Appendix B - Geotech Rpt.pdf

m2pmjmm9 Text Box

APPENDIX B:

Government Geotechnical Report

GOVERNMENT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

FOR DESIGN-BUILD RFP

ICE SECURE HOUSING UNIT

PORT ISABEL, TEXAS

PREPARED BY

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

FORT WORTH DISTRICT

ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION

GEOTECHNICAL BRANCH

CESWF-ECG

JULY 2023

Contents

1 . General

2. Subsurface Investigation

2.1 Groundwater Conditions

3. Subsurface Conditions

3.1 General Geology

3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

4. Laboratory Testing

4.1 Swell/Collapse Testing

4.2 Shear Strength Testing

4.3 Analytical Testing

5. Discussions

5.1 Foundation Design Considerations

6. Recommendations and Requirements

6.1 Mat Foundation Design Recommendations and Requirements

6.2 Subgrade Preparation and Fill Requirements

6.3 Seismicity Site Class

6.4 Material Testing Requirements

6.5 Drainage Conditions

6.6 Care of Water

6.7 Mechanical Connections

6.8 Material Definitions

7. Requirements for the D-B Contractor’s Foundation Design Analysis

7.1 Foundation System(s)

7.2 Subgrade Preparation

7.3 Exhibits to be Included in the D-B Contractor’s Foundation Design Analysis

8. References

ICE Secure Housing Unit Port Isabel, Texas

GOVERNMENT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

1. General

The purpose of this report is to provide subsurface information, foundation design, and subgrade preparation considerations, guidance, and requirements for the planned Secure Housing Unit (SHU) at the

Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE), Service Processing Center (SPC) campus in Port Isabel, Texas.

Design and construction of the project will be accomplished under a Design-Build (D-B) contract.

The project requires the design and construction of a new, single-story SHU consisting of 26 modular cells, two of which must comply with Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Standards; three-day rooms; three ABA-compliant showers; detainee search; storage spaces; security office control room; desk officer office; vestibules;

and recreation yards. The new building must be architecturally compatible with other structures on the SPC campus. There are two sidewalks planned to the southwest of the SHU building connecting to Semper Fi Avenue.

No other pavements are planned for this project.

The new SHU is in the northwestern quadrant of the Port Isabel Detention Center campus. The site is bounded by Semper Fi Avenue to the southwest, the existing kitchen facility and access drive to the northwest, Memorial Drive to the northeast, and the recreational soccer field to the southeast. The site is currently being used as a drainage swale and stormwater detention area for the kitchen facility. The site is within a security fence for the kitchen facility and soccer field.

If project descriptions and assumptions in the section are not correct, the Geotechnical Branch of the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District (CESWF-ECG) should be contacted to determine if the recommendations presented in this report need to be reevaluated.

2. Subsurface Investigation

A site-specific subsurface investigation was not performed at the site. The subsurface investigation performed previously at the site of the kitchen facility located immediately northwest of the planned SHU was used to develop the geotechnical recommendations for the planned SHU. The borings performed previously for the wastewater treatment plan (WWTP) improvements project, approximately 0.35 miles southeast of the planned

SHU, were also considered. The locations of the planned SHU, the existing kitchen facility and WWTP are shown in Appendix I of the report. The D-B Contractor shall perform a site-specific subsurface investigation at the site of the planned SHU to obtain the actual soil conditions, which may differ from those encountered at the sites of the kitchen and WWTP.

The previous subsurface investigations at the sites of the existing kitchen facility and WWTP were performed by ETTL Engineers & Consultants, Inc (ETTL) between January 8 and 11, 2019 and consisted of a total of eleven (11) borings, seven (K-1 through K-7) for the kitchen facility and four (W-1 through W-4) for the

WWTP. The field investigations were performed using a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig. Test hole advancement and sample recovery was performed using hollow-stem augers, nominal 3-inch diameter Shelby tube samplers and 2-inch diameter split-spoon samplers.

2.1 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater conditions were monitored during and upon completion of drilling operations, and after an observation period of up to 21.3 hours after completion of drilling operations. Groundwater level measurements in the borings are presented in the table below.

Water Level Elevation Measurements

Boring No Ground Surface

Elevation (ft, NAVD 88)

Water Level Elevation During

Drilling (ft, NAVD 88)

Water Level Elevation at Completion of

Drilling (ft, NAVD 88)

Water Level Elevation After Observation Periods indicated in Parenthesis (ft, NAVD 88)

K-1 17.4 8.4 -3.0 8.3 (5 hrs.)

K-2 17.8 -2.5 -7.0 7.2 (1.8 hrs.)

K-3 17.9 9.4 -2.1 Dry (3.7 hrs.)

K-4 18.6 -2.4 -8.2 8.1 (5.2 hrs.)

K-5 17.9 -0.8 -11.6 Dry (10 mins) K-6 18.7 4.9 -9.4 6.3 (3.5 hrs.)

K-7 17.7 3.2 -8.1 Dry (5 mins) W-1 11.9 -7.6 -8.6 6.5 (21.3 hrs.)

W-2 12.1 -0.4 -3.5 6.9 (16.5 hrs.)

W-3 12.2 -0.3 -2.0 -2.0 (10 mins) W-4 17.1 1.9 -3.5 Dry (17.8 hrs.)

It should be noted that groundwater conditions are relative to the time of drilling, annual precipitation, and drainage conditions at the site. Fluctuations in groundwater levels shall be expected throughout the year depending on variations in amount of precipitation, surface runoff, and other hydrological factors not apparent at the time of the field explorations.

3. Subsurface Conditions

3.1 General Geology

The site is located within the Coastal Prairies of the West Gulf Coastal Plains Section of the Coastal

Plains physiographic province. The Coastal Prairies along the Gulf of Mexico are dominated by Pleistocene deltaic sands, silts and clays. The geologic materials at the site are alluvium in Rio Grande, subdivided into areas predominately of sand, Quaternary and Holocene in age. The alluvium in Rio Grande consists of point-bar and distributary yellowish-gray or brownish-gray quartz sand and silt and contains plant debris and some biotite.

Accretionary point-bar, levee, and crevasse-splay deposits formed by distributary channels on the Rio Grande delta. Point-bar deposits grade upward from cross bedded basal sandy gravel and coarse sand to silt and fine sand and locally are as thick as 40 feet.

3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

At the kitchen facility site, the borings (K-1 through K-7) generally encountered low plasticity lean clay, silty sand, clayey sand and silt to depths of about 4.5 to 19.5 feet below ground surface underlain by high plasticity fat clay to the boring termination depths of about 26.5 to 31.5 feet below ground surface. A layer of silt was encountered in the fat clay stratum starting at 14.5 to 17 feet and extending to about 18 to 19.5 feet in five of the seven borings drilled in the kitchen area. The clays and silts exhibited very soft to very stiff, generally soft to medium stiff, in consistency and the sands exhibited very loose to medium dense in relative density. Liquid limits measured from representative samples of the silt and lean clay soils ranged from 29 to 47, plastic limits varied from 15 to 26 (with plasticity indices ranging from 3 to 28). Liquid limits measured from representative samples of the fat clay soils ranged from 50 to 78, plastic limits varied from 18 to 26 (with plasticity indices ranging from

30 to 53).

At the WWTP site, the borings (W-1 through W-4) generally encountered high plasticity fat clay starting from the ground surface and extending to the boring termination depths of about 21.5 to 31.5 feet below ground surface. Lean clay and silt layers/seams with varying thicknesses were generally observed in the fat clay at varying depths. The fat clay soils were soft to stiff in consistency. Liquid limits measured from representative samples of the fat clay soils ranged from 57 to 75, plastic limits varied from 20 to 28 (with plasticity indices ranging from 33 to 49).

At both sites, the upper 2 feet of the subgrade soils were dark brown in color and contained root material that appeared to be from former crops. It was believed that the upper 2 feet of subgrade soils likely represent an old plow zone left over from when the SPC campus was farmland prior to its development.

The boring location plan, boring logs along with the laboratory test results and plots for the kitchen facility and WWTP improvements projects are included in Appendix II. The legend on the individual boring logs shows overburden materials as classified in the laboratory using procedures presented in ASTM D 2488. It should be noted that the actual interface between material types might be far more gradual or abrupt than presented;

therefore, actual subsurface conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted. The nature and extent of variations across the sites may not become evident until construction commences, and the actual construction process may alter subsurface conditions as well. If variations become evident at the time of construction, CESWF-ECG should be contacted to determine if the recommendations presented in this report need to be reevaluated.

4. Laboratory Testing

Representative soil samples recovered from selective test holes at the kitchen facility and WWTP sites were subjected to laboratory testing for identification, moisture content, grain-size distribution, Atterberg limits, density, unconfined compressive strength, modified Proctor, and one-dimensional swell/collapse. Analytical tests including resistivity, redox potential, soil pH, water soluble sulfide, sulfate, and chloride content, were also performed on selected near-surface soil samples. The test results and plots are presented in Appendix II.

4.1 Swell/Collapse Testing.

Swell/collapse testing was performed on four specimens, one fat clay specimen and three lean clay specimens, in accordance with ASTM D4546. The lean clay specimens were collected at different depths ranging from about 3.5 to 10 feet below ground surface. These lean clay specimens exhibited liquid limits ranging between

36 and 42, plastic limits ranging between 19 and 24, plasticity indices ranging between 17 and 18, and natural moisture content ranging between 14.7 and 30.9 percent. The natural moisture content range is about 4.3 percent lower to 6.9 percent higher than their plastic limit. Under overburden pressure, the lean clay specimens had a collapse of about 0.18 percent for one specimen, and swell ranging from 0.42 to 0.63 percent for other two specimens. The fat clay specimen that was tested was collected at a depth of about 5.3 feet below ground surface and exhibited a liquid limit of 53, a plastic limit of 21, and a plasticity index of 32. The natural moisture content of the specimen was 10.4 percent. The fat clay specimen has a collapse of about 0.02 percent under overburden pressure.

Based on swell/collapse test results, the clay specimens appeared to have a low expansion potential.

However, it should be noted that the expansion potential could increase when the native soils become drier.

Swell/collapse test results are presented in Appendix II of this report.

4.2 Shear Strength Testing.

Shear strength characteristics of select clayey samples were analyzed in the laboratory using unconfined compressive strength (ASTM D2166) testing. Tabulated below are the compressive strengths and dry densities of the clayey specimens that were tested. Shear strength test results are also presented in Appendix II at the end of this report.

Boring Depth, feet γd, pcf Qu, psf Material Type

K-4 2.8-3.3 107.1 4,710 Lean Clay K-6 12.5-13 92.1 1,420 Lean Clay W-2 7.5-8 90.9 1,650 Fat Clay W-4 5.2-5.7 93.6 4,230 Lean Clay

4.3 Analytical Testing.

Analytical tests including resistivity, redox potential, soil pH, water soluble sulfide, sulfate, and chloride content were performed on three select clay specimens. The results are summarized in the following table.

Results of Analytical Testing

Boring No Depth (ft) Resistivity (ohm-cm)

Redox Potential

(mV) pH Sulfides (mg/kg)

Chlorides (mg/kg)

Sulfates (mg/kg)

K-4 2 to 5 300 186 8.08 ND* 1,500 970 W-1 2 to 5 1,200 196 8.22 ND* 110 1,900 W-4 2 to 5 280 190 8.09 ND* 1,600 870

*Not detected

5. Discussions

The following discussions are provided in support of foundation design and subgrade preparation recommendations and requirements made for the planned SHU building in the ICE IPC campus in Port Isabel, Texas. It should be noted that a site-specific field investigation was not performed at this site and the discussions presented herein are based on the results of the geotechnical field investigation conducted previously at the sites of the kitchen and WWTP improvements projects, laboratory testing program conducted on soil samples collected at the kitchen and WWTP sites, our past experiences, as well as engineering studies.

The Design-Build (D-B) Contractor shall heed the information provided in this report and comply with the recommendations and requirements presented herein. The Design-Build Contractor’s designs are required to comply with and to meet or exceed the minimum foundation design and subgrade preparation recommendations and requirements presented herein. The subsurface information presented in this report may be used by the bidders for this D-B contract for the purposes of developing a bid for the project in line with the Request for Proposal

(RFP) solicitation. The successful D-B Contractor bidder shall supplement the information provided herein with his/her own site-specific geotechnical field investigation at the site and laboratory testing program for the purpose of verifying the data presented herein with the actual site conditions, which may differ. Supplemental geotechnical field investigations conducted by the D-B Contractor shall be only for the purpose of supplementing and verifying the data regarding the subsurface conditions provided by the Government geotechnical field investigation at the referenced site. Additional test holes for the foundation design shall each be drilled to a minimum depth of 30.0 feet below existing grade. All borings and test holes shall be grouted full depth with a lean grout mixture to seal holes from water penetration. Laboratory testing shall be conducted on soil specimens as described in Section 4

(Laboratory Testing), including but not limited to classification (ASTM D 2488), moisture content (ASTM D

2216), grain size analysis (ASTM D 422), Atterberg limits (ASTM D 4318), shear strength (ASTM D2166 and/or

D2850 for cohesive soils, and ASTM D7012 for rock), swell/collapse test (ASTM D 4546), and modified Proctor

(ASTM D1557).

Development of the final foundation designs is the responsibility of the D-B Contractor; however, the D-

B Contractor’s final foundation designs and subgrade preparation shall be in full compliance with the requirements prescribed herein (including foundation type, foundation design parameters, and minimum subgrade preparation). The D-B Contractor shall provide to the Government engineering studies and design calculations that support the foundation design recommendations they or their associates propose. The D-B Contractor’s foundation design recommendations shall be reviewed for technical adequacy and compliance with the requirements and criteria established herein and in the Request for Proposal (RFP). Specific requirements for the

D-B Contractor’s foundation design analysis are provided in Section 7.

5.1 Foundation Design Considerations

The foundation design recommendations and requirements presented in this report are based on criteria contained in UFC 3-220-01, and engineering judgment.

The foundation for the proposed SHU building must meet several criteria. The foundation must be compatible with the superstructure it supports, its movements must be within acceptable tolerances, it must meet functional requirements of the facility, and it must be economical. The SHU building is a single-story structure and structural loads are anticipated to be relatively light. A deep foundation system is not considered well-suited to or cost effective for lightly loaded facilities, and it is recommended a shallow foundation system is used to support the planned building.

The previous subgrade explorations were performed during January 2019. Even though based on the lab results, the expansion potential of the native clay soils was relatively low at their then moisture content at the time of the previous subsurface explorations, the native high plasticity subgrade soils could become drier, especially during summers and their expansion potential could increase with decrease in in-situ moisture content. A shallow foundation system such as dug and formed spot and continuous spread footings founded on high plasticity clays could experience relatively large differential movement due to shrink-swell movements of the foundation soils.

Due to the heave potential of the underlying clays and the cost of framework construction, the shallow foundation system such as spot and continuous spread footings is not considered a viable foundation system for the proposed structure.

Based on the available facility information and results of the previous investigations conducted at the sites of the kitchen and WWTP improvements projects and previous engineering experience with similar structures on high plasticity clay soils, a shallow foundation system consisting of either a reinforced concrete ribbed mat slab, or a reinforced concrete flat mat slab shall be used for the planned SHU building.

Recommendations for design and construction of the reinforced concrete ribbed mat slab or a reinforced concrete flat mat slab are presented below.

Properly designed and constructed reinforced concrete ribbed mat slab and reinforced concrete flat mat slab foundation systems have performed well in other military installations with high plasticity clay subgrade soils, particularly for facilities with relatively light structural loads, which are anticipated for the planned SHU building. These two shallow foundation systems, when properly designed and constructed, will act monolithically when subjected to shrink-swell movements of the subsurface materials, in contrast to other, unsuitable shallow foundation systems such as spot and continuous spread footings.

6. Recommendations and Requirements

The following foundation design and subgrade preparation recommendations and requirements are based on results of the field investigations and laboratory testing performed at the kitchen and WWTP sites, and engineering studies. The Design-Build Contractor’s designs are required to comply with and to meet or exceed the minimum design recommendations and requirements provided in the section.

6.1 Mat Foundation Design Recommendations and Requirements

The proposed structures shall be founded on either a reinforced concrete ribbed mat or flat mat foundation system, in accordance with the recommendations and requirements specified herein. The mat slabs shall be conventionally reinforced – post-tensioned slabs are not allowed. Based on the plasticity level of the near surface clayey soils, the mat slabs shall be analyzed and designed for 1 inch of long-term differential movement, provided the subgrade preparation is performed in accordance with the recommendations in Section 6.2 of this report. For this reason, interior ribs for ribbed mat slabs shall be spaced no farther than 20 feet center-to-center, and diagonal stiffener ribs shall be placed at each corner of the mat slab. Design of the mat slabs shall meet the minimum requirements as presented in CESWD-ED-TS/G Criteria Letter, dated 29 January 1988 – Design

Criteria for Ribbed Mat Foundations, SWDED-G Criteria Letter, dated 16 April 1987 – Criteria for Developing

Geotechnical Design Parameters for SWD Ribbed Mat Design Methodology, and the recommendations and requirements provided herein in Appendix III.

Interior and exterior beams for ribbed mat slabs shall bottom a minimum of 24 inches below outside finished grade. An allowable bearing capacity of 2.0 ksf (net) shall be used to size the beams. For this phase of design, it should be noted that (1) the structural load is supported solely on the beam and the beam intersections,

(2) load transfer occurs over the effective beam width, and (3) the beam and soil remain in contact. Beam intersections shall be widened at column locations to accommodate the above allowable bearing value for the anticipated load condition. The load used to size the beams shall consist of full dead load plus that portion of the live load that acts more or less continuously, usually 50 percent.

The ribbed mat slab foundations shall incorporate adequate stiffness such that the deformations do not exceed the structural tolerance of any elements in the foundation or superstructure. Analyses shall consider a vertical separation of the foundation slab and beams from the subgrade of 1.0 inch at the outside of all perimeter beams, with loss of support beneath the foundation over a horizontal distance of not less than 5.5 feet. This loss of support condition corresponds to the center lift mode. Additionally, edge lift analyses shall consider an edge moisture variation distance equal to 2.5 feet, and an edge lift heave of 1.0 inch shall be used in the design of the ribbed mat slab. This edge lift heave corresponds to an applied structural pressure of 100 psf. For edge lift considerations, two additional combinations of pressure and swell are required. For an allowable bearing capacity of 2.0 ksf, an edge lift heave of 0.75 inch can be expected to occur. At an ultimate bearing capacity of 6.0 ksf, 0.50-inch of heave should be anticipated. It should be noted that these anticipated heave amounts are based on the removal of a minimum of 3.0 feet of existing materials and replacement with compacted non-expansive structural fill, as required herein.

A modulus of subgrade reaction equal to 200 psi/inch shall be used when analyzing the ribbed mat slabs to determine in-service deformations provided that the subgrade preparation and fill requirements as specified below are carried out. This value, however, shall be factored to account for width effects such that kdesign=k1/(Beff), where k1 is the modulus of subgrade reaction and Beff is the effective beam width in feet. Design of the ribbed mat slabs may use the SWD-AEIM sections as a minimum stiffness "first approximation".

A flat mat shall have a uniform thickness of not less than 18 inches. An allowable bearing capacity of

2.0 ksf (net) shall be used to size the mat foundation. The flat mat shall be tapered as required to ensure the perimeter of the slab extends to a constant elevation and is at least 24 inches below outside finish grade. Flat mat slabs shall also incorporate adequate stiffness such that the deformations do not exceed the structural tolerance of any element of the foundations or superstructures nor cosmetic cracking of interior and exterior finishes.

Foundation movement is expected to occur despite the removal and replacement requirements. Therefore, the structure shall incorporate appropriate control joints within interior finishes and exterior facades to mitigate the potential for structural or cosmetic crack development caused by foundation movement. The load used to size the flat mat slab shall consist of full dead load plus that portion of the live load that acts more or less continuously, usually 50 percent.

The mat slabs will, by design, be supported on-grade. A polyethylene vapor barrier (10-mil minimum thickness) and a minimum 6-inch capillary water barrier shall be placed beneath the mat slab. The polyethylene vapor barrier and 6-inch capillary water barrier are not required beneath mat slabs that will not be enclosed (i.e., mechanical equipment pads that will be completely open and exposed to the elements); these mat slabs can be founded directly on the compacted non-expansive structural fill.

6.2 Subgrade Preparation and Fill Requirements

The upper 3.0 feet (minimum) of existing soils within the structure footprint shall be removed and replaced with compacted non-expansive structural fill, which should limit the magnitude of predicted movement to approximately 1.0 inch or less, remove the existing soils associated with the old plow zone and provide a more uniform and strong foundation support. The over-excavation shall also extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the perimeters of the structure.

The site is currently being used as a drainage swale and stormwater detention area for the existing kitchen facility. It is anticipated that soft and loose deposits are present along the drainage swale and near the detention area. These soft and loose deposits, if present, shall be removed full depth and replaced with non-expansive structural fill. Over-excavation depths of over 3 feet may be required to remove these soft and loose deposits.

Any additional fill required to achieve the final subgrade elevation below the mat foundation shall be non-expansive structural fill material. The upper 6 inches of existing subgrade exposed after excavation operations, or cleared prior to fill placement shall be scarified, moistened, manipulated, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of laboratory maximum density at a moisture content at least 1 percent above the optimum moisture content (in accordance with ASTM D 1557). Non-expansive structural fill, as defined in Section 6.8.4 of the report, shall be placed in controlled lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least

95 percent of laboratory maximum density at a moisture content within 2 percent of its optimum moisture content

(in accordance with ASTM D 1557).

Based on previous experience, if structural fill is placed outside the limits of the structure footprint, the relatively higher permeability of the structural fill will allow moisture to infiltrate to the highly expansive soils adjacent to and beneath the foundation, potentially resulting in heave of the foundation. To limit moisture penetration to the area around and beneath the foundation, excavated areas beyond the limits of the structure footprint shall be backfilled with select clay backfill materials The definition of the select clay soils is included in

Section 6.8.5 of the report. This select clay cap shall be a minimum of 2 feet in thickness and shall extend from the structure perimeter to the limits of the excavation. Select clay backfill materials shall be compacted to at least

92 percent of laboratory maximum density at a moisture content within 2 percent of its optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557.

6.3 Seismicity Site Class

The site class for seismic design is classified based on the existing soil properties averaged over a depth of 100 feet and designated with Site Classes A to F, considering Site Class A as hard rock down to Site Class F as potentially collapsible soil. Based on Section 1613.3.2 of the 2015 International Building Code and in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7, we recommend using Site Class E for seismic design at this site. This recommendation is based on soil samples encountered to the maximum boring termination depth of 31.5 feet.

6.4 Material Testing Requirements

Testing shall be the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the subgrade, fill, and backfill materials are properly compacted. To this end, the following frequencies of testing shall be included in the contract as a minimum:

In-place density of the subgrade, fills, and backfills shall be performed for every 2,000 square feet per lift in accordance with ASTM D 1556 or ASTM D 2922.

Optimum Moisture and Laboratory Maximum Density of non-expansive fill and backfill shall be performed for every 500 cubic yards or when any change in material occurs.

6.5 Drainage Conditions

Proper site drainage is imperative to ensure satisfactory long-term foundation performance. Exterior grading adjacent to the structure shall be sloped away from the structure a minimum of 5 percent for the first 10 feet. Runoff from the roofs shall be adequately discharged away from foundation edges. In no case should water be allowed to pond adjacent to or beneath the structure, both during and after construction.

6.6 Care of Water

Drainage of ground and surface water from the project site continually throughout the construction contract is essential. The contractor shall be required to protect the excavations and all constructed work throughout the life of the contract by means of ditches, berms, sumps with pumps, and any other means required to always remove water continually and effectively from the site. Ponding of water in excavations is unacceptable at any time. In addition, site excavations to include utility trenching, grading, and retention basins shall be constructed so as not to supply water directly or indirectly to the building or underlying active clays via the more pervious silt and sand stratum that is present at the site. Such exposure of the underlying high plasticity clays to surface runoff during construction could extend the active zone (via fractures) to much greater depths within the fat clay. This would activate these highly expansive materials and result in expansion pressures on the foundation elements that could create distress on the structural system of the facility. The designer shall grade the site to ensure positive drainage of all water away from the structure.

6.7 Mechanical Connections

All exterior mechanical connections shall be of the flexible type. Flexible connections shall be capable of resisting a minimum of 4 inches of both vertical and horizontal movement. All mechanical/structural connections between slabs on grade or building perimeter entry/exit points must be designed and constructed to handle up to 4 inches of vertical movement. All condensate lines shall drain away from foundation edges. It is recommended that below-grade utility lines connecting to the structures be aligned under the centerline of the respective structure footprints. The use of exterior lines connecting to the structures by numerous utility trenches is discouraged, as this would create high permeability pathways for moisture to gain access to, and activate, the expansive clay materials within the structure footprint.

6.8 Material Definitions

6.8.1 Satisfactory Materials.

Satisfactory materials may be used as backfill outside structure areas and include materials classified in ASTM D 2487 as GW, GM, GC, GP, GW-GM, GW-GC, GP-GM, GP-GC, SW, SP, SP- SM, SP-SC, SW-SM, SW-SC, SC, SM, CL, CL-ML, ML, and CH, and shall be free of trash, debris, roots or other organic matter, or stones larger than 3 inches in any dimension. Satisfactory materials shall not be used in structure areas unless they meet specific requirements as stated in the report.

6.8.2 Unsatisfactory Materials.

Unsatisfactory materials include materials classified in ASTM D 2487 as Pt, OH, OL, and

MH, or materials containing trash, debris, roots or other organic matter.

6.8.3 Expansive Soils.

For the purposes of this report, expansive soils are defined as soils having a liquid limit above

35 or a plasticity Index above 15.

6.8.4 Non-expansive Structural Fill.

Non-expansive structural fill should meet the requirements of Texas Department of

Transportation Standard Specification for Base Course, Item 247, Type A, Grade 1 or 2, with plasticity index of not less than 4 percent nor greater than 12 percent when tested in accordance with ASTM D 4318, and at least 5 percent of fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve).

6.8.5 Select Clay Soils.

Select clay soils shall be classified as a Lean Clay (CL) and have a liquid limit of 35 percent or less and a plasticity index not less than 8 nor greater than 15 when tested in accordance with ASTM D 4318.

Select clay soils should also meet the requirements of Satisfactory Materials as stated under 6.8.1.

6.8.6 Cohesionless and Cohesive Materials.

Cohesionless materials include materials classified in ASTM D 2487 as GW, GP, SW, and SP.

Cohesive materials include materials classified as GC, SC, ML, CL, MH, and CH. Materials classified as GW-

GM, GW-GC, GP-GM, GP-GC and materials classified as SW-SM, SW-SC, SP-SM, SP-SC may be considered for identification purposes as cohesionless.

6.8.7 Capillary water barrier.

Capillary Water Barrier shall consist of clean, crushed, nonporous rock, crushed gravel, or uncrushed gravel. The maximum particle size shall be 1.5 inches and no more than 2 percent by weight shall pass the 3/16-inch size (No. 4) sieve. ASTM #57 and #67 aggregates may also be specified as capillary water barrier.

7. Requirements for the D-B Contractor’s Foundation Design Analysis.

The successful proposer shall provide a Foundation Design Analysis after contract award. The

Foundation Design Analysis (Report) shall include a description of the project, including a discussion of any unusual features of the project, and a discussion for each structure that requires a foundation system. The foundation, and material analyses shall be performed, and signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer.

7.1 Foundation System(s)

The best suitable foundation type shall be recommended for each structure. If more than one foundation system is recommended for different structures, separate subparagraphs shall be used to discuss each foundation system. The subparagraphs shall provide a detailed description of the foundation system as well as specific design and construction requirements. The location and type of structure supported by that foundation system should also be discussed. Foundation design parameters and considerations should be provided and shall include as a minimum the following items: allowable bearing pressure(s); bearing elevations for each recommended foundation system; a minimum depth the foundation system shall bear below outside finished grade; foundation spacing requirements; foundation structural design methodology to be used; the design loads used to size the foundation elements; a modulus of subgrade reaction; soil unit weights; anticipated settlement/differential settlement; and applicability (of each of the aforementioned items) to the design.

7.2 Subgrade Preparation

This section shall include a discussion on all requirements for excavation of existing subgrade materials, removal of existing unsuitable materials, replacement of excavated materials with non-expansive and satisfactory materials, and minimum thickness of non-expansive fill beneath foundations. Provide compaction requirements

(in accordance with ASTM D 1557) for the raw subgrade, fill, and backfill materials. Foundation material definitions shall be presented.

7.3 Exhibits to be Included in the D-B Contractor’s Foundation Design Analysis

The following exhibits shall be included in the Design-Build contractor’s Foundation Design Analysis.

The Design-Build contractor shall perform a site-specific subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program for his/her design. Required exhibits to be included with the Design-Build contractor’s Foundation Design

Analysis include:

Site Plan with Boring Locations and Legend;

Boring Logs;

Plasticity Chart;

Standard Penetration Tests versus Depth of Boring (if applicable);

Moisture Content versus Depth (Chart);

Moisture Content-Liquid Limit-Plastic Limit versus Depth (Chart);

Strength Tests Results versus Depth (Chart);

Tabulation of Laboratory Test Results (to include Boring Number, Sample Number, Depth, Laboratory

Classification, Visual Descriptions, Grain Size Analysis (%Gravel, %Sand, %Fines), LL, PL, PI, MC, Unit

Weight, and Strength Test Data.

8. References

• UFC 3-220-01 Geotechnical Engineering.

• UFGS Guide Specifications For Construction

• Final Submittal Geotechnical Exploration, Fort Isabel Detention Center, Kitchen and

Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements, Los Fresnos, Cameron County, Texas, prepared by Geotechnology, Inc., March 13, 2019

FORT WORTH DISTRICT

JULY 2023

APPENDIX I:

SITE LAYOUT

m2ecgxc9 Arrow m2ecgxc9 Text Box Planned ICE Secure Housing Unit m2ecgxc9 Arrow m2ecgxc9 Text Box Kitchen m2ecgxc9 Arrow m2ecgxc9 Text Box WWTP Improvements m2ecgxc9 Text Box Locations of the planned ICE Secure Housing Unit, and Kitchen and WWTP Improvements Project Drilled Previously m2ecgxc9 Arrow m2ecgxc9 Text Box N m2ecgxc9 Text Box Semper Fi Ave m2ecgxc9 Text Box Memorial Drive m2ecgxc9 Text Box Soccer Field m2ecgxc9 Text Box Calle Ruiz

APPENDIX II:

BORING LOCATION PLAN, BORING

LOGS, & LABORATORY TESTING DATA

KITCHEN AND WWTP

IMPROVEMENT SITES

SAFETY

QUALITY

INTEGRITY

PARTNERSHIP

OPPORTUNITY

RESPONSIVENESS

St. Louis, MO | Erlanger, KY | Memphis, TN | Overland Park, KS | Cincinnati, OH | Fairview Heights, IL Lexington, KY | Dayton, OH | Oxford, MS | Jonesboro, AR

FINAL SUBMITTAL

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

PORT ISABEL DETENTION CENTER

KITCHEN AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT

PLANT IMPROVEMENTS

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT (ICE)

LOS FRESNOS, CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS

IDIQ CONTRACT NO. W9126G15D007 / W912P419F0002

ETEGRA PROJECT NO. 6006

Prepared for:

ETEGRA, INC.

OLIVETTE, MISSOURI

Prepared by:

GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC.

ERLANGER, KENTUCKY

Date:

MARCH 13, 2019

Geotechnology Project No.:

J033011.01

Geotechnical Exploration Port Isabel Detention Center Kitchen and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) | Los Fresnos, Cameron County, Texas March 13, 2019 | Geotechnology Project No. J033011.01

FROM THE GROUND UP

APPENDIX B – EXPLORATION PLANS

Site Location Map

Boring and Site Plans

EXISTING WWTP

EXISTING KITCHEN

EXISTING LIFT STATION

NOTE: BASE MAP FROM GOOGLE EARTH

D a t e

P r o j e c t

N o

S h e e t

N o

T i t l e

P r o j e c t

C l i e n t

L o c a t i o n

© 2019 Geotechnology, Inc.

Date Printed: 2/14/2019 1:34 PM Path: Drawing4.dwg

S I T

E

L O

C A

T I O

N

M

A P

0 300150 600

SCALE: 1" = 300'

E t e g r a

I n c

P o r t

I s a b e l

D e t e n t i o n

C e n t e r

K i t c h e n a n d

W

W T

P

I m p r o v e m e n t s

L o s

F r e s n o s

T e x a s

J

ABANDONED BUILDINGS

TO BE DEMOLISHED

EXISTING

KITCHEN

FF=EL. 22.29

PROPOSED

KITCHEN

FF=EL. 22.29

EXISTING LIFT STATION

PROPOSED LIFT

STATION

W-4

El. 17.1

K-1

El. 17.4

K-3

El. 17.9

K-4

El. 18.6

K-5

El. 17.9

K-2

El. 17.8

K-7

El. 17.7

K-6

El. 18.7

N O

T E

B

A S

E

M

A

F

R O

M

T

O P

O G

R A

P H

I C

S

U R

V E

Y

P

O R

T

I S

A B

E L

D

T

E N

T I O

N

C

E N

T E

R

S

H E

T

O

P

R E

P A

R E

D

B

Y

O

L S

S O

N

A

N

T

B

Date:

Project No.:

Sheet No.:

Title:

Project:

Client:

Location:

G e o t e c h n o l o g y

I n c

D a t e

P r i n t e d

M a t h n e t w o r k s t o r a g e d a t a p r o j e c t s J J P o r t

I s a b e l

T e x a s

F a c i l i t y D r a w

J B o r i n g

P l a n d w g

BORING AND SITE PLAN

KITCHEN AND LIFT

STATION AREAS

0 4020 80

SCALE: 1" = 40'

Etegra, Inc.

PIDC Kitchen and WWTP Improvements

Los Fresnos, Texas

2/20/2019

J033011.01

INDICATES TEST BORING LOCATIONS

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

AutoCAD SHX Text

MH

W-1

El. 11.9

W-2

El. 12.1

W-3

El. 12.2

PROPOSED HEADWORKS AND

PUMP STATION AREA

PROPOSED SLUDGE WASTE

ROLL-OFF CONTAINER PAD

AND ACCESS PAVEMENT

PROPOSED POLYMER

FEED SYSTEM PAD

N O

T E

B

A S

E

M

Y

O

L S

S O

N

A

R O

V I D

O

F

Date:

Project No.:

Sheet No.:

Title:

Project:

Client:

Location:

G e o t e c h n o l o g y

I n c

D a t e

P r i n t e d

M a t h n e t w o r k s t o r a g e d a t a p r o j e c t s J J P o r t

I s a b e l

T e x a s

F a c i l i t y D r a w

J B o r i n g

P l a n d w g

BORING AND SITE PLAN

WWTP AREA

0 3015 60

SCALE: 1" = 30'

Etegra, Inc.

PIDC Kitchen and WWTP Improvements

Los Fresnos, Texas

2/20/2019

J033011.01

INDICATES TEST BORING LOCATIONS

Kitchen and Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements

APPENDIX C – EXPLORATION INFORMATION

Boring Logs

Soil Classification Sheet

2.0

7.0

9.5

12.0

SS-1

0.0 1.5

SS-2

2.0 3.5

SS-3

5.0 6.5

SS-4

7.5 9.0

SS-5

10.0 11.5

SS-6

12.5 14.0

3-3-2

2-1-3

2-2-4

1-1-1 Groundwater at 9.0 feet during drilling.

Groundwater at 9.1 feet 5 hours after completion.

3-5-5

3-1-3

Dark brown moist medium stiff to stiff LEAN CLAY, some organics (possible old plow zone).

Brown moist medium stiff sandy LEAN CLAY.

Brown wet very loose silty fine SAND.

Brown wet loose SILT.

Brown wet very loose silty fine SAND.

+15.4

+10.4

+7.9

+5.4

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

% CORE

RECOV-

ERY

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

8.3

3 1/4" ID HSA

CELRB

INSTALLATION SHEET

Rich Herman

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

16. DATE HOLE

DIVISION

1/10/2019---

12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

OF

K-1 0

19. GEOLOGIST

Kitchen N 16,584,602.1 E 1,365,192.8

2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)

W. Losekamp

26.5 0.0

26.5

7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE

17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEETS

STARTED COMPLETED

Hole No. K-1

Port Isabel Detention Center

11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBM or MSL)

DISTURBED

1. PROJECT

NAVD 88

+17.4

ETTL Engineers & Consultants, Inc. UNDISTURBED13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN

SAMPLES TAKEN

18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

+17.4 0.0

CME 55

VERTICAL INCLINED

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements

1/10/2019

DRILLING LOG 2

3. DRILLING AGENCY

5. NAME OF DRILLER

6. DIRECTION OF HOLE

%N/A

DEG. FROM VERT.

4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and file number)

Hole No. K-1

PROJECT HOLE NO.

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements K-1PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.1836MAR 71

ENG FORM

14.5

17.0

19.5

26.5

SS-7

15.0 16.5

SS-8

17.5 19.0

SS-9

20.0 21.5

SS-10

25.0 26.5

5-6-6

3-2-1

2-2-4

3-3-3 Groundwater at 20.4 feet at completion.

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings.

Brown wet very loose silty fine SAND.

(continued) Brown wet medium dense silty fine SAND.

Brown wet very loose clayey fine SAND.

Brown very moist stiff FAT CLAY.

+2.9

+0.4

-2.1

-9.1

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

% CORE

RECOV-

ERY

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

2 SHEETS

PROJECT 2INSTALLATION

Port Isabel Detention Center

DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet)

ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

17.4 Hole No. K-1

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements

SHEET

OF

Hole No. K-1

PROJECT HOLE NO.

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements K-11836-AJUN 67

4.5

9.5

SS-1

0.0 1.5

SS-2

2.5 4.0

SS-3

5.0 6.5

SS-4

7.5 9.0

SS-5

10.0 11.5

SS-6

12.5 14.0

3-5-7

4-6-7

5-6-9

1-1-2

2-2-2 Groundwater at 10.6 feet, 1.75 hours after completion.

1-3-3

Dark brown moist stiff LEAN CLAY, some organics (possible old plow zone) (CL).

Brown moist stiff LEAN CLAY (CL)

Brown, trace gray moist very stiff FAT CLAY, trace sand (CH).

Brown, trace gray moist stiff FAT CLAY (CH).

+15.8

+13.3

+8.3

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

% CORE

RECOV-

ERY

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

7.2

3 1/4" ID HSA

CELRB

INSTALLATION SHEET

Rich Herman

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

16. DATE HOLE

DIVISION

1/10/2019---

12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

OF

K-2 0

19. GEOLOGIST

Kitchen N 16,584,479.9 E 1,365,368.3

2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)

W. Losekamp

26.5 0.0

26.5

7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE

17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEETS

STARTED COMPLETED

Hole No. K-2

Port Isabel Detention Center

11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBM or MSL)

DISTURBED

1. PROJECT

NAVD 88

+17.8

ETTL Engineers & Consultants, Inc. UNDISTURBED13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN

SAMPLES TAKEN

18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

+17.8 0.0

CME 55

VERTICAL INCLINED

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements

1/10/2019

DRILLING LOG 2

3. DRILLING AGENCY

5. NAME OF DRILLER

6. DIRECTION OF HOLE

%N/A

DEG. FROM VERT.

4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and file number)

Hole No. K-2

PROJECT HOLE NO.

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements K-2PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.1836MAR 71

18.5

26.5

SS-7

15.0 16.5

SS-8A

SS-8B

17.5 19.0

SS-9

20.0 21.5

SS-10

25.0 26.5

1-1-4

1-2-3

3-4-5 Groundwater at 20.3 feet during drilling.

2-1-3 Groundwater at 24.8 feet at completion.

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings.

Brown, trace gray moist stiff FAT CLAY (CH).

(continued) Brown wet soft clayey SILT.

Brown and gray moist stiff FAT CLAY.

+3.3

-0.7

-8.7

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

% CORE

RECOV-

ERY

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

2 SHEETS

PROJECT 2INSTALLATION

Port Isabel Detention Center

DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet)

ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

17.8 Hole No. K-2

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements

SHEET

OF

Hole No. K-2

PROJECT HOLE NO.

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements K-21836-AJUN 67

7.5

9.5

12.0

SS-1

0.0 1.5

SS-2

2.5 4.0

PT-3

5.0 7.0

SS-4

7.5 9.0

SS-5

10.0 11.5

SS-6

12.5 14.0

2-2-3

1-1-2

WOH/12"-3

Groundwater at 8.5 feet during drilling.

2-3-3

1-1-1

Dark brown moist stiff LEAN CLAY, trace roots and organics (possible old plow zone).

Brown moist medium stiff LEAN CLAY.

Brown moist loose sandy SILT.

Brown wet very loose clayey SILT, trace carbonate.

Brown wet loose SILT.

Brown moist stiff FAT CLAY, trace silt and lean clay layers.

+15.9

+13.4

+10.4

+8.4

+5.9

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

% CORE

RECOV-

ERY

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

3 1/4" ID HSA

CELRB

INSTALLATION SHEET

Rich Herman

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

16. DATE HOLE

DIVISION

1/10/2019---

12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

OF

K-3 0

19. GEOLOGIST

Kitchen N 16,584,546.7 E 1,365,154.7

2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)

W. Losekamp

26.5 0.0

26.5

7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE

17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEETS

STARTED COMPLETED

Hole No. K-3

Port Isabel Detention Center

11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBM or MSL)

DISTURBED

1. PROJECT

NAVD 88

+17.9

ETTL Engineers & Consultants, Inc. UNDISTURBED13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN

SAMPLES TAKEN

18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

+17.9 0.0

CME 55

VERTICAL INCLINED

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements

1/10/2019

DRILLING LOG 2

3. DRILLING AGENCY

5. NAME OF DRILLER

6. DIRECTION OF HOLE

%N/A

DEG. FROM VERT.

4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and file number)

Hole No. K-3

PROJECT HOLE NO.

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements K-3PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.1836MAR 71

19.5

26.5

SS-7

15.0 16.5

SS-8

17.5 19.0

SS-9

20.0 21.5

SS-10

25.0 26.5

1-1-4

WOH-1-1

2-2-3 Groundwater at 20.0 feet at completion.

3-4-4 Boring dry 3 hours 40 minutes after completion.

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings.

Bottom of test boring at 26.5 feet.

Brown moist stiff FAT CLAY, trace silt and lean clay layers. (continued)

Brown wet very soft clayey SILT, trace laminations.

Gray moist stiff FAT CLAY.

+0.9

-1.6

-8.6

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

% CORE

RECOV-

ERY

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

2 SHEETS

PROJECT 2INSTALLATION

Port Isabel Detention Center

DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet)

ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

17.9 Hole No. K-3

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements

SHEET

OF

Hole No. K-3

PROJECT HOLE NO.

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements K-31836-AJUN 67

7.0

12.0

SS-1

0.0 1.5

PT-2

2.5 4.5

SS-3

5.0 6.5

SS-4

7.5 9.0

SS-5

10.0 11.5

SS-6

12.5 14.0

4-5-4 Bulk sample collected from 0.0'-5.0'

4-5-5

1-1-1

2-2-2 Groundwater at 10.5 feet, 5 hours 10 minutes after completion.

2-3-4

Dark brown slightly moist to moist very stiff LEAN CLAY (possible old plow zone) (CL).

Brown moist very stiff LEAN CLAY with carbonate deposits (CL).

Brown moist stiff FAT CLAY (CH).

Brown moist stiff to very stiff FAT CLAY (CH).

+16.6

+11.6

+6.6

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

% CORE

RECOV-

ERY

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

8.1

3 1/4" ID HSA

CELRB

INSTALLATION SHEET

Rich Herman

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

16. DATE HOLE

DIVISION

1/10/2019---

12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

OF

K-4 0

19. GEOLOGIST

Kitchen N 16,584,456.1 E 1,365,203.3

2. LOCATION (Coordinates or Station)

W. Losekamp

31.5 0.0

31.5

7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN

8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK

9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE

17. ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER

SHEETS

STARTED COMPLETED

Hole No. K-4

Port Isabel Detention Center

11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWN (TBM or MSL)

DISTURBED

1. PROJECT

NAVD 88

+18.6

ETTL Engineers & Consultants, Inc. UNDISTURBED13. TOTAL NO. OF OVERBURDEN

SAMPLES TAKEN

18. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING

+18.6 0.0

CME 55

VERTICAL INCLINED

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements

1/10/2019

DRILLING LOG 2

3. DRILLING AGENCY

5. NAME OF DRILLER

6. DIRECTION OF HOLE

%N/A

DEG. FROM VERT.

4. HOLE NO. (As shown on drawing title and file number)

Hole No. K-4

PROJECT HOLE NO.

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements K-4PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE.1836MAR 71

23.5

28.5

31.5

SS-7

15.0 16.5

SS-8

17.5 19.0

SS-9

20.0 21.5

SS-10

25.0 26.5

SS-11

30.0 31.5

2-3-4

WOH-2-3

2-2-3 Groundwater at 21.0 feet during drilling.

1-2-2

Groundwater at 26.8 feet at completion.

1-1-2 Boring backfilled with auger cuttings.

Bottom of test boring at 31.5 feet.

Brown moist stiff to very stiff FAT CLAY (CH).

(continued)

Brown wet very soft clayey SILT (ML).

Gray very moist medium stiff to stiff FAT

CLAY (CH).

Brownish gray moist stiff FAT CLAY (CH).

Brown very moist medium stiff to stiff FAT CLAY with some lean clay and clayey silt layers.

+1.6

-0.9

-4.9

-9.9

-12.9

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

% CORE

RECOV-

ERY

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

2 SHEETS

PROJECT 2INSTALLATION

Port Isabel Detention Center

DRILLING LOG (Cont Sheet)

ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE

18.6 Hole No. K-4

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements

SHEET

OF

Hole No. K-4

PROJECT HOLE NO.

PIDC Kitchen/WWTP Improvements K-41836-AJUN 67

7.2

9.5

12.0

SS-1

0.0 1.5

SS-2

2.5 4.0

PT-3

5.0 7.0

SS-4

7.5 9.0

SS-5

10.0 11.5

SS-6

12.5 14.0

3-4-5

5-10-10

1-1-2

2-1-4

2-2-2

Dark brown moist very stiff LEAN CLAY with organics, trace roots (possible old plow zone)

(CL).

Brown slightly moist very stiff LEAN CLAY with carbonate deposits (CL).

Light brown to brown moist very stiff FAT

CLAY (CH).

Brown moist stiff FAT CLAY (CH).

Brown, trace gray moist medium stiff to stiff

FAT CLAY (CH).

Brown and gray moist stiff FAT CLAY (CH).

+15.9

+13.4

+10.7

+8.4

+5.9

REMARKS

(Drilling time, water loss, depth weathering, etc., if significant)

BOX OR

SAMPLE

NO.

LEGEND

% CORE

RECOV-

ERY

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

(Description)

ELEVATION DEPTH

a fc eb gd

3 1/4" ID HSA

CELRB

INSTALLATION SHEET

Rich Herman

10. SIZE AND TYPE OF BIT

14. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES

16. DATE HOLE

DIVISION

1/10/2019---

12. MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL

OF

K-5 0

19. GEOLOGIST

Kitchen N…