20-Geotech 2400501 DFW Terminal F Dock and BHS Building Final Geo Report 111424.pdf

FINAL

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

DFW TERMINAL F DOCK AND BHS BUILDING

CORSAIR PROJECT NO. 2400501

DFW AIRPORT, TEXAS

NOVEMBER 14, 2024

11/14/24

November 14, 2024

Ms. Molly Waller, CEO

Centurion Planning & Design, LLC

19 West Beauregard Avenue

San Angelo, Texas 76903

Reference: Final Geotechnical Engineering Report

DFW Terminal F Dock and BHS Building

DFW Airport, Texas

Corsair Project No. 2400501

Dear Ms. Waller:

Corsair Consulting LLC has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering associated with the proposed Terminal F Dock and BHS Building within Dallas Fort Worth International

Airport (DFW Airport) in Texas. The scope of this study was to:

• Explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site;

• Conduct laboratory tests to help identify subsurface materials and to obtain physical and engineering properties of the subsurface materials;

• Develop recommendations for shallow and deep foundations;

• Evaluate pavement and foundation subgrade conditions; and

• Provide construction recommendations for the project.

The attached report contains results of our field exploration program, laboratory analyses, and engineering evaluations and recommendations for this project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Centurion Planning & Design, LLC and look forward to working with you on future projects. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this report or any of our services.

Respectfully submitted, CORSAIR CONSULTING LLC

TBPE Registration No. F-14217

Austin D. Herring, P.E. John Bush, P.E.

Project Geotechnical Engineer Sr. Geotechnical Engineer

TBPE No. 147718 TBPE No. 140632

AustinHerring@Corsairus.com JohnBush@CorsairUS.com

V O

LT

A

D R

IV

E

S

U

IT

E

C

E D

A R

P A

R K

T

E X

A S

(5

-8

W W

W .C

O R

S A

IR

U

S .C

O M

Final Geotechnical Engineering Report

DFW Airport, Texas Corsair Project No. 2400501

- i -

Contents Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

3.0 SITE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY ANALYSES

3.1 Subsurface Exploration

3.2 Laboratory Analyses

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Site Geology

4.2 Subsurface Stratigraphy

4.3 Geotechnical Engineering Properties

4.3.1 Soil Index Properties

4.3.2 Soil Short-Term Shear Strength Properties

4.3.3 Rock Compressive Strength Test Results

4.3.4 Soil Long-Term Shear Strength Properties

4.3.5 Soil Consolidation Properties

4.3.6 Soil Swell Properties

4.3.7 Electro-Chemical Test Results

4.4 Groundwater Conditions

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

5.1 Geotechnical Considerations

5.2 Shallow Foundation System

5.3 Deep Foundation System

5.3.1 Axial Evaluation of Foundations

5.3.2 Structurally Supported Slabs

5.3.3 Lateral Evaluation of Foundations

5.3.4 Uplift Evaluation of Foundations

5.3.5 Group Effects

5.4 Pavement and Shallow Foundation Subgrades

5.4.1 Expansive Soil Considerations

5.4.2 Potential for Sulfate Induced Heave

5.5 Seismic Considerations

5.6 Construction Considerations

5.6.1 Concrete Reactivity

5.6.2 Consideration for Excavations

5.6.3 Shallow Foundations

5.6.4 Control of Seepage into Shaft Excavations

5.6.5 Shaft Bottom Preparation

- ii -

5.6.6 Subgrade Preparation

6.0 LIMITATIONS

- iii -

APPENDIX A

BORING LOCATION MAP

LOGS OF BORING

ROCK CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST REPORTS

UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORTS

CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

SWELL TEST RESULTS

SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX C

POTENTIAL VERTICAL RISE (PVR) CALCULATIONS

MAPPED SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATIONS REPORT

1.0 Introduction

Corsair Consulting LLC (Corsair) has completed the authorized subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analyses for the proposed Terminal F Dock and BHS building at DFW Airport, Texas. This project is located between the Express South Parking area and Passenger Terminal E within the southern portion of DFW Airport, Texas.

The DFW Airport authorized this work through their primary design engineer, Centurion Planning & Design, LLC (Centurion).

The purpose of this investigation and report was to:

• Explore subsurface materials and groundwater conditions in areas where the new facilities are planned;

• Conduct field and laboratory testing to characterize the subsurface soil and rock properties;

• Evaluate shallow/deep foundation capacities for the proposed building foundations and related facilities;

• Evaluate pavement and foundation subgrade conditions for the project;

and

• Provide geotechnical considerations for the planned construction.

The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of the field and laboratory testing, engineering analyses, experience with similar soil/rock conditions, and our understanding of the proposed project.

2.0 Project Information

This project is comprised of the construction of a new building, dock, and associated pavements located west of Terminal E at DFW Airport in Texas. We understand that the proposed building may be supported with either shallow or deep foundations.

The approximate location of the project is shown in the Site Vicinity Map below.

Google Maps

Site Vicinity Map

N

Approximate Project Location

Terminal E

3.0 Site Exploration and Laboratory Analyses

This study is a culmination of a field exploration program, consisting of drilling, sampling and in-situ testing, and a laboratory testing program to identify and classify soil and rock types and to estimate physical and engineering properties of the subsurface materials.

3.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

A total of ten (10) borings were drilled during the period of January 20 to February

2, 2024: seven (7) structure borings, designated as B-01 through B-07, were drilled to depths of about 48½ to 100 feet below existing site grade and three (3) pavement borings, designated as P-01 through P-03, were drilled to a depth of about 15 feet below existing site grade. Approximate boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Map in Appendix A. Corsair located the borings in the field using a handheld GPS unit and the accuracy of the boring locations should be considered to the level implied by the method used. Boreholes were backfilled with bentonite chips upon completion of field activities.

Continuous solid stem flight augers, along with mud rotary and rock core drilling methods when necessary, were utilized to advance Borings B-01 through B-05 to the termination depths. Continuous solid stem flight augers were used to advance Borings B-06, B-07, and P-01 through P-03 to the termination depths.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split spoon samplers, hydraulically advanced 3-inch diameter (OD) steel, thin-walled tube samplers, and conventional NX-sized rock core barrels were used for soil/rock sampling. Field sampling and testing were conducted in general accordance with the following standard methods:

• Standard Penetration Test: ASTM D1586;

• Thin-Walled Tube Sampling: ASTM D1587; and

• Rock Core Drilling and Sampling: ASTM D2113.

In general, geotechnical sampling and testing were performed at continuous intervals for all pavement borings, and semi-continuous intervals for the structure borings. All samples of the subsurface materials were extruded from SPT split spoon samplers, tube samplers, and rock core barrels in the field. Then the soil samples were classified, labeled as to location and depth, and placed in plastic bags to minimize moisture changes. The rock materials were qualitatively evaluated using the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) index system. The RQD is a modified core recovery percentage in which all of the pieces of sound core equal to or greater than 4 inches long are summed and divided by the length of the core run (generally 5 feet). The RQD values are shown on the logs of boring under the

"Recovery % (RQD)" column. Core run intervals are typically 60 inches in length and are delineated on the logs of boring. The RQD values are categorized according to the table below.

Table 3.1 Rock Quality Designations

RQD (%) Rock Quality

0 – 25 Very Poor

25 – 50 Poor

50 – 75 Fair

75 – 90 Good

90 – 100 Excellent

The RQD measurements and calculations were conducted in accordance with

ASTM D6032. In particular, core breaks caused by the drilling process were fitted together and counted as one piece. Where it was difficult to discern natural breaks from drilling or mechanical breaks, the break was considered a natural break, thus providing conservatism in the RQD calculation. The percent recovery is simply the total length of material recovered in a specific core run interval divided by the total length of the core run. Then all samples were arranged in the core boxes and transported to the laboratory for further observation and analysis.

Field logs were prepared for each boring at the time of drilling by the field engineer. The field logs contain visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as interpolation of the subsurface conditions between samples. During the field operations, the borings were observed for groundwater while advancing the boring. These observations are noted at the top of the boring logs and are discussed in subsequent sections of this report.

The geotechnical engineer reviewed the field logs and samples and made appropriate modifications to the logs when necessary. Soils were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and bedrock materials were described in general accordance with the TxDOT

Geotechnical Manual. Final boring logs, included in Appendix A, represent our interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observations and test results of the samples. The final logs of boring describe the materials encountered, strata thickness, sampling methods and depths, groundwater information, and in-situ and laboratory test data as applicable. Rock core photographs are also presented in Appendix A. Results of the field tests are shown on the Boring Logs under the “Blow Counts (N Value)” and “Pocket Pen.

(tsf)” columns. Pocket penetrometer readings shown as “4.5+” indicate that the capacity of the device has been exceeded.

3.2 LABORATORY ANALYSES

The samples were transported to the laboratory and examined by the geotechnical engineer, and appropriate laboratory tests were assigned on selected samples. The following laboratory methods of analyses were utilized:

• Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes:

ASTM D2487;

• Visual Examination and Classification of Soils: ASTM D2488;

• Determining Moisture Content in Soil Materials: ASTM D2216;

• Atterberg Limits Tests: ASTM D4318;

• Particle Size Analysis of Soils: ASTM D6913;

• Soils Finer than No. 200 Sieve Test: ASTM D1140;

• Unconfined Compressive (UC) Strength Test: ASTM D2166;

• Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core: ASTM D7012;

• Consolidated-Undrained (CU) Triaxial Compression Test: Tex-131-E;

• One-Dimensional Consolidation Test: ASTM D2435;

• One-Dimensional Swell Test: ASTM D4546;

• Determining Sulfate Content in Soils: Tex-145-E;

• Determining Soil pH: Tex-128-E; and

• Measuring the Resistivity of Soil Materials: Tex-129-E.

Laboratory test results are summarized in the Summary of Laboratory Test

Results table located in Appendix B. Particle size distribution curves, UC strength test reports, uniaxial compressive strength test results, CU triaxial test result, one-dimensional consolidation test results, swell test results, and soil resistivity test results are also presented in Appendix B.

4.0 Subsurface Conditions

4.1 SITE GEOLOGY

Based on the USGS Geologic Atlas of Texas and Geologic Atlas of Texas, Dallas

Sheet, Revised 1987, the subsurface geology consists of the Eagle Ford Formation

(Kef). The Eagle Ford Formation consists generally of gray shale with occasional thin layers of limestone and sandstone. The surface soil consists of highly expansive brown or gray fat clay formed from the weathering of the Eagle Ford shale. The total thickness of the Eagle Ford Formation is estimated to be about

200 to 300 feet at the project area. The geologic map of the project area is shown below.

USGS Pocket Texas Geology

4.2 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY

Based on the borings drilled as part of this study, our generalized subsurface stratigraphy is presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. The descriptions are general and depth ranges are approximate because boundaries between different strata are seldom clear and abrupt in the field. In addition, the lines separating major strata types on the log of boring sheets do not necessarily represent distinct lines of demarcation for the various strata. Detailed logs of boring showing the stratum descriptions, types of sampling used, in-situ and laboratory test data, and other relevant information are presented in Appendix A.

Geologic Map

Approximate Project Location

Kef

Table 4.1 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy: Structure Borings

Stratum

Number

Depth Range

(Approx., ft)

Soil/Rock Classification and

Consistency/Relative Density/Hardness

I 0.0 – 33.0

Fat CLAY (CH)

- Medium Stiff to Hard

- Varying Sand Contents

II 20.0 – 100.0

SHALE

- Medium Hard to Hard

- Occasional Limestone and Partially Cemented Sand

Layers below 75’

Table 4.2 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy: Pavement Borings

Stratum

Number

Depth Range

(Approx., ft)

Soil/Rock Classification and

Consistency/Relative Density/Hardness

I 0.0 – 15.0 Fat CLAY (CH)

- Stiff to Hard

4.3 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PROPERTIES

4.3.1 Soil Index Properties

In general, soil index property testing was performed on samples where soil stratigraphy changes occurred during the sampling process. The primary index properties tested include the moisture content, Atterberg (plasticity) Limits, and particle size distribution, which are shown on the boring logs and in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results table located in Appendix A and Appendix B of this report, respectively.

USCS classification of the soil was CH. Moisture contents ranged from 20 to 41 percent. Atterberg Limits tests were performed on portions of the samples passing the #40 sieve. Tested Liquid Limits (LL) ranged from 54 to 89 percent with

Plasticity Indices (PI) ranging from 26 to 58 percent. Tested percent fines, passing the #200 sieve, varied from about 59 to 97 percent.

4.3.2 Soil Short-Term Shear Strength Properties

Unconfined Compressive (UC) strength tests were performed on relatively undisturbed soil samples obtained from various borings, with compressive strengths ranging from 1.8 ksf to 8.8 ksf. Results of UC testing are summarized in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results table and individual test results are presented in Appendix B.

4.3.3 Rock Compressive Strength Test Results

Uniaxial compressive strength testing was performed on intact rock core samples obtained from our field exploration. Uniaxial compressive strengths ranged from approximately 11 ksf to 93 ksf. Detailed results are shown in the Uniaxial

Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Test Reports in Appendix B.

4.3.4 Soil Long-Term Shear Strength Properties

One (1) Consolidated-Undrained (CU) triaxial test was performed on a relatively undisturbed soil sample obtained from Boring B-03. Results of the CU triaxial test are presented in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results table in Appendix B and summarized in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Summary of Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Tests Results

Boring

Number

Depth

Range

(ft)

Material

Type

Undrained

Cohesion

(C, psf)

Undrained Friction Angle

(ɸ, deg.)

Drained Cohesion (Cd, psf)

Drained Friction Angle

(ɸd, deg.)

B-03 2.0 – 4.0 CH 86 24.1 267 25.0

Detailed results of CU triaxial testing are also included in Appendix B.

4.3.5 Soil Consolidation Properties

One-dimensional consolidation tests were performed on relatively undisturbed soil samples obtained from various borings. Results of these tests are shown in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results table in Appendix B and summarized in

Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Summary of Consolidation Test Results

Boring

Number

Depth

Range

(ft)

Material

Type

Preconsolidation

Pressure

(Pc, ksf)

Compression

Index

(Cc)

Recompression

Index

(Cr)

B-02 8.0 – 10.0 CH 8.0 0.267 0.032

B-05 4.0 – 6.0 CH 3.0 0.216 0.030

Detailed results of consolidation testing are also included in Appendix B.

4.3.6 Soil Swell Properties

One-dimensional swell tests were performed on relatively undisturbed soil samples obtained from our field exploration in order to better characterize swell potential of expansive fat clay. Swell testing was performed on samples at or near their in-situ moisture contents. Swell testing was performed by loading the specimens with a 250 psf seating pressure, where water was then added and the specimens were allowed to swell. Once swelling had ceased, the samples were loaded incrementally until the samples returned to their original height or less.

The pressure at which deformation returned to zero (0) was recorded as the swell pressure. Soil swell test results are included in Appendix B and summarized in

Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Summary of Soil Swell Test Results

Boring

Number

Depth

Range

(ft)

Material

Type

Swell

Strain

Swell

Pressure

(psf)

B-03 18.5 – 19.6 CH 2.3 1,700

B-04 2.0 – 4.0 CH 1.2 1,400

B-06 2.0 – 4.0 CH 3.0 1,500

B-06 23.0 – 24.0 CH 1.9 1,550

4.3.7 Electro-Chemical Test Results

A colorimeter was utilized in determining the water-soluble sulfate content in accordance with procedures outlined in Tex-145-E with results ranging from less than 100 to over 24,000 parts per million (ppm). A pH meter was employed for the determination of soil pH as stated in Tex-128-E with test results ranging from

7.1 to 8.0. The resistivity of soils was tested using Tex-129-E with results ranging from 1,400 to 1,500 ohm-cm. Results of sulfate content tests are presented in

Table 4.6. Results of all electro-chemical testing are summarized in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results table and the results of soil resistivity tests are provided in Appendix B.

Table 4.6 Summary of Sulfate Test Results

Boring

Number

Depth

Range

(ft)

Material

Type

Sulfate

Content

(ppm)

B-01 8.0 – 10.0 CH 280

B-02 10.0 – 12.0 CH 334

B-03 10.0 – 12.0 CH 1,394

B-04 38.0 – 38.8 SHALE <100

B-05 18.0 – 20.0 CH 560

B-06 8.0 – 10.0 CH 706

B-07 23.0 – 25.0 CH >24,000

P-01 2.0 – 4.0 CH <100

P-02 2.0 – 4.0 CH <100

P-03 2.0 – 4.0 CH <100

4.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Groundwater was encountered in Boring B-07 at a depth of approximately 11 feet below existing site grade at the time of our field exploration. This groundwater condition appeared to be perched. Groundwater was not encountered in any other borings. The borings were backfilled immediately following the completion of field operations. Therefore, subsequent groundwater measurements were not obtained at the bored locations.

It is imperative to note that the short-term field observations performed as part of this study, generally, do not permit for an accurate evaluation of groundwater levels at this site and should not be interpreted as a comprehensive groundwater study. The observations made during this investigation may not also represent conditions at the time of construction, and it should be understood that the presence of groundwater might have an effect on certain construction activities and long-term performance of foundations and pavements. Groundwater levels are highly dependent on climatic and hydrologic conditions before and after construction, hydrogeology, and site development including irrigation demands and drainage. If a detailed groundwater study is desired, a groundwater hydrogeologist should be retained to perform these services.

5.0 Recommendations for Design and Construction

The following recommendations are based upon the data obtained from our field and laboratory testing programs, project information provided to us, and our experience with similar subsurface and site conditions.

5.1 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Subsurface stratigraphy in the project area consists of high plasticity fat clay underlain by shale bedrock. The high plasticity fat clays have a potential to expand and contract under varying moisture conditions and will exhibit poor subgrade performance for foundations and pavements when subjected to high moisture contents.

5.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATION SYSTEM

For lightly loaded structures that may utilize individual and continuous footings and/or mat foundations, a net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf can be used for foundations bearing on native clay or structural fill. The footings should have a minimum embedment of 1½ feet below the finished grade in order to generate the allowable bearing pressure and to provide confinement.

Friction coefficient values can be used to compute sliding resistance along the base of the foundations. We recommend a design value of 0.45 for structural fill materials meeting the requirement outlined in subsequent sections of this report and 0.30 for native clay soils.

A modulus of subgrade reaction (k) value of 200 pci can be used for the design of the mat foundations on compacted structural fill and 100 pci on compacted native clay soils.

Foundation bearing select fill materials should be compacted to 98% of maximum dry density with -2% to +2% of optimum moisture content as determined by

ASTM D1557. When bearing on compacted native clayey soils, 95% of maximum dry density by ASTM D698 should be used with -1% to +3% of optimum moisture content.

To improve the performance of shallow foundations, it is imperative that proper drainage be maintained during the construction and throughout the life span of the structures. Ponding of water near the foundation elements from improper drainage should not be permitted.

Fat clay soils and shale have the potential to shrink and expand under varying moisture conditions. Shallow foundations bearing on clayey soils will exhibit poor performance if proper drainage measures are not implemented during and after construction. If very little movement is desired, the use of drilled shafts and a structurally supported slab will be required.

Soils should not be compacted or tested for proof-rolling when freezing conditions are present. Frozen subgrades that have not been properly compacted prior to the freezing events are considered unsatisfactory for construction. No foundations shall be placed on frozen subgrades. All subgrade soils that were not frozen and that have passed density testing shall be covered with sufficient layers of loose soil prior to end of the workday when freezing temperatures are anticipated. The following day, the loose soils and any frozen subgrade soils shall be over-excavated and removed. The unfrozen soils shall then be recompacted to the final design grade and the foundation shall be placed directly on that soil as long as it is not frozen.

Settlement of the foundation due to consolidation of the underlying soils depends upon the soil stratigraphy and compressibility, the foundation size, depth, location, and the magnitude of the service loads. More detail is needed to estimate total settlement of foundation elements, such as foundation size, location, and estimated service loads. Detailed settlement analyses are beyond the scope of this study. However, if settlement analyses are needed, please notify us.

5.3 DEEP FOUNDATION SYSTEM

5.3.1 Axial Evaluation of Foundations

Heavily loaded structures should be supported on straight sided drilled shafts bearing in the shale bedrock. The allowable skin friction and allowable end bearing capacities for the straight sided drilled shafts are outlined in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Allowable Drilled Shaft Frictional and End Bearing Capacities

Material Allowable Capacities

Skin Friction (psf) End Bearing (psf)

Fat Clay (CH) 600 -

Shale 3,000 30,0001)

1) End bearing capacity achieved at one (1) shaft diameter penetration into Shale

We recommend the drilled shafts be at least 24 inches in diameter. The depth to shale varies across the project site and the length of drilled shaft will depend on the shaft location. Nearby borings should be reviewed to determine the length of each drilled shaft. The length of the bedrock penetration should be established by the structural engineer to acquire capacities required to support the structural loads. We recommend a minimum of three (3) shaft diameters of penetration into the shale bedrock for drilled shafts on this project. The total capacity of the drilled shaft will increase as the shaft embedment into the shale bedrock increases.

5.3.2 Structurally Supported Slabs

In lieu of the potentially costly removal and replacement of expansive soils beneath slabs on grade, the use of a structurally supported slab should be considered as an alternative. The reinforced slab should be supported by grade beams connected to drilled shafts bearing in shale. The slab should be isolated from the expansive soils below by providing a void or crawl space between the ground and the bottom of the structural slab. This will allow the expansive soils to swell into the void space to prevent movement due to soil expansion. Proper drainage should be maintained in the void space to prevent water from collecting beneath the slab. The structural slab should be designed by a competent structural engineer in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318.

5.3.3 Lateral Evaluation of Foundations

Lateral loads for the foundations are anticipated to be minimal. Therefore, LPile input parameters are not included in this report. Should a lateral analysis be required, please notify us.

5.3.4 Uplift Evaluation of Foundations

The drilled shafts should be designed to resist uplift forces that will act on the drilled shafts as the expansive clayey soils surrounding the drilled shaft swell, creating tensile stresses in the concrete that must be resisted by vertical steel reinforcement. One method of estimating the potential uplift force on each of the shafts uses the following equation.

Up = ( d)()(Za)(Sp) where

Up = uplift load, lbs d = shaft diameter, ft

= factor applied to vertical absorption pressure to account for shaft/soil friction angle

Za = length of shaft over which active clay soils are expected to create uplift, ft

Sp = absorption pressure determined under zero volume change constraint, psf

Based on correlations of PI and absorption pressure tests from similar soils, the recommended soil design values are as follows:

= 0.35

Za = the depth of clayey deposit from the top of the shaft or 10 feet maximum

Sp = 3,500 psf for fat clay and 1,500 psf for lean clay.

We note that Za may be reduced accordingly where the depth of active clays is less than ten (10) feet or a partial excavation of this stratum will occur due to shaft construction. In addition, no length of shaft should be disregarded when determining Za. The above equation should be utilized for the critical uplift condition that will be encountered by the drilled shafts, i.e. during construction and with consideration of external uplift loads. The vertical steel reinforcement to resist tensile loads should extend over the full shaft length to within six (6) inches of the bottom. This reinforcement should not preclude the use of additional reinforcement for axial compression or lateral load considerations or minimal reinforcement required by design codes.

5.3.5 Group Effects

In order to develop full load carrying capacity in skin friction, adjacent shafts must have a site-specific center-to-center spacing depending on group configuration and soil conditions. Closer spacing may require reductions in skin friction. Closely spaced shafts must be examined on a case by case basis. Refer to the AASHTO

LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition, Section 10.8.3.6, “Shaft Group

Resistance” for group reduction factors.

5.4 PAVEMENT AND SHALLOW FOUNDATION SUBGRADES

5.4.1 Expansive Soil Considerations

Corsair has performed Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) calculations for all pavement and structure borings based on the Tex-124-E method. The resulting PVR values indicate a moderate to high risk for volume changes with estimated PVRs ranging from 1¾ to 3¼ inches under native subgrade conditions. A PVR value of one (1) inch is generally accepted to be the maximum allowable value for shallow foundations and concrete slabs of commercial structures to perform satisfactorily and a PVR of two (2) inches is generally the accepted maximum allowable value for pavements. Table 5.2 summarizes the estimated PVRs and depths of removal and replacement (or stabilization) required to reduce the estimated PVR to one

(1) inch and two (2) inches.

Table 5.2 Summary of Estimated PVRs and Subgrade Mitigation Depths

Boring Number

Estimated

PVR

(in.)

Minimum Mitigation Depth Below Pavement (ft)

PVR 2 in. PVR 1 in.

B-01 2.12 1 Foot 4 Feet

B-02 2.56 1 Foot 3 Feet

B-03 2.11 1 Foot 4 Feet

B-04 3.29 3 Feet 7 Feet

B-05 2.16 1 Foot 4 Feet

B-06 2.08 1 Foot 4 Feet

B-07 2.58 2 Feet 5 Feet

P-01 1.63 Not Required 3 Feet

P-02 3.03 3 Feet 6 Feet

P-03 3.19 4 Feet 7 Feet

Note that the estimated PVR values shown in Table 5.2 are based on a subsurface profile depth of 15 feet including top 2-foot pavement sections. The minimum subgrade mitigation depth refers to both removal and replacement or lime stabilization.

The imported select fill materials, if used, for over-excavation and mitigation of high plasticity clays should generally conform to the specifications outlined in

Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 Select Fill Gradation and Property Requirements

Select Fill Requirements (Percent Retained Sieve)

1-3/4” 0-10

7/8” -

3/8” -

#4 45-75

#40 60-85

Maximum Liquid Limit (LL) ≤ 45

Maximum Plasticity Index (PI) ≤ 15

Bar Linear Shrinkage ≥ 2

Structural fill materials should be placed in lifts having a maximum loose lift thickness of eight (8) inches and should be compacted to a minimum of 98% and

100% for structures and pavements, respectively, of the maximum dry density with -2% to +2% of optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557.

On-site clay soils should not be reused beneath foundations or pavements where over-excavation and replacement is performed. The use of lime mixed to about

4% to 6% by volume with on-site clay soils may be used. A lime mix design should be performed by the contractor to determine the optimum lime content. This will reduce the potential vertical swell of the on-site clay soil. Lime treatment should be performed by experienced personnel, if used. Lime shall be mixed in utilizing a pulverizing machine that ensures constant lime mixtures.

5.4.2 Potential for Sulfate Induced Heave

The results of the soluble sulfate content testing indicate a low to moderate risk for sulfate induced heave, with sulfate concentrations ranging from less than 100 ppm to 1,394 ppm in the upper 15 feet of soils in the project area, which would allow for conventional lime treatment. We note that soils with significant soluble sulfate contents are common in Texas. We recommend, therefore, that any soils to be mixed with lime, including imported soils, be evaluated for soluble sulfates prior to treatment.

5.5 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

For structural design, a Site Class D is recommended for this project based upon the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) and the results of our field and laboratory test data. The Mapped Spectral Response Accelerations are calculated using the Hazards by Location Tool developed by the Applied Technology Council

(ATC). (https://hazards.atcouncil.org/)

The design summary report is shown below and also included in Appendix C.

5.6 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.6.1 Concrete Reactivity

Analytical testing was performed to assess the potential for adverse reactivity with Portland Cement Concrete. The soluble sulfate contents in the project area indicate a negligible to very severe potential for sulfate attack. In accordance with the guidelines provided in the International Building Code and by the

American Concrete Institute and based upon experience with similar soil conditions, Sulfate Resistant Cement (SRC) conforming to TxDOT Special Provision

Item 412, Hydraulic Cement Concrete, should be used for all onsite concrete exposed to soil. Foundation concrete should be designed in accordance with

Chapter 4 of Section 318 of the ACI Design Manual.

5.6.2 Consideration for Excavations

Temporary excavation slopes, if used, should be protected from surface run-off.

Site grading should be designed to allow drainage at planned construction areas where erosion protection is provided, instead of allowing surface water to flow down unprotected slopes.

Surcharge loads, either static or dynamic, should not be applied to the excavation slope. Construction equipment should be prevented from traveling along or near the top of the excavation slope. Monitoring of temporary slopes and trenches should be undertaken by the contractor to detect early warning of movement within the excavations.

In all cases of excavations, sloped excavations and trench shields are recommended for excavations greater than 4 feet in depth. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and applicable state and local standards should be observed and followed. Site safety is the responsibility of the contractor.

5.6.3 Shallow Foundations

It is important to provide proper grading and drainage around the shallow foundation to prevent ponding of water and to quickly remove water to limit infiltration. We suggest the following general guidelines to be used for perimeter drainage:

• Where possible, paved surfaces should extend up to the foundation line to act as a barrier preventing water infiltration and evaporation. These surfaces should provide positive drainage sloped away from the structure;

• Outlets for gutter systems should discharge water either into storm drains or onto paved surfaces that quickly remove the water from the area;

• In areas where sidewalks or paving do not immediately adjoin the structure, protective slopes should be provided with an outfall of at least

5 percent for a minimum of 10 feet from perimeter walls; and

• Backfill against exterior walls and in utility and sprinkler line trenches should be well compacted and free of all construction debris to minimize the possibility of moisture infiltration.

Area drains connected to storm drains and/or concrete lined ditches may also be considered to facilitate drainage where other measures are insufficient to handle and quickly remove surface water.

Flexible, sleeved utility connections should be utilized for lines that run through or near structures to reduce the potential for damage associated with foundation movement. Broken or damaged utility connections can cause increases in moisture, which will lead to further foundation movement and damage.

5.6.4 Control of Seepage into Shaft Excavations

Drilled shaft construction may require the use of temporary casing that can be sealed into the underlying shale stratum. Groundwater seepage may be encountered during drilled shaft installation if slurry is not used depending on groundwater table during the construction period. The contractor should be prepared for the use of slurry construction methods in case the presence of groundwater causes instability in drilled shaft excavations.

If temporary casing is used, it must be seated and sealed into the shale stratum to prevent seepage into the drilled shaft excavation. Care must then be taken that a sufficient head of concrete is maintained within the casing during extraction to prevent necking of the shaft.

A water head may be used to control seepage if effective. If a water head is used, the water level must be consistently kept well above the water level in the ground so that any seepage flows from the excavation into the ground. Any seepage from the ground into the excavation can cause degradation and loss of support at the base of the shaft.

5.6.5 Shaft Bottom Preparation

Reinforcing steel and concrete should be placed in the excavations immediately following drilling and evaluation for proper bearing stratum, embedment, and cleanliness. Under no circumstances should the approved, completed foundation excavations remain open overnight. Drilled shafts must have adequate inspection to verify clean base conditions prior to placing concrete. Drilled shafts should be placed or pumped with or without a tremie using Class SS or C concrete depending on site conditions at the time of construction. There is no maximum concrete freefall depth as long as no more than six (6) inches of standing water is present at the bottom of the shaft excavation.

5.6.6 Subgrade Preparation

Native clay subgrade soils and lime treated soils, if used, should be compacted to

95% and 98% of ASTM D698 for structures and pavements, respectively, within a moisture content range of -1% to +3% of optimum moisture content as determined by the moisture density curve from ASTM D698. Imported select backfill should be compacted to 98% and 100% of ASTM D1557 for structures and pavements, respectively, within a moisture content range of -2% to +2% of optimum moisture content as determined by the moisture density curve from

ASTM D1557.

Where native subgrade is excavated and replaced with imported select backfill or lime treated, the bottom of excavation should have a minimum grade of 2 percent so that moisture does not collect within this layer. Grading should allow moisture to exit or daylight out of the fill material. If a minimum grade of 2 percent is not achievable, the installation of swales or drains should be used to carry the water away from excavation.

6.0 Limitations

Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and subsurface explorations and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that soil and/or rock conditions may vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil and/or rock conditions encountered during construction differ from those described herein, we should be notified immediately so that a review may be made. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the proposed designs or structural locations, changes from that described in this report, our design data and recommendations should also be reviewed for their applicability.

Corsair has prepared this report in substantial compliance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice, as it exists in the area at the time of our study. No warranty is express or implied.

This report may be used only by the client that is intended for and only for the purposes stated, within three years from its issuance since land use, site conditions (both on site and off site) or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party other than the client or the client’s design team members of this particular project, who wishes to use this report, shall notify Corsair of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Corsair may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Corsair from any liability resulting from the use of this report.

Other standards or documents referenced in any given standard cited in this report, or otherwise relied upon by the authors of this report, are only mentioned in the given standard; they are not incorporated into it or "included by reference", as that latter term is used relative to contracts or other matters of law.

APPENDIX A

BORING LOCATION MAP

LOGS OF BORING

Google Earth

DFW Airport, Texas

Corsair Project No. 2400501

BORING LOCATION MAP

No Known True Scale

General Location

DFW Airport

B-01 B-02

B-03

B-04 B-05

B-06

B-07

P-01

P-02 P-03

100’ Structure Boring

50’ Structure Boring

15’ Pavement Boring

7.50

7.29

4.52

78.10

50.30

59.10

(78)

(95)

(77)

(95)

(13)

(90)

2.5

2.75

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

4.5

4.5+

4.5+

4.5

FAT CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, moist, dark brown

- brown and dark brown, trace calcareous deposits from 2' to 4'

- brown from 4' to 8'

- trace ferrous staining from 4' to 16'

- light brown from 8' to 16'

- trace calcareous deposits from 8' to 10'

- dark gray below 16'

- Push Refusal at 16.5'

SHALE, medium hard to hard, dark gray, moderately to slightly fractured

- intensely fractured from 40' to 45'

- moderately to slightly fractured below 45'

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

NOTES Lat. 32.890213, Long. -97.040634

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY FS

DRILLING METHOD CFA to 20', then Rock Coring

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Corsair Consulting LLC (CME 55) GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY JJB

DATE STARTED 2/2/24 COMPLETED 2/2/24

AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 5 inches

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H ks f)

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

(Continued Next Page)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

BORING NUMBER B-01

CLIENT Centurion Planning & Design, LLC

PROJECT NUMBER 2400501

PROJECT NAME DFW Terminal F Dock and BHS Building

PROJECT LOCATION DFW Airport, Texas

G E

O T

E C

H B

H C

O

LU

M N

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/1

/2

0:

Z :\S

H A

R E

D \E

N G

IN

E

E R

S \G

IN

T

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \2

D

F W

T E

R M

IN

A

L E

B U

IL

D

IN

G

.G P

J Corsair Consulting LLC 1505 Volta Dr. Suite 200 Cedar Park, TX 78641 Telephone: (512) 342-8877

62.50

11.10

28.50

(100)

(92)

(95)

(95)

(100)

(35)

(42)

(0)

(22)

(78)

SHALE, medium hard to hard, dark gray, moderately to slightly fractured (continued)

SILTY SAND (SM), very dense, moist, gray, fine grained, partially cemented

LIMESTONE, hard, gray, moderately weathered, intensely fractured, interbedded with partially cemented Sand seams

SHALE, medium hard to hard, dark gray, slightly fractured, interbedded with Limestone seams/layers

Bottom of borehole at 100.0 feet.

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H ks f)

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

BORING NUMBER B-01

CLIENT Centurion Planning & Design, LLC

PROJECT NUMBER 2400501

PROJECT NAME DFW Terminal F Dock and BHS Building

PROJECT LOCATION DFW Airport, Texas

G E

O T

E C

H B

H C

O

LU

M N

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/1

/2

0:

Z :\S

H A

R E

D \E

N G

IN

E

E R

S \G

IN

T

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \2

D

F W

T E

R M

IN

A

L E

B U

IL

D

IN

G

.G P

J Corsair Consulting LLC 1505 Volta Dr. Suite 200

3.14

4.38

59.80

65.90

(30)

(8)

(95)

(88)

(82)

2.5

4.0

3.0

4.0

2.5

4.5+

3.0

4.0

4.5+

FAT CLAY with Sand (CH), very stiff, moist, dark brown, traces Gravel and ferrous staining

FAT CLAY (CH), stiff to hard, moist, brown, trace Gravel to 10', trace calcareous deposits to 12', trace ferrous staining

- dark brown and brown from 4' to 10'

- light brown from 10' to 16'

- light brown and light gray, few calcareous deposits below 18'

SHALE, medium hard to hard, dark gray

- intensely fractured from 25' to 35'

- moderately to slightly fractured below 35'

50/4.75"

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

SPT

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

NOTES Lat. 32.890162, Long. -97.040149

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY RC

DRILLING METHOD CFA to 23', Mud Rotary to 25', then Rock Coring

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Corsair Consulting LLC (CME 75) GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY JJB

DATE STARTED 1/21/24 COMPLETED 1/21/24

AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 5 inches

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H ks f)

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

(Continued Next Page)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

BORING NUMBER B-02

CLIENT Centurion Planning & Design, LLC

PROJECT NUMBER 2400501

PROJECT NAME DFW Terminal F Dock and BHS Building

PROJECT LOCATION DFW Airport, Texas

G E

O T

E C

H B

H C

O

LU

M N

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/1

/2

1:

Z :\S

H A

R E

D \E

N G

IN

E

E R

S \G

IN

T

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \2

D

F W

T E

R M

IN

A

L E

B U

IL

D

IN

G

.G P

J Corsair Consulting LLC 1505 Volta Dr. Suite 200

69.70

41.70

23.00

(77)

(72)

(92)

(88)

(88)

(28)

(0)

(0)

(72)

(72)

SHALE, medium hard to hard, dark gray (continued)

SILTY SAND (SM), very dense, moist, gray, fine grained, partially cemented

LIMESTONE, hard, gray, moderately weathered, intensely fractured, interbedded with partially cemented Sand seams

SHALE, medium hard to hard, dark gray, intensely to moderately fractured, interbedded with Limestone seams/layers

SILTY SAND (SM), very dense, moist, gray, fine grained, partially cemented

Bottom of borehole at 100.0 feet.

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H ks f)

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

BORING NUMBER B-02

CLIENT Centurion Planning & Design, LLC

PROJECT NUMBER 2400501

PROJECT NAME DFW Terminal F Dock and BHS Building

PROJECT LOCATION DFW Airport, Texas

G E

O T

E C

H B

H C

O

LU

M N

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/1

/2

1:

Z :\S

H A

R E

D \E

N G

IN

E

E R

S \G

IN

T

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \2

D

F W

T E

R M

IN

A

L E

B U

IL

D

IN

G

.G P

J Corsair Consulting LLC 1505 Volta Dr. Suite 200

5.20

4.78

40.40

56.90

(74)

(87)

(83)

(87)

2.5

4.5

3.0

3.0

2.5

2.5 2.0 4.0

4.5+

FAT CLAY (CH), medium stiff to hard, moist, dark brown and brown, trace ferrous staining

- trace calcareous deposits below 2'

FAT CLAY with Sand (CH), stiff to very stiff, moist, brown and dark brown, trace Gravel, traces calcareous deposits and ferrous staining to 13'

- trace gypsum crystals from 10' to 12'

- brown below 13' FAT CLAY (CH), very stiff, moist, brown, traces gypsum crystals and ferrous staining SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), hard, moist, light gray, traces gypsum crystals and ferrous staining

- dark gray below 18.5'

- Push Refusal at 19.6'

SHALE, medium hard to hard, dark gray

- moderately to slightly fractured below 30'

2-3-5-7 (8)

42- 50/2.75"

22-50/5"

SPT

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

SPT

SPT

RC

RC

RC

RC

NOTES Lat. 32.890018, Long. -97.040483

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY RC

DRILLING METHOD CFA to 23', Mud Rotary to 30', then Rock Coring

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Corsair Consulting LLC (CME 75) GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY JJB

DATE STARTED 1/20/24 COMPLETED 1/20/24

AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 5 inches

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H ks f)

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

(Continued Next Page)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

BORING NUMBER B-03

CLIENT Centurion Planning & Design, LLC

PROJECT NUMBER 2400501

PROJECT NAME DFW Terminal F Dock and BHS Building

PROJECT LOCATION DFW Airport, Texas

G E

O T

E C

H B

H C

O

LU

M N

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/1

/2

1:

Z :\S

H A

R E

D \E

N G

IN

E

E R

S \G

IN

T

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \2

D

F W

T E

R M

IN

A

L E

B U

IL

D

IN

G

.G P

J Corsair Consulting LLC 1505 Volta Dr. Suite 200

76.80

26.00

61.30

(85)

(82)

(52)

(78)

(95)

(35)

(23)

(34)

(87)

(62)

SHALE, medium hard to hard, dark gray (continued)

LIMESTONE, hard, gray, moderately weathered, intensely fractured

SHALE, medium hard to hard, dark gray, moderately fractured

Bottom of borehole at 100.0 feet.

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H ks f)

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

BORING NUMBER B-03

CLIENT Centurion Planning & Design, LLC

PROJECT NUMBER 2400501

PROJECT NAME DFW Terminal F Dock and BHS Building

PROJECT LOCATION DFW Airport, Texas

G E

O T

E C

H B

H C

O

LU

M N

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/1

/2

1:

Z :\S

H A

R E

D \E

N G

IN

E

E R

S \G

IN

T

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \2

D

F W

T E

R M

IN

A

L E

B U

IL

D

IN

G

.G P

J Corsair Consulting LLC 1505 Volta Dr. Suite 200

8.83

5.43

3.5

4.5

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

4.5

4.5+

4.0

4.5+

FAT CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, moist, brown, trace calcareous deposits to 8'

- light brown from 2' to 20'

- trace ferrous staining from 6' to 20'

- dark brown, trace calcareous deposits from 23' to 25'

- dark gray below 28'

- Push Refusal at 29'

SHALE, medium hard to hard, dark gray

20-50/5"

24-50/3.5"

50/5.75"

28-50/1"

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

NOTES Lat. 32.889787, Long. -97.040122

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY FS

DRILLING METHOD CFA to 48', Mud Rotary to 83', then Rock Coring

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Corsair Consulting LLC (CME 55) GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY JJB

DATE STARTED 1/21/24 COMPLETED 2/2/24

AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 5 inches

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H ks f)

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

(Continued Next Page)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

BORING NUMBER B-04

CLIENT Centurion Planning & Design, LLC

PROJECT NUMBER 2400501

PROJECT NAME DFW Terminal F Dock and BHS Building

PROJECT LOCATION DFW Airport, Texas

G E

O T

E C

H B

H C

O

LU

M N

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/2

/2

9:

Z :\S

H A

R E

D \E

N G

IN

E

E R

S \G

IN

T

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \2

D

F W

T E

R M

IN

A

L E

B U

IL

D

IN

G

.G P

J Corsair Consulting LLC 1505 Volta Dr. Suite 200

36.80

(0)

(8)

(72)

(67)

SHALE, medium hard to hard, dark gray (continued)

SILTY SAND (SM), very dense, moist, gray, fine grained, partially cemented

LIMESTONE, hard, gray, moderately weathered, intensely fractured

SHALE, medium hard to hard, dark gray, moderately fractured, interbedded with Limestone seams/layers

SILTY SAND (SM), very dense, moist, gray, fine grained, partially cemented

Bottom of borehole at 100.0 feet.

982453

36- 50/5.25"

41- 50/4.75"

37- 50/4.25"

37- 50/5.25"

33-50/5.5"

50/3.25"

50/1.5"

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

RC

RC

RC

RC

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

C O

M P

R E

S S

IV

E

S T

R E

N G

T H ks f)

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

BORING NUMBER B-04

CLIENT Centurion Planning & Design, LLC

PROJECT NUMBER 2400501

PROJECT NAME DFW Terminal F Dock and BHS Building

PROJECT LOCATION DFW Airport, Texas

G E

O T

E C

H B

H C

O

LU

M N

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/2

/2

9:

Z :\S

H A

R E

D \E

N G

IN

E

E R

S \G

IN

T

\P R

O

JE

C T

S \2

D

F W

T E

R M

IN

A

L E

B U

IL

D

IN

G

.G P

J Corsair Consulting LLC 1505 Volta Dr. Suite 200

3.00

4.19

93.40

63.20

51.20

(88)

(87)

(75)

(82)

(100)

3.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

3.0

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

FAT CLAY (CH), medium stiff to hard, moist, brown and dark brown, trace ferrous staining

- trace calcareous deposits from 2' to 12'

- brown from 12' to…