength

(tsf)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Minus

200


16 2 SH 2.5 34

18 2 SH 2.75 31

B-25 0 2 SH 2.0 33

2 2 SH 1.0 33 95 24 97

4 2 SH 1.5 31

6 2 SH 1.75 33

8 2 SH 1.5 35

10 2 SH 1.75 26

12 2 SH 3.0 31 79 22 96

14 2 SH 3.0 25

16 2 SH 2.75 26

18 2 SH 4.0 19

Plate No.: 38

project no. 1852 - houston no. 1852 table of contents ... material finer than no.200 sieve astm d...

Documents