GEO REPORT - VA Campus.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

VA CAMPUS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

TEXAS ENGINEERING FIRM REGISTRATION NO. F-17076

VA Campus

Houston, Texas

Prepared by:

Gorrondona Engineering Services, Inc.

Prepared for:

H2B, Inc.

1225 North Loop West, Suite 800

Houston, Texas 77008

Attention: Mr. Tod J. Henning, P.E.

February 20, 2017

GES Project No. 16-0367

Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Materials Testing & Inspection

11710 North Freeway, Suite 700 • Houston, Texas 77060 • 281.469.3347 • Fax 281.469.3594 Texas Engineering Firm Registration No. F-17076

February 20, 2017

Mr. Tod J. Henning, P.E.

H2B, Inc.

1225 North Loop West, Suite 800 Houston, Texas 77008

Re: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT VA Campus Houston, Texas GES Project No. 16-0367

Dear Mr. Henning:

Gorrondona Engineering Services, Inc. (GES) is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Engineering Report for the referenced project. We appreciate the opportunity of working with you. Please contact us if you have any questions or require additional services.

Respectfully submitted, Hamed Ardalan, Ph.D., P.E.

Senior Project Engineer

Kenneth B. Riner, P.E.

President

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Field Investigation

3.0 Laboratory Testing

4.0 Site Conditions

4.1 General

4.2 Geology

4.3 Soil

4.4 Groundwater

5.0 Analysis and Recommendations

5.1 Seismic Site Classification

5.2 Earthwork

5.2.1 Site Preparation

5.2.2 Proofroll

5.2.3 Grading and Drainage

5.2.4 Wet Weather/Soft Subgrade

5.2.5 Fill

5.2.6 Testing

5.3 Demolition Considerations

5.4 Pavement

5.4.1 Rigid Pavement

5.4.2 Pavement Subgrade

6.0 General Comments

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Project Location Diagrams Appendix B - Boring Location Diagram Appendix C - Boring Logs and Laboratory Results Appendix D - Aerial Photographs Appendix E - USGS Topographic Map Appendix F - Site Photographs Appendix G - Geologic Information Appendix H - Unified Soil Classification System

GES Project No. 16-0367 Page 1

VA Campus

Houston, Texas

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Project Location. The project alignment is located in the VA Campus at 2002 Holcombe Boulevard in Houston, Texas. The general location and orientation of the site are provided in Appendix A - Project Location Diagrams.

Project Description. The project consists of pavement repair and/or replacement for the existing roadways (totaling approximately 3,600 LF).

Project Authorization. This geotechnical investigation was authorized by Mr. Tod J. Henning with H2B, Inc. and performed in accordance with GES Proposal No. P16-0536 dated September 9, 2016.

Purpose and Methodology. The principal purposes of this investigation were to evaluate the general soil conditions at the proposed site and to develop geotechnical engineering design recommendations. To accomplish its intended purposes, the study was conducted in the following phases: (1) drill sample borings to evaluate the soil conditions at the boring locations and to obtain soil samples; (2) conduct laboratory tests on selected samples recovered from the borings to establish the pertinent engineering characteristics of the soils; and (3) perform engineering analyses, using field and laboratory data, to develop design criteria.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Use of this Report. As with any geotechnical engineering report, this report presents technical information and provides detailed technical recommendations for civil and structural engineering design and construction purposes. GES, by necessity, has assumed the user of this document possesses the technical acumen to understand and properly utilize information and recommendations provided herein. GES strives to be clear in its presentation and, like the user, does not want potentially detrimental misinterpretation or misunderstanding of this report. Therefore, we encourage any user of this report with questions regarding its content to contact GES for clarification. Clarification will be provided verbally and/or issued by GES in the form of a report addendum, as appropriate.

Report Specificity. This report was prepared to meet the specific needs of the client for the specific project identified. Recommendations contained herein should not be applied to any other project at this site by the client or anyone else without the explicit approval of GES.

GES Project No. 16-0367 Page 2

2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION

Subsurface Investigation. The subsurface investigation for this project is summarized below.

Boring locations are provided in Appendix B - Boring Location Diagram.

Boring Nos. Depth, feet bgs1 Date Drilled Location2 B-01 to B-09 5 1/22-29/2017 Along the proposed roadway improvement

Notes:

1. bgs = below ground surface

2. Boring locations provided in Appendix B - Boring Location Diagram were not surveyed and should be considered approximate. Borings were located by recreational hand-held GPS unit. Horizontal accuracy of such units is typically on the order of 20-feet.

Boring Logs. Subsurface conditions were defined using the sample borings. Boring logs generated during this study are included in Appendix C - Boring Logs and Laboratory Results.

Borings were advanced between sample intervals using continuous flight auger drilling procedures.

Cohesive Soil Sampling. Cohesive soil samples were generally obtained using Shelby tube samplers in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1587. The Shelby tube sampler consists of a thin-walled steel tube with a sharp cutting edge connected to a head equipped with a ball valve threaded for rod connection. The tube is pushed into the undisturbed soils by the hydraulic pulldown of the drilling rig. The soil specimens were extruded from the tube in the field, logged, tested for consistency using a hand penetrometer, sealed and packaged to maintain "in situ" moisture content.

Consistency of Cohesive Soils. The consistency of cohesive soil samples was evaluated in the field using a calibrated hand penetrometer. In this test a 0.25-inch diameter piston is pushed into the undisturbed sample at a constant rate to a depth of 0.25-inch. The results of these tests are tabulated at the respective sample depths on the boring logs. When the capacity of the penetrometer is exceeded, the value is tabulated as 4.5+.

Granular Soil Sampling. Granular soil samples were generally obtained using split-barrel sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM D1586. In the split-barrel procedure, a disturbed sample is obtained in a standard 2-inch outside diameter (OD) split barrel sampling spoon driven 18-inches into the ground using a 140-pound (lb) hammer falling freely 30 inches. The number of blows for the last 12-inches of a standard 18-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test resistance (N-value). The N-values are recorded on the boring logs at the depth of sampling. Samples were sealed and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing.

Groundwater Observations. Groundwater observations are shown on the boring logs.

GES Project No. 16-0367 Page 3

Borehole Plugging. Upon completion of the borings, the boreholes were backfilled from the top and plugged at the surface.

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING

GES performs visual classification and any of a number of laboratory tests, as appropriate, to define pertinent engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. Tests are performed in general accordance with ASTM or other standards and the results included at the respective sample depths on the boring logs or separately tabulated, as appropriate, and included in Appendix C - Boring Logs and Laboratory Results. Laboratory tests and procedures routinely utilized, as appropriate, for geotechnical investigations are tabulated below.

Test Procedure Description ASTM D421 Standard Practice for Dry Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle-Size Analysis and

Determination of Soil Constants ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils ASTM D698 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using

Standard Effort ASTM D1140 Standard Test Methods for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 (75-μm)

Sieve ASTM D1557 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using

Modified Effort ASTM D1883 Standard Test Method for CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory-Compacted

Soils ASTM D2166 Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil ASTM D2216 Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of

Soil and Rock by Mass ASTM D2217 Standard Practice for Wet Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle-Size Analysis and

Determination of Soil Constants ASTM D2434 Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head) ASTM D2435 Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils Using

Incremental Loading ASTM D2487 Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification

System) ASTM D2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure) ASTM D2850 Standard Test Method for Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on

Cohesive Soil ASTM D2937 Standard Test Method for Density of Soil in Place by the Drive-Cylinder Method ASTM D4220 Standard Practices for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples ASTM D4318 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils ASTM D4546 Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of

Cohesive Soils ASTM D4643 Standard Test Method for Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by the

Microwave Oven Method ASTM D4644 Standard Test Method for Slake Durability of Shales and Similar Weak Rocks ASTM D4647 Standard Test Method for Identification and Classification of Dispersive Clay Soils by the Pinhole Test

GES Project No. 16-0367 Page 4

Test Procedure Description ASTM D4718 Standard Practice for Correction of Unit Weight and Water Content for Soils

Containing Oversize Particles ASTM D4767 Standard Method for Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test for Cohesive

Soils ASTM D4972 Standard Test method for pH of Soils

Manufacturer's Instructions

Soil Strength Determination Using a Torvane

Tex-145-E Determining Sulfate Content in Soils - Colorimetric Method

4.0 SITE CONDITIONS

4.1 General

Review of Aerial Photographs. Historical aerial photographs of the site were reviewed for potential past alterations to the site which could impact geotechnical design conditions.

Specifically, aerial photographs were reviewed to visually assess obvious areas of significant past fill on site. Aerial photographs were reviewed for the years 2016, 2015, 2014, 2012, 2011, 2006, 2002, 1995, 1989, 1978, 1953, and 1944. Reviewed aerial photographs are included in Appendix D - Aerial Photographs. Aerial photographs indicate the site was undeveloped in 1944. Based on aerial photographs, the site was developed with buildings, roadways, a parking areas since at least 1953. Aerial photographs indicate the existing roadways along the proposed improvement alignment have been present since at least 1995. Based on aerial photographs, a building and a parking area were constructed on the north side of the site sometime between 2011 and 2012. Due to previous construction activities, we would expect surficial disturbance of site soils. Our review revealed no obvious areas of significant fill on-site. Due to the intermittent nature and relatively low resolution of aerial photographs, as well as our lack of detailed information regarding the past land use of the site, our review should not be interpreted as eliminating the possibility of cuts and/or fills on site which could detrimentally affect future construction.

Topography. A United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map of the site is provided in Appendix E - USGS Topographic Map. The map indicates the site is relatively flat.

Site Photographs. Photographs representative of the site at the time of this investigation are provided in Appendix F - Site Photographs. Photographed conditions are consistent with the aerial photographs and topographic map.

4.2 Geology

Geologic Formation. Based on available surface geology maps and our experience, it appears this site is located in the Beaumont Formation, areas predominantly clay. A geologic atlas and

GES Project No. 16-0367 Page 5

USGS formation description are provided in Appendix G - Geologic Information. Soils within the Beaumont Formation, areas predominantly clay, can generally be characterized as clay, silt and fine sand.

Geologic Faults. A review of the attached geologic map indicates the nearest geologic fault is about 3.6-miles southwest of the project site. A geologic fault study was beyond the scope of this investigation.

4.3 Soil

Stratigraphy. Descriptions of the various strata and their approximate depths and thickness per the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) are provided on the boring logs included in Appendix C - Boring Logs and Laboratory Results. Terms and symbols used in the USCS are presented in Appendix H - Unified Soil Classification System. A brief summary of the stratigraphy indicated by the borings is provided below.

Generalized Subsurface Conditions Along the Proposed Roadway Improvements

(Borings B-01 to B-09) Nominal Depth, feet bgs

(Except as Noted)

General Description

Detailed Description of

Soils/Materials Encountered Top of Layer

Bottom of Layer

0 0 to 9 inches PAVEMENT 2-inch ASPHALT over 5-inch GRAVEL BASE (B-02) and 6 to 9-inch CONCRETE (B-01 and B-04 to B-07).

0 to 9 inches

0 to 5 FILL Very stiff SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) FILL, stiff SANDY FAT CLAY (CH) FILL, and stiff to very stiff FAT CLAY WITH

SAND (CH) FILL.

0 to 5 5 FAT CLAY Stiff to very stiff FAT CLAY (CH).

Note: Boring Termination Depth = 5 feet bgs.

Swell Potential based on Atterberg Limits. Atterberg (plastic and liquid) limits were performed on 7 shallow soil samples obtained at depths between 0- and 8-feet bgs. The plasticity index of the samples was between 22 and 71 with an average of 46 indicating that the soils have a very high potential for shrinking and swelling with changes in soil moisture content.

4.4 Groundwater

Groundwater Levels. The borings were advanced using auger drilling and intermittent sampling methods in order to observe groundwater seepage levels. Groundwater levels encountered in the borings during this investigation are identified below.

GES Project No. 16-0367 Page 6

Boring No. Depth Groundwater Initially

Encountered (feet, bgs) Groundwater Depth after 15 Minutes

(feet, bgs) B-01 to B-09 Not Encountered Not Encountered

Long-term Groundwater Monitoring. Long-term monitoring of groundwater conditions via piezometers was not performed during this investigation and was beyond the scope of this study. Long-term monitoring can reveal groundwater levels materially different than those encountered during measurements taken while drilling the borings.

Groundwater Fluctuations. Future construction activities may alter the surface and subsurface drainage characteristics of this site. It is difficult to accurately predict the magnitude of subsurface water fluctuations that might occur based upon short-term observations. The groundwater level should be expected to fluctuate throughout the years with variations in precipitation.

5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Seismic Site Classification

The seismic site classification is based on the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) and is a classification of the site based on the type of soils encountered at the site and their engineering properties. Per Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10, the seismic site classification for this site is D.

5.2 Earthwork

5.2.1 Site Preparation

In the area of improvements, all concrete, trees, stumps, brush, debris, septic tanks, abandoned structures, roots, vegetation, rubbish and any other undesirable matter should be removed and properly disposed. All vegetation should be removed and the exposed surface should be scarified to an additional depth of at least 6 inches. It is the intent of these recommendations to provide a loose surface with no features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.

5.2.2 Proofroll

Paving subgrades should be proofrolled with a fully loaded tandem axle dump truck or similar pneumatic-tire equipment to locate areas of loose subgrade. In areas to be cut, the proofroll should be performed after the final grade is established. In areas to be filled, the proofroll

GES Project No. 16-0367 Page 7 should be performed prior to fill placement. Areas of loose or soft subgrade encountered in the proofroll should be removed and replaced with engineered fill, moisture conditioned (dried or wetted, as needed) and compacted in place.

5.2.3 Grading and Drainage

Every attempt should be made to limit the extreme wetting or drying of the subsurface soils because swelling and shrinkage of these soils will result. Standard construction practices of providing good surface water drainage should be used. A positive slope of the ground away from any pavement should be provided. Ditches or swales should be provided to carry the run-off water both during and after construction.

Root systems from trees and shrubs can draw a substantial amount of water from the clay soils at this site, causing the clays to dry and shrink. This could cause settlement beneath grade-supported slabs such as paving. Trees and large bushes should be located a distance equal to at least one-half their anticipated mature height away from paving.

5.2.4 Wet Weather/Soft Subgrade

Soft and/or wet surface soils may be encountered during construction, especially following periods of wet weather. Wet or soft surface soils can present difficulties for compaction and other construction equipment. If specified compaction cannot be achieved due to soft or wet surface soils, one of the following corrective measures will be required:

1. Removal of the wet and/or soft soil and replacement with select fill,

2. Chemical treatment of the wet and/or soft soil to improve the subgrade stability, or

3. If allowed by the schedule, drying by natural means.

Chemical treatment is usually the most effective way to improve soft and/or wet surface soils.

GES should be contacted for additional recommendations if chemical treatment is planned due to wet and/or soft soils.

5.2.5 Fill

General Fill. General fill may be placed in paving areas. General fill should consist of material approved by the Geotechnical Engineer with a liquid limit less than 50. General fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8-inches and should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 95 percent maximum dry density (per ASTM D-698) and within ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content.

Fill Restrictions. General fill should consist of those materials meeting the requirements stated. General fill should not contain material greater than 4-inches in any direction, debris, GES Project No. 16-0367 Page 8 vegetation, waste material, environmentally contaminated material, or any other unsuitable material.

Unsuitable Materials. Materials considered unsuitable for use as select fill or general fill include low and high plasticity silt (ML and MH), silty clay (CL-ML), organic clay and silt (OH and OL) and highly organic soils such as peat (Pt). These soils may be used for site grading and restoration in unimproved areas as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Soil placed in unimproved areas should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 10-inches and should be compacted to at least 92 percent maximum dry density (per ASTM D-698) and at a moisture content within ±4 percentage points of optimum.

5.2.6 Testing

Required Testing and Inspections. Field compaction and classification tests should be performed by GES. Compaction tests should be performed in each lift of the compacted material. We recommend the following minimum soil compaction testing be performed for the paving subgrade: one test per lift every 300 linear feet for alternating lanes with a minimum of three tests per street. If the materials fail to meet the density or moisture content specified, the course should be reworked as necessary to obtain the specified compaction.

Liability Limitations. Since proper field inspection and testing are critical to the design recommendations provided herein, GES cannot assume responsibility or liability for recommendations provided in this report if construction inspection and/or testing is performed by another party.

5.3 Demolition Considerations

Applicability. Recommendations in this section apply to the removal of any existing foundations, utilities or pavement which may be present on this site.

General. Special care should be taken in the demolition and removal of existing floor slabs, foundations, utilities and pavements to minimize disturbance of the subgrade. Excessive disturbance of the subgrade resulting from demolition activities can have serious detrimental effects on planned foundation and paving elements.

Existing Foundations. Existing foundations are typically slabs, shallow footings, or drilled piers.

If slab or shallow footings are encountered, they should be completely removed. If drilled piers are encountered, they should be cut off at an elevation at least 24-inches below proposed grade beams or the final subgrade elevation, whichever is deeper. The remainder of the drilled pier should remain in place. Foundation elements to remain in place should be surveyed and superimposed on the proposed development plans to determine the potential for obstructions to the planned construction. GES should be contacted if drilled piers are to

GES Project No. 16-0367 Page 9 be excavated and removed completely. Additional earthwork activities will be required to make the site suitable for new construction if the piers are to be removed completely.

Existing Utilities. Existing utilities and bedding to be abandoned should be completely removed. Existing utilities and bedding may be abandoned in place if they do not interfere with planned development. Utilities which are abandoned in place should be properly pressure-grouted to completely fill the utility.

Backfill. Excavations resulting from the excavation of existing foundations and utilities should be backfilled in accordance with Section 5.5.5 – Fill.

Other Buried Structures. Other types of buried structures (wells, cisterns, etc.) could be located on the site. If encountered, GES should be contacted to address these types of structures on a case-by-case basis.

5.4 Pavement

Recommendations for rigid pavement and preparation of the pavement subgrade are provided in the following sections. Based on the provided information, we understand the proposed roadways are classified as Collector Roads per City of Houston Specifications. Also, we understand the proposed roadways will be subjected to Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of about 5,000 vehicles with less than 0.5 percent truck traffic. Any unusual loading conditions should be brought to our attention prior to finalizing the pavement design so that we may assess and modify our recommendations as necessary. The pavement subgrade should be stabilized to a minimum depth of 8-inches as recommended in Section 5.4.2 – Pavement Subgrade of this report.

5.4.1 Rigid Pavement

Portland cement concrete (PCC) with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3,500 pounds per square inch (psi) should be utilized for rigid pavement. Grade 60 reinforcing steel should be utilized in the transverse and longitudinal directions. The following pavement thicknesses and reinforcing are recommended based on the provided traffic information over a 30-year design period:

Paving Use Thickness (inches) Longitudinal Reinforcing Transverse Reinforcing

Collector Road 7 No. 4 bars spaced on 18-inch intervals

No. 4 bars spaced on 36-inch intervals

Contraction joints should be spaced at about 30 times the pavement thickness up to a maximum of 15 feet in any direction. Saw cut control joints should be cut within 6 to 12 hours of concrete placement. Expansion joints should be spaced a maximum of 60-feet in any

GES Project No. 16-0367 Page 10 direction and should be placed where the pavement abuts any structure. Dowels should have a diameter equal to 1/8 the slab thickness, be spaced on 12-inch intervals, and be embedded at least 9-inches. Where not specified herein, concrete pavement should comply with City of Houston Standard Specifications.

5.4.2 Pavement Subgrade

Lean to fat clay is expected to be encountered or exposed at pavement subgrade. The pavement subgrade should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8-inches and should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 95 percent maximum dry density (per ASTM D-698) and within ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content. We recommend the subgrade be stabilized using the following:

Reagent

Application Rate (pounds per square yard)

Application Depth (inches)

Lime 36 8

Lime stabilization should be performed in accordance with TxDOT Standard Specifications, Item 260, “Lime Stabilized Subgrade”, or local equivalent.

6.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Data Assumptions. By necessity, geotechnical engineering design recommendations are based on a limited amount of information about subsurface conditions. In the analysis, the geotechnical engineer must assume subsurface conditions are similar to those encountered in the borings. The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of the field investigation and on the assumption that the exploratory borings are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site; that is, the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the borings at the time they were completed.

Subsurface Anomalies. Anomalies in subsurface conditions are often revealed during construction. If during construction, different subsurface conditions from those encountered in our borings are observed, or appear to be present in excavations, we must be advised promptly so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary.

Change of Conditions. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of the work at the site, if conditions have changed due either to natural causes or to construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or if structure locations, structural loads or finish grades are changed, we should be promptly informed and retained to review

GES Project No. 16-0367 Page 11 our report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations, considering the changed conditions and/or time lapse.

Design Review. GES, Inc. should be retained to review those portions of the plans and specifications for this particular project that pertain to earthwork and foundations as a means to determine whether the plans and specifications are consistent with the recommendations contained in this report.

Construction Materials Testing and Inspection. GES should be retained to observe earthwork and foundation installation and perform materials evaluation and testing during the construction phase of the project. This enables GES’s geotechnical engineer to stay abreast of the project and to be readily available to evaluate unanticipated conditions, to conduct additional tests if required and, when necessary, to recommend alternative solutions to unanticipated conditions. It is proposed that construction phase observation and materials testing commence by the project geotechnical engineer (GES) at the outset of the project.

Experience has shown that the most suitable method for procuring these services is for the owner to contact directly with the project geotechnical engineer. This results in a clear, direct line of communication between the owner and the owner's design engineers and the geotechnical engineer.

Report Recommendations are Preliminary. Until the recommended construction phase services are performed by GES, the recommendations contained in this report on such items as final foundation bearing elevations, final depth of undercut of expansive soils for non-expansive earth fill pads and other such subsurface-related recommendations should be considered as preliminary.

Liability Limitation. GES cannot assume responsibility or liability for recommendations provided in this report if construction inspection and/or testing recommended herein is performed by another party.

Warranty. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and their designated agents for specific application to design of this project. We have used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable members of our profession practicing in the same or similar locality. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made or intended.

Appendix A ‐ Project Location Diagrams

GES Project No. 16-0367 VA Campus

PROJECT LOCATION DIAGRAM - GENERAL

PROJECT LOCATION DIAGRAM - LOCAL

Appendix B ‐ Boring Location Diagram

BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM

Appendix C ‐ Boring Logs and Laboratory Results

76 8927

PAVEMENT - 9-inch CONCRETE.

FAT CLAY (CH) - Stiff to very stiff, gray and light brown, with iron nodules.

Bottom of hole at 5.0 feet.

ST

ST

ST

2.00

4.00

2.00

0.8

0.8

0.8

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY JA

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE

CONTRACTOR GES GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY HA

DATE STARTED 1/22/17 COMPLETED 1/22/17

AFTER 15 MIN. ---

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED Not Encountered

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D E

P T

H (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

T O

R V

A N

E (t sf

C om pr es si ve

S tr en gt h (t sf

C on fin in g P re ss ur e

(p si

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

BORING NUMBER B-01

CLIENT H2B, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 16-0367

PROJECT NAME VA Campus

PROJECT LOCATION Houston, Texas

R E

V . G

E O

L O

G W

T O

R

U C

6-

.G P

J G

IN

T

U S

JA

N

7.

G D

T

/8 /1

Gorrondona Engineering Services 11710 North Freeway, Suite 700, Houston, TX 77060 Telephone: 281-469-3347; Fax: 281-469.3594

69 88

PAVEMENT - 2-inch ASPHALT over 5-inch

GRAVEL BASE.

FAT CLAY (CH) - Stiff to very stiff, dark gray and gray.

Bottom of hole at 5.0 feet.

ST

ST

ST

3.00

3.50

2.00

0.8

0.6

0.8

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY JA

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE

CONTRACTOR GES GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY HA

DATE STARTED 1/22/17 COMPLETED 1/22/17

AFTER 15 MIN. ---

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED Not Encountered

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D E

P T

H (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

T O

R V

A N

E (t sf

C om pr es si ve

S tr en gt h (t sf

C on fin in g P re ss ur e

(p si

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

BORING NUMBER B-02

CLIENT H2B, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 16-0367

PROJECT NAME VA Campus

PROJECT LOCATION Houston, Texas

R E

V . G

E O

L O

G W

T O

R

U C

6-

.G P

J G

IN

T

U S

JA

N

7.

G D

T

/8 /1

Gorrondona Engineering Services

69 7823

FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) FILL - Very stiff, gray.

FAT CLAY (CH) - Very stiff, gray and light brown, with iron nodules.

Bottom of hole at 5.0 feet.

ST

ST

ST

4.00

4.50

4.50

1.0

1.3

1.5

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY JA

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE

CONTRACTOR GES GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY HA

DATE STARTED 1/22/17 COMPLETED 1/22/17

AFTER 15 MIN. ---

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED Not Encountered

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D E

P T

H (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

T O

R V

A N

E (t sf

C om pr es si ve

S tr en gt h (t sf

C on fin in g P re ss ur e

(p si

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

BORING NUMBER B-03

CLIENT H2B, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 16-0367

PROJECT NAME VA Campus

PROJECT LOCATION Houston, Texas

R E

V . G

E O

L O

G W

T O

R

U C

6-

.G P

J G

IN

T

U S

JA

N

7.

G D

T

/8 /1

Gorrondona Engineering Services

PAVEMENT - 8-inch CONCRETE.

FAT CLAY (CH) - Stiff to very stiff, gray and light brown, with iron nodules.

Bottom of hole at 5.0 feet.

ST

ST

ST

4.50

2.00

3.00

0.8

0.6

0.9

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY JA

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE

CONTRACTOR GES GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY HA

DATE STARTED 1/22/17 COMPLETED 1/22/17

AFTER 15 MIN. ---

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED Not Encountered

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D E

P T

H (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

T O

R V

A N

E (t sf

C om pr es si ve

S tr en gt h (t sf

C on fin in g P re ss ur e

(p si

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

BORING NUMBER B-04

CLIENT H2B, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 16-0367

PROJECT NAME VA Campus

PROJECT LOCATION Houston, Texas

R E

V . G

E O

L O

G W

T O

R

U C

6-

.G P

J G

IN

T

U S

JA

N

7.

G D

T

/8 /1

Gorrondona Engineering Services

PAVEMENT - 8-inch CONCRETE.

FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) FILL - Stiff, dark gray, gray, and light brown, with sand pockets.

Bottom of hole at 5.0 feet.

ST

ST

ST

2.00

2.00

2.00

0.8

0.6

0.8

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY JA

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE

CONTRACTOR GES GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY HA

DATE STARTED 1/22/17 COMPLETED 1/22/17

AFTER 15 MIN. ---

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED Not Encountered

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D E

P T

H (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

T O

R V

A N

E (t sf

C om pr es si ve

S tr en gt h (t sf

C on fin in g P re ss ur e

(p si

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

BORING NUMBER B-05

CLIENT H2B, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 16-0367

PROJECT NAME VA Campus

PROJECT LOCATION Houston, Texas

R E

V . G

E O

L O

G W

T O

R

U C

6-

.G P

J G

IN

T

U S

JA

N

7.

G D

T

/8 /1

Gorrondona Engineering Services

57 5434

PAVEMENT - 9-inch CONCRETE.

SANDY FAT CLAY (CH) FILL - Stiff, gray and brown.

FAT CLAY (CH) - Stiff, gray and dark gray.

Bottom of hole at 5.0 feet.

ST

ST

ST

3.00

3.00

2.50

1.3

1.0

1.0

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY JA

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE

CONTRACTOR GES GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY HA

DATE STARTED 1/29/17 COMPLETED 1/29/17

AFTER 15 MIN. ---

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED Not Encountered

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D E

P T

H (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

T O

R V

A N

E (t sf

C om pr es si ve

S tr en gt h (t sf

C on fin in g P re ss ur e

(p si

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

BORING NUMBER B-06

CLIENT H2B, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 16-0367

PROJECT NAME VA Campus

PROJECT LOCATION Houston, Texas

R E

V . G

E O

L O

G W

T O

R

U C

6-

.G P

J G

IN

T

U S

JA

N

7.

G D

T

/8 /1

Gorrondona Engineering Services

PAVEMENT - 6-inch CONCRETE.

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) FILL - Very stiff, light brown and light gray.

FAT CLAY (CH) - Stiff to very stiff, gray and dark gray.

Bottom of hole at 5.0 feet.

ST

ST

ST

4.00

3.50

3.00

1.0

1.5

1.5

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY JA

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE

CONTRACTOR GES GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY HA

DATE STARTED 1/29/17 COMPLETED 1/29/17

AFTER 15 MIN. ---

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED Not Encountered

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D E

P T

H (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

T O

R V

A N

E (t sf

C om pr es si ve

S tr en gt h (t sf

C on fin in g P re ss ur e

(p si

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

BORING NUMBER B-07

CLIENT H2B, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 16-0367

PROJECT NAME VA Campus

PROJECT LOCATION Houston, Texas

R E

V . G

E O

L O

G W

T O

R

U C

6-

.G P

J G

IN

T

U S

JA

N

7.

G D

T

/8 /1

Gorrondona Engineering Services

35 6115

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) FILL - Very stiff, light brown and light gray, with calcareous nodules.

Bottom of hole at 5.0 feet.

ST

ST

ST

4.50

4.50

0.8

1.3

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY JA

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE

CONTRACTOR GES GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY HA

DATE STARTED 1/22/17 COMPLETED 1/22/17

AFTER 15 MIN. ---

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED Not Encountered

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D E

P T

H (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

T O

R V

A N

E (t sf

C om pr es si ve

S tr en gt h (t sf

C on fin in g P re ss ur e

(p si

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

BORING NUMBER B-08

CLIENT H2B, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 16-0367

PROJECT NAME VA Campus

PROJECT LOCATION Houston, Texas

R E

V . G

E O

L O

G W

T O

R

U C

6-

.G P

J G

IN

T

U S

JA

N

7.

G D

T

/8 /1

Gorrondona Engineering Services

41 64

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) FILL - Very stiff, light brown and light gray, with calcareous nodules.

Bottom of hole at 5.0 feet.

ST

ST

ST

3.50

4.50

4.50

0.6

0.8

0.6

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY JA

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE

CONTRACTOR GES GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY HA

DATE STARTED 1/22/17 COMPLETED 1/22/17

AFTER 15 MIN. ---

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED Not Encountered

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D E

P T

H (f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

T O

R V

A N

E (t sf

C om pr es si ve

S tr en gt h (t sf

C on fin in g P re ss ur e

(p si

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

BORING NUMBER B-09

CLIENT H2B, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 16-0367

PROJECT NAME VA Campus

PROJECT LOCATION Houston, Texas

R E

V . G

E O

L O

G W

T O

R

U C

6-

.G P

J G

IN

T

U S

JA

N

7.

G D

T

/8 /1

Gorrondona Engineering Services

Appendix D ‐ Aerial Photographs

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH - 2016

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH - 2015

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH - 2014

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH - 2012

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH - 2011

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH - 2006

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH - 2002

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH - 1995

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH - 1989

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH - 1978

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH - 1953

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH - 1944

Appendix E ‐ USGS Topographic Map

USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

Appendix F ‐ Site Photographs

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Appendix G ‐ Geologic Information

GEOLOGIC ATLAS

USGS GEOLOGIC FAULT MAP

Appendix H ‐ Unified Soil Classification System

6.0 General Comments