Attachment 3 Appendix D - Geotechnical Report.pdf

APPENDIX D - GEOTECHNICAL

REPORT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

AUDIE L. MURPHY MEMORIAL VA HOSPITAL

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

Geotechnical Evaluation Report

New Water Softener Tank Audie Murphy VA Hospital San Antonio, Texas

Prepared for

O’Brien Engineering, Inc.

Rene P. Gonzales, PE Senior Engineer License Number: 86259 November 13, 2019

Project B1910663

Braun Intertec Corporation TBPE Firm Registration No. F-12228

AA/EOE

Braun Intertec Corporation 12029 Warfield Street, Suite 102 San Antonio, TX 78216

Phone: 210.625.4900 Web: braunintertec.com

November 13, 2019 Project B1910663

Mio Matsumura O’Brien Engineering, Inc.

2340 E. Trinity Mills Rd, Ste. 220 Carrollton, Texas 75006

Re: Geotechnical Evaluation New Water Softener Tanks Audie Murphy VA Hospital San Antonio, Texas

Dear Mr. Matsumura:

We are pleased to present this Geotechnical Evaluation Report for the design and construction of new water softener tank at the Audie Murphy VA Hospital in San Antonio, Texas.

Thank you for making Braun Intertec your geotechnical consultant for this project. If you have questions about this report or if there are other services that we can provide in support of our work to date please contact Adrienne Ford-Mann, EIT (aford-mann@braunintertec.com) or Rene P. Gonzales, PE (rgonzales@braunintertec.com) at 210.625.4900.

Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION

TBPE Firm Registration No. F-12228

Adrienne Ford-Mann, EIT Staff Engineer

Rene P. Gonzales, PE Senior Engineer

Table of Contents

Description Page

A. Introduction A.1. Project Description A.2. Purpose A.3. Background Information and Reference Documents A.4. Site Conditions A.5. Scope of Services

B. Results B.1. Geologic Overview B.2. Subsurface Conditions B.3. Groundwater B.4. Laboratory Test Results B.5. Interior Sampling

B.5.a. Concrete Coring B.5.b. CMU review

C. Recommendations C.1. Evaluation

C.1.a. Foundation-Type Building Support C.1.b. Expansive Soil Conditions/Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) C.1.c. Groundwater C.1.d. Surface Drainage

C.2. Drilled Shafts C.2.a. Soil Parameters for the Design of Drilled Piers C.2.b. Drilled Shaft Support C.2.c. Adhesion Uplift C.2.d. Concrete Placement C.2.e. Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations C.2.f. Special Inspections of Drilled Shafts

C.3. Void Space Beneath Pier Supported Elements C.4. Flatwork C.5. Seismic Site Classification C.6. Utilities C.7. Abandonment of Below Grade Tank C.8. Equipment Support

D. Procedures D.1. Test Borings D.2. Boring Logs D.3. Material Classification and Testing

D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification D.3.b. Laboratory Testing

D.4. Groundwater Measurements E. Qualifications

E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions E.1.a. Material Strata E.1.b. Groundwater Levels

E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility

Table of Contents

Description Page

E.2.a. Plan Review E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing

E.3. Use of Report E.4. Standard of Care

Appendix

Soil Boring Location Sketch Log of Borings ST-1 and ST-2 Descriptive Terminology of Soil Project Site Photos

A. Introduction

A.1. Project Description

O’Brien Engineering is assisting with the planning and design of a new water softener system at the Audie

Murphy VA Hospital in San Antonio, Texas. The project will include the installation of a new above ground water tank. The planned tank foundation will be located in an area currently occupied by an existing underground storage tank. We understand the existing below-grade structures will be backfilled and abandoned. Preliminary plans are to support the new tank on concrete drilled pier foundations.

The existing water softener/treatment room located in the basement level of the hospital will be reconstructed as part of the project. This study included cores of the concrete floor slab to review the condition of the existing concrete and a review of the existing CMU walls.

A.2. Purpose

The purpose of our geotechnical evaluation will be to characterize subsurface geologic conditions at selected exploration locations and evaluate their impact on the design and construction of the proposed upgrades.

A.3. Background Information and Reference Documents

To facilitate our evaluation, we were provided with or reviewed the following information or documents:

Historic imagery available through Google Earth.TM

USDA Web Soil Survey.

Geologic Atlas of Texas, San Antonio Sheet, published by the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin, dated 1987.

We have described our understanding of the proposed construction and site to the extent others reported it to us. Depending on the extent of available information, we may have made assumptions based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the project details, the project team should notify us. New or changed information could require additional evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations.

O’Brien Engineering, LLC Project B1910663 November 13, 2019

A.4. Site Conditions

The proposed tank will be located in the parking lot located at the existing loading dock and receiving area of the hospital. The parking lot is surfaced with concrete site paving. Preliminary plans are to install a new above-grade tank directly above an existing below-ground tank.

The Audie Murphy VA Hospital was constructed in 1973. Original foundation plans or “as-built” plans for the existing below-grade tank were not provided. Prior to construction, Braun Intertec should be provided with any available foundation drawings to verify that our recommendations do not conflict with the existing structure.

A.5. Scope of Services

We performed our scope of services for the project in accordance with our Proposal QTB091615, dated

October 15, 2019, and authorized by Joshua McClure’s acceptance of our proposal in his e-mail dated

October 16, 2019. The following list describes the geotechnical tasks completed in accordance with our authorized scope of services.

Reviewing the background information and reference documents previously cited.

Staking and clearing the exploration location of underground utilities. Boring locations were determined in the field utilizing manual techniques. The Soil Boring Location Sketch included in the Appendix shows the approximate locations of the borings.

Performing two test borings, designated as B-1 and B-2, drilled to nominal depths of 10 to

75 feet below existing grade.

Performing laboratory testing on select samples to aid in soil classification and engineering analysis.

Providing 2 cores through the concrete floor slab of the water softener/treatment room to recover samples for compressive strength testing.

Performing a scan of the existing CMU walls with a ferrous scanner to review for the presences of steel reinforcement.

Drilling probe holes in the CMU walls to review for grout filled cells.

Preparing this report containing a boring location sketch, logs of soil borings, a summary of the soils encountered, results of laboratory tests, and recommendations for foundation subgrade preparation and the foundation design parameters.

November 13, 2019

Our scope of services did not include environmental services or testing, and the personnel performing the evaluation are not trained to provide environmental services or testing. We can provide these services or testing at your request.

B. Results

B.1. Geologic Overview

Based upon our review of available geologic resources, the surface materials at this site are comprised of clays associated with the Pecan Gap Chalk (Kpg). The Pecan Gap formation consists of hard bluish-gray calcareous clay shale and very hard bluish-gray marl in the unweathered subsurface which weathers to a tan gray buff color. Intermittent harder and softer seams and layers, as well as bentonitic zones, are common to the formation. The material was deposited in a shallow marine environment and is fossiliferous. The Pecan Gap soils are described geologically as chalk and chalky marl, and very light yellow to yellowish brown in color. In the weathered zone, the Pecan Gap typically, but not always, consists of a highly-plastic (expansive) clay. The approximate project site is indicated on the geologic map in Figure 1.

November 13, 2019

Figure 1. Geologic Map (http://txpub.usgs.gov/DSS/texasgeology)

B.2. Subsurface Conditions

Table 1 provides a summary of the soil boring results, in the general order we encountered the strata.

Please refer to the Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix for additional details. The Descriptive

Terminology sheets in the Appendix include definitions of abbreviations used in Table 1.

Qal

Qw

Pecan Gap Chalk = Kpg Alluvium = Qal Austin Chalk = Kau Buda Limestone = Kbu Del Rio Clay = Kdr Fluviatile terrace deposits = Qt Navarro Group = Kknm

November 13, 2019

Table 1. Subsurface Profile Summary*

Strata

Soil Type -

ASTM

Classification

Range of Pocket Penetrometer Values and Standard Penetration Values Commentary and Details

PAVEMENT - -

Approximately 6 to 7 inches of concrete, over 6 to 12 inches of Crushed Limestone Aggregate

Base

FILL CL 1.5 to 4.5 tsf Mottled gray and dark gray Stiff in consistency.

Approximately 4 to 6 ft think.

I CH 3.5 to 4.5 tsf

Light gray.

Very stiff to hard in consistency.

Typically extended to about 10 feet.

Highly expansive.

II

MARLSTONE,

CLAYSTONE

73 to > 100 bpf

Light gray Dense to very dense Generally encountered below 10 feet.

With clay seams and layers from 60 to 70 ft.

*Abbreviations defined in the attached Descriptive Terminology sheets.

The soil descriptions and inferred strata boundaries should be considered as approximate and may vary away from the boring locations. It is likely changes in soil conditions will occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions.

B.3. Groundwater

We did not observe groundwater while advancing our borings. It is common for perched groundwater to occur at the interface between the upper residual clays and the deeper marlstone layers following seasonal wet periods. Project planning should anticipate seasonal and annual fluctuations of groundwater.

B.4. Laboratory Test Results

The boring logs show the results of Atterberg Limit ASTM Standard D4318, Moisture Content (ASTM

D2216), Percent Finer than No. 200 sieve (ASTM D1140) we performed, next to the tested sample depth.

November 13, 2019

B.5. Interior Sampling

B.5.a. Concrete Coring

Two concrete cores were drilled through the existing floor of the water softener/treatment room using an electric rotary coring machine fitted with a diamond bit core barrel. Core C-1 was drilled in an area where the concrete appeared to be performing favorably while Core C-2 was drilled in an area where the concrete surface was irregular and included surface spalling. Photographs taken at the time of sampling are included in the appendix.

The concrete floor slab was scanned using a ferrous scanner prior to coring to review for steel reinforcement. The results of the scan indicated the concrete floor included steel reinforcement on

6-inch centers, each way. This would suggest the reinforcement likely consisted of wire-mesh reinforcement.

Both recovered cores were disturbed and damaged during removal from the coring barrel. An intact sample suitable for compressive strength testing was not recovered. Upon review of the open coreholes, the slab appeared to have a discontinuity about 2 to 3 inches below the surface (Photos 2 and 3).

Based on the observed condition of the concrete slab, we recommend the existing slab be removed and not be re-used to support the new equipment.

B.5.b. CMU review

We used a ferrous scanner to review for the presence of steel reinforcement. Vertical steel reinforcement was not observed in the wall. Horizontal steel reinforcement bars, indicating a potential bond beam, were not observed in the scanned locations.

The scanning machine indicated horizontal joint reinforcement in the grout layer at several locations. We provided a probe hole to expose the steel and confirmed the scanner identified a horizontal joint

“ladder” reinforcement laid in the mortar. In general the joint reinforcement appeared to be located in every other course.

We used a rubber mallet to ‘sound’ the wall and listen for potential grouted blocks. We consistently observed hollow cells throughout the wall. We provided openings at select locations to review for grout and did not observe grout-filled cells. Photographs of the CMU exploratory probe holes are included in the project photographs.

November 13, 2019

C. Recommendations

C.1. Evaluation

C.1.a. Foundation-Type Building Support

Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and evaluation, we recommend the new tank be supported on straight-shaft drilled piers bearing in marlstone.

C.1.b. Expansive Soil Conditions/Potential Vertical Rise (PVR)

In general, the on-site soils, include fat clays over marlstone. Although the near-surface fat clays have good strength properties when maintained in a dry condition, these soils are highly expansive and will shrink and swell in response to changes in moisture. These shrinking and swelling movements can cause unsatisfactory performance of the foundation system.

Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) values were estimated using Texas Department of Transportation method

(Test Procedure TEX-124-E) and One-Dimensional Swell Test (ASTM D4546). Based on the soil types encountered in the borings, the site soils have to potential to heave as much as 4 inches.

C.1.c. Groundwater

Free groundwater was not encountered during the drilling operations in the borings. Free groundwater may take days or longer to reach full equilibrium in the boreholes. Groundwater conditions may be different at the time of construction. Groundwater conditions may vary because of seasonal variations in rainfall, landscape irrigation and runoff.

C.1.d. Surface Drainage

To account for potential rainfall during construction, we recommend maintaining construction grades to intercept surface water flow into the area and drain water from the area to an appropriate collection point. After grading, the contractor should compact the soil surface with a smooth pneumatic roller to attempt to lower infiltration. After rain events, the contractor should limit construction traffic until the surface is dry enough that traffic will not mix accumulated surface water into lower portions of the soil.

Ponding of water should be prevented at the bottom of excavation and excavation should be appropriately backfilled in lifts in accordance with Table 4 below within 48 hours of completion of excavation to prevent soils from being desiccated.

November 13, 2019

C.2. Drilled Shafts

The planned tank foundation can be supported on straight shaft drilled piers. Belled footings were considered, but the marlstone is too hard to allow for the installation of bells.

C.2.a. Soil Parameters for the Design of Drilled Piers

Recommended soil parameters for the design of drilled pier foundations are presented in Table 2. The table includes allowable bearing capacities, as well as minimum shaft diameters, factors of safety used in our analyses, and approximate estimates of total and differential settlement.

Table 2. Recommended Drilled Shaft Axial Design Parameters

Depth Interval, ft Material

Recommended Design Parameter

Allowable Skin Friction, psf

Allowable End Bearing, psf

0 to 5 FILL Neglect

5 to 12 Fat Clay (CH) 500 --

12 to 30 Dense Marl 1,500 25,000

30+ Very Dense Marlstone 4,000 40,000

Table 3. Constraints to be used for Design

Item Description

Factor of safety for bearing capacity failure

2.0 (skin friction)

3.0 (end bearing)

Minimum diameter (inches) 18

Minimum bearing depth below existing grade for structures (feet) 15 feet* and at least 1 pier diameter into the end bearing diameter, whichever is deeper

Minimum Pier spacing (center to center) 3 shaft diameters

Total estimated settlement (inches) Less than 1 inch

Differential settlement Typically about 2/3 of total settlement**

* Field Adjustments may be required depending on groundwater level encountered during installation.

**Actual differential settlement amounts will depend on final loads and foundation layout. We can evaluate differential settlement based on final foundation plans and loadings.

November 13, 2019

Table 4. Lateral Loading (L-Pile) Design Parameters

Depth, ft Soil

Description L-Pile Soil

Type e Cu K

Static/cyclic e50

0-5 FILL Neglect 95 -- -- -- --

5-12 Fat Clay (CH) Stiff Clay without

Free Water 120 1,500 0 350/150 0.005

12-30 Marl Stiff Clay without

Free Water 125 8,000 0 2000/800 0.003

Depth, ft Soil

Description L-Pile Soil

Type e Er qur RQD Krm

30+ Marlstone Weak Rock 130 75,000 500 95 0.001

Where: e = effective soil unit weight, pcf Cu = undrained shear strength, psf

= undrained angle of internal friction, degrees K = soil modulus, pci e50 = 50% strain value Er = Young’s modulus for weak rock, psi Qur = Uniaxial compressive strength, psi RQD = Rock Quality Designation, % Krm = Axial strain parameter for weak rock

Note that the field adjustment may be required depending on groundwater level encountered during the installation of piers. However if piers are made shallower, consideration must be given to the adhesion uplift resistance to ensure that the piers are not lifted by swelling soils.

C.2.b. Drilled Shaft Support

Based on our borings, casing may be required to maintain stability of the fill soils. If groundwater is encountered, casing may be required to seal off the pier hole and allow concrete to be placed in the dry.

C.2.c. Adhesion Uplift

Consideration should be given to potential uplift generated through soil-to-pier adhesion of expansive clay soils within the active zone. Although these conditions may vary with location and soil conditions at the time of placement, it may be assumed for design purposes that the active zone extends approximately 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Additionally, the average adhesive stress acting upward on the exterior surface of the drilled shaft throughout this zone may be assumed to be approximately 1,000 psf for unconditioned, native soils. Resistance to uplift will be provided by side friction developed below the active zone and deadweight of the drilled shaft.

November 13, 2019

C.2.d. Concrete Placement

Prior to placing concrete in drilled pier excavations, we recommend the use of a cleanout bucket to remove any soft sediments or disturbed soil from the bottom of the excavation. Proper equipment and procedures for providing a clean base should be utilized during construction; otherwise end bearing should be neglected.

Concrete should be placed with a bottom discharge bucket, flexible drop chute, elephant trunk hopper, or tremie. Free-fall of concrete may be used if the excavation is dry or contains less than two inches of water at the time of placement. The concrete mix should be designed to prevent segregation and the concrete should be directed through a hopper or chute such that the fall is down the center of the shaft without contacting the sides of the shaft or reinforcing steel. The volume of concrete placed should be checked against the calculated volume required to obtain design shaft dimensions. A geotechnical engineer, or representative thereof, should observe drilled shaft construction.

If, prior to placing concrete, more than 2 inches of uncontaminated groundwater is present in the shaft, we recommend removing the excess water. Alternatively, the concrete can be placed with a tremie pipe, although the concrete should then be designed for a slump between approximately 4 and 6 inches.

C.2.e. Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations

We recommend installing the shafts in general accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI) 336.1-

96, "Standard Specification for the Construction of Drilled Piers."

It should be noted that difficult drilling conditions may be experienced for the drilled piers where the soils present are dry and have high pocket penetrometer readings. We recommend having the drilled pier contractor review this report prior to construction to determine whether coring or specialized equipment might be necessary.

C.2.f. Special Inspections of Drilled Shafts

The drilled shafts should be constructed under the guidelines of Special Inspections as provided in

Chapter 17, of the IBC, which requires full time observations throughout foundation installation including drilling observations, cleaning and suitability of bearing stratums, concrete placement. This work should be carried out under the direction of a licensed geotechnical engineer. The purpose of these special inspections is to evaluate whether the work is being carried out in accordance with the approved

Geotechnical Report for the project and the requirements of the approved plans and specifications.

November 13, 2019

C.3. Void Space Beneath Pier Supported Elements

We anticipate a grade beam will be used to span between drilled pier foundations. We recommend the grade beam include a void space beneath the pier supported elements to allow the soils to heave. We recommend a minimum void space of 8 inches below grade beams. The minimum void space can be provided by the use of cardboard carton forms. Provisions should be made to ensure that the void space is permanently maintained. Further, the area should be graded for positive drainage.

C.4. Flatwork

Flatwork elements, including sidewalk areas, are subject to distress resulting from aforementioned potential vertical soils movements. It is recommended that flatwork not be rigidly connected to planned tank structure, and joints between flatwork and the new tank structure be completely filled with an elastomeric material.

Adequate drainage should provide so that runoff is not allowed to collect in areas where intrusion into subgrade soils may occur. Unless excavation of existing soils extends beyond the building pad areas, encompassing flatwork elements, some movement related soil heave or shrinkage can be expected.

C.5. Seismic Site Classification

The seismic site classification defined by the International Building Code (IBC) is based on the soil profile encountered to 100-ft depth. Due to project budget limitation, we did not perform a 100-foot deep boring. Based on our experience with the local geologic conditions, we conservatively assumed the overburden soil consistency continues below the bottom of the borings to 100 feet. Based on the soil boring data and pertinent reference materials, this site meets the criteria for Site Class B as defined in the 2015 IBC.

C.6. Utilities

Earthwork activities associated with utility installations located inside the foundation pad footprint should adhere to the recommendations in Section C.3.

For exterior utilities, we anticipate the soils at typical invert elevations will be suitable for utility support.

However, if construction encounters unfavorable conditions, the unsuitable soils may require some additional excavation and replacement with sand or crushed rock to prepare a proper subgrade for pipe

November 13, 2019 support. Project design and construction should not place utilities within the 1H:1V oversizing of foundations.

C.7. Abandonment of Below Grade Tank

The use of drilled piers to support the new tank will allow for the existing below grade-grade brine tank to be abandoned in place without affecting the performance of the new tank. We recommend the existing tank be backfilled with a flowable fill backfill.

A flowable fill is a soil-cement slurry that is designed to be controlled low strength material that can be used as a replacement for compacted fill. We recommend flowable fill meet the recommendations outlined in TxDOT Item 401, Flowable Backfill.

Construction over the flowable fill can be performed after the initial set (about 6 hours) and will provide a material than can be easily placed. A properly designed mix will have a strength comparable to soil after curing, making it readily excavatable with standard construction equipment if needed.

C.8. Equipment Support

The recommendations included in the report may not be applicable to equipment used for the construction and maintenance of this project. We recommend evaluating subgrade conditions in areas of shoring, scaffolding, cranes, pumps, lifts and other construction equipment prior to mobilization to determine if the exposed materials are suitable for equipment support, or require some form of subgrade improvement. We also recommend project planning consider the effect that loads applied by such equipment may have on structures they bear on or surcharge – including pavements, buried utilities, below-grade walls, etc. We can assist you in this evaluation.

D. Procedures

D.1. Test Borings

We drilled the borings with a truck-mounted auger drill. We performed the borings in general accordance with ASTM D1586 and ASTM D1587 taking samples continuously to a depth of 10 feet and then 5-foot intervals thereafter. The boring logs show the actual sample intervals and corresponding depths. Soil borings were backfilled with auger cuttings.

November 13, 2019

D.2. Boring Logs

The Appendix includes Log of Boring sheets for our test borings. The logs identify and describe the penetrated geologic materials, and present the results of penetration resistance and other in-situ tests performed. The logs also present the results of laboratory tests performed on test samples, and groundwater measurements.

We inferred strata boundaries from changes in the test samples and the auger cuttings. Because we did not perform continuous sampling, the strata boundary depths are only approximate. The boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions.

D.3. Material Classification and Testing

D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification

We visually classified the geologic materials encountered in accordance with ASTM D2488. The Appendix includes a chart explaining the classification system.

D.3.b. Laboratory Testing

The exploration logs in the Appendix note most of the results of the laboratory tests performed on geologic material samples. The remaining laboratory test results follow the exploration logs. We performed the tests in general accordance with ASTM procedures.

D.4. Groundwater Measurements

The drillers checked for groundwater while advancing the penetration test borings, and again after auger withdrawal. We then filled the boreholes as noted on the boring logs.

E. Qualifications

E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions

E.1.a. Material Strata

We developed our evaluation, analyses and recommendations from a limited amount of site and subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from

November 13, 2019 exploration locations continuously with depth. Therefore, we must infer strata boundaries and thicknesses to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and project planning should expect the strata to vary in depth, elevation and thickness, away from the exploration locations.

Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until performing additional exploration work, or starting construction. If future activity for this project reveals any such variations, you should notify us so that we may reevaluate our recommendations. Such variations could increase construction costs, and we recommend including a contingency to accommodate them.

E.1.b. Groundwater Levels

We made groundwater measurements under the conditions reported herein and shown on the exploration logs, and interpreted in the text of this report. Note that the observation periods were relatively short, and project planning can expect groundwater levels to fluctuate in response to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, seasonal wetting and drying, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal and annual factors.

E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility

E.2.a. Plan Review

We based this report on a limited amount of information, and we made a number of assumptions to help us develop our recommendations. We should be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the designs and specifications. This review will allow us to evaluate whether we anticipated the design correctly, if any design changes affect the validity of our recommendations, and if the design and specifications correctly interpret and implement our recommendations.

E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing

We recommend retaining us to perform the required observations and testing during construction as part of the ongoing geotechnical evaluation. This will allow us to correlate the subsurface conditions exposed during construction with those encountered by the borings and provide professional continuity from the design phase to the construction phase. If we do not perform observations and testing during construction, it becomes the responsibility of others to validate the assumption made during the preparation of this report and to accept the construction-related geotechnical engineer-of-record responsibilities.

November 13, 2019

E.3. Use of Report

This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. Without written approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects.

E.4. Standard of Care

In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made.

Appendix

FIGURENO.

OF

SHEETREVISION

SCALE

DWG. NO.

JOBNO.

APP'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

INT

AFM 11/11/2019 1

RPG 11/11/2019

B1910663 1

New Water Softener Tank Audie Murphy VA Hospital

San Antonio, Texas

INT DATE SHEET

AFord-Mann Red, White and Black

AFord-Mann Red, White and Black

Text Box B-1

AFord-Mann Text Box B-2

AFord-Mann True North 2

Red, White and Black

Text Box Boring Location

Elev./ Depth ft

0.5 1.5

7.5

10.5 11.0

W at er Le ve l Description of Materials

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-

USACE EM 1110-1-2908)

CONCRETE, (6 inches)

FILL: AGGREGATE

FILL: LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL), mottled gray and dark gray, stiff

FAT CLAY (CH), light gray, hard

MARLSTONE, light gray, dense

END OF BORING

Boring then backfilled with auger cuttings

Sa m pl e Blows

(Blows/ft) Recovery

50/5"

(REF)

qₚ tsf

1.75 1.50

1.50

1.75

4.50

MC

Atterberg Limits

LL

PL

PI

Pa ss

N o.

D ry

U ni t W t.

pc f U n.

C om

St r.

ts f

Te st s or

R em ar ks

LOG OF BORING

See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations

Project Number B1910663 Geotechnical Evaluation New Water Softener Tanks Audie Murphy VA Hospital San Antonio, Texas

BORING: B-1

LOCATION: See attached sketch

LATITUDE: LONGITUDE:

DRILLER: Austin Geo LOGGED BY: A. Ford-Mann START DATE: 10/22/19 END DATE: 10/22/19

SURFACE

ELEVATION: RIG: METHOD: SSA SURFACING: WEATHER:

Water not observed while drilling.

B1910663 Braun Intertec Corporation B-1 Sheet 1 of 1 ft

0.7 1.5

4.0

10.0

W at er Le ve l Description of Materials

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-

USACE EM 1110-1-2908)

CONCRETE, (7 inches)

FILL: AGGREGATE

LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL), light gray and tan, stiff to hard SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), light gray, very stiff to hard

MARLSTONE, light gray, dense

- very dense below 30 ft

Continued on next page

Sa m pl e Blows

(Blows/ft) Recovery

50/5"

(REF)

50/5"

(REF)

50/4"

(REF)

50/1"

(REF)

qₚ tsf

1.25 4.50

4.50

3.50

4.50

MC

Atterberg Limits

LL

PL

PI

D ry

U ni t W t.

pc f

U n.

C om

St r.

ts f

1.4

Te st ar ks

LOG OF BORING

See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations

Project Number B1910663 Geotechnical Evaluation New Water Softener Tanks Audie Murphy VA Hospital San Antonio, Texas

BORING: B-2

LOCATION: See attached sketch

LATITUDE: LONGITUDE:

DRILLER: Austin Geo LOGGED BY: A. Ford-Mann START DATE: 10/22/19 END DATE: 10/22/19

SURFACE

ELEVATION: RIG: METHOD: SSA SURFACING: WEATHER:

B1910663 Braun Intertec Corporation B-2 Sheet 1 of 2 ft

58.0

75.0

W at er Le ve l Description of Materials

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-

USACE EM 1110-1-2908)

MARLSTONE, light gray, dense

CLAYSTONE, tan and gray, very hard

- with clay seams and layers to 70 ft

- gray below 70 ft

END OF BORING

Boring then backfilled with auger cuttings

Sa m pl e Blows

(Blows/ft) Recovery

50/6"

(REF)

50/5"

(REF)

25-24-49 (73)

50/2"

(REF)

44-50/4"

(REF)

qₚ tsf

MC

Atterberg Limits

LL

PL

PI

D ry

U ni t W t.

pc f U n.

C om

St r.

ts f

Te st ar ks

LOG OF BORING

See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations

Project Number B1910663 Geotechnical Evaluation New Water Softener Tanks Audie Murphy VA Hospital San Antonio, Texas

BORING: B-2

LOCATION: See attached sketch

LATITUDE: LONGITUDE:

DRILLER: Austin Geo LOGGED BY: A. Ford-Mann START DATE: 10/22/19 END DATE: 10/22/19

SURFACE

ELEVATION: RIG: METHOD: SSA SURFACING: WEATHER:

B1910663 Braun Intertec Corporation B-2 Sheet 2 of 2

Descriptive Terminology of Soil Based on Standards ASTM D 2487-11/2488-09a

(Unified Soil Classification System)

Group

Symbol Group NameB

Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D GW Well-graded gravelE

Cu < 4 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D GP Poorly graded gravelE

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelE F G

Fines Classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelE F G

Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D SW Well-graded sandI

Cu < 6 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D SP Poorly graded sandI

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandF G I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandF G I

CL Lean clayK L M

PI < 4 or plots below "A" lineJ ML SiltK L M

Organic OL

CH Fat clayK L M

MH Elastic siltK L M

Organic OH

PT Peat Highly Organic Soils

Silts and Clays

(Liquid limit less than

50)

Silts and Clays

(Liquid limit 50 or more)

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

Inorganic

Inorganic

PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" lineJ

PI plots on or above "A" line

PI plots below "A" line

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and

Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA

Soil Classification

C o ar se

-g ra in e d S o ils m o re t h an r et ai n ed o n

. 2 s ie ve

Fi n e -g ra in e d

S o ils o r m o re p as se s th e

. 2 s ie ve

Sands

(50% or more coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve)

Clean Gravels

(Less than 5% finesC)

Gravels with Fines

(More than 12% finesC)

Clean Sands

(Less than 5% finesH)

Sands with Fines

(More than 12% finesH)

Gravels

(More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve)

Liquid Limit − oven dried

Liquid Limit − not dried <0.75

Organic clay K L M N

Organic silt K L M O

Liquid Limit − oven dried

Liquid Limit − not dried <0.75

Organic clay K L M P

Organic silt K L M Q

Particle Size Identification Boulders.............. over 12" Cobbles................ 3" to 12" Gravel

Coarse............. 3/4" to 3" (19.00 mm to 75.00 mm) Fine................. No. 4 to 3/4" (4.75 mm to 19.00 mm)

Sand Coarse.............. No. 10 to No. 4 (2.00 mm to 4.75 mm) Medium........... No. 40 to No. 10 (0.425 mm to 2.00 mm) Fine.................. No. 200 to No. 40

(0.075 mm to 0.425 mm) Silt........................ No. 200 (0.075 mm) to .005 mm Clay...................... < .005 mm

Relative ProportionsL, M trace............................. 0 to 5% little.............................. 6 to 14% with.............................. ≥ 15%

Inclusion Thicknesses lens............................... 0 to 1/8" seam............................. 1/8" to 1" layer.............................. over 1"

Apparent Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils Very loose ..................... 0 to 4 BPF Loose ............................ 5 to 10 BPF Medium dense.............. 11 to 30 BPF Dense............................ 31 to 50 BPF Very dense.................... over 50 BPF

A. Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve.

B. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name.

C. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay

D. Cu = D60 / D10 Cc = 𝐷30 2 / (𝐷10 𝑥 𝐷60)

E. If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name.

F. If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM.

G. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name.

H. Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

I. If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name.

J. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is CL-ML, silty clay.

K. If soil contains 15 to < 30% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel", whichever is predominant.

L. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.

M. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name.

N. PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O. PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.

P. PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q. PI plots below “A” line

Laboratory Tests DD Dry Density, pcf OC Organic content, % PL Plastic limit, % WD Wet Density, pcf qp Pocket penetrometer strength LL Liquid limit, % P200 % Passing #200 sieve MC Moisture conent, % PI Plasticity Index, %

Consistency of Blows Approximate Unconfined Cohesive Soils Per Foot Compressive Strength Very soft................... 0 to 1 BPF................... < 1/4 tsf Soft........................... 2 to 4 BPF................... 1/4 to 1/2 tsf Medium.................... 5 to 8 BPF .................. 1/2 to 1 tsf Stiff........................... 9 to 15 BPF................. 1 to 2 tsf Very Stiff................... 16 to 30 BPF............... 2 to 4 tsf Hard.......................... over 30 BPF................ > 4 tsf

Drilling Notes:

BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard penetration test, also known as “N” value. The sampler was set 6 inches into undisturbed soil below the hollow-stem auger.

Driving resistances were then counted for second and third 6-inch increments, and added to get BPF.

Partial Penetration: If the sampler cannot be driven the full 12 inches beyond the initial 6-inch set, the number of blows for that partial penetration is shown as "No./X" (i.e., 50/2"). If the sampler cannot be advanced beyond the initial 6-inch set, the depth of penetration will be recorded in the Notes column as "No. to set X" (i.e., 50 to set 4").

WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone; driving not required.

WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods alone; hammer weight and driving not required.

WL: WL indicates the water level measured by the drillers either while drilling or following drilling.

Moisture Content:

Dry: Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch.

Moist: Damp but no visible water.

Wet: Visible free water, usually soil is below water table.

1/2018

SHEETREVISION

SCALE

DWG. NO.

JOBNO.

APP'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

INT

AFM 11/18/2019 1

RPG 11/18/2019

B1910663 1

Interior Sampling Location Sketch New Water Softener Tank Audie Murphy VA Hospital

San Antonio, Texas

INT DATE SHEET

C-1

C-2

P-2P-1

1. Equipment room layout taken from Design Documents dated August 1970

2. Brine tanks shown on site plan differ from existing tank layout.

3. Core (C) and probe (P) hole locations are approximate.

4. Photographs of core locations and probe locations shown on project photos.

SHEETREVISION

SCALE

DWG. NO.

JOBNO.

APP'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

INT

AFM 11/4/2019 1

RPG 11/5/2019

B190663 2

Site Photographs New Water Softener Tanks Audie Murphy VA Hospital

San Antonio, Texas

INT DATE SHEET

Photo 1: Core Location C-1 (Smooth Concrete Surface).

Photo 2. Core Location C-2 (Degraded Concrete Surface)

Photo 3. Close-up view of C-1 (Note discontinuity about 3 inches from surface)

Photo 4. Close-up view of C-2 (Note discontinuity about 2 inches from surface)

SHEETREVISION

SCALE

DWG. NO.

JOBNO.

APP'D BY:

DRAWN BY:

INT

AFM 11/4/2019 2

RPG 11/5/2019

B1910663 2

Site Photographs New Water Softener Tanks Audie Murphy VA Hospital

San Antonio, Texas

INT DATE SHEET

Photo 5. Close up of Probe Hole 1 (Hollow CMU cell)

Photo 6. Probe Hole 2 (Hollow CMU cell)

Photo 7. Close-up view of Probe Hole 2 (Horizontal "ladder" joint reinforcement within mortar bed)