851PC2048_HNC_SWP3_101-191.pdf

TCEQ-20022 (3/6/2018) Page 4 Notice of Intent for Construction Stormwater Discharges under TXR150000

Click here to enter text.

TCEQ-20022 (3/6/2018) Page 5

TCEQ-20022 (3/6/2018) Page 6

Missing information may result in denial of coverage under the general permit.

APPLICATION FEE

☐ separately

RENEWAL

OPERATOR INFORMATION

REGULATED ENTITY (RE) INFORMATION ON PROJECT OR SITE

http://www.usps.com/ http://www.usps.com/ http://www.usps.com/ http://www.usps.com/ http://www.tceq.texas.gov/gis/sqmaview.html

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

CERTIFICATION

http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/sicser.html http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/sicser.html

Where to Send the Notice of Intent (NOI):

Application Fee:

Mailed Payments:

ePAY Electronic Payment:

TCEQ Contact List:

Notice of Intent Process:

• Administrative Review http://www.tceq.texas.gov/epay http://www.tceq.texas.gov/epay mailto:swpermit@tceq.texas.gov mailto:swpermit@tceq.texas.gov mailto:swpermit@tceq.texas.gov mailto:swpermit@tceq.texas.gov mailto:swgp@tceq.texas.gov mailto:swgp@tceq.texas.gov mailto:swgp@tceq.texas.gov mailto:swgp@tceq.texas.gov

• Notice of Deficiency:

• Acknowledgment of Coverage:

Denial of Coverage:

General Permit (Your Permit) electronically paper 7 days after a completed NOI is postmarked for delivery

Change in Operator

TCEQ Central Registry Core Data Form

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILLING OUT THE NOI FORM

Renewal of General Permit.

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/ http://www.tceq.texas.gov/

Section 1. OPERATOR (APPLICANT)

a) Customer Number (CN)

This is not a permit number, registration number, or license number

b) Legal Name of Applicant

c) Contact Information for the Applicant (Responsible Authority)

d) Type of Customer (Entity Type)

Individual

Partnership

Trust or Estate http://www15.tceq.texas.gov/crpub/ http://www15.tceq.texas.gov/crpub/ https://tools.usps.com/go/ZipLookupAction!input.action https://tools.usps.com/go/ZipLookupAction!input.action

Sole Proprietorship (DBA)

Corporation

Government

Other

e) Independent Entity

f) Number of Employees

g) Customer Business Tax and Filing Numbers

State Franchise Tax ID Number

Federal Tax ID

TX SOS Charter (filing) Number

DUNS Number

Section 2. APPLICATION CONTACT

Section 3. REGULATED ENTITY (RE) INFORMATION ON PROJECT OR SITE

a) Regulated Entity Number (RN)

b) Name of the Project or Site http://www15.tceq.texas.gov/crpub/ http://www15.tceq.texas.gov/crpub/

c) Description of Activity Regulated

d) County

e) Latitude and Longitude

f) Site Address/Location

Section 4. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

a) Indian Country Lands

b) Construction activity associated with facility associated with exploration, development, or production of oil, gas, or geothermal resources

c) Primary Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code

d) Secondary SIC Code

e) Total Number of Acres Disturbed

f) Common Plan of Development

g) Estimated Start Date of the Project http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sicsearch.html http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sicsearch.html http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sicsearch.html http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sicsearch.html mailto:swgp@tceq.texas.gov mailto:swgp@tceq.texas.gov http://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/stormwater/common_plan_of_development_steps.html http://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/stormwater/common_plan_of_development_steps.html http://www.tceq.texas.gov/goto/construction

h) Estimated End Date of the Project

i) Will concrete truck washout be performed at the site?

j) Identify the water body(s) receiving stormwater runoff

k) Identify the segment number(s) of the classified water body(s)

l) Discharge into MS4 – Identify the MS4 Operator http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/monitoring/viewer.html http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/monitoring/viewer.html http://www.tceq.texas.gov/publications/gi/gi-316 http://www.tceq.texas.gov/publications/gi/gi-316

m) Discharges to the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and Certification

Section 5. NOI CERTIFICATION

Note: Failure to indicate Yes to all of the certification items may result in denial of coverage under the general permit.

a) Certification of Understanding the Terms and Conditions of Construction General Permit (TXR150000)

b) Certification of Legal Name

c) Understanding of Notice of Termination http://www.tceq.texas.gov/field/eapp/viewer.html http://www.tceq.texas.gov/field/eapp/viewer.html

d) Certification of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

Section 6. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION SIGNATURE

If you are a corporation

If you are a municipality or other government entity:

30 Texas Administrative Code

§305.44. Signatories to Applications

Use this form to submit your Application Fee only if you are mailing your payment.

Instructions:

Mail this form and your check to either of the following:

Fee Code: GPA General Permit: TXR150000

Do not submit a copy of the NOI with this form, as it could cause duplicate permit application entries!

Staple the check or money order to this form in this space.

LARGE CONSTRUCTION SITE NOTICE

FOR THE

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Stormwater Program

TPDES GENERAL PERMIT TXR150000

“PRIMARY OPERATOR” NOTICE

This notice applies to construction sites operating under Part II.E.3. of the TPDES General Permit Number TXR150000 for discharges of stormwater runoff from construction sites equal to or greater than five acres, including the larger common plan of development. The information on this notice is required in Part III.D.2. of the general permit. Additional information regarding the TCEQ stormwater permit program may be found on the internet at:

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/stormwater/construction

Site-Specific TPDES Authorization Number:

Operator Name:

Contact Name and Phone Number:

Project Description: Physical address or description of the site’s location, and estimated start date and projected end date, or date that disturbed soils will be stabilized.

Location of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan:

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/stormwater/construction http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/nav/permits/wq_construction.html

Appendix A – Houston National Cemetery Phase 5 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

APPENDIX D

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

ECS Southwest, LLP Geotechnical Engineering Report

Houston National Cemetery - Phase 5

10410 Veterans Memorial Drive

Houston, Texas

ECS Project Number 43:1569

April 17, 2019

April 17, 2019

Mr. Jason Gerhart, PE

Project Director | Senior Associate

GORDON

148 S. Queen Street, Suite 201

Martinsburg, WV 25401

ECS Project No. 43:1569

Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Houston National Cemetery - Phase 5

Houston, Texas

Dear Mr. Gerhart:

ECS Southwest (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analyses for the above-referenced project. Our services were performed in general accordance with the provided Statement of Work, Appendix C – Geotechnical section provided by the client. The notice-to-proceed was received through your authorization through email on October 4, 2018. This report presents our understanding of the geotechnical aspects of the project along with the results of the field exploration and laboratory testing conducted. The report also contained our findings and recommendations for design and construction.

It has been our pleasure to be of service to you during the design phase of this project. We would appreciate the opportunity to remain involved during the continuation of the design phase to verify the assumptions of subsurface conditions made for this report. Should you have any questions concerning the information contained in this report, or if we can be of further assistance to you, please contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted, ECS Southwest, LLP

Shahed R. Manzur, Ph.D., P.E. Alexander Sarant, P.E.

Geotechnical Department Manager Principal Engineer

SManzur@ecslimited.com ASarant@ecslimited.com

The electronic seal in this document was authorized by Shahed Manzur, P.E. No 120056, on April 17, 2019 mailto:SManzur@ecslimited.com

Houston National Cemetery - Phase 5 April 17, 2019 ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 General

2.2 Scope of Services

2.3 Authorization

3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

3.1 Project Location

3.2 Past Site History/Uses

3.3 Current Site Conditions

3.4 Proposed Construction

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

4.1 Field Exploration Program

4.1.1 Test Borings

4.2 Regional Geology

4.3 Soil Survey Mapping

4.4 Subsurface Characterization

4.5 Groundwater Observations

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Existing Fill Materials

6.2 Potential Vertical Movements

6.3 Foundation Recommendations

6.4 Spread and/or Continuous Footings

6.5 Drilled Pier Foundations

6.5.1 Uplift Considerations

6.5.2 Lateral Considerations

6.5.3 Slab On-Grade

6.6 Monolithic Slab on-Grade

6.7 Grade Beams and Perimeter Conditions

6.8 Precast Burial Crypts

6.9 Pavement Subgrade and Preliminary Pavement Sections

6.10 Soil Corrosion Tests

7.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Subgrade Preparation

7.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing

7.1.2 Proofrolling

7.2 Earthwork Operations

7.3 Material Specifications For Select Fill

7.4 Construction Groundwater Control

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page ii

7.5 Excavation

8.0 CLOSING

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Figures

Site Location Map

Boring Location Diagram

Regional Geology

Aerial Photograph – 2017

Aerial Photograph – 2010

Aerial Photograph – 2002

Topographic Map

Appendix B – Field Operations

Reference Notes for Boring Logs

Unified Soil Classification System

Boring Logs B-1 through B-10, R-1 through R-5, D-1 through D-3, and S-1, S-2

Appendix C – Laboratory Testing

Laboratory Testing Summary

Laboratory Analysis Report

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ECS Southwest, LLP (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering analyses for proposed renovations and new additions to the Houston National Cemetery – Phase

5 located at 10410 Veterans Memorial Drive in Houston, Texas. The proposed development will include additional burial grounds, parking areas, driveways, pump station, support buildings, and associated site improvements.

The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration, particularly those that may have a cost impact on the planned development. Further, our principal foundation recommendations are also summarized. Information gleaned from the executive summary should not be utilized in lieu of reading the entire geotechnical report.

The geotechnical exploration performed for this study consisted of a total of 20 borings, drilled in the area for the proposed expansion of the existing National Cemetery to depths of approximately 5 to 20 feet below the existing site grades.

The borings encountered surficial natural Lean Clay (CL), Lean Clay Fill (CL FILL) and Silty

Clay (CL-ML FILL) soils underlain by Lean Clay (CL) and Fat Clay until the boring termination depths of 5 feet to 20 feet. Groundwater seepage was not encountered in any of the borings while drilling or at drilling completion.

The project site is generally underlain by relatively low plasticity cohesive soils with relatively low swell-shrinkage potential. Therefore, no special subgrade improvements will be required to limit the PVM at the subject site for the proposed structures.

The buildings will be supported on slab on grade supported by spread/continuous footings and/or monolithic slab on grade type foundations. The planned precast burial crypts can be supported on compacted subgrade with a gravel or mat foundation system.

Please refer to Design Recommendation section for the design and construction of the foundation elements.

Pavement Areas and Driveways will include rigid concrete and/or flexible asphalt type pavements for light truck traffic for main drives and heavy duty (drives) pavements to accommodate occasional heavier loadings due to fire trucks, delivery vehicles.

This summary should not be considered apart from the entire text of the report with all the qualifications and considerations mentioned herein. Details of our conclusions and recommendations are discussed in the report text.

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 2

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 GENERAL

The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical information for the design and construction of the proposed renovations and new additions to the Houston National Cemetery –

Phase 5 located at 10410 Veterans Memorial Drive in Houston, Texas. The proposed new construction to the Cemetery will include additional burial grounds, parking areas, driveways, pump station, support buildings, and associated site improvements.

The recommendations developed for this report are based on project information provided by

Gordon. This report contains the results of our subsurface explorations and geotechnical laboratory testing programs, engineering analyses, and recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed multifamily residential development and associated site work.

2.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES

To obtain the necessary geotechnical information required for evaluation of subsurface soil conditions supporting the planned developments, twenty (20) soil test borings were performed at locations selected by representatives of ECS. A 3rd party private utility locator was used to locate existing underground utilities around the boring locations. A laboratory-testing program was also implemented to characterize the physical and geotechnical engineering properties of the subsurface soils.

This report discusses our exploratory and testing procedures, presents our findings and evaluations and includes the following:

A brief review and description of our field and laboratory test procedures and the results of testing conducted.

A review of surface topographical features and site conditions.

A review of area and site geologic conditions.

A review of subsurface soil stratigraphy with pertinent available physical properties.

A final copy of our soil test borings.

Recommendations for site preparation and construction of compacted fills, including an evaluation of on-site soils for use as compacted fills.

Recommended foundation type(s) and pertinent design recommendations.

Evaluation and recommendations relative to groundwater control.

An evaluation of soil excavation issues.

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 3

2.3 AUTHORIZATION

Our services were performed in general accordance with the provided Statement of Work, Appendix C – Geotechnical section provided by the client. The notice-to-proceed was received through your authorization through email on October 4, 2018.

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 4

3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

3.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The project site is located at 10410 Veterans Memorial Drive in Houston, Texas. The location of the project site is presented in Appendix A of the report.

3.2 PAST SITE HISTORY/USES

The project site is generally flat that lies at elevations ranging from ±90 feet MSL to ±110 feet

MSL. The elevations and topographic variations were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey website (http://www.usgs.gov), which provided elevation contours in 5 feet intervals.

While preparing this report, we reviewed available documents consisting of historical aerial photos, USGS topographic maps, FWS wetland maps, and USDA soil maps. We understand that the project site is currently occupied with the existing Houston national Cemetery and the eastern portion is currently undeveloped covered with light vegetative growth with some brush and trees.

A final grading plan is currently unavailable at the time this report was prepared. No special features were noted within the topographic map within the project site.

We reviewed Historical Aerial photographs to identify the past usage and location of the previously existing development (if there was any) within the project site. Our aerial photo review summary table is presented below:

Year Subject Property Usage Adjacent Property Usage

Cemetery grounds present, construction still underway

Generally undeveloped to the east of the subject property. Residential, as well as retail and commercial developments are located in the vicinity of the project site.

2010 No special improvements were noted.

Construction of new developments to the west and north of the project site.

2017 No special improvements were noted.

More developments to the west and north of the project site.

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 5

3.3 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS

The project site is currently developed with the Houston National Cemetery. In general, residential as well as retail and commercial developments are located in the vicinity of the project site.

3.4 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

The proposed development will consist of the design and construction of additional burial grounds, parking areas, driveways, pump station, support buildings, and associated site improvements. The proposed buildings will be supported on slab on grade supported by shallow and/or deep foundations and/or post-tensioned slab on-grade type foundations. Detailed structural loading conditions are not available at the time of this report’s preparation. The pavement areas will consist of rigid and/or flexible pavement subjected to light duty regular auto type traffic with occasional heavier truck type vehicles. Final site grading is currently unavailable;

we anticipate that planned grading will largely be within 2 feet of the existing site grades.

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 6

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM

The field exploration was planned with the objective of characterizing the project site in general geotechnical and geological terms and to evaluate subsequent field and laboratory data to assist in the determination of geotechnical recommendations.

4.1.1 Test Borings

The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling a total of twenty (20) borings to a depth ranging from 5 feet to 20 feet below the existing site grades. The boring schedule is presented below:

Structures Geotechnical Borings Depth of Borings (feet)

Burial Grounds B-1 through B-10 10

Existing Roadways R-1 through R-5 5

New Roadways D-1 through D-3 5

Support Buildings S-1 and S-2 20

The boring locations were selected by representatives of ECS based on the site plan provided by the client. The approximate as-drilled boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Diagram in Appendix A. The ground surface elevations noted in this report were obtained from the U.S.

Geological Survey website (http://www.usgs.gov), which provided elevation contours in 5 feet intervals.

A 3rd party private utility locator was used to locate the existing onsite utilities around the boring locations. A truck-mounted drill rig with continuous flight augers was utilized to drill the borings which utilized continuous-flight, solid-stem augers to advance the boreholes. Drilling fluid was not used in this process. Following completion of the drilling process, the boreholes were backfilled with the spoils generated during drilling operations. The subsurface exploration was completed under the general supervision of an ECS representative.

Representative soil samples were obtained by means of the Shelby tube sampling procedure in accordance with ASTM Specifications D 1587. In the Shelby tube sampling procedure, a thin walled, steel seamless tube with sharp cutting edges is pushed hydraulically into the soil, and a relatively undisturbed sample is obtained.

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 7

Field logs of the soils encountered in the borings were maintained by the drill crew. After recovery, each soil sample was removed for the sampler and visually classified. Representative portions of each soil sample was then wrapped in plastic and transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and laboratory testing. After completion of the drilling operations, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings to the existing ground surface.

4.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

Based on the Houston Sheet, Texas, Geologic Atlas of Texas (Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas, 1982), the project site is located within the Lissie Formation (Ql). The Lissie

Formation is heterogeneous and composed of interbedded clays, silts, and clayey and/or silty sands, deposited in a higher energy depositional environmental than the younger Beaumont

Formation. The clay present in the formation was preconsolidated by a process of desiccation.

Numerous wetting and drying cycles produced a network of randomly oriented and closely spaced joints, which are sometimes slickensided, with shiny appearance when exposed. The sand deposits are typically clayey or silty but may also include clean, poorly graded sand and, infrequently, gravel, and random cobbles. The sand layers vary in compactness from loose to very dense, and in thickness from a fraction of an inch to many feet due to an irregular depositional environment. Sands are generally subrounded to subangular and vary from course to very fine, are poorly graded, and often contain significant amounts of silt-sized particles in the sand matrix.

Buried stream channels may occur sporadically within finer grained over bank deposits throughout the Lissie Formation.

4.3 SOIL SURVEY MAPPING

Based on our review of the Soil Survey (USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service

(websoilsurvey.ncrs.usda.gov), the site soils are mapped as Addicks loam (Ad), Clodine fine sandy loam (Cd), 0 to 1 percent slopes, and Cyfair-Urban Land Complex (CyuA), 0 to 1 percent slopes type soils. Please refer to the ‘Soil Survey of Harris County, Texas’ for the detailed soil characteristics and additional information.

4.4 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION

The subsurface conditions encountered were generally consistent with published geological mapping. The following sections provide generalized characterizations of the soil strata encountered during our subsurface exploration. For subsurface information specific information refer to the Boring Logs in Appendix B.

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 8

Approximate Depth

Below Grade (ft) Material Description Consistency

(0-2) – (2-5)

LEAN CLAY FILL (CL FILL), Light Gray to Tan, Light Brown, Dark

Brown to Reddish Brown, with Root Fibers, Ferrous and

Calcareous Nodules, Trace Gravels, and Sand Seams in Borings

B-7 through B-9, D-1, R-1 through R-5 and S-2

Stiff to Hard

0 – 2

SILTY CLAY FILL (CL-ML FILL), Light Gray to Tan and Dark Brown to Reddish Brown, with Root Fibers and Sand Seams; in Borings

D-1 and R-3

Stiff

(0-4) – (13-20)

LEAN CLAY (CL), Light Gray to Tan and Dark Brown to Reddish

Brown, with Root Fibers, Ferrous and Calcareous Nodules, Trace

Gravels, and Sand Seams; except Borings D-1 and R-5

Medium Stiff to

Hard

13 – 20 FAT CLAY (CH), Light Gray to Tan and Dark Brown to Reddish

Brown, with Ferrous Nodules; in Boring S-1 Hard

Please refer to the attached boring logs and laboratory data summary for this field exploration for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings as the stratification descriptions above are generalized for presentation purposes.

4.5 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater level observations were made in the borings during drilling operations. In auger drilling operations, water is not introduced into the borehole and the groundwater position can often be determined by observing water flowing into and out of the excavation. Furthermore, visual observation of soil samples retrieved can often be used in evaluating the groundwater conditions. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. After 24 hours, the borings also remained dry.

The highest groundwater observations are normally encountered in the late winter and early spring. Fluctuation in the location of the long-term water table may occur as a result of changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, construction activities and other factors not immediately apparent at the time of his investigation. Therefore, the groundwater conditions at this site are expected to be significantly influenced by surface water runoff and rainfall.

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 9

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

The laboratory testing was performed by an experienced laboratory technician on selected samples obtained during our field exploration operations. Classification and index property tests were performed on representative soil samples obtained from the test borings in order to aid in classifying soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System and to quantify and correlate engineering properties. The soil samples were tested for moisture content (ASTM D 2216), Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318), Minus 200 Grain Size analysis by washed sieve method (ASTM D

1140), and Unconfined Compression tests (ASTM D 2166). Additionally, Chloride and Sulfate tests were performed in accordance with EPA 300.0. The corrosion potential was determined using pH tests of the soil samples collected from the project site.

An experienced Geotechnical Engineer visually classified each soil sample from the test borings on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D 2488 (Description and Identification of Soils-Visual/Manual Procedures). After classification, the Geotechnical Engineer grouped the various soil types into the major zones noted on the boring logs in Appendix B. The group symbols for each soil type are indicated in parentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring logs. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between earth materials on the boring logs are approximate; in situ, the transitions may be gradual.

The soil samples will be retained in our laboratory for a period of 30 days, after which, they will be discarded unless other instructions are received as to their disposition.

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 10

6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The following sections present more detailed recommendations with regard to the proposed development. These include recommendations with regard to building foundations, drainage, earthwork, slab on-grade, and pavements. The following recommendations have been developed on the basis of the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions. If there are any changes to the project characteristics or if different subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, ECS should be consulted so that the recommendations of this report can be reviewed.

Site grading information was not available at the time this report was prepared; however, we have assumed that the foundation elevation will be within 2 feet from the existing site elevations.

If the finished floor elevation deviates from this assumed site grades, the recommendations provided below should be evaluated by our office. Discussion of the factors affecting the building foundations for the proposed structures, as well as additional recommendations regarding design and construction at the project site are included below.

6.1 EXISTING FILL MATERIALS

Existing fill soils were encountered that extended to depths ranging from 2 feet to 5 feet below the existing site grades within Borings B-7 through B-9, D-1, R-1 through R-5 and S-2. These soils were generally free of deleterious materials. The presence of this undocumented fill raises concerns for the uniformity of the soil density and may cause differential settlements of the proposed structure beyond tolerable limits. The depths of the existing undocumented fill soils vary across the site and should be carefully evaluated at the time of construction under the direct supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Please note, the presence, quality and location of undocumented fill will impact the performance of the foundation systems and should be properly addressed at the time of construction. Without controlled density tests, these soils should be removed, reworked, and replaced in accordance to the ‘Site Construction Recommendations’ section of this report.

6.2 POTENTIAL VERTICAL MOVEMENTS

Based upon the laboratory test results performed on selected soil samples, the subsoils encountered at this site are considered to be non-expansive. These non-expansive soils generally have a low potential to experience volumetric changes with fluctuations in moisture content also known as ‘Potential Vertical Movement (PVM)’. These soils can subject slabs, foundations and paving to movements (due to shrinking and swelling) with fluctuations in their moisture content, throughout the life of the structures and after construction is complete.

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 11

Several methods exist to evaluate swell potential of expansive clay soils. We have estimated potential heave for this site utilizing the TxDOT method (Tex 124-E). The Tex 124-E method provides an estimate of potential vertical movement (PVM) using the liquid limits, plasticity indices, and existing water contents for soils. The PVM is estimated in the seasonally active zone, which can be up to about 8 feet in the site vicinity.

Based on test method TEX-124-E in the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Manual of

Testing Procedures, and our experience with similar soils, we estimate potential vertical movements (PVM) to be less than 1.0 inch, in ‘dry’ conditions. The actual movements could be greater if poor drainage, ponded water, and/or other unusual sources of moisture are allowed to saturate the soils beneath the structure after construction.

In this general area, most structural and geotechnical engineers consider a PVM of 1.0 inch or less to be within acceptable tolerances for properly designed slab on-grade type foundation systems.

However, this movement does not take into consideration the movement criteria required or perceived by the owner or occupants. These “operational” performance criteria may be, and often are, more restrictive than the structural criteria or tolerances.

Our laboratory test results indicate that the project site is generally underlain by relatively low plasticity cohesive soils with relatively low swell-shrinkage potential. Therefore, we do not recommend any special subgrade improvements to limit the PVM at the subject site for the proposed structures.

6.3 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

During field exploration, moisture sensitive surficial semi-cohesive Silty Clay Fill (CL-ML FILL) type soil was encountered near Borings D-1 and R-3 to a depth of about 2 feet below the existing site grades. These permeable soils, underlain by low permeability clays, may create perched water condition that can lead to the reduced bearing pressure under the building pad during the wet season. Additionally, presence of these semi-cohesive soils may pose undesirable construction delays through (pumping and rutting) during wet season. These conditions should be anticipated before commencing the construction operation during wet season. However, these soils can be opened up for natural drying purposes and/or removed and replaced with select fill. Additional subsoil stabilization/improvements may be required if a very aggressive construction schedule is expected.

Based on our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, we are providing the following recommendations to support the proposed building structures on slab on-grade supported by shallow foundations and/or drilled pier and/or monolithic slab on-grade type foundations. The precast burial crypts will be supported on compacted gravel base or compacted onsite soils and/or thin mat type foundation. The suitable foundation systems should be selected based upon the

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 12 discussion between the owner and by the design team members (The Owner, Project Architect and

Structural Engineer of Record).

6.4 SPREAD AND/OR CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS

Existing undocumented fill soil was encountered that extended to a depth of about 2 feet below the existing site grades near Boring S-2. The spread and/continuous footings should not be supported on the existing undocumented fill soils; unless the existing undocumented fill soils are removed, reworked and/or recompacted in accordance to the ‘Site Construction

Recommendations’ section of the report. The actual depth of fill soils may vary at different locations across the site and must be identified at the time of construction under the supervision of an authorized representative of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (GER).

The shallow foundations may be designed for a net allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,500 psf. In order to achieve this bearing capacity column footings and continuous footings should be supported on natural subgrades and/or engineered fill soils as defined in this report. Shallow foundations should be placed at a minimum depth of 30 inches (spread footing) and 24 inches

(continuous footing), below existing site grades and should have a minimum lateral dimension of

18 inches to avoid punching shear.

The net allowable soil bearing pressure refers to that pressure which may be transmitted to the foundation bearing soils in excess of the final minimum surrounding overburden pressure. The final footing and/or grade beam elevation should be evaluated by competent geotechnical engineering personnel to verify that the bearing soils are capable of supporting the recommended net allowable bearing pressure and suitable for foundation construction. These evaluations should include visual observations and use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP). Evaluations should be performed within each column footing excavation (minimum of 2 tests per column footing) and at intervals not greater than 25 feet in continuous footings. The DCP testing should extend at least 2 feet below the final foundation subgrade. A minimum DCP value of 6 blows may be used for the evaluation of the foundations.

The settlement of a structure is a function of the compressibility of the bearing materials, bearing pressure, actual structural loads, fill depths, and the bearing elevation of footings with respect to the final ground surface elevation. Estimates of settlement for foundations bearing on engineered or non-engineered fills are strongly dependent on the quality of fill placed. Factors that may affect the quality of fill include maximum loose lift thickness of the fills placed and the amount of compactive effort placed on each lift. If the recommendations outlined in this report are followed, we expect total settlements for the proposed construction to be in the range of 1 inch or less, while the differential settlement will be approximately half of the anticipated total settlement. This evaluation is based on our engineering experience and the anticipated loadings for this type of structure, and is intended to aid the structural engineer with his design.

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 13

Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the foundation bearing level if the foundation excavations remain exposed during periods of inclement weather. Therefore, foundation concrete should be placed the same day that final excavation is achieved and the design bearing pressure verified. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water absorption or exposure to the environment, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the foundation excavation must remain open overnight, or if rainfall is apparent while the bearing soils are exposed, we recommend that a 1 to 3-inch thick "mud mat" of "lean" concrete be placed over the exposed bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel.

6.5 DRILLED PIER FOUNDATIONS

As an alternative, a drilled pier foundation system may be utilized to support the proposed building structures. Drilled piers should be proportioned and founded at sufficient depths to provide both axial compressive load capacity and uplift resistance. Based on the results from the field exploration and laboratory test results data the allowable loads for the drilled piers are recommended as:

Drilled Piers Recommendations

Foundation Type Under-reamed

Minimum Depth below Existing Grade 7 Feet

Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Dead Load (Dead and Sustained Live Load) 3,000 PSF

Net Allowable Bearing Pressure for Total Load (Dead Load and Live Load) 4,500 PSF

The above recommended drilled pier allowable end bearing pressures incorporate a design safety factor of 3 against axial compression dead loads plus sustained live loads and a design safety factor of 2 against axial compression dead loads plus sustained and transient live loads. The minimum clear spacing between edges of adjacent piers should be at least one (1) bell diameter, with larger bell size governing. Drilled pier foundations that are designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations in this report could be subjected to long term total and differential movements of about 1.0 and 0.5 inch, respectfully.

The following items should be considered during the design and construction of the drilled piers:

The bell to shaft ratio should be between 2:1 to 3:1.

Based on our current groundwater observations, the drilled pier excavations should not encounter groundwater. If groundwater is encountered during construction, water inflow

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 14 must be pumped out immediately using a sump-pump. The drilling contractor must be prepared for this condition and be prepared to case the piers.

We anticipate that the drilled pier may be installed using dry method of construction.

However, a slurry method of construction may be required for the drilled pier installations due to the potential seasonal variations in groundwater depth, variations in the subsoils stratigraphy, strengths and corresponding potential borehole collapsing. The drilling contractor should be prepared to encounter for any such situations.

Due to the potential subsoil variations and potential groundwater fluctuations, we recommend that the four corner and two center piers be drilled first to better evaluate the constructability of the drilled piers recommended herein. Once this information is field verified, other piers need to be constructed accordingly.

The drilled pier excavations should be free of loose materials and water prior to concrete placements. Concrete should be poured immediately after drilling the pier holes. The drilled piers installations should be followed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI)

Reference Specifications for the construction of drilled piers (ACI 336.1) and commentary (ACI

336.1R-98). Additionally, The U.S. Department of Transportation publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-

016, “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods” should be followed during the design and construction of the drilled piers.

The construction of the piers should be observed as a means to verify compliance with design assumptions and to verify: (1) the bearing stratum; (2) length and diameter; (3) the removal of smear zones and cuttings; (4) that groundwater seepage, when encountered, is correctly handled;

and (5) that the piers are vertical (within the acceptable tolerance).

6.5.1 UPLIFT CONSIDERATIONS

The drilled piers should contain sufficient reinforcing steel throughout their entire length to resist uplift (tensile) forces due to post-construction heave of the clay soils. The magnitude of uplift is difficult to predict and will vary with the insitu moisture contents at the time of construction.

Based on the planned building subgrade preparation, we recommend using a uniform uplift of

800 psf over the entire pier perimeter to a depth of 6 feet.

The uplift forces created due to the expansive soils and imposed structural loadings can be resisted by the underreamed portion the pier, weight of the pier itself and the dead load on the pier. The uplift resistance of underreamed drilled piers at the site can be estimated using the following equation:

Ur = Br + Wp + PDL

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 15

Where: Ur = Uplift resistance of the pier (kips)

Br = Resistance contributed by the underreamed portion of the pier (kips)

Wp = Weight of the pier (kips)

PDL = Dead Load acting on the pier (kips)

The resistance contributed by the underreamed portion of the pier should be calculated as shown in the following equations. The following formulas incorporate a factor of safety of approximately 2.

Br = 1•(D2 – d2) Piers at least 12 feet below adjacent finished grade

Br = 3•(D2 – d2) Piers at least 15 feet below adjacent finished grade

Br = 7•(D2 – d2) Piers at least 18 feet below adjacent finished grade

Br should be ignored should the pier depth is less than 12 feet below adjacent finished grade

Where: D = Diameter of the under-ream (feet) d = Diameter of the pier shaft (feet)

6.5.2 LATERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Resistance to lateral loads and the expected pier behaviour under the applied loading conditions will depend not only on the subsurface conditions, but also on loading conditions, the pier size, and the engineering properties of the pier. We recommend the designer use a performance based design methodology using non-linear soil support springs (“p-y curves”) to model the soil behaviour. Several computer programs are commercially available for this purpose; we recommend LPILE (Ensoft, Inc.) since the software is relatively current and actively supported.

The graphical relationship between the soil resistance (p) and pile deflection (y) is commonly referred to as a “p-y curve”. Along the depth of the shaft, soil resistance (p) is expressed as a non-linear function of lateral shaft deflection (y). Various researchers developed “p-y” criteria for different kinds of soils. The “p-y” curves can be automatically generated by LPILE.

Recommended design soil properties needed for generating “p-y” curves are provided in the table below.

Description Approximate

Depth (ft)

Effective

Unit

Weight

(pcf)

Allowable

Passive

Pressure

(psf)

Cohesion

(psf)

Friction

Angle

(degree)

E50 Ks

(pci)

Clay 0 to 3 115 Disregard Capacities

Clay 3 to 10 115 1,000 1,000 - 0.007 100

Clay 10 to 15 115 2,000 2,000 - 0.005 500

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 16

6.5.3 SLAB ON-GRADE

Upon addressing the undocumented fill soils, the floor slab can be supported on engineered fill soils for the surface supported structure. We recommend that the upper six-inch of subgrade soils in the floor slab areas be compacted to at least 95% of standard density (ASTM D 698) at a moisture content between ±2% of the optimum value. Positive drainage should always be maintained to drain surface water away from the structure. A soil modulus of subgrade reaction (ks) of 120 pci can be used in the design of floor slab. Positive drainage should be developed and strictly maintained during the lifetime of the structure to direct surface water away from the foundation area.

We recommend that floor slabs be isolated from the foundation footings so differential settlement of the structure will not induce shear stresses in the floor slab. Furthermore, the existing near surface loose or poorly compacted soils should be removed and compacted prior to the slab construction. In order to minimize the crack width of shrinkage cracks that may develop near the surface of the slab, we recommend mesh reinforcement be included in the design of the floor slab. The mesh should be in the top half of the slab to be effective.

A bedding layer of leveling sand, one to two inch in thickness, may be placed beneath the floor slab.

If floor treatments that are sensitive to moisture will be used, a 10-mil vapor barrier of polyethylene sheeting or similar material should be placed beneath the slab to minimize moisture migration through the slab. If a vapor barrier is considered to provide moisture protection, special attention should be given to the surface curing of the slabs to minimize uneven drying of the slabs and associated cracking and/or slab curling. The use of a blotter or cushion layer above the vapor barrier can also be considered for project specific reasons. Please refer to ACI 302.1R96 Guide for

Concrete Floor and Slab Construction and ASTM E 1643 Standard Practice for Installation of Water

Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs for additional guidance on this issue.

While site grading was not provided, we anticipate that planned grading will largely be within 2 feet of the existing contours across the site. In the event that fill is placed on the site, specifications should require placement in accordance with our recommendations given in the "Site Preparation" section.

6.6 MONOLITHIC SLAB ON-GRADE

As an alternative, upon addressing the undocumented fill, the planned structure can be supported by a monolithic slab-on-grade/grade beam structural foundation system. This system may be designed with conventional reinforcing or by post-tensioning. The slab should be designed in accordance with WRI/CRSI “Design Slab-On-Ground Foundations” or PTI “Design and Construction

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 17 of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground”. The following design parameters are recommended for the

Post-Tensioning Institute's slab-on-grade design method (3rd Edition):

POST-TENSIONED SLAB PARAMETERS - PTI 3

RD

EDITION WITH 2008 SUPPLEMENTS

Design Parameters Existing Conditions; PVM = 1.0 (inch) em Edge (feet) 4.8 ym Edge (inches) 0.6 em Center (feet) 9.0 ym Center (inches) 0.8

Effective PI 20

Design Suction Profile Post-Equilibrium

Environmental Conditions Trees

Thornthwaite Moisture Index 18

Minimum Fill-Soil Undrained Shear Strength 1,000 psf

Slab Subgrade Coefficient (Slab-on-Vapor Sheeting over Sand) 0.75

The following design parameters are recommended for the WRI/CRSI “Design Slab-On-Ground

Foundations (August, 1981)”:

BRAB/WRI SLAB PARAMETERS

Design Parameters Existing Conditions; PVM = 1.0 (inch)

Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf

Design PI 20

Climatic Rating (Cw) 26

Unconfined Compressive Strength 1.0 tsf

Soil-Climate Support Index (1-C) 0.03

A net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf can be used to design grade beams founded on competent onsite natural soils and/or engineered fill, as described in the section titled ‘Site

Construction Recommendations’. Grade beams should have a minimum width of 12 inches to reduce the possibility of foundation bearing failure and excessive settlement due to local shear or

"punching" failures. Additionally, the grade beams should extend at least 18 inches below final adjacent grade to utilize this bearing pressure for both interior and exterior beams, respectively.

Fills should be sloped to drain surface water away from the structures. We anticipate that foundations, grade beams and slabs designed using the recommended allowable bearing pressures will experience minor settlements that will be within the tolerable limit (less than an inch) for the proposed structures.

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 18

The recommended differential movement values are based on climate controlled soil conditions and are not valid when influenced by significant other conditions, such as trees, poor drainage, slope, cut and fill sections, etc. These design parameters also assume that positive drainage will be provided away from the structures and with moderate irrigation of surrounding lawn and planter areas with no excessive wetting or drying of soils adjacent to the foundations. Greater potential movements may occur with extreme wetting or drying of the soils due to ponding of water, plumbing leaks or lack of irrigation. In the event that sprinkler systems are used, we recommend that the sprinkler system be placed all around the structure to provide a uniform moisture condition throughout the year. This will reduce fluctuations in subsoil moisture and corresponding movement.

If floor treatments that are sensitive to moisture will be used, a 10-mil vapor barrier of polyethylene sheeting or similar material should be placed beneath the slab to minimize moisture migration through the slab. If a vapor barrier is considered to provide moisture protection, special attention should be given to the surface curing of the slabs to minimize uneven drying of the slabs and associated cracking and/or slab curling. The use of a blotter or cushion layer above the vapor barrier can also be considered for project specific reasons. Please refer to ACI 302.1R96 Guide for

Concrete Floor and Slab Construction and ASTM E 1643 Standard Practice for Installation of Water

Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs for additional guidance on this issue.

While site grading was not provided, we anticipate that planned grading will largely be within 2 feet of the existing contours across the site. In the event that fill is placed on the site, specifications should require placement in accordance with our recommendations given in the

"Site Construction Recommendations" section.

6.7 GRADE BEAMS AND PERIMETER CONDITIONS

Soils placed along the exterior of grade beams should be on-site clay soils placed and compacted in accordance with this report. The purpose of this backfill is to reduce the opportunity for surface or subsurface water infiltration beneath the structure. The overbuild zone of select granular soils should be removed outside of the perimeter grade beams and backfilled with on-site clay soils.

We recommend paving/sidewalks be placed adjacent to the structures to reduce seasonal drying of the moisture conditioned soils near the perimeter of the structures. Irrigation of lawn and landscaped areas should be moderate, with no excessive wetting or drying of soils around the perimeter of the structures allowed. Positive drainage away from the structures should also be provided.

Trees and bushes/shrubs planted near the perimeter of the structures can withdraw large amounts of water from the soils. We recommend trees not be planted or left in place (existing trees) closer

ECS Project No. 43:1569 Page 19 than half the canopy diameter of mature trees from the grade beams, typically a minimum of 20 feet.

If vegetation is planted closer than the anticipated mature height away from the buildings then a root barrier should be installed to a depth of at least 5 feet below finished grade.

6.8 PRECAST BURIAL CRYPTS

As site grading plans were not provided at the time of this report, we have assumed that final grading will be near existing site grades. Also, we have assumed that the depth of precast Burial Crypts will be about 6 to 8 feet below the finished grade elevations.